Re-Envisioning Local Agricultural Development - A Guide For Development Managers

AGRICULTURE
Writer
Gerry de Asis
Editor
Chay Florentino-Hofileña
Project Management
Amihan Perez
Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)
Technical and Editorial Team
Rene “Bong”Garrucho, LGSP
Mags Maglana, LGSP
Myn Garcia, LGSP
Patrick Belisario
Carmela Marie Santos
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC)
Art Direction, Cover Design & Layout
Jet Hermida
Photography
Ryan Anson
Re-envisioning
Local Agricultural Development:
A GUIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS
Re-envisioning Local Agricultural Development: A Guide for
Development Managers
Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government
Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support

Program (LGSP)
All rights reserved
The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encourages

the use, translation, adaptation and copying of this material for non-
commercial use, with appropriate credit given to LGSP.
Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this book,
the publisher and/or contributor and/or editor can not accept any
liability for any consequence arising from the use thereof or from any
information contained herein.
ISBN 971-8597-12-3
Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines
Published by:
Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

Unit 1507 Jollibee Plaza
Emerald Ave., 1600 Pasig City, Philippines
Tel. Nos. (632) 637-3511 to 13
www.lgsp.org.ph
Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)

ACSPPA, Fr. Arrupe Road, Social Development Complex
Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City
This project was undertaken with the financial support of the

Government of Canada provided through the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA).
A JOINT PROJECT OF
Department of the Interior National Economic and Canadian International

and Local Government (DILG) Development Authority (NEDA) Development Agency
IMPLEMENTED BY
Agriteam Canada Federation of Canadian

www.agriteam.ca Municipalities (FCM)
www.fcm.ca
CONTENTS
FOREWORD i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
PREFACE v
ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 3

Philippine Agriculture in Crisis: A Troubling Scenario 5
Hope for the Farmers: Gaining a New Perspective 13
Localizing Agricultural Development 17
CHAPTER 2: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 21

The 1991 Local Government Code: Opportunities from Devolution and Localization 23
Preparing for the 21st Century: The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) 26
Monitoring Food Security Programs: Executive Order 86 30
CHAPTER 3: ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31

On Agricultural Leadership and Governance 33
Management and Structural Problems 34
Other Devolution/Localization Concerns 34
Recommendations 36
CHAPTER 4: SMALL STEPS TO LARGE GAINS: GOOD PRACTICES IN LOCAL AGRICULTURAL 45

DEVELOPMENT
LGU Efforts in Agriculture Service Delivery 49
Civil Society and Private Sector Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture Strategies 57
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLS 65

Recommended Sites for Study Tours 67
Contact Details for Organic, Herbal and Natural Products Development 69
Reference Materials and Practical Tools 71
ENDNOTES 77
ANNEXES 79
References to LGUs in the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8435) 79
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
FOREWORD
T
he Department of the Interior and Local Government is pleased to acknowledge the latest
publication of the Philippines Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP), Service
Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government; a series of books on eight (8)
service delivery areas, which include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local Economic
Development, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.
One of the biggest challenges in promoting responsive and efficient local governance is to be able to
meaningfully deliver quality public services to communities as mandated in the Local Government Code.
Faced with continued high incidence of poverty, it is imperative to strengthen the role of LGUs in service
delivery as they explore new approaches for improving their performance.
Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues of poverty
reduction, people’s participation, the promotion of gender equality, environmental sustainability and
economic and social equity for more long- term results. There is also a need to acquire knowledge, create
new structures, and undertake innovative programs that are more responsive to the needs of the
communities and develop linkages and partnerships within and between communities as part of an
integrated approach to providing relevant and sustainable services to their constituencies.
Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government offer local government units and
their partners easy-to-use, comprehensive resource material with which to take up this challenge. By
providing LGUs with practical technologies, tested models and replicable exemplary practices, Service
Delivery with Impact encourages LGUs to be innovative, proactive and creative in addressing the real
problems and issues in providing and enhancing services, taking into account increased community
participation and strategic private sector/civil society organizational partnerships. We hope that in using
these resource books, LGUs will be better equipped with new ideas, tools and inspiration to make a
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T i
FOREWORD
difference by expanding their knowledge and selection of replicable choices in delivering basic services
with increased impact.
The DILG, therefore, congratulates the Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)
for this milestone in its continuing efforts to promote efficient, responsive, transparent and accountable
governance.
HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.

Secretary
Department of the Interior and Local Government
ii S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication is the result of the collaboration of the following individuals and institutions that
support the promotion of agricultural development by local governments in their localities.
The Local Government Support Program led by Alix Yule, Marion Maceda Villanueva and Rene "Bong"
Garrucho for providing the necessary direction and support
Patrick Belisario and Carmela Marie Santos; the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ANGOC), particularly Nathaniel Don Marquez and Lyn Galang; and the Philippine
Development Assistance Programme, Inc. (PDAP), in particular Jerry Pacturan for undertaking the
research, co-organizing the roundtable discussion and workshop, and preparing the technical reports
which were the main references for this resource book; and for assisting in the review of the manuscript
Participants to the Roundtable Discussion on Agricultural Services held on August 8, 2002 in Davao City
and the Workshop on Localizing Agricultural Development held on July 14, 2003 in Quezon City. Their
expertise and the animated exchange of opinions helped shape the technical report on which this
publication is based:
Mayor Isoceles Otero of Sta. Josefa; Melanie Tolentino of Kalibo; Roberto Lazarito Sr. of Damulog;
Rosita Macas of Compostela; and Anna Bella Amud of Nabunturan
Helmie Halim of DA-ARMM; Efraim Nicolas and Virginia Rivera of DA-ATI; Richard Rubis of ATI-RTC; and
Marivic Natividad of NEDA XI
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bernadette Dailisan of DAP sa Mindanao; Elvira Hingpit of IPHC-DMSF; Mel Villacin of Quedan Kaisahan;
Agustin Zerrudo of PDAP; Neil Abejuela and Alfonso Batucan Jr. of MKAVI; and Shen Maglinte of SIBAT
LGSP Managers Ma. Paz Christi Moneva and Abe de la Calzada; Program Officers Rizal Barandino and
Cecille Isubal
Jun Ayensa and Amie Agbayani for providing feedback that helped ensure that the resource book offers
information that is practical and applicable to LGU needs and requirements
Amihan Perez and the Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs for their efficient coordination
and management of the project
Chay Florentino-Hofileña for excellent editorial work
Gerry de Asis for effectively rendering the technical report into user-friendly material
Mags Z. Maglana for providing overall content supervision and coordination with the technical writers
Myn Garcia for providing technical and creative direction and overall supervision of the design, layout
and production
Sef Carandang, Russell Fariñas, Gigi Barazon and the rest of the LGSP administrative staff for providing
support.
iv S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
PREFACE
S
ervice Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government are the product of a series
of roundtable discussions, critical review of tested models and technologies, and case analyses
of replicable exemplary practices in the Philippines conducted by the Philippines-Canada Local
Government Support Program (LGSP) in eight (8) service sectors that local government units (LGUs) are
mandated to deliver. These include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local Economic
Development, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.
The devolution of powers as mandated in the Local Government Code has been a core pillar of
decentralization in the Philippines. Yet despite opportunities for LGUs to make a meaningful difference
in the lives of the people by maximizing these devolved powers, issues related to poverty persist and
improvements in effective and efficient service delivery remain a challenge.
With LGSP’s work in support of over 200 LGUs for the past several years came the recognition of the need
to enhance capacities in service delivery, specifically to clarify the understanding and optimize the role
of local government units in providing improved services. This gap presented the motivation for LGSP
to develop these resource books for LGUs.
Not a “how to manual,” Service Delivery with Impact features strategies and a myriad of proven
approaches designed to offer innovative ways for local governments to increase their capacities to better
deliver quality services to their constituencies.
Each resource book focuses on highlighting the important areas of skills and knowledge that contribute
to improved services. Service Delivery with Impact provides practical insights on how LGUs can apply
guiding principles, tested and appropriate technology, and lessons learned from exemplary cases to their
organization and in partnership with their communities.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T v
PREFACE
This series of resource books hopes to serve as a helpful and comprehensive reference to inspire and
enable LGUs to significantly contribute to improving the quality of life of their constituency through
responsive and efficient governance.
Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)
vi S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
ACRONYMS
AFCOM Agriculture and Fishery Committee

AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
AIDF Alternative Indigenous Development Foundation, Inc.
ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
ARC Agrarian Reform Community
BBP Better Banana Project
CALF Comprehensive Agricultural Loan Fund
CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Awards
DA Department of Agriculture
EO Executive Order
FX Farmer-Trainer/Extensionist
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GMA Ginintuang Masaganang Ani
GVA Gross Value Added
IDC Irrigation Development Council
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations
LGC Local Government Code
LGU Local Government Unit
MAO Municipal Agriculture Office/Officer
MARC Municipal Agrarian Reform Council
MKAVI Mt. Kitanglad Agri-Ventures, Inc.
MTADP Medium Term Agricultural Development Plan
NFA National Food Authority
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T vii
ACRONYMS
NGO Non-Government Organization

NIA National Irrigation Authority
NIN National Information Network
OFS On-Farm School Systems
PAKISAMA Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka
PAO Provincial Agriculture Office
PO People's Organization
RA Republic Act
SAFDZ Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone
SEARCA Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture
SIBAT Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya
WTO World Trade Organization
viii S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURE IN CRISIS
Agriculture plays a significant role in the Philippine economy. With the direct involvement of about forty
percent (40%) of Filipino workers, it contributes an average of twenty percent (20%) to the Gross
Domestic Product. This output comes mainly from agribusiness (70% of the total agricultural output).
The general trends in the last two decades present a dim picture of the agriculture sector. Significant
decrease in productivity, neglect of irrigated lands, high production costs, and low government support
to the sector, among other things, have led to the crisis situation of Philippine agriculture.
A ROUGH ROAD TO TRUDGE
The poor performance of agriculture brings to the fore some major problems in the sector that straddle
the issues of national control and relationships with local governments.
National leadership and management vis-à-vis agriculture have been too politicized (i.e., the practice
of rehashing and re-branding national programs), they have led to poor planning and sporadic,
sometimes, unsystematic implementation of projects at the local level. Agricultural programs are not
sustained and decision-making (e.g., allocation of funds to sites) is sometimes too discretionary.
The devolution of responsibility over agricultural services to the local government has not been
supported in terms of resources and technical assistance. Formal coordinating mechanisms from
regional to provincial levels are not in place, while local plans are not synchronized with budget
allocations.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Enabling policies such as the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) remain underutilized
as budget constraints limit its full implementation.
It is in this context that innovations serve as one of the keys to the development of agriculture at the
local level.
RAYS OF HOPE
Two major policies define the roles of local governments in agricultural development: the 1991 Local
Government Code (RA 7160) and the 1997 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435). The
former identifies key entities as well as opportunities instrumental in spearheading local initiatives (e.g.,
local special bodies, the local development plan) that have bearing and impact on agriculture, while
the latter challenges LGUs to take the lead in agricultural development programs such as pilot-testing,
management of irrigations, and capacity-building.
Some local government units have shown that political will and a serious commitment to agricultural
development in their communities can help overcome obstacles. Local leadership infused with multi-
sectoral and participatory strategies, along with creativity, have helped address food security concerns
(in Negros Occidental province), facilitated land distribution (in the municipality of Irosin, Sorsogon),
and increased agricultural productivity (in Davao del Norte province).
Civil society and private organizations offer alternative models in agricultural development and
sustainability. Some work on building farmers’capabilities through interventions that upgrade and boost
their knowledge, attitude and skills (e.g., sustainable agricultural programs by SIBAT, MKAVI, and
PAKISAMA). Others focus on agricultural infrastructure development (e.g., irrigation pump by AIDF).
x S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERCOMING HURDLES
From the analysis of the agricultural sector and the cases in this Resource Book, some recommendations
point LGUs to effective measures in agricultural development.
a) Political will, focus, and effective management of local agricultural development. The Strategic
Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone (SAFDZ) can be a point of convergence among various
stakeholders to optimize resources, facilities, and infrastructure-sharing.
b) Creative local accessing of resources and support programs. Windows of resources that provide
assistance to local initiatives in the development and management of agriculture are numerous. LGUs
are encouraged to continuously seek out and initiate avenues (e.g., summits and roadshows) to access
agricultural resources and support.
c) Development of LGU agricultural programs and services. Local agricultural extension services can
be beefed up by partnering with civil society groups and educational institutions. In this manner,
innovations in service delivery, technological development, and infrastructure building can be
facilitated.
d) Effective coordination and institutional arrangements between central agencies and local
offices. Coordinative and integrative strategies and activities (e.g., regular meetings, manual of
procedure) among the different government entities (national and local) involved in the sector are
important in order to unify programs and projects and ensure their smooth implementation.
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
e) Being attuned to the market. National agencies must assist agricultural communities in their
efforts to participate in the mainstream markets, international trade and export included.
These measures, however, are premised on a fundamental shift in the mindset of those who manage
agriculture and provide oversight support to it. For agriculture to truly develop at the local level, the
impetus for it must primarily spring from local vision, capabilities and resources, and the benefits from
it must profit local communities. Central institutions play only a supporting and enabling role. The
responsibility to manage local agriculture has already been devolved to local governments by the law.
It is high time that resources go with the mandate.
More importantly, this shift is premised on a broader and, perhaps, more relevant understanding of the
nature of local agricultural development. Agricultural development cannot but relate to poverty
reduction, other social development ends, and environmental protection; and hence needs to encompass
the enhancement of social relationships and structures, socio-economic progress, and environmental
development. Local agricultural development, therefore, refers to the total progress of agricultural
systems, relationships, and structures that prioritize the development of local communities and
stakeholders.
This Resource Book can be a useful guide for local leaders in spearheading agricultural development.
xii S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
INTRODUCTION
SETTING THE TEMPO
Local leaders manage many things—from local political dynamics to the local bureaucracy, from
formulating the local development plan and preparing the local budget to addressing the demands of
local constituents.
Innovative management is needed. Many local executives have handled local agricultural problem
situations with political will and have applied inventive management and leadership. They have
inspired the mobilization of resources and other stakeholders. All these show that win-win situations
can be created in different ways.
In this Resource Book, some local chief executives showcase ways of innovatively managing agricultural
development. In addressing their own agricultural concerns such as food scarcity and land distribution,
they mapped out various strategies. And deliver, they did.
EXPANDING THE SCOPE
Agricultural development is not just about farming and taking care of the land. Chapter 1 provides an
overview of the realities in agriculture – its performance and the factors that account for it, and the
challenges that the sector faces. While many of the factors and challenges are national and global in
nature, this Resource Book tackles the factors that lead to the poor and unsystematic involvement of
local governments in attempts to modernize agriculture.
A proposed framework for developing agriculture at the local level is then outlined – laying down an
understanding of LAD and suggesting five (5) key steps that address the disconnect between national
S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T 1
INTRODUCTION
and local initiatives, and between local government and other stakeholder efforts. The Resource Book
also outlines the continuum of different agricultural systems that were examined based on sustainability.
Chapter 2 discusses the essentials of the policy environment that support LGU leadership and
innovation in local agricultural development and management.
Chapter 3 explores the issues around leadership and governance, management, AFMA implementation,
and devolution as they concern agricultural development locally. The recommendations are focused
on adjustments that can be made at the local level with the support of other stakeholders such as civil
society organizations, the private sector and government agencies. It suggests necessary shifts in the
involvement of local stakeholders, in the ways plans are prepared, in the perspectives around productivity,
farm management and agri-entrepreneurship, and in the delivery of agricultural services. The chapter
also explores the burgeoning domestic and international market for organic and herbal produce.
Chapter 4 presents examples of good practices that showcase LGU efforts in agricultural service
delivery, along with civil society and private sector efforts to promote sustainable agriculture strategies.
These practices demonstrate diverse and effective strategies in agricultural development planning,
resource mobilization, institutional arrangements, and the promotion of entrepreneurship.
Chapter 5 identifies references and tools that local governments and support institutions could use to
strengthen LGU abilities in agricultural development. Contact details for sites that could be visited for
study tours are also provided, as are the contact information for agencies and institutions that could
assist local communities in organic, herbal, and natural products development.
Specific references to LGUs as contained in the AFMA are outlined in the Annex.
2 S E RV I C E D E L I V E RY W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T
1
CHAPTER
OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE

SECTOR
OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR
❙ Philippine Agriculture
in Crisis: A Troubling Scenario
CHAPTER
1
◗ SIGNIFICANT ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
In the Philippine economy, agriculture contributes seventeen percent (17%) to about twenty
percent (20%) to the Gross Domestic Product1. Around seventy percent (70%) of this output comes
from the agribusiness industry and at least twenty-one percent (21%) from primary agriculture and
fisheries.
At least forty percent (40%) of working Filipinos are in the agriculture/agribusiness sector.
In the 1970s, the Philippines had one of the highest growth rates in the region in terms of
agricultural productivity (4.9 percent average annual growth in Gross Value Added or GVA). Many
Filipinos in the countryside benefited from this as more than 50 percent of the population
depended on agriculture for their subsistence.2
◗ PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS
Palay remains the leading crop coming mainly from the rice granaries of the country – Central Luzon,
Cagayan Valley, and the Western Visayas. These areas contribute at least 40 percent of the rice
production. Mindanao and the Ilocos regions are potential major rice producers once full irrigation
is established.
1 LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Corn is the second major agricultural produce of the country. However, contribution of palay and
corn to the agricultural GDP is declining, while livestock and poultry are on the rise.
Table 1: Percentage contribution of Agriculture, Fishery, and Forestry to GDP, 1995-1997
Industry 1995 1996 1997
1. Agricultural Crops 21.31 20.93 20.56
Agricultural Crops 17.02 16.89 16.72
Palay 3.51 3.56 3.37
Corn 1.23 1.17 1.16
Coconut 0.92 0.81 0.82
Sugarcane 0.49 0.57 0.54
Banana 0.35 0.35 0.36
Other Crops 5.12 4.91 4.95
Livestock 2.47 2.49 2.49
Poultry 2.00 2.11 2.14
Agri. Act. And services 0.93 0.92 0.89
2. Forestry 0.22 0.22 0.22
Agri., Fishery & Forestry 21.53 21.15 20.78
Source of Data: National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB) in Adriano (1999).
OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 1
◗ DECLINING TRENDS IN AGRICULTURE
But the agriculture sector is in a state of crisis.
Agricultural growth plummeted from a high growth rate of 4.6 percent for the period 1965-1980
to a depressing 1.4 percent growth rate for the period 1980-1997.
Agricultural GVA, which is a measure of productivity, dipped to 0.4 percent in the last decade
(1990-1999).
Table 2: Growth in Agricultural GVA and Agricultural Exports, Some Asian Countries)
1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-1999
Agri GVA Agri Exports Agri GVA Agri Exports Agri GVA Agri Exports*
Philippines 4.9 14.6 1.0 -4.6 0.4 3.4
Indonesia 2.0 20.0 4.9 4.7 1.6 8.4
Malaysia 6.5 19.3 3.8 3.1 0.5 7.5
Thailand 4.2 21.2 3.9 4.9 -2.4 4.2
China 2.7 13.1 5.6 2.7 2.2 1.6
India 1.8 14.6 3.0 0.8 3.7 8.5
Pakistan 3.0 13.8 4.3 3.2 3.4 1.4
Nepal 0.8 -2.9 2.7 0.7 2.0 2.1
Bangladesh 1.4 2.6 1.9 -1.5 3.2 -0.5
*Source: ADB Outlook, various years (unless otherwise indicated)

*Using regression, source of basic data: FAO
Source: Tolentino, B., The Unpopular Imperatives. 2002 Annual Meeting, Philippine Economics Society, 14 March 2002
For the past ten years, paddy yields of neighboring countries outshone Philippine production
outputs which has averaged only 2.9 tons per hectare. Other neighboring countries fare better
(Vietnam = 3.6 tons/ha.; Korea = 6.1 tons/ha.; Japan = 6.1 tons/ha.).
Export earnings are constantly declining with an annual average negative growth rate of 3.01
percent over the last five years. In 2001, export earnings from agricultural crops were placed at
US$1.30 billion, 34.6 percent below the previous year’s receipts. 3
The Philippines continues to import basic food staples. Rice imports in the last five years
ranged from 722.40 thousand metric tons in 1997 to 808.23 thousand metric tons in 2001. 4
Local supply of rice is dwindling due to production shortfall and artificial shortage. Low and
stagnant productivity can be attributed partly to the limited production area presently available.
Less than a million hectares of irrigated rice lands are available. During the growth years of
Philippine agriculture in 1976-1981, the Philippines was among the best agriculture performers
in Asia. Rice production and agricultural performance were at their peak.
- GVA was growing at a rate of 4.9 percent, while China had 2.7 percent, and Bangladesh,
1.4 percent.
- Agricultural exports were also at a high 24.6 percent, compared to the 13.1 percent of China
and the 2.6 percent of Bangladesh.
In 1981, things began to change for the worse. Agricultural productivity slipped from a high of
4.9 percent to a measly 0.4 percent. China’s agricultural productivity stood at 2.2 percent,
while Bangladesh stood at 3.2 percent. Agricultural exports also began to decline from a
growth rate of 14.6 percent in 1980 to a depressing –4.6 percent in 1990, while it went up to 3.4
percent in 1999, it has not gone up to its previous level.
The situation is aggravated by the barrage of agricultural imports. Rice imports now account
for 8.09 percent of the total supply of the country. In the past decades, rice imports averaged
only 1.09 percent of the supply.
◗ EFFECTS OF DOWNTREND IN AGRICULTURE
The declining trend in agriculture significantly hit the rural, agricultural sector which comprises at
least two-thirds of the population. Ironically, the sector that contributes extensively to the
Philippine economy is besieged by problems of food security and poverty.
One-fourth of agricultural workers are underemployed. Employment in agriculture, forecasted by

government economists to increase by at least 500,000 jobs annually from the supposed opening
up of new export markets, barely increased from 10.18 million in 2000 to 10.8 million in 2001. 5
A rural household spends some fifty to sixty percent of its income on food. Sometimes within a year,
rice farmers need to purchase rice for their consumption.
This deplorable situation is compounded by the expensive cost of rice in the country. Compared
with Thailand and Vietnam, the price of rice in the Philippines is at least double.
◗ SOME REASONS BEHIND THE DOWNTREND
Shift in government priority investments. In the 1970s, irrigation and rural facilities were high
in public agricultural investments. This changed in the 1980s to the 1990s as public investment focus
in agriculture tipped toward the National Food Authority’s price support program and payments
for land acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The neglect of the
basics in terms of agricultural research and development, irrigation, information, and education
led to a failure to secure sources of growth in productivity and income diversification in rural areas.
The shift in government measures also needs to be understood within the larger context of poor
governance in agriculture (i.e., the lack of accountability, coordination, and program focus in
public spending for agriculture and natural resource.)6
Failing Agricultural Resource Base. There is a limited rice production area— irrigated rice lands
cover only 600,000 to 800,000 hectares (Thailand has 3 million hectares; Vietnam has 6 million).
Existing irrigated lands were neglected—no major investments in irrigation were made in the past
15 years. Past government administrations failed to provide irrigation facilities for potentially
irrigable areas, such as those in Mindanao. Land conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural
use (e.g., residential), particularly in Regions II and IV, has increased over the years.
High Production Costs and Prices of Agricultural Commodities. High production costs directly
affect prices of agricultural commodities, to the detriment of the farmers and agricultural workers.
Chances are any increase in the production cost (e.g., high maintenance of irrigation, expensive
fertilizers, etc.) will lead to a decrease in wages and earnings of farmers. Consequently, this will also
lead to an increase in the prices of agricultural products such as rice, the main commodity
consumed by farmers.
In 2001, it was more expensive for a typical Filipino farmer to produce rice vis-à-vis his earnings from
selling rice. The average production cost per kilo was P7.60, while the buying price went as low as
P5.50 (in the Bicol region, during the wet season).
Only 65,000 rice farmers benefit from the high buying price (P9.00) of the National Food
Authority. Around 3 million rice farmers are still at the mercy of price controls set by traders and
the rice cartel.
During the rice crisis of 1995-1997, the domestic wholesale price per kilogram of rice soared to
as high as P32.00. Thai rice was sold at P7.00 while Vietnamese rice was sold at P6.00. It was ironic
then that prices were at that level when the rice production output of the Philippines (3 metric
tons of palay per hectare) was higher than that of Thailand’s 2.7 metric tons and Vietnam’s 2 metric
tons.
Rice production in the Philippines is more costly compared to some neighboring countries.
In 1999, the cost of paddy production in the Philippines (P34,701) was 50 percent more than
the cost in Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
Minus the labor cost, paddy production expenses in the Philippines were pegged at P15,124.
In Indonesia, this was pegged at P7,731. In Vietnam, it was P9,695.
From the point of view of the private sector, it is costly to “do business” in the rural areas. There is
serious under-investment in rural infrastructure, especially in roads and power. The policies and
regulations governing private sector investment are deemed archaic and the peace and order
situation remains problematic.7
Detrimental Effect of Price Subsidy. Price subsidy through the NFA is a “bad investment”strategy
for the government because of the ‘buying high’ but ‘selling low’ scheme, which leads to an
average loss of P7.00-P8.00 per kilogram of rice. Furthermore, the NFA strategy of buying only from
bulk suppliers favored traders more. Likewise, the release of imported rice to the open market put
small farmers at a disadvantage.
There is a need to review and reassess the existing development and management of Philippine
agriculture which has been characterized as centralized.
◗ CENTRALIZED APPROACH TO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
National government agricultural development initiatives have been sectoral, fragmented, and
commodity-oriented.
1970s-early 1980s: The Marcos government at the start gained access to foreign loans which gave
countryside development a boost. Hence, the Philippines experienced one of the highest agricultural
growth rates in the region during this period. This was short-lived, however, as the inability of the
state to efficiently utilize and service such loans became evident during the early 1980s. Limited
foreign capital led to a halt in the building of farm-to-market roads, irrigation facilities, and other
support services.
1986-1992: Under the Aquino administration, agricultural decline continued, perhaps due to
the administration’s preoccupation with asserting its legitimacy and defending democratic gains.
Some interventions were introduced (such as the rural credit system via the Comprehensive
Agricultural Loan Fund or CALF), while rice and corn production were also enhanced.
1992-1997: For the Ramos government, agricultural programs were guided by the Medium-Term
Agricultural Development Plan (MTADP). Some of its banner programs included grain production
enhancement, key commercial crops development, and the Gintong Ani program, which focused
on providing credit to farmers. Food security became a priority concern. The debilitating effects
of the El Niño phenomenon, however, proved to be a major obstacle in agricultural development.
1997-2001: The short-lived Estrada administration included in its Ten Point Agenda the
following agricultural program strategies—revitalization of productivity programs, quick response
to calamity/disaster situations, infrastructure development such as irrigation, research and
development, extension and training, and rural financing.
2001 to the present: The Macapagal-Arroyo government pursues its Ginintuang Masaganang
Ani programs which tackle the problems of food security and poverty alleviation. Self-sufficiency
in agricultural development is implemented through four measures: modernized productivity in
corn and other feed crops, diversification, livestock enterprise development, and recovery and growth
of the fisheries sector.
Despite efforts in devolution, local government units are still largely considered the mere
extension/replica of the national government and its programs. Most LGUs still rely on the
national government in the development and implementation of agricultural programs.
Insufficient fund transfer – Even after the devolution of agricultural services to local governments,
80 percent of national agricultural funds still go to central offices, while only 8 percent go to local
government units.
Incongruent national and local plans – Programs of the Department of Agriculture rarely
capture LGU priorities. Plans are also not as clearly integrated.
Evidently, the national government has thus far failed to secure the necessary reforms in agricultural
development. Fr. Francis Lucas of the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ANGOC) believes that the changes should pay attention to the following: 8
Needs of Filipino citizens, majority of whom are poor

Alleviation of the poor majority’s suffering
For the farmers, their needs as persons rather than merely the productivity of their farms
Food security and food self-sufficiency as the main ticket to survival of a nation
Assuring equity instead of national economic growth that is beneficial to and controlled by a
few at the expense of the majority
To many observers, these changes have a higher chance of taking place if the impetus for
developing agriculture were happening at the local, rather than at the national and highly-
centralized level.
❙ Hope for the Farmers:

Gaining a New Perspective
◗ CHANGING AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Rapid urbanization and industrialization, as well as asset reform (land distribution through CARP)
in the countryside led to the break up of large farm estates (i.e., the haciendas) into small farmlands.
The nature of technology, the goods to be produced, and the structure of the agricultural sector
must keep up with this development.
The small farms agricultural model, likened to those of the modern European agricultural models,
may be adopted in the country, provided critical measures are promoted and practiced. All
stakeholders must adjust to this reality. Farmers must be equipped with appropriate knowledge
and skills, policies must be realigned, assets and infrastructure support must be adjusted.
Farmers must also face the realities of globalization. With the inclusion of the Philippines in the World
Trade Organization, international policies on market liberalization and deregulation, as well as trade
liberalization in the agriculture sector will have implications on Filipino farmers.
Globalization is projected to lead to greater market access and thus increase exports especially to
Japan, the US, and Europe. Higher commodity prices will lead to increased export earnings. The
demand to streamline processes to become more competitive is expected to cause more efficient
resource allocation within agriculture, as well as across sectors. Government will need to focus on
meaningful and lasting support for the farm sector. There would be higher growth in production
and employment generation and benefits to consumers of processed food that are relying on
traditionally highly-protected sectors (e.g., sugar and corn)
Attractive and upbeat the above projections may be, globalization also poses threats and challenges
to agriculture. For instance, there could be job displacements in the short-term. The dismantling
of special trade arrangements that traditionally have been advantageous to some crops like sugar
could shake up farmers and farm workers who are dependent on that sector and are most
vulnerable to any changes. Less developed countries like the Philippines are pressured to relax
quantitative restrictions (QRs) such as import quotas and tariffs. Local markets are thus flooded with
cheap agricultural imports such as rice and poultry products. Finally, the global playing field is hardly
level, if one were to take it from the many charges of “unfair trade” practices that have been
leveled against developed countries.
Not surprisingly, debates continue to rage over the advantages and disadvantages of participating
in the WTO.
Unless the current directions of national policy—full participation in the global order—is changed,
the question that must be addressed is how best to prepare the agriculture sector for the
foreseeable threats and challenges and how to position the sector so it could take advantage of
the benefits.
Dr. Arsenio Balisacan of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in
Agriculture (SEARCA), believes that the rural poor need to be enabled through policy, investment,
and institutional reforms. These changes will enhance the efficiency of domestic markets and provide
improved access to technology, infrastructure, and education.
Dr. Balisacan also admits that in successful cases of rural development and poverty reduction, “the
key driver to reforms has been neither globalization nor agricultural policy in developed countries.
Rather, it is, by and large, the internal realization that reforms are for the benefit of the country and
its citizens.”9
For Fr. Lucas of ANGOC, global competition for agriculture might mean the extinction of small farmers
and farming because they need to have the scale to compete. Furthermore, farming suffers from
the perception that it is an aging profession.
In light of the effects of globalization on agriculture, there needs to be a three-way devolution

involving key players: devolution from national to local governments, from the state to civil society
and from state to markets.10
Devolving power and responsibility from national government to local areas means further
strengthening local governments and preparing them for the impact of globalization on agriculture.
The decentralization process picked up with the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991
and local government entities are still learning the ropes. The national government needs to
invest more on and emphasize the improvement of the devolution infrastructure. Even devolution
from state to civil society entails encouraging participation in agricultural programs and governance.
Owing to historical experience and to prevent the further concentration of wealth in large business
interests, devolution from the state to markets needs to address the following questions: (1) Can
business provide agricultural services to farmers without taking over ownership of the farm and
the farmers themselves? (2) How can multinational and transnational corporations be made
accountable for their role in agricultural development?
Business interests that have traditionally been viewed as profit-oriented are perceived as going
against the equity and poverty-alleviation bias of civil society. Local government units are viewed
as capable of balancing the interests of these other major players. In many cases, it is perceived that
the shifts in power, participation, and resources described above will have more meaning and will
“stick” at the local level.
◗ LOCALIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) set the current pace of devolution. In the agriculture
sector, personnel, including extension workers, were devolved to the local governments. Access
to funds for local development was also improved through an increase in the Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA) share of LGUs.
Another major agricultural policy landmark is the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA
or RA 8435) which strengthened the critical role of LGUs in agricultural production and food
security. Local agricultural and fisheries modernization plans were supposed to become the
primary bases for developing a national agricultural and fisheries modernization plan.
Executive Order (EO) 86 paved the way for the creation of Provincial Food Security Councils, which
are tasked to monitor the implementation of provincial food security programs.
❙ Localizing Agricultural Development
◗ THE VISION OF LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
From the 1970s to the present, agricultural development has been perceived to be synonymous
to agricultural growth. While the latter is a main component of agricultural development, it has
limited scope as it primarily focuses on productivity, performance and agricultural outputs.
National government programs for agriculture, whether consciously or otherwise, tended to
emphasize such parameters.
Despite the reference to, and recognition of, local agricultural development (LAD), there seems to
be little understanding and consensus among stakeholders over its “real”meaning. There is a need
to articulate a vision that would unite the many stakeholders and be the basis for interventions,
initiatives, and investments in the sector.
Local Government Perspective. A survey undertaken by LGSP, ANGOC and the Philippine
Development Assistance Programme (PDAP) in July 2003 indicates that, on the one hand,
agricultural workers of local government units associated local agricultural development with
increased productivity. On the other hand, they also link it to sustainable agricultural practices. Rather
telling is the low ranking given to improved agri-extension and support facilities, along with the
mobilization of other stakeholders.
Table 3: Vision for Local Agricultural Development table in LAD Discussion Paper)
What is your vision of local agriculture development Count* Percent** (n=3)
1. Productivity 10 27.0%
2. Sustainable Agriculture 10 27.0%
3. Household food sufficiency and food security 9 24.3%
4. Higher income for households 6 16.2%
5. Dependent on DA’s vision 5 13.5%
6. Additional jobs and livelihood for farmers 4 10.8%
7. Marketing and global competitiveness 4 10.8%
8. Agro-industrialization 4 10.8%
9. community-based agriculture 2 5.4%
10. Improvement of farming system and diversification 2 5.4%
11. Infrastructure development 2 5.4%
12. Organic farming 2 5.4%
13. Improved agri-extension and support facilitites 1 2.7%
14. Mobilization of other stakeholders 1 2.7%

*Number of times vision was cited by respondents
* Count over total number of respondents (37)
Private Sector Perspective. From a private sector point of view, as represented by the National
Agribusiness Development Center, agricultural development must be based on enterprise. It
should be economically profitable and sustainable for farmers.
5
Non-Government Organization Perspective. Civil society organizations, such as the PDAP,

highlight the empowering capability of agricultural development. Farmers should work not merely
to get by, but to develop the capacity to secure livelihood, and eventually work towards rural
enterprise-based growth levels.
Given these considerations, a broader and, perhaps, more relevant definition of Local Agricultural
Development should include enhanced social relationships and structures, socio-economic
progress, and environmental development. Agricultural development, therefore, refers to the total
progress of the agricultural systems, relationships, and structures that prioritize development of
the locale, that is, development that benefits the local community and local agricultural resources.
◗ LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Local agricultural development requires a shifting of paradigms and mindsets. Given the decades
of centralized planning and implementation, LGUs and other local stakeholders must view local
agricultural development in terms of their own local realities—relationships, structures, resources,
socio-cultural realities, requirements, and capacities.
Local agricultural development entails a bottom-up approach to progress, in contrast to the top-
down strategies of the national government. Inherent in this approach is an emphasis on process
as against output. Consultations, dialogues, and consensus-building are used in the process.
In short, it is not only the local government that is involved in local agricultural development. The
process is defined, most probably, by a collaborative arrangement among the LGU, civil society,
farmers and business sectors. The leadership and facilitating role of the LGU is also recognized in
this arrangement.
In practice, the shifts in paradigm will mean concrete changes in planning and managing local
agricultural development. Mobilization of local stakeholders and their active participation in the
process will be crucial. The survival-oriented mentality of most farmers must give way to a focus
on food security/sufficiency and to increased sensitivity to market demands, along with a willingness
to participate in the market. Innovations in farm management, extension services, research and
development, and farmer education also need to take place.
One of the goals of local agricultural development is to achieve sustainability. Shifts in technology
and practices must also occur from the conventional agricultural practices (e.g., mono-cropping,
high reliance on chemical inputs) to a more ecologically-friendly yet high-yielding agricultural
methodologies. (See continuum of Agricultural Practices below)
Figure 1. Agricultural Practices Sustainability Continuum
GOAL
High
Low Sustainability Organic / Biological / Regenerative
Sustainability
Conventional Minimum Low Input Low External Biodynamic Permaculture Nature Natural
(monoculture, tillage, fertilizer Sustainable Input Farming Farming
chemical inputs) place-ments, Agriculture Sustainable
etc. (LISA) Agriculture
(LEISA)
External solutions Higher Substitution of Benign Internal solutions to internal problems, integration, balance,
to internal efficiency of benign inputs design and awareness, responsive to feedback, complex, indirect, long-
problems, applied inputs management term, bio-ecological, global approaches to global problems,
detachment, empowerment
compensatory
control,
unawareness,
disempowerment
2
CHAPTER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES ON

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Through the decades, local government units have been encouraged to take on increasingly
CHAPTER
more active roles in agricultural development. Two major recent national policies have seen to that—
the 1991 Local Government Code and the 1997 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act. As
2
early as 1987, when Executive Order 116 further decentralized the Department of Agriculture through
the creation of the Provincial/Municipal Agricultural Offices, policy framework, public investments
and support services were already being pushed for more localized, domestic, and export-oriented
agri-business enterprises.
❙ The 1991 Local Government Code:

Opportunities from Devolution and
Localization
The 1991 Local Government Code revolutionized the concept of local governance in the country.
Even though they had the mandate to handle local affairs, local government officials were
considered before by many as mere local politicians and at best, as extensions of the national
government. With the new Local Government Code, however, devolved powers and decentralized
functions and responsibilities made these officials more responsible for local development. Local
management and development of agriculture is one of the areas that got devolved to local
governments.
◗ SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LGUS
Under Section 17 of the Code, (a) LGUs shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue
exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them.
They shall also discharge the duties and responsibilities of the national agencies and offices
devolved to them.
(b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) For a Barangay:
(i) Agricultural support services which include planting materials, distribution system, and
operation of farm produce collection and buying stations;
(2) For a Municipality:
(i) Extension and on-site research services and facilities related to agriculture and fishery
activities which include dispersal of livestock and poultry, fingerlings, and other seedling
materials for aquaculture; palay, corn, and vegetable seed farms; medicinal plant gardens;
fruit tree, coconut, and other kinds of seedling nurseries; demonstration farms; quality
control of copra and improvement and development of local distribution channels,
preferably through cooperatives; inter-barangay irrigation system; water and soil resource
utilization and conservation projects; and enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters
including the conservation of mangroves;
(viii) Infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the
municipality and which are funded out of municipal funds including, but not limited to,
municipal…, communal irrigation, small water impounding projects and other similar
projects;
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 2
(3) For a Province:
(i) Agricultural extension and on-site research services and facilities which include the
prevention and control of plant and animal pests and diseases; dairy farms, livestock
markets, animal breeding stations, and artificial insemination centers; and assistance in the
organization of farmers' and fishermen's cooperatives and other collective organizations,
as well as the transfer of appropriate technology;
(vii) Infrastructure facilities intended to service the needs of the residents of the province and
which are funded out of provincial funds including, but not limited to, provincial …, and
irrigation systems;… and similar facilities;
(4) For a City:
All the services and facilities of the municipality and province…
◗ RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Aside from these direct mandates for agricultural management, there are other opportunities for
local government officials to flex their powers and resources in pursuit of agricultural development.
They are given more leeway in terms of resource allocation and mobilization.
Local government units are granted the power to raise local taxes and revenues from sand, gravel
and quarry resources, and amusement to be able to source their own funds.
Also, there is a provision on the increase in the share of LGUs from the Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA) from 20 percent to at least 40 percent.
Moreover, there are mandatory and optional positions for local officials in each level of local
government. Local chief executives have the power to appoint local personnel.
◗ MOBILIZATION OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
The private sector and civil society, through local people’s organizations, non-government
organizations, cause-oriented groups, and other organizations are now given greater opportunity
to participate in local decision-making and in the delivery of services. Partnerships, joint ventures,
and working alliances are strongly encouraged.
In concrete terms, the avenues for partnerships include the following:
Allocation of seats to local bodies. Non-government organizations (NGOs) are allocated at least
one-fourth of the seats in the Local Development Council, the primary policymaking and
planning body for the area. The participation of NGOs provides opportunities for LGUs to
consult constituents and to improve coordination efforts to secure development goals. Other
local special bodies that have an agricultural orientation are the Agrarian Reform Councils
(ARCs), Agricultural Food Councils (AFCs), and Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management
Councils (FARMCs).
Joint ventures and undertakings. Local government units may enter into joint undertakings
with NGOs in the areas of delivery of basic services, capability building and livelihood projects,
local enterprise development, agriculture diversification, rural industrialization, ecological
balance, and enhancement of economic and social well-being of the people.
❙ Preparing for the 21st Century: The

Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Act
Another landmark legislation for agriculture is the 1997 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Act. It aims to boost the agriculture and fisheries sectors through modernization, greater involvement
of small stakeholders, food security and food self-sufficiency, and people empowerment.
The current Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) Makapagpabagong Programa Tungo sa Masagana
at Maunlad na Agrikultura at Pangisdaan of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration program serves
as the blueprint and guiding framework in the implementation of AFMA.
One of its major strategies is the LGU-led approach to agriculture program implementation.
Perhaps for the first time, local government units will spearhead the implementation of the GMA
program, with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and Local Government,
and other concerned agencies providing financial and technical support.
◗ AN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH THROUGH SAFDZS
LGUs will assume leadership through the creation of the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries
Development Zones or SAFDZs. The SAFDZ refers to an identified area within the Network of
Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAD). These are selected areas
for production, agro-processing and marketing activities which are expected to develop and
modernize the agriculture and fisheries sector.
Specific responsibilities of the LGU under AFMA:
1. Irrigation Service (AFMA Chapter 4. Sec. 31)
The planning, design and management of Communal Irrigation Systems (CIS) including the
management of the National Irrigation Authority’s (NIA) assets and resources in relation to CIS
shall be transferred to the LGU.
The budget for the development, construction, operation and maintenance of the CIS and
other types of irrigation systems shall be prepared by and coursed through the LGUs.
NIA will continue to render technical assistance to the LGUs even after the devolution is
completed.
2. The National Information Network (AFMA, Sec. 38)
The National Information Network shall provide information and marketing services to the
general public. These include: supply data, demand data, price and price trends, product
standards, directory of cooperatives, traders, key market centers and other units concerned with
agriculture (and fisheries) at the provincial and municipal level, resource accounting data,
market forecasts, research information and technology, among others.
The LGUs shall coordinate with the DA for technical assistance to accelerate the creation of
information networks and training in the use of information for end-users in their respective
jurisdictions.
3. Agriculture and Fisheries Infrastructure Support Services
The LGU and the other departments (DPWH, DOTC and DTI) shall coordinate with the DA to
address the infrastructure requirements of AFMA, such as, but not limited to: farm-to-market roads,
water supply systems, public markets, and abattoirs. The LGUs will be encouraged to turn over
the management and supervision of public markets and abattoirs to market vendors’cooperatives.
4. Agricultural Extension
The LGUs shall be responsible for delivering direct agriculture and fisheries extension services.
The provincial governments shall integrate the operations for the extension services and shall
undertake an annual evaluation of all municipal extension programs.
The DA, together with state colleges and universities, shall assist in the LGU’s extension system
by improving their effectiveness and efficiency through capability-building and complementary
extension activities.
Because of the nature and extent of operations of the SAFDZ, it offers several fields for the exercise
of effective leadership and innovative management. These include:
a. Formulating an SAFDZ integrated development plan, which should be integrated into other
local plans such as the local land use and zoning plan, local development plan, etc.
b. Facilitating the preparation of a comprehensive SAFDZ integrated development plan where
identified areas cross municipal and political borders.
c. Streamlining and consolidating of agricultural programs and services of LGUs and national
agencies, as well as other stakeholders, through the sharing of resources and complementation
of roles and responsibilities.
For the period of 2001-2004, an annual budget of P20 billion will be allocated to implement the
AFMA. Budget distribution is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 AFMA Budget
AFMA Components Peso (Billions) Percent (%)

1. Irrigation 6.00 30.00
2. Post-Harvest Facilities 2.00 10.00
3. Other Infrastructure 2.00 10.00
4. Credit 2.00 10.00
5. Marketing Assistance 1.60 8.00
6. Research and Development 2.00 10.00
7. Capability-Building 1.00 5.00
8. National Information Network .80 4.00
9. Salary Supplement for LGU Extension Workers 1.20 6.00
10. National Agriculture & Fisheries Education System 1.00 5.00
11. Rural Non-Farm Employment Training .35 1.75
12. SAFDZs .05 0.25
Total 20.00 100.00
(For more details on reference to LGUs in the AFMA, refer to the Annex.)
❙ Monitoring Food Security Programs:

Executive Order 86
In 1999, Executive Order 86 was issued, creating Food Security Councils at the national and
provincial levels. The main task of these councils was to monitor the implementation of the food
security programs developed at the local levels. Provincial governors were tasked to take the
initiative in this monitoring function by inviting the participation of other stakeholders.
Executive Order 86, together with the AFMA, further defined and strengthened local government
involvement in agriculture. It spelled out the following:
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plans are to be developed by LGUs and funded by the
national government.
Resource allocation and utilization of national government agencies, particularly the DA, will
be made more transparent through more frequent coordination meetings and encounters
between the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA) and the DA Regional Director.
Local government units are asked to recognize the imperative of updating staff managerial skills
and functions; and are challenged to exercise more decisive leadership in implementing
agricultural development programs.
3
CHAPTER
ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN
LOCAL AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
❙ On Agricultural
Leadership and Governance
ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER
3
The sustainability and long-term implementation of agricultural programs were drastically affected
by frequent transitions in government administration and political decision-making.
Centerpiece programs and services tend to overlap and/or are repackaged versions of a previous
administration’s initiatives. For instance, the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) does not differ
much from Agrikulturang MakaMASA, which, in turn, is a reconditioned version of the Gintong Ani
and Gintong Ani Plus programs of previous administrations.
Economist Fermin Adriano reviewed the government strategies to address food security and
agricultural productivity, citing the similarities among the programs across the various
administrations. In each program, low levels of success were attributed to high program costs,
regional financial crises, major policy mistakes, and currency devaluation, among others. 11
From these trends, it is obvious that on the one hand, the national framework needs to be adjusted.
On the other hand, the local chief executives should exercise their autonomy and readily
demonstrate their leadership and vision with respect to developing and managing agriculture in
their areas of jurisdiction.
❙ Management and Structural Problems
In development planning, there is a tendency to utilize a reactive problem-solving, piecemeal

approach (e.g., addressing specific concerns), instead of a more forward-looking, proactive
approach. The low interest of most LGUs in agricultural development is reflected in the lack of a
clearly articulated vision and direction for local rural development.
The current management of agricultural development does not foster and nurture local initiatives.
Projects are either subsumed in national program/s or are distinct initiatives supported by services
available from national program/s. Initiatives in the agriculture service delivery, whether by the LGUs
or by the national government, are generally sporadic, fragmented, reactive and done on a
piecemeal basis. In pursuing nationally mandated programs, LGU involvement in management is
reduced to producing annual requests for services (as captured in annual investment plans.)
Local government officials are not prepared to take on additional responsibilities brought about
by the localization of agricultural development. Operations are left to local agriculturists and
veterinarians; rarely does the local chief executive take on a direct hands-on approach to agricultural
development. The traditional and conservative mindsets of local chief executives (i.e., as politicians
rather than leaders/development managers) are still common.
A multi-stakeholder approach to agricultural development and management has yet to be

institutionalized in local governments. The power and responsibility of managing local rural
development is still largely perceived to be solely in the hands of LGUs.
❙ Other Devolution/Localization Concerns
There is still no formal mechanism coordinating the regional structure of the Department of
Agriculture with the local government (the PAO and the MAO).
ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
There is a disparity between the plans and budget priorities prepared by the regional offices
and the actual budget proposals of local governments.
Many LGUs complain that they are not adequately prepared or given support by the DA in
planning and implementing agriculture projects. Very few provinces invested in human resource
development for devolved DA personnel.
The lack of synergy between national and regional plans has left local governments to their own
devices. The relatively weak technical capabilities of provincial and municipal agriculture staff
resulted in the poor use of provincial allocations given the lag in project identification and
preparation.
There is low budget use by the DA which was attributed to the limited interaction between the
regional office and the provinces in identifying priority projects.
Budget allocation remains subject to partisan politics. In many areas, budget allocations for
genuine priority areas were redirected to bailiwicks of political leaders.
On the Implementation of AFMA:
AFMA was not fully implemented due to severe budgetary constraints. The original annual P20
billion-budget of the DA shrank to P16 billion in 1999.
Over-reliance on central funding hindered the implementation of projects, despite the presence
of SAFDZ plans. Around 90 percent of the DA budget goes to operating expenditures, leaving
only a small amount for agricultural service delivery (such as AFMA-related projects).
LGUs have difficulty in providing counterpart resources. Aside from limited budget counterparts,
there is a lack of extension workers at the LGUs.
❙ RECOMMENDATIONS
For LGUs to effectively take the lead in developing and managing local agricultural resources
with the participation of local stakeholders, there must be changes in the way plans are prepared,
implemented, monitored and evaluated. They should be geared towards productivity, farm
management and agri-entrepreneurship, and the delivery of agricultural services.
The recommendationsare focused on adjustments that can be made at the local level with the
support of the stakeholders such as civil society organizations, farmers, the private sector and
oversight agencies.
◗ IMPROVEMENTS IN PLANNING AND MANAGING LOCAL AGRICULTURAL

DEVELOPMENT
Strengthening participation in efforts to localize agricultural development involves a five-stage

process that entails: (1) mobilizing stakeholders; (2) undertaking competitive assessment; (3)
developing the local agricultural development plan in a participatory manner; (4) implementing
the plan in collaboration with stakeholders; and (5) monitoring, evaluating and refining the plan
in an iterative manner.
Successfully mobilizing stakeholders is key to efforts to localize agricultural development. This means
involving farmer organizations, cooperatives, agribusiness associations, rural women groups,
local academic institutions, financing institutions such as rural banks, and line agencies, among
others. They can serve as mechanisms for eliciting participation and input from parties that are
acknowledged to be critical in agricultural and rural development. In particular, local special
bodies such as Agrarian Reform Councils, Agricultural Food Councils, Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Councils can serve as venues for intelligent discourse and should be
involved in strategic planning to determine the vision and direction of local agricultural development.
Undertaking competitive assessment to determine the comparative advantage of local agriculture

can help put local agricultural initiatives on track. For instance, a basic task is to compare local
commodities to market specifications and requirements, as well as to match local capabilities with
market demands.
Afterwards, local agricultural development strategies that are consistent with the identified
competitive advantage of the locality have to be formulated or selected, and, together with other
local stakeholders, developed into a plan (i.e., as specific programs, projects, services and activities).
The next stage is to transform the Agricultural Development Plan into concrete annual workplans
and include it in the LGU budget. These workplans can be implemented if stakeholders support
them and if a budget is allocated for the projects. Where resources are inadequate, LGUs should
strive to enlist local support and contributions (i.e., from local stakeholders), and generate assistance
from national, and, where warranted, international agencies.
The last stage pertains to the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Agricultural
Development Plan to allow for adjustments that will improve its responsiveness. Again, multi-sectoral
involvement is important.
◗ SHIFT FROM SUBSISTENCE AND SURVIVAL MODE TO FOOD

SECURITY/SUFFICIENCY PARADIGM
The paradigm in relation to food security needs to be reoriented to ensure the availability,
adequacy, accessibility, and acceptability of the food supply.
Local requirements must first be satisfied before focusing on an international market. The national
government can set the policy direction toward this end by allocating more resources to agriculture
and regulating the conversion of agricultural lands.
◗ PROMOTION OF FARM MANAGEMENT AND AGRI-ENTREPRENEURSHIP

STRATEGIES
Subsistence farming must give way to a market-oriented, farm systems approach. This means that
crop selection and production must have a direct correlation to market demands and should increase
farmers’ income, without sacrificing food security, ecological balance, and sustainability.
Farmers can venture into agri-entrepreneurship with its attendant changes in technological
support, financing, organizing and social preparation. Capacity development in support of farm
management, among others, is, however, needed to support this shift. Both local government officials
and farmers are also encouraged to be managers.
Market links and other support can emerge from the multi-sectoral partnership between LGUs, NGOs,
POs, and business sector.
◗ MORE RESPONSIVE, CLIENT-BASED AGRICULTURE EXTENSION SERVICES
Agriculture extension service must be client-based and responsive to the local realities of farmers.
Agricultural research and development can also be localized through the involvement of capable
volunteer-farmers and linking them with formal research institutions.
This shift would require technology and systems dissemination through techno- demo farms, and
the cooperation of farmers, agricultural technologists and other organizations; the provision of
technical and management services; and through institutional development.
The steps mentioned in this section are made feasible by changes in the political environment,
particularly the enabling policies on devolution and local agricultural development.
◗ OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS IN PROMOTING ORGANIC

AGRICULTURE
As defined by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), organic

agriculture includes all agricultural systems that promote the environmentally, socially, and
economically sound production of food and fibers. By respecting the natural capacity of plants,
animals and the landscape, organic agriculture aims to optimize quality in all aspects of agriculture
and the environment. Organic agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from
the use of chemo-synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Instead, it allows the
powerful laws of nature to increase both agricultural yields and disease resistance.
◗ LGU PROMOTION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE CAN BENEFIT LOCAL FARMING

COMMUNITIES:
1. It can INCREASE agricultural productivity through increased diversity, long-term soil fertility, high
food quality, reduced pest/disease incidence, self-reliant production systems, and stable
production.
2. It can IMPROVE the environment through reduced pollution, reduced dependence on non-
renewable resources, negligible soil erosion, wildlife protection, more resilient agro-ecosystems,
and the compatibility of production with the environment.
3. It can IMPROVE local economic conditions through a stronger and self-reliant economy (through
an increase in the income of farmers), income security, increased returns, reduced cash
investments, and reduced risks.
4. It can ENHANCE the social condition of the community through improved health, better
education, stronger community, reduced rural migration, gender equality, increased employment
and better quality of the food supply.
◗ SOME TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
The current market demand is considerably higher than the supply, a situation that creates
potential opportunities for developing countries in the short and medium term. The major
international markets are the US, the EU and Japan. In Asia, the major market is Japan, but to a smaller
degree, also Taiwan and Singapore, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
The global organic market size in terms of retail sales was estimated at US$ 11 billion in 1998 and
US$ 17.5 billion in 2000. With an increasing potential and annual growth rate between 20-30
percent, the global market is projected to reach US$ 100 billion in 2008.
In the Philippines, the organic sector is relatively small. Although domestic production is growing
at 10 to 20 percent annually, less than one percent of the agricultural hectarage in the Philippines
is farmed organically, with many concentrated outside Metro Manila.
In 2000, the Philippine organic exports included muscovado sugar for Germany and Japan, fresh
bananas for Japan, banana chips and coconut oil and chips for Europe.
In the local market, major organic products include rice, fresh vegetables and sugar, and major
organic imports include honey, tea, coffee, spices, and mostly processed food. The premium price
for organic products is estimated between 20-30 percent.
The usual marketing channels are as follows: specialized organic outlets (Greenbelt, Alabang,
TESDA, SIDCOR in Metro Manila), health shops, farmers’ cooperatives, and selected supermarkets
for rice and muscovado. The target market for organic products covers a range—from the middle
to upper classes.
Organic agriculture offers a great opportunity for local farming communities and farmers’
organizations to explore agri-business ventures. LGUs can encourage farmer-groups to become
involved in organic agriculture by:
1. Partnering with local groups such as NGOs and private sector groups that promote sustainable,
organic agriculture. It is important to understand the framework and principles behind the
strategy. Two NGOs— SIBAT and MKAVI—are already mentioned in this Resource Book.
2. Applying the framework and principles in the formulation and development of the local
Agricultural Development Plan. The importance of a comprehensive plan for agricultural
development is supported by the experience of Negros Occidental and Irosin in Sorsogon.
3. Being committed to implement programs and projects. Committed implementation entails fund
allocation and sourcing (e.g., the Negros Occidental case); massive advocacy and social
preparation (the Irosin case); and ingenuity in project development (the Davao del Norte case),
among others.
◗ OPPORTUNITIES IN MEDICINAL PLANT/HERBAL PRODUCTS
Medicinal plants/herbal products could form part of the local agricultural development strategy
because of the significant demand for them in the global market.
The present global market demand for herbal products is estimated at US$ 80 billion. In Malaysia,
the market size is estimated at US$ 1.2 billion with an annual dynamic growth rate of 10-20
percent. Over 8,000 products have been registered and approved; the export of herbal products
is over US$ 50 million. There are also over 800 herbal manufacturing companies producing herbal
medicines and herbal cosmetic lines in Malaysia.
In Germany, the estimated market size for herbal products is estimated at US$ 3.5 billion, and it
continues to grow. Most of the herbs used are cultivated abroad by contract growers in Latin America
and India, and then imported in bulk and packaged in Germany.
The combined market size of herbal products for France, Italy, and Spain is estimated at US$ 1.5
billion. The US market size is estimated at US$ 1.5 billion.
Table 5 analyzes information concerning traditional and health care in China and the Philippines.
Table 5. Comparison between traditional and health care in China and the Philippines
China (1986) Philippines (2000)

No. of licensed traditional doctors * 324,270 Less than 10
No. of licensed traditional pharmacists: 147,510 None
Hospital beds for traditional 86,540 None

Chinese medicine patients
No. of herbal manufacturing plants Over 500 Less than 4
No. of staff employed Approx. 100,000 Less than 100
Value of outputs of plants US$571 M US$ 540,000

(or 0.1 percent of the output of China)
* Natural medicine doctors registered under the Dept. of Health
What are the local medicinal plants and herbal products available for possible agri-business
ventures?
In the Philippines, herbal or medicinal plants that are commonly used include lagundi in tablets
for cough or asthma; sambong, a diuretic for kidney stone dissolution; ampalaya (Makiling variety)
for diabetes; luya for motion sickness; akapulko as anti-fungal; luyang dilaw as anti-inflammatory
in rheumatism; bawang for blood cholesterol reduction and as anti-fungal; banaba for diabetes;
tsaang gubat for diarrhea and cavity prevention; yerba buena as antispasmodic; and bayabas as an
antiseptic and for wound healing.
Medicinal plants that are being developed with potential for use by the herbal industry include:
1. Neem – insect repellant

2. Sweet basil – sleeping aid, also used for dandruff control in shampoo
3. Makabuhay – scabies, immune system stimulant
4. Alibungog – anti-inflammatory
5. Alagaw – anti-inflammatory
6. Takip kuhol or Takip suso – immune system stimulant, wound healing
7. Amargo (Quasia amara) – digestive aid, immune system stimulant
8. Dandelion – immune system stimulant
Aromatic plants sought for essential oil extraction that are used for fragrance are:
1. Citronella
2. Lemongrass
3. Patchouli
4. Ylang-ylang
Local government units are encouraged to incorporate these in developing strategies that can be
included in the planning and implementation of their agricultural development programs.
4
CHAPTER
GOOD PRACTICES IN LOCAL

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
GOOD PRACTICES IN LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER
The firstset of cases highlights innovative strategies employed by local government units in
addressing specific agricultural concerns in their communities. These are offered in this Resource
Book as references to help local government officials and other stakeholders create, develop and
4
apply innovative approaches and strategies. Briefly, the cases mentioned tackle the following
concerns that have been addressed by particular strategies.
Agricultural Concern/Issue Approach/Strategy
1. food security; lack of Pagkaon 2000 Food Sufficiency Program (Provincial Government of
irrigation Negros Occidental)
- Irrigation development (diversion dams, small water impounding,
etc.)
- Productivity enhancement (fish distribution, carabao distribution)
- Partnership with stakeholders (from barangay to provincial levels)
2. land distribution Integrated Agrarian Reform Program (municipality of Irosin, Sorsogon)

- Organization of agrarian reform beneficiaries
- Skills enhancement
- Inter-agency coordinated assistance approach through local special
body
- Fund sourcing
3. pest control; productivity Plant Protection Technology (provincial government of Davao del
Norte)
- Mass propagation of Trichogramma insect
- Field demonstration and distribution
- Training
- Monitoring
The next set of cases highlights efforts of civil society and the private sector in the promotion of
sustainable agriculture through a diversity of projects (e.g., capability-building, technological
development, organizing, etc.).
GOOD PRACTICES IN LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 4
Local Government Efforts in Agricultural Service Delivery

PAGKAON 2000 FOOD SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM: NEGROS OCCIDENTAL PROVINCE
THE GOAL
Contact Information:
Office of the Provincial
The province of Negros Occidental, like many rural, agricultural areas in the Governor
country, has been experiencing a steady decline in agricultural productivity, Negros Occidental
along with food shortage problems. Rice yield in 1996 was at a low 2.4 metric Province
tons per hectare (the national average was 3 metric tons per hectare) and
corn production was even lower at 1.93 metric tons per hectare. Poverty in
the countryside was prevalent.
To address this situation, the Office of the Provincial Governor initiated steps both at the
organizational/institutional and community levels. The provincial government undertook
organizational development which led to the creation of the Agricultural Engineering and
Irrigation Systems Development Division. Agriculturists were assigned to different cities
and municipalities in the province. Local special bodies were created and consultations
were conducted to facilitate the development and implementation of the program.
All of these interventions paved the way for the formulation of a local agricultural
development program which effectively addressed the problems of low agricultural
productivity and food security: the Pagkaon 2000 Food Sufficiency Program.
KEY FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM
Framework for local agricultural development. The various interventions introduced by

the provincial government was integrated into the Pagkaon 2000 Program. The program
served as the guiding framework of the sub-components of agricultural development to
Negros Occidental Province PAGKAON 2000 FOOD SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM
promote food security at the household level. Although the program was centered on infrastructure
development, it employed other strategies such as crop diversification, fisheries and aquaculture
development, nutrition program, and information and education campaigns. As a whole, the program
took on the form of a comprehensive approach to the development of local agricultural resources.
Infrastructure development strategies. The provincial government prioritized agricultural development.

Local government structures and mechanisms were put in place, paving the way for a smooth
implementation of agricultural projects. Irrigation development and construction were varied: diversion
dams, small water impounding, small farm reservoirs, and pump irrigation. Social infrastructure
development was also implemented through productivity enhancement strategies such as crop
diversification; fisheries and aquaculture development; fish distribution; and information, education, and
advocacy campaigns (e.g., School-on- the-Air).
Institution-building and partnership mechanisms. By strengthening the provincial government office

through the creation of the Agricultural Engineering and Irrigation Systems Development Division
and other local special bodies, such as the Agricultural and Fisheries Committee and the Irrigation
Development Council, the involvement of local stakeholders was institutionalized. Informal inputs also
found their way into the program through barangay and district consultations/ meetings, dialogues with
farmers, and technical conferences with government agencies.
STRATEGIES IN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Development of a comprehensive agricultural program (Pagkaon 2000)

Creation and strengthening of institutions involved in spearheading the program, particularly the
Office of the Provincial Government and local special bodies
PAGKAON 2000 FOOD SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM Negros Occidental Province
Fund allocation and resource management (P112 million so far has been spent for irrigation
development; P18 million for pre- and post-harvest facilities; P4 million for scholarships; creation of
special funds; automatic budget appropriations)
Consultative and participative processes: regular meetings and consultations at the barangay,
municipality, district, and provincial levels
Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (deployment of agriculturists per
municipality/cities; monthly assessments)
GAINS/BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM
The agricultural resource base of the province expanded as irrigated areas were increased from 31,000
hectares in 1996 to 39,000 hectares in 1999. Approximately 9,564 farmers gained from this development.
In addition to this, 171 various farm equipment were distributed and post-harvest facilities were also
constructed.
To further augment the livelihood capacity of the farmers, 1,070 carabaos and 260,000 fingerlings of tilapia
and other species were distributed.
These translated to enhanced agricultural productivity after three years of implementing the program.
Rice yield increased from 2.4 metric tons per hectare in 1996 to 3.35 metric tons per hectare in 1999, while
corn yield improved from 1.93 metric tons per hectare in 1995 to 2.9 metric tons per hectare in 1999.
Household income also increased by 30 percent to 39 percent. As a result, under-nutrition cases
dropped from 12 percent in 1996 to 9 percent in 1999. In addition to these, the provincial government
was able send 80 scholars to different universities nationwide. 283 farmers graduated from skills
enhancement radio courses offered by the School-on-the Air program.
INTEGRATED AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM: IROSIN, SORSOGON
THE GOAL
Office of the Mayor
Rural poverty in the municipality of Irosin, Sorsogon was traced to landlessness
Irosin, Sorsogon
of the farmers and their lack of control over their farmlands. From this
premise, local agricultural development was centered on agrarian reform. The
innovation lies in the program’s integrated area development approach, which covered the
components of agricultural productivity and livelihood, rural infrastructure and
electrification, environment, health, and gender and development.
Community organization and capability-building. The Integrated Agrarian Reform Program

(IARP) of Irosin organized and enhanced the capabilities of agrarian reform beneficiaries.
A series of training courses on values orientation, gender sensitivity, authentic humanism,
farm planning and management and organizational development skills was conducted to
prepare the farmers for effective agricultural productivity tasks.
Partnership mechanisms. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Council (MARC), headed by the
mayor and composed of representatives from 10 government agencies, private sector, non-
government organizations and cooperatives/people’s organizations was organized. A
common local agricultural development plan was formulated then guided and monitored
by the MARC.
Organizational development. The MARC had operational structures that facilitated the
implementation of various tasks and functions. The MARC Management Committee took
INTEGRATED AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM Irosin, Sorsogon
charge of accessing to resources and using them, while the finance committee managed fund use. A
“coordinated assistance approach” defined the working relationships of MARC institutional members.
Funding support. Irosin did not rely solely on national government funding for its IARP. Having been
declared as an Agrarian Reform Community, the municipality gained access to various sources of funds
which amounted to P10 million a year. The regular funding of projects led to the development of
infrastructure and support services.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Formulation of an Integrated Agrarian Reform Program

Creation of local special bodies (e.g., Municipal Agrarian Reform Council, MARC Management
Committee, Finance Committee) to spearhead program implementation
Multi-sectoral consultation and planning
Massive information campaign on the benefits of agrarian reform
Hands-on negotiation with absentee landowners to fast-track land distribution
Fund allocation and resource mobilization (LGU allocation of P2 million; P2 million from Land Bank;
at least P10 million a year from external sources and NGOs)
Effective partnership and networking (e.g., support from LIKAS, a non-government organization,
reached a total of P15 million; this was used for the development of cooperatives, health services,
promotion of sustainable agriculture, gender and development, and post-harvest facilities)
As a result of the agricultural development interventions, land was distributed in Irosin at a faster pace
compared to the other municipalities of Sorsogon province. As of November 1998, around 75-85
Irosin, Sorsogon INTEGRATED AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
percent of lands eligible for distribution through CARP were covered by Certificate of Land Ownership
Awards or CLOAs. This benefited at least 75 percent of the municipality’s agrarian reform beneficiaries.
The organizational and farm management capabilities of participating farmers and their groups were
also enhanced. Infrastructure and other support systems in the form of farm-to-market roads, irrigation,
credit programs, and water systems helped develop local agricultural relations and performance in Irosin.

PLANT PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:
PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE
THE GOAL
One of the main agricultural problems in the province of Davao del Norte Office of the Provincial
has been the heavy use by farmers of hazardous, synthetic chemical Governor
pesticides for the control of harmful insects in corn, rice, cacao, and Office of the Provincial
vegetables. Such dependence was caused by decades of agricultural practice Agriculturist
that relied on pesticides to increase productivity. Davao del Norte
Province
The provincial government of Davao del Norte, through the Office of the
Provincial Agriculturist (OPA), developed and implemented a natural, environment-friendly
strategy to fend off agricultural pests and insects harmful to crops: the use of Trichogramma
in its Plant Protection Technology Program.
Local Research and Development. The provincial agriculturist piloted the breeding of the
Trichogramma insect in a laboratory. With ample support from different sources, the
production of the insect expanded.
Social acceptance strategies. With the participation of cooperatives, field demonstration trials
were conducted to demonstrate the plant protection technology. Farmers, after training,
were also involved in the pilot studies through monitoring and data-gathering activities.
Davao del Norte Province PLANT PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Funding and technical support. The provincial government allocated funding for the development and
implementation of the technology (P450,000 for the laboratory and equipment, P111,000 for operations,
and P155,000 for demonstration farms), and was able to tap other funding sources. The private sector
was involved through technical assistance provided by Nestle Philippines.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Laboratory pilot-testing and production of Trichogramma by the provincial agriculturist

Provincial government support through funding and other fund-sourcing activities
Field demonstration trials and training that involved cooperatives
Mass propagation and distribution of Trichogramma cards
Monitoring by farmers through the Trichocards
The natural plant protection technology did improve agricultural productivity for the program
participants. Yields in corn jumped from 1 metric ton per hectare to 3 metric tons per hectare and yields
in cacao soared from 250 kilograms per hectare a year to 600 in 1994.
Costs of agricultural production also dropped as farmers recorded savings that averaged P900 to
P1,000 per hectare.
As the program reduced the exposure of farmlands to the hazards of chemical pesticides, agricultural
sustainability was also ensured.
Civil Society and Private Sector Promotion of Sustainable

Agriculture Strategies
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM: SIBOL NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA (SIBAT)
THE GOAL
Contact Information
Executive Director
Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT), a non-government organization, SIBAT
focuses its agricultural services program on enhancing farmers’ organized Tel: (02) 926-8971/
and conscious capability for sustainable agriculture. 410-2354
Its goal is to mitigate the negative effects of conventional or modern agriculture, which
has resulted in the lack of sustainability and the loss of control by poor farmers over food
production and agro-ecological systems.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Rural Ecological Farm Planning and Development

Capability-building
Genetic Resource Protection through Integrated Community Seed-banking
Urban Food Production
Watershed Management
Water Systems Development
PROGRAM STRATEGIES
Stakeholders consultation
Participatory situational/needs analysis
Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
Participatory planning and program/project development

Strengthening of farmer organization
Preference for appropriate technology

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN COMMERCIAL BANANA PRODUCTION
THE GOAL
Contact Information
Operations Manager
Mt. Kitanglad Agri-Ventures, Inc., a business entity, produces highland Mt. Kitanglad Agri-
sweet bananas for export to Asia and the Middle East. As part of its corporate Ventures, Inc. (MKAVI)
aims, it endeavors to conserve soil, water, and other environmental resources Alanib, Lantapan,
Bukidnon
for the preservation of the ecosystem.
Tel: (084)822-1138;
(0916)336-2124
During the venture’s pre-development stage, ecological baseline information
was determined from the project site. Due to market demands and the
declining environmental condition in the area, conservation techniques were incorporated
in the production and management of banana exports.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Ecosystem Conservation
Wildlife Conservation
Integrated Pest Management
Conservation of Water Resources
Soil Conservation
Collaboration with Stakeholders
Mt. Kitanglad Agri-Ventures, Inc. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN COMMERCIAL BANANA PRODUCTION
STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED
This is based on the Better Banana Project, an international environmental certification similar to ISO
certification:
Ecosystem Conservation
Wildlife Conservation
Fair treatment and good conditions
Good community relations
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Waste Management
Water Conservation
Soil Conservation
Planning and Monitoring

LOCAL RAM PUMP MANUFACTURING FOR SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION AND UPLAND

COMMUNITIES
THE GOAL
Contact Information
Executive Director
The Alternative Indigenous Development Foundation, Inc. (AID Foundation) Alternative Indigenous
is a non-government organization engaged in the development of Development
agricultural technology for upland communities. Its goal is to facilitate Foundation, Inc. (AID
Foundation)
technology transfer so that upland farms can be developed and production Lot 30, Block 12
enhanced. Puentevella Subd. Brgy.
Taculing, Bacolod City
PROGRAM COMPONENT Tel: (034) 4354691
Fax: (034) 4462330
Development of Water Pumps. Different types of water pumps were designed

for upland farming. A hydraulic ram pump was eventually developed and promoted as a
low-cost, low maintenance, environment-friendly technology that could transform rainfall-
dependent farms into integrated ones.
Main Features of the Hydraulic Ram Pump
Utilizes the momentum of a large flow of water under a small head to raise a smaller
quantity of water to a higher elevation
A valve is arranged to close suddenly, creating a water hammer of high pressure that
forces water to a higher elevation
AID LOCAL RAM PUMP MANUFACTURING FOR SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION AND UPLAND COMMUNITIES
Requires a minimum fall of at least 75 centimeters and a minimum flow of water of at least 8 liters
per minute
Advantages of the Ram Pump
Use of renewable energy (falling water)

Very minimum operation cost; no need for electricity or fuel
Pumps automatically on a 24-hour basis
Durable
Minimal number of moving parts
Can pump up to 120 meters elevation
Able to use many sources of water: springs, streams, irrigation canals, etc.
Spare parts can be easily fabricated
The output will depend on several factors: flow of water intake, pump size, fall of water and the delivery
height.

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES PROGRAM
THE GOAL
Contact Information
Executive Director
The Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) seeks Pambansang Kilusan ng
to provide agricultural extension services to its farmer-members. Its main mga Samahang
strategy is to train and deploy a select group of farmers from among its Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)
Rm. 202 Partnership
member people's organizations to lead and provide agricultural extension
Center
services to ensure viable farming systems among its members. 59. C. Salvador St., Loyola
Hts., Quezon City
PROGRAM COMPONENTS Telefax: (02) 4361689
Email:
pakisama@codewan.com
On Farm School Systems - situation-oriented, on-site learning centers
offering three experiential courses
Extension Services - organization of farmer-members into farmer field school units and
orientation on program and services
Support Inputs and Facilities - part of extension services in the form of provision of seeds,
fertilizer, starters/breeders, etc.
Marketing
OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES
Selection, recruitment, training and deployment

Conversion of candidate farms into model farms
Installation of at least 3 farmer-trainers/extensionists (FXs) per barangay
PAKISAMA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES PROGRAM
Two-day immersions per week of FXs

Ensuring mobility of FXs and provision of incentives
Ensuring guidance and supervision of FXs
As of 2000, a total of 144 farmer-trainers/extensionists were developed by the program through skills
enhancement and capability-building to undertake agricultural extension services to other farmer-
members.
5
CHAPTER
REFERENCES AND TOOLS

REFERENCES AND TOOLS 5
❙ Recommended Sites for Study Tours
RECOMMENDED
HIGHLIGHTS CONTACT DETAILS
SITES
Geo Farm Integrated Appropriate Technologies The Management
Home gardening, agro-forestry, Geo Farm
integrated farming Barrio Mangayao, Bayambang,
Biogas, solar panels and windmill Pangasinan
Total waste management Tel: (075) 592-3349
Herbal medicine, spirulina and Email: geofarm@mozcom.com
holistic healing
Agro-ecology
Kablon Farm Organic farm Manager

Food processing center Kablon Farm
Products – passion fruit juice, Tupi, South Cotabato 9505
assorted jellies and jams and Telefax: (083) 228-8508
tablea Email: ernestopantua@yahoo.com
Kalahan Educational Food processing made from Executive Director

Foundation indigenous fruits Kalahan Educational Foundation
Organic farming Sta. Fe, Imugan, Nueva Vizcaya
RECOMMENDED
HIGHLIGHTS CONTACT DETAILS
SITES
Gourmet Farms, Inc. Organic vegetable farm Chief Operating Officer
Food processing center Gourmet Farms, Inc.
Organic market 52 Aguinaldo Highway, Lalaan 2,
Gourmet Restaurant 4118 Silang, Cavite
Tel: (046) 414-0137 to 38
Fax: (046) 414-0613
Email:
gourmetfarms@pacific.net.ph
Mag-Uugmad Sloping agricultural land Manager

Foundation, Inc. technology (SALT) farming Sustainable Upland Agriculture
Organic vegetable production Resource Center (SUARC)
Guba, Cebu
Makilala, North Agro-forestry Executive Director
Cotabato Bio-dynamic farming Don Bosco Diocesan Youth
Microbial technology Center, Inc.
Makilala, North Cotabato
Mindanao Baptist Sloping agricultural land technology Executive Director
Rural Life Center (SALT) farming (1–4) MBRLC
(MBRLC) Bansalan, Davao del Sur
Mt. Kitanglad Agri Diversified commercial banana Operations Manager
Ventures, Inc. plantation practicing sustainable Mt. Kitanglad Agri Ventures, Inc.
agriculture certified by rainforest Alanib, Lantapan, Bukidnon
alliance under ECO OK fair trade label Tel: (02) 926-8971/410-2354
❙ Contact Details for Organic, Herbal

and Natural Products Development
OPPORTUNITIES / REQUIREMENTS CONTACT DETAILS
1. Organic certification and inspection for Executive Director

local markets Organic Certification Center of the Philippines, Inc.
2. Advisory/support for organic certification Golden Shell Pavilion
for export markets Roxas Blvd. - Gil Puyat Ave.,
Pasay City 1300, Metro Manila
Tel: (02) 831-2483
Fax: (02) 832-3965
Email: occphils@yahoo.com
1. Herbal development program Natural Products Division Chief
2. Product licensing program Center for International Trade Expositions and
3. Export promotion of organic, herbal and Missions (CITEM)
natural products Golden Shell Pavilion
Roxas Blvd - Gil Puyat Ave.,
Pasay City 1300, Metro Manila
Tel: (02) 831-2483
Fax: (02) 832-3965
Email: nproducts@citem.com.ph
1. Herbal agriculture Department Head

2. Production trial Dept. of Horticulture
3. Feasibility studies UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna
4. Contract growing
OPPORTUNITIES / REQUIREMENTS CONTACT DETAILS
1. Herbal processing Director General

2. Technical assistance Philippine Institute of Traditional and Alternative
3. Technology transfer Health Care
4. Referral service Bldg 10, San Lazaro Compound
Santa Cruz, Manila
Metro Manila
Fax: (02) 781-8838
❙ Reference Materials and Practical Tools
A. Integrated Area Development Tools
1. Conceptual Review
Community-Based/ Area-Based Conceptual Framework
2. Selection of project area

Poverty indicators
Ecosystems assessment tools, including GIS, transect, etc.
3. Assessment of project area

Participatory Rural Appraisal
Environmental mapping
Community mapping
Scoping
SWOT
4. IAD Planning
Technology of Participation
ZOPP
Logical Framework
Environment & Natural Resources Accounting
Extended Cost-Benefit Analysis
Environmental Impact Assessment
5. Project Implementation
Operations Manual
Computerized MIS
CO/CD Manuals
Benefits Monitoring and Evaluation
B. University of the Philippines – Los Baños Agro-forestry Program
Soil and Water Conservation: A Training Manual. 1994
C. DAR-UNDP SARDIC Programme (1999)
Compendium on Sustainable Agriculture. Perspectives and Strategies of Advocates and Practitioners

in the Philippines. 208 pp.
D. Galing Pook Foundation (2001)
Kaban Galing. The Philippine Case Bank on Innovation and Exemplary Practices in Local Governance.
Volume 1. Striving for Good Local Governance. 95 pp.
Volume 2. Managing the Environment. 85 pp.
Volume 3. Transforming the Local Economy. 129 pp.
Volume 4. Fighting Poverty Together. 101 pp.
Volume 5. Promoting Excellence in Urban Governance. 55 pp.
Volume 6. Institutionalizing Child Friendly Governance. 119 pp.
E. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (1991)
Pandey, R.K. A Primer on Organic-Based Rice Farming. 201 pp.
F. PAKISAMA (2001)
Sustainable Agriculture. The Pakisama Viewpoint. 39 pp.
G. Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. (1989)
Pama-agi sa Mainuswagon Nga Pagpanguma para sa Benepisyaryo sa Repormang Agraryo. 230 pp.
H. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
Publications and Communications Department,

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
Y.C. James Yen
Silang, Cavite 4118
Tel: (046) 4142417
Fax: (046) 4142420
Email: publications@iirr.org or bookstore@iirr.org
1. Shifting Cultivation: Towards Sustainability and Resource Conservation

2. Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A Resource Book on Participation 2001
3. Going to Scale: Can We Bring More Benefits to More People More Quickly?
4. Enhancing Sustainability of Rice Economy in the Philippines
5. Farmers’Changing the Face of Technology: Choices and Adaptations of Technology Options,
1999.
6. Environmental Health: A sourcebook of materials, 1999.
7. Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation: Experiences & Lessons
8. Creative Training: A User’s Guide, 1998.
9. Resource Management In Rain-fed Dry Lands: An Information Kit, 1997.
10. Environmentally Sound Technologies For Women in Agriculture, 1996.
11. Recording And Using Indigenous Knowledge: A Manual, 1995.
12. Resource Management for Upland Areas in Southeast Asia, 1995.
13. Ethno-Veterinary Medicine in Asia: An Information Kit on Traditional Animal Health Care
Practice, 1994.
14. The Bio-Intensive to Small-Scale Household Food Production, 1993.

15. Environment, Agricultural and Natural Resources Management: Basic Concept, 1993.
16. Environment, Agricultural and Natural Resource Management: Ideas for Action, 1993.
17. Agroforestry Technology Information Kit, 1992.
18. Farmer-proven Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture. A Technology Information Kit, 1992.
19. Low-External Input Rice Production Technology Information Kit, 1990.
20. Towards Better Enterprises: Business Development, Marketing & Microfinance Practices
I. Philippine Rice Research Institute

Email: dev_comm@philrice.gov.ph
1. Technoguides
a. 10 Steps in Compost Production (English, Ilocano, Tagalog)

b. Pagpaparami ng Purong Binhi ng Palay
c. Rodents Management
d. Controlled Irrigation
e. Management of Zinc-deficient Soils
f. Management of Golden Apple Snail
g. Minus-one Element Technique
h. Management of the Rice Black Bug
i. Leaf Color Chart (English, Tagalog, Ilocano editions)
j. Equipment for Rice Production and Processing
k. 40-kilogram Certified Seeds Per Hectare
l. Characteristics of Popular Rice Varieties
m. Rice Stem Borers in the Philippines
n. Rice Tungro Virus Disease
2. Manuals/catalogs
a. Genetic Rice Resources

b. Field Guide on Harmful & Useful Organisms in the Philippine Rice Fields
c. Let's Produce More Rice (A Training Manual)
d. NCT Manual for Rice: Guidelines and Policies
e. Pagpaparami ng Binhing Haybrid na Palay
f. Philippine Seedboard Rice Varieties
g. Rice Field Weeds in the Philippines
h. Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Rice in the Philippines
3. Books/Proceedings/Others
a. A Recipe Book on Traditional Rice Food Products in the Philippines

b. Highland Rice Production in the Philippine Cordillera
c. Host index of Plant Diseases in the Philippines
d. Advances and Challenges in Hybrid Rice Technology in the Philippines
e. GO-NGO Collaboration: Towards People Empowerment
f. Philippine Rice Statistics (1970-1996)
g. Regional Rice Statistics (1970-1992)
h. Rice Statistics Handbook (1970-1997)
i. Mga Katawagan sa Agrikultura (May Diin sa Pagpapalayan – An English-Filipino Dictionary)
ENDNOTES
1Reaction to “Philippine Agriculture: Are We Ready for the Competition?”by Fr. Francis Lucas of the
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development at the Department of Agriculture
and UP Program in Development Economics Lecture Series, Bureau of Soils and Water Management,
Quezon City, 17 July 2003
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
6Philippine Agriculture: Are We Ready for the Competition? A Paper presented by Dr. Arsenio M.
Balisacan at the Department of Agriculture and UP Program in Development Economics Lecture
Series, Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Quezon City, 17 July 2003.
7Ibid.
8Fr. Francis Lucas
9Dr. Balisacan
10Fr. Francis Lucas
11Adriano, Fermin P. The State of Philippine Agriculture and the Role of Local Government. A
thematic paper on agriculture included in the policy booklet entitled, “Food Security from
Below. Strengthening National Government-Local Government Partnership in Grains Production.
(1999)”
ANNEXES
REFERENCES TO LGUs IN THE AGRICULTURE AND

FISHERIES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1997 (RA 8435)
TITLE 1 PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES
Chapter 1 Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones
SEC. 7. Model Farms. The Department, in coordination with the local government units (LGUs) and
appropriate government agencies, may designate agrarian reform communities (ARCs) and other
areas within the SAFDZ suitable for economic scale production which will serve as model farms.
SEC. 9. Delineation of Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones. The Department, in
consultation with the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Department of Trade and Industry, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Science and Technology, the
concerned LGUs, the organized farmers and fisherfolk groups, the private sector and communities
shall, without prejudice to the development of identified economic zones and free ports, establish
and delineate based on sound resource accounting, the SAFDZ within one (1) year from the
effectivity of this Act.
Chapter 2 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan
SEC. 19. Role of Other Agencies. All units and agencies of the government shall support the
Department in the implementation of the AFMP.
LOCAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall provide assistance to the Department
in mobilizing resources under the control of local government units.
Chapter 3 Credit
SEC. 23. Scope of the Agro-Industry Modernization Credit and Financing Program (AMCFP). The Agro-
industry Modernization Credit and Financing Program shall include the package and delivery of
various credit assistance programs for the following:
i) Privately-funded and LGU-funded irrigation systems that are designed to protect the
watershed;
Chapter 4 Irrigation
SEC. 31. Communal Irrigation Systems (CIS). The Department shall, within five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act, devolve the planning, design and management of CISs, including the transfer
of NIA's assets and resources in relation to the CIS, to the LGUs. The budget for the development,
construction, operation and maintenance of the CIS and other types of irrigation systems shall be
prepared by and coursed through the LGUs. The NIA shall continue to provide technical assistance
to the LGUs even after complete devolution of the Irrigation Systems to the LGUs, as may be
deemed necessary.
Chapter 5 Information and Marketing Support Service
SEC. 39. Coverage. A market information system shall be installed for the use and benefit of, but
not limited to, the farmers and fisherfolk, cooperatives, traders, processors, the LGUs and the
Department.
ANNEXES
SEC. 43. Initial Set-up. The Department shall provide technical assistance in setting-up the NIN at
the local level through the cooperatives and LGUs: Provided, That, at the local level, a system that
will make marketing information and services related to agriculture and fisheries will be readily
available in the city/municipal public market for the benefit of the producers, traders and consumers.
SEC. 44. Role of Government Agencies. The Bureau of Agricultural Statistics will serve as the central
information server and will provide technical assistance to end-users in accessing and analyzing
product and market information and technology.
The Department of Transportation and Communications shall provide technical and infrastructure
assistance to the Department in setting up the NIN.
LGUs shall coordinate with the Department for technical assistance in order to accelerate the
establishment and training of information end-users in their respective jurisdictions.
Chapter 6 Other Infrastructure
SEC. 46. Agriculture and Fisheries Infrastructure Support Services. The Department of Public Works
and Highways, the Department of Transportation and Communications, the Department of Trade
and Industry and the LGUs shall coordinate with the Department to address the infrastructure
requirements in accordance with this Act: Provided, That, the Department and the LGUs shall also
strengthen its agricultural engineering groups to provide the necessary technical and engineering
support in carrying out the smooth and expeditious implementation of agricultural infrastructure
projects.
SEC. 52. Farm-to-Market Roads. The Department shall coordinate with the LGUs and the resident-
farmers and fisherfolk in order to identify priority locations of farm-to-market roads that take
into account the number of farmers and fisherfolk, and their families who shall benefit therefrom
and the amount, kind and importance of agricultural and fisheries products produced in the area.
Construction of farm-to-market roads shall be a priority investment of the LGUs which shall
provide a counterpart of not less than ten percent (10%) of the project cost subject to their IRA level.
SEC. 55. Water Supply System. The Department shall coordinate with the DPWH and the LGUs for
the identification and installation of water supply system in the locality for agro-industrial uses to
enhance agriculture and fisheries development in the area.
SEC. 58. Public Market and Abattoirs. The Department shall encourage the LGUs to turn over the
management and supervision of public markets and abattoirs to market vendors' cooperatives and
for that purpose, the appropriation for post-harvest facilities shall include the support for market
vendors' cooperatives.
The Department shall coordinate with the LGUs in the establishment of standardized market
systems and use of sanitary market facilities, and abattoirs, intended to ensure food safety and quality.
TITLE 2 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 71. Counterpart Funding from LGUs. The LGUs shall, within two (2) years from the effectivity
of this Act, provide at least ten percent (10%) of the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
(MOOE) budget for the operation of the provincial institutes within their area of responsibility.
In consultation with the LGUs, the CHED shall develop a provincial-national partnership scheme
for a reasonable sharing of financial support taking into account social equity factors for poor
provinces.
ANNEXES
TITLE 3 RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION
Chapter 2 Extension Services
SEC. 90. The Role of Local Government Units. The LGUs shall be responsible for delivering direct
agriculture and fisheries extension services.
The provincial governments shall integrate the operations for the agriculture extension services
and shall undertake an annual evaluation of all municipal extension programs.
The extension programs of state colleges and universities shall primarily focus on the improvement
of the capability of the LGU extension service by providing:
a) Degree and non-degree training programs;

b) Technical assistance;
c) Extension cum research activities;
d) Monitoring and evaluation of LGU extension projects; and
e) Information support services through the tri-media and electronics.
SEC. 92. The Role of Government Agencies. The Department, together with state colleges and
universities shall assist in the LGU's extension system by improving their effectiveness and efficiency
through capability building and complementary extension activities such as:
a) technical assistance;
b) training of LGU extension personnel;
c) improvement of physical facilities;
d) extension cum research; and
e) information support services.
SEC. 95. Extension Communication Support for LGUs. The Department, in coordination with the public
and private universities and colleges, shall develop an integrated multimedia support for national
and LGU extension programs. The Department shall assist the LGUs in the computerization of
communication support services to clients and linkages to the NIN.
TITLE 4 RURAL NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT
Chapter 1
SEC. 98. Principles. The Department, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies,
shall formulate the Basic Needs Program to create employment and cushion the effects of
liberalization based on the following principles:
a) No credit subsidies shall be granted. The normal rules of banking shall apply to all enterprises
involved, provided that existing credit arrangements with ARBs shall not be affected;
b) Enterprises can use training, information, advisory and related services of the Government free
of charge;
c) The participation of the private sector shall be voluntary.
Teams composed of specialists from government agencies and the private sectors shall develop
pilot programs in selected locales to establish the planning, implementation and evaluation
procedures.
SEC. 99. Participation of Government Agencies. The replication of the program shall be the
responsibility of the local government units concerned in collaboration with the appropriate
government agencies, and the private sector. The local government units shall bear the costs of
promoting and monitoring the basic needs program for which their IRA shall be increased
accordingly as recommended by the Secretary of the Department: Provided, That the appropriate
national government agencies shall continue to provide the necessary technical as well as financial
assistance to the LGUs in the replication of the program.
ANNEXES
Chapter 3 Rural Industrialization Industry Dispersal Program
SEC. 101. Role of Government Agencies. The appropriate government agencies, under the leadership
of the LGUs concerned, shall provide integrated services and information to prospective enterprises
under the one-stop-shop concept.
Local government units are authorized to undertake investment and marketing missions provided
that the costs of such missions are borne by the LGUs concerned. In making their land use plans,
the LGUs, in consultation with the appropriate government agencies concerned, shall identify areas
for industrial parks.
Chapter 4 Training of Workers
SEC. 104. Role of TESDA. TESDA shall organize local committees that will advise on the scope, nature
and duration of training for the above-mentioned programs.
TESDA is authorized to request the additional budgetary resources for these programs: Provided,
That after a reasonable period, the task of coordinating the training is transferred to the LGUs
concerned.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 111. Initial Appropriation. For the first year of implementation of this Act, the amount of Twenty
billion pesos (P20,000,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated. The Department is hereby authorized
to realign its appropriations in the current year of the date of effectivity of this Act to conform with
the requirements of this Act: Provided, That the amount shall be allocated and disbursed as
follows:
7) Five percent (5%) for capability-building of farmers and fisherfolk organizations and LGUs for
the effective implementation of the agriculture and fisheries programs at the local level;

Re-Envisioning Local Agricultural Development - A Guide For Development Managers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Envisioning Local Agricultural Development - A Guide For Development Managers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRICULTURE

Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support

All rights reserved

The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encourages

Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)

This project was undertaken with the financial support of the

Department of the Interior National Economic and Canadian International

Agriteam Canada Federation of Canadian

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 3

CHAPTER 2: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 21

CHAPTER 3: ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31

CHAPTER 4: SMALL STEPS TO LARGE GAINS: GOOD PRACTICES IN LOCAL AGRICULTURAL 45

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLS 65

HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.

Chay Florentino-Hofileña for excellent editorial work

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

AFCOM Agriculture and Fishery Committee

NGO Non-Government Organization

PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURE IN CRISIS

A ROUGH ROAD TO TRUDGE

SETTING THE TEMPO

EXPANDING THE SCOPE

OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURE

◗ PROFILE OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS

Table 1: Percentage contribution of Agriculture, Fishery, and Forestry to GDP, 1995-1997

Industry 1995 1996 1997

1. Agricultural Crops 21.31 20.93 20.56

Agricultural Crops 17.02 16.89 16.72

Palay 3.51 3.56 3.37

Corn 1.23 1.17 1.16

Coconut 0.92 0.81 0.82

Sugarcane 0.49 0.57 0.54

Banana 0.35 0.35 0.36

Other Crops 5.12 4.91 4.95

Livestock 2.47 2.49 2.49

Poultry 2.00 2.11 2.14

Agri. Act. And services 0.93 0.92 0.89

2. Forestry 0.22 0.22 0.22

Agri., Fishery & Forestry 21.53 21.15 20.78

Source of Data: National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB) in Adriano (1999).

◗ DECLINING TRENDS IN AGRICULTURE

But the agriculture sector is in a state of crisis.

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-1999

Philippines 4.9 14.6 1.0 -4.6 0.4 3.4

Indonesia 2.0 20.0 4.9 4.7 1.6 8.4

Malaysia 6.5 19.3 3.8 3.1 0.5 7.5

Thailand 4.2 21.2 3.9 4.9 -2.4 4.2

China 2.7 13.1 5.6 2.7 2.2 1.6

India 1.8 14.6 3.0 0.8 3.7 8.5

Pakistan 3.0 13.8 4.3 3.2 3.4 1.4

Nepal 0.8 -2.9 2.7 0.7 2.0 2.1

Bangladesh 1.4 2.6 1.9 -1.5 3.2 -0.5

*Source: ADB Outlook, various years (unless otherwise indicated)

◗ EFFECTS OF DOWNTREND IN AGRICULTURE

One-fourth of agricultural workers are underemployed. Employment in agriculture, forecasted by

◗ SOME REASONS BEHIND THE DOWNTREND

◗ CENTRALIZED APPROACH TO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

 Needs of Filipino citizens, majority of whom are poor

❙ Hope for the Farmers:

◗ CHANGING AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE

In light of the effects of globalization on agriculture, there needs to be a three-way devolution

Needs of Filipino citizens, majority of whom are poor