national agricultural and fisheries council: the challenge ...€¦ · for such, and as manifested...

National Agricultural and Fisheries Council:The Challenge for Relevance and Good Governance1

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

It has been determined that government needs to rationalize its operations in order to deliver services in an efficient and effective manner. While frowned upon by many because of its short term consequences, e.g. retrenchment, reassignment, and the associated adjustment costs, the fruit of reorganizing will always be the long term gain in resources saved specifically in the improvement of performance. This is the purpose of Executive Order No. 366 (s. 2004), issued three years ago by President Arroyo that read

Directing a strategic review of the operations and organizations of the Executive Branch and providing options and incentives for government employees who may be affected by the rationalization of the functions and agencies of the executive branch.2

Not the first time in post- Martial Law history, government had similar efforts in 1987 to redefine its role in society.3 Only the circumstances have changed, but beside fine tuning governance functions, and responding to the ever- present problems of scarcity in resources and increasing population, government’s performance in addition must face the challenge of globalization.

The Department of Agriculture (DA) had until last year to respond to the Rationalization directive and with the help of the stakeholders, came up with a plan that proposes to bring about the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), a streamlined structure of the DA along functional lines for better coordination and harmony in programs (in contrast with the currently ailing commodity-based structure that is fragmented).4

Of particular interest in this government reorganization plan are the venues that will be afforded to citizens and non-government bodies who wish to participate. Since the Constitution of 1987 aspired for such, and as manifested in both the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA, RA 8435), and the Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), seeing this to reality serves not only the perspective of efficiency, but transparency and accountability as well.

In as much years, transparency and accountability mechanisms have been installed, and have been complemented with participation by citizens, community and sector- based organizations, and the private business sector. Within the DA, civil society presence, along with business groups in DA committees and consultative councils are proof. Equivalently at the local level, the Local Government Code of 1991 provided for local special bodies where participation by non- government and community- based organizations are required. The Fisheries Code added to this by mandating the creation of local Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Councils (FARMCs) from the province down to the barangay level.

However, also in recent years, the laws were circumvented in perverted ways. Government offices and positions are created to represent false claims, non-existent projects are reported to have

1 A Paper prepared by Mr. Ernesto E. Tomas, Jr for CODE-NGO as working discussion paper for the forum on the relevance of NAFC.2 Executive Order 366, also known as the Rationalization Law, was issued October 4, 2004.3 A series of Executive Orders were issued by President Corazon Aquino in 1987, including Executive Order No. 116 renaming the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food as Ministry of Agriculture.4 The draft Executive Order reads Department of Agriculture Rationalization Plan of 2006 and Renaming the Department of Agriculture as

the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (26 pages, dated August 11, 2006). See Ponce (2006) PowerPoint presentation, DA Rationalization: Key Features, dated September 11, 2006 given at the TAMBUYOG- European Union National Advocacy Conference for Fisheries and Fiscal Reform, Sulo Hotel, Quezon City.

The National Agricultural Fisheries Council (NAFC) of 28Challenge for Relevance and Good Governance

benefited citizens, and public funds are being squandered towards self- serving, political ends. Moreover, laws are pitted against each other and, as in the case of several executive orders, issued to bring under control transparency and accountability mechanisms, notwithstanding the fact that both principles are held sacred by the Constitution. But we reserve this discussion for some other venue. For now, we contend ourselves with the fact that an opportunity is upon us, and that is to make an input on the reform of the agricultural bureaucracy.

This paper deals with the case of one council, namely, the National Agriculture and Fisheries Council (NAFC). It is one of the five councils attached to the DA, and it serves as an advisory body to the Department, and forum for consultation with the sector’s many stakeholders. For these alone, civil society will invest in seeing through its transformation, and eventually (hopefully) guarantee genuine agricultural reform. Within the context of Rationalization, a preferred direction needs to be spelled out.

The paper has been structured as follows: a brief discussion of the institutional problems facing the agricultural sector, and the Department of Agriculture; then focusing on NAFC, an account of its evolution within the agricultural bureaucracy, and changes that the organization went through during those times. We arrived at discussing NAFC’s present mandates, as found in EO 116 (s.1987), and subsequent administrative orders that rewrote it. An examination of the agency’s performance in recent years is warranted, after which we draw some conclusion as to why NAFC is so in the present. In the end we only have more leads for further discussion, on how to move the organization progressively forward.

1.2 Objectives

The paper reviews the structure of NAFC for the improvement of its performance. The overarching objective is to establish the bases for its reform, i.e. towards more efficient systems and effective processes that are also transparent, accountable and participatory. Specifically, to give an overview of the NAFC environment, structure, operations, and funding, and to investigate deeper to component functions undertaken.

Furthermore, the paper seeks to offer initial ideas and options for the future design of a professional, multi- stakeholder platform, one that is not swayed by political interests, rather with pro-people and pro-agriculture bias that will lift the poor out of poverty.

1.3 Study Approach

The study is exploratory and descriptive in nature, and has been conducted through the use of primary and secondary documentary sources and one-on-one discussion with members of civil society. The author had the benefit of input from the multi-stakeholder team of the Economic Policy Reform and Advocacy (EPRA) project, who have been working with the DA since Rationalization was first proposed. The results of EPRA’s various consultations conducted nationwide were source of peoples perceptions of need, and concern over the efficiency and responsiveness of government to the sector. Finally, public expenditure data from the National Economic and Development Authority from years 1988- 2000, from the Department of Budget and Management from years 2003- 2007, and records from the Commission on Audit from years 1999- 2000, 2002- 2005 were used to gauge performance, as well as explicate NAFC’s conduct, i.e. various operations that can only be observed with those mentioned documents.5

5 A two- year lag in transmission and processing exist in the audit of government finances. This prevents us from acquiring COA reports for 2006.


2. Overview

2.1 Institutional Weakness in the Agriculture Bureaucracy

The fruit can not fall far from the tree, and in this case, we heed the message. Concerns with NAFC must be in conjunction with the tree that bore it and this is the Department of Agriculture. Fortunately, much has been written about the DA and the governance (misgovernance) of the agricultural sector, we only need to entertain it here briefly.6

David, Ponce and Intal (1992) early after the reorganization in 1987 saw through the depression within the agricultural sector and attributed the misery (mainly) to just one cause, namely the slow and declining productivity in the sector. As corollary, the country is in a manner worse than others and unable to compete because the sector was not growing enough, thereby losing the competition.

Institutions, as conceived by North (1981), and Ruttan and Hayami (1984) had much to do with this weakness. Institutions are the rules of the game within which the economic system operates; these are the procedures by which everyone comply; conventions in society on how individuals (groups) should behave. Here we narrowly refer to agricultural institutions, e.g. from property rights for access to land, tenure systems defining relationships between farmers and land-owners, and statutes defining relationships between farmer with traders, moneylenders, and government.

Scholars observed alike that many of these rules worked against the sector,7 and as David (2002) did so emphasized

(Government) policies distorted economic incentives (…) the choice of policy instruments promoted rent seeking and raised economic cost of government interventions. Faulty design and implementation of public expenditure programs to provide public goods lowered social rates of returns of these investments (…) faulty design and inadequate enforcement of regulatory instruments limited government’s effectiveness in addressing externalities. Weaknesses in the institutional structure of property rights and land reform policies have led to inefficiencies in land market operations and contributed to degradation of natural resources (…) problems in the institutional structure of the agricultural bureaucracy lowered efficiency and effectiveness of government’s efforts to correct market failures. [Italics mine].

Macro- policy environment notwithstanding, the situation regarding the administration of agriculture, i.e. the bureaucracy’s burdens are as heavy. Again, David (various years) identified these dilemmas:

a. Overlapping and fragmentation of responsibilities across agencies; b. The differences in policy preferences, with regulations over market- based instruments, direct

production rather than indirect, public provision of otherwise private goods and services; c. Instability in leadership, with consequence down to middle management level; d. Inadequacies in the incentive structure and qualifications of staff;e. Weaknesses in the design and implementation of the devolution process.

Fragmentation and overlapping of functions present itself as the most problematic puzzle. Fragmentation persists because of the commodity- based structure of the DA which traces back to the bureaucracy’s origin; the existing structure promoted bureaucratic enclaves, where each and

6 See David, Ponce and Intal (1992). Organizing for Results: The Philippine Agricultural Sector, PIDS Working Paper No. 92-08, NEDA-Makati City. Moreover, CC David’s Philippine Agriculture’s Institutional Structure of Governance (PIDS Working Paper No. 1997-12) and Philippine Agriculture: Victim of Weak Governance (Paper delivered at PIDS Symposium Series, September 3, 2002). Also, see Ponce on Decentralizing Philippine Agricultural Extension (2000) and Agricultural Research and Extension Systems: Organizational Linkages (2003).7 See Bautista, Power and Associates (1979), Jurado (1993), David, Ponce and Intal (1992), Medalla, et al. (1994), David (various years), among many others.


every agency is a mini- kingdom with its own constituency and concerns. Coherence and harmony in policy and operations are difficult to achieve because simply there is no incentive for the agencies to work together. The arrangement leads to wastes as one agency does something which is, or was already done by another. Asymmetry in information amplifies the problem, and since there are 27 agencies that do not coordinate well, much is lost.

Fragmentation is also observed in relation to several policy choices of the DA. Depending on the objective and constituency, e.g. in regulation, fiat may be employed rather than market- based instruments; or in the conduct of providing the service, many favor direct service over outsourcing and contracting out, or continuing belief in public provision even if the service is better provided by the private sector.

Fragmentation in the agricultural research and extension system had setbacks in terms of technology generation. Resources are spread thinly over many research units, including State Colleges and Universities (SCU). Ponce (2003) points to the need to expand the department’s capacity (consolidate) so it can establish the linkage between R&D and the extension system. Because of fragmentation, R&D failed to be relevant to the needs of the farmers, and conversely, farmers fail to make use of discoveries and new technologies brought to them.

Other than overlapping functions and fragmentation, leadership turnovers have become a problem as it brings instability and uncertainty over the department’s plans and programs. Since the passage of AFMA (RA8435, c.1998), the DA had 8 secretaries. The impact of these turnovers reaches down to the middle executive level, and these changes are not without significant consequences on employee morale.

Lastly, the devolution of technical regulatory functions, on- site research and extension services is yet to be completed. Many devolved services remain with the DA and its attached agencies. The same goes for the funds that should be in local government hands, the Department as to this day holds 75% of all public appropriations in the sector, while the regional offices around 16% and the local government units to only 9%. David (2003) contends that the DA, despite the decentralization law, suffers still from over- centralization.

2.2 The National Agricultural and Fisheries Council (NAFC)

1.1 Evolution of the Organization

By virtue of Executive Order No. 116 series of 1987, the National Agricultural and Fishery Council (NAFC) was created as an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture (back in 1987, it was the Ministry of Agriculture). The agency was formerly National Food and Agricultural Council (NFAC) created under Executive Order No. 183 (s.1969), and before that as Rice and Corn Production Coordinating Council (Executive Order No. 50, s.1966), Rice and Corn Authority (Executive Order No. 62, s.1964), and originally Rice and Corn Coordinating Council (Republic Act No. 2084, s.1958). NAFC had four predecessors, and all of which performed a crucial role in the development of the countries agricultural sector. (See the Figure below).

The Rice and Corn Coordinating Council (RCCC) in 1958 was created to be the planner- executioner of the Rice and Corn Production Law. Absent the structure (and agencies) that we see at present, the RCCC is the main implementing agency, even only in an ad hoc manner (4- year implementation program of the law). Its main tasks are (1) research and experimentation of seed varieties for both rice and corn; (2) production and distribution of registered and certified seeds; (3) procurement and distribution of certified fertilizers and soil conditioners; (4) control of plant pests and plant animal diseases; (5) public agricultural information, including demonstration farms; and (6) purchase of modern rice and corn processing mills.


EVOLUTION OF NAFC from 1958-2005

1958

RCCC/ Riceand CornCoordinating Council(RA2084)

1964

RCA/ Riceand CornAuthority(EO62)

1966

RCPPC/ Riceand CornProductionProductionCoordinatingCouncil(EO50)

1969

NFAC/NationalFood andAgricultureCouncil(EO183)EO183

1981

EXPANDEDNAFC(EO754)

1980

NAFC/NationalFood andAgricultureCouncil(EO596)

1987

ReconstitutedNAFC(EO 116)

1998-2005

DAO No. 6(s-1998)DAO No. 34(s-2000)

1998

AFMA,FISHERIESCODE

1972

PD1081MARTIALLAW

1994

GATT-WTO

2004

EO 366RATIONALIZTION PLAN

2005

DAO 11(s-2005)

2003

EO174(S-2003)COUNCILON JOBSECURITYAND FOODCREATION

EDSA 1EDSA 2

EDSA 2.5

RCCC’s membership roster (12 in all) includes the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as Chairman and Coordinator; the Directors of the Bureaus of Plant Industry, Public Works, Soils, Agricultural Extension, Animal Industry, Lands, and Mines, the Dean of the U.P. College of Agriculture, a representative of the Department of General Services, the Administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA), and the Manager of the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC).

The law did not provide for sectoral representation nor consultation mechanisms and far from decentralization, which only included local government units when the program implementation concerns local areas. The RCCC reports its operations directly to the President, but also furnishes the offices of the Senate President, and the Speaker of the House.

The RCCC was eventually replaced by the Rice and Corn Authority (RCA, EO 62, s.1964), subsequently the Rice and Corn Production Coordinating Council (RCPCC, EO 50, s.1966) replacing the latter (RCA). Both agencies did not depart from the original council, and only continued implementing the same mandate and programs that promoted and strengthened the rice and corn industry, with the objective of fulfilling food sufficiency in the country.

In 1969, the National Food and Agriculture Council (NFAC, EO 183) replaced the Rice and Corn Production Council, changed considerably from one of direct implementer to an oversight and coordinating agency. NFAC was vested with the sole authority and responsibility to coordinate, supervise and integrate all programs of all agencies of the national government concerning the production, stabilization, distribution, and marketing of rice, corn, and other prime food commodities, in short, over national food production. The NFAC membership did not changed, and remained exclusive to national government agencies.


Unfortunately, there is not much in the records after NFAC and the agency may have succumbed to events leading to 1972 and after, but NFAC was resurrected and its composition redefined in 1980 through Executive Order No. 596. The EO’s rationale stated “Whereas the farmer being the main cog in the task of food production, should be represented in the council that coordinate our national food program” thus bringing peoples representatives into the council. The first peoples representatives / farmer’s organizations were Luis Taruc (representing the Federation of Agrarian and Industrial Toiling Hands, Inc.- HUKBALAHAP Veteran’s Association), Jerry U. Montemayor (Federation of Free Farmers), Ben Bautista Sr. (Federation of Farmers Association of the Philippines), Maning B. Rotea (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries), Ben Andraneda (Federation of Land Reform Farmers Association), Nellie V. Chavez (Katipunan ng mga Magsasaka sa Pilipinas), and Ambong Lumibao (Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahang Nayon sa Pilipinas ). They occupied 7 seats out of the 25 (28%) but the EO does not tell whether they had voting power or the equivalent weight in decision- making as the government representatives.8

The following year, President Marcos issued EO 754 (s. 1981), and expanded NAFC’s mandate and scope of operations. While the basic provisions of EO 183 (1969) and the new EO 754 are similar, that NFAC will coordinate, supervise, and integrate programs in food production, the expanded NFAC’s program and activities were definitely enhanced. Thus, under coordinate, supervise and integrate (Article 1), the following activities were being referred to

a. Define the goals and scope of the country's food policies, programs and plans on a continuing basis;

b. Develop long and short range food development programs based on a multi-disciplinary, inter-agency, and systems approach for the various food commodities;

c. Establish system of priorities for food production having linkages with the research, nutrition, marketing, processing, and financing sectors;

d. Provide for a systematic program for the transfer of technology and the development of agricultural extension workers as change agents;

e. Provide a mechanism for assessment of progress and adjustments in the implementation of food programs;

f. Provide for the appropriate incentives/grants to encourage its highly qualified employees to continue serving their respective areas of responsibilities;

g. Draw from and negotiate for funds, not otherwise specifically allocated in the National Budget, and all other possible fund sources, for the establishment of sufficient fund resources to support the food self-sufficiency programs;

h. Supervise, coordinate and evaluate the activities and accomplishments of all agencies of the government charged with the prosecution of the different aspects of the food self-sufficiency program. Accordingly, it shall coordinate the release of public funds in accordance with approved programs and projects in food;

i. It shall have the power and authority to call on any ministry, bureau, office, agency and other instrumentalities of the government for assistance in the form of personnel, facilities and other resources as the need arises, during the discharge of its functions;

j. It shall perform other functions as may be necessary to attain the objectives of the national food self-sufficiency program and shall discharge such other duties as the President may direct;

k. It shall have the authority to create National Management Committees that shall supervise, coordinate and manage national food programs.

Whereas under this EO, NFAC’s responsibilities, i.e. policy development, administrative and supervisory authority are in greater proportions, it does not escape the fact that Martial rule remain in place and that President Marcos runs the show.9 But two new provisions are noteworthy: Articles 1-g

8 NFAC’s government representatives include former DA Secretary Domingo Panganiban (Bureau of Plan Industry), former DA Secretary Salvador Escudero III (Bureau of Animal Industry), former UP President Emil Q. Javier (UPLB), Administrator Fiorello Estuar (NIA), former Minister Conrado Estrella (Agrarian Reform), et al.9 President Marcos lifted Martial Law in 1981 (Proclamation No. 2045 dated January 17, 1981), but his conduct until his removal in office had shown otherwise.


and 1-h are provisions that give NFAC the power to actively seek funding, and handle public funds for the DA’s programs. Particularly in this EO, NFAC gained fiscal power, and the role of bursar for food programs by the Department. With regards to the council’s membership, the same farmer’s groups sit as non- government members of the council but with a slight change in total membership, 26 in all and reducing the non-government portion to 27% or a non- government – government ratio of 7 to19.

When Corazon Aquino took over in 1986, she faced a bureaucracy that is largely disenchanted. The Reorganization Plan of 1987 moved to slay the sinking morale of most government bureaucrats. Executive Order No. 116 (s.1987) reorganized the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, giving birth to the Ministry of Agriculture (and later in the enactment of Administrative Code, Executive Order No. 292, series of 1987, transformed into the Department of Agriculture).

Here, the NFAC was renamed National Agricultural and Fisheries Council (NAFC) and the agency was handed down two mandates, namely (1) to act as advisory body to the Department, i.e. to ensure the success of programs and activities of the DA through policy recommendations, and (2) to serve as the forum for consultative and continuing discussion within the agricultural sectors from the national level replicated down to the regional, provincial and municipal levels.

Yet that decade (between 1987 and 1997), NAFC was as dormant a council as when it all started. Despite its reinstatement in EO 116, without an executing order and law that challenge the old mandates, NAFC was basically its old self. This was the case as the organization went through significant policy events with widespread impact in the sector, such as the Local Government Code (1991), the law that devolved agricultural extension services and many others to sub-national governments, or the country’s accession to the World Trade Organization (General Agreements on Tariff and Trade- Uruguay Round), signaling the liberalization of the economy and the opening of the domestic market including agricultural products, to foreign competitors. NAFC during this period ran quietly along with the Department, unfortunately without measure on its real mandate.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435) renewed all of NAFC’s directives in 1998, and Administrative Order (DAO) No. 6, AFMA’s Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) defined NAFC’s role in the implementation of the law, and these are to assist the Department of Agriculture in the monitoring and coordination of the agriculture and fisheries modernization process, and serve as the integrative and consultative structure for interagency and intersectoral collaboration in agriculture and fishery modernization.

The Council under AFMA have the following functions: (1) serve as consultative/ feedback mechanism on the policies, plans and programs of the Department of Agriculture; (2) monitors agricultural and fishery programs of all government agencies; (3) assist the DA in mobilizing and evaluating the contributions of government agencies to agriculture and fishery modernization; (4) promotes consensus on the support for national and local budgets for agriculture and fisheries; (5) assist the DA in advocacy work among concerned government agencies; and (6) support the continued development of the nationwide network of agriculture and fishery councils not only as a consultative network, but also as partners in the execution of agency functions.10

10 Rule 113.4, DAO No. 6 (s.1998). Also, the Council already provides technical and financial support in the consultation, integration, networking and monitoring of various DA and NAFC-assisted projects in the local areas. The NAFC also maintains a Special Projects Division that does special functions, specifically

a. Formulate and implements policies, plans and programs and performs activities for resource generation and the effective and efficient management of official development assistance (ODA), particularly commodity assistance programs geared toward the development of agriculture and fisheries;

b. Develops and maintains linkages for resource generation with donor governments, through their embassies, and private local and international development agencies;

c. Oversees the monetization of commodity assistance programs for agriculture and fisheries; d. Coordinates, monitors, and evaluates the implementation and provision of specific functions and activities under the Agriculture

and Fisheries Modernization (AFM) program, namely research and development, trade and fiscal matters and credit.


Following AFMA, another landmark law was passed, namely, the Fisheries Code (RA 8550). RA 8550 had put together and harmonized all laws regarding fisheries and aquatic resources, clearly communicated the need to manage and conserve the said resources, and conferred the tasks to both government and LGU- based fisheries and aquatic resource councils. The latter was designed to afford non-government and peoples organizations the chance to participate, and govern their own communities. The law had little to say about the council other than the fact that its independent National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Council (NFARMC) is to represent the subsector in the larger policy concern of the DA, and at the NAFC.

Subsequent attempts to restructure the Department in fulfillment of the requirements of the aforementioned laws could have less impact to NAFC. Executive Order No. 162 (s.1999) called for the reorientation of the agency along functional lines that is “… consistent with the principles, goals and objectives of the AFMA” (Section 1), and the review of existing structure, operational processes, systems and set-up, and mechanisms (Section 2). This has resulted to the Agricultural Bureaucracy Restructuring Plan (ABRP), a blueprint for a more efficient, effective and responsive DA.

Before ABRP’s scheduled implementation, Secretary Angara, who was the author of AFMA, also issued DAO No. 34 (s.2000) that called attention to the value of NAFC’s already established network. Reinvigorating the role of private sector in the agency, and refining the Council’s consultative mission in the context of people empowerment and participation, DAO 34 strengthened NAFC’s review powers over all the DA’s policy decisions and issuances.

Executive Order No. 338 (s.2001) gave life to ABRP, and proposed to harmonize the bureaus and attached agencies along five (5) functions, namely: (a) Extension, LGU Support and Infrastructure, (b) Research and Development, (c) Fisheries and Regulation, (d) Finance and Administration, and (e) Policy Planning and Project Development. The NAFC and other councils are nowhere under these operational functions, but instead remained with the Office of the Secretary, retaining their earlier mandates stated in AFMA, DAO No. 6 (s.1999) and 34 (s.2000). ABRP, on the other hand, never went to execution.11

The latest executive order that had substantial bearing on NAFC (administrative and otherwise) was issued by President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo. EO No. 174 (s. 2003) created the National Council on Food Security and Job Creation (a.k.a. “Food and Jobs Council”) whose main tasks are addressing the problems of poverty and employment. The EO managed to take account of AFMA and the agricultural sector, among many concerns and made NAFC the secretariat of the Food and Jobs Council.

With multiple laws adding, subtracting, and in the process complicating the agency’s existence, NAFC’s equilibrium, or present form and identity so to speak, may be inferred from its present activities, and these were manifested under four major components:

Facilitation of Private-Public Sector Consultations and Dialogues in Agriculture and Fisheries. Conduct of regular consultations and dialogues between government and private sector in agriculture and fisheries; Providing technical and administrative assistance to the members of its nationwide consultative and feedback network (local and national AFCs); This network also functions as an information delivery channel from the national to the local level, and a feedback mechanism, from the local to the national level.

Policy and Program Coordination. Coordinate the crafting and implementation of agriculture and fisheries-focused policies and programs toward integrating and harmonizing into whole; Identify policy contradictions and gaps, program and function overlaps between and among institutions, program and policy implementation weaknesses; Bring policy contradictions and gaps, program and function overlaps to the attention of authorities, and

11 The period between November 2000 and February 2001 were tumultuous for the Executive Branch. Impeachment proceedings against then President Joseph Estrada was ongoing, that later led to his resignation.


with the agency stakeholders in both private sector and government formulate and recommend measures to address these problems.

Resource Generation. Assists the government in generating resources in support of the implementation of policies, programs and projects geared toward the development of agriculture and fisheries; Develop and maintain linkages with development assistance institutions /donor countries and local agencies engaged in coordinating commodity assistance programs; Formulate measures for the effective and efficient management of official development assistance.

AFMA Monitoring. Review and report on the different initiatives implementing the requirements of the law; Assist the Congressional Oversight Committee for Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization (COCAFM) in the delivery of its functions.

In summary, the present officials and staff of the council see themselves in the following manner: (Vision) NAFC as an effective and efficient catalyst and generator of private-sector commitment and participation in developing the agriculture and fisheries sectors as a basis of a vibrant national economy; (Mission) that NAFC is a government agency committed to ensure participatory broad-based decision making in agriculture and fisheries by providing quality services to its nationwide network of private sector-led consultative councils, toward the formulation of sound policy and program recommendations for sustained countryside development. Lastly, the goal of NAFC is all about people empowerment and good governance.12

1.2 Organizational structure

1.1 The NAF Council

The present version of NAFC, as prescribed by DA Administrative Order No. 6 (AFMA-IRR), saw the council as the integrative and consultative structure for inter-agency and inter-sectoral collaboration in the activities arising from AFMA. Both government and civil society members in the sector consider the council as the highest policy- making advisory body under the AFMA regime.

With the DA Secretary and Undersecretary as Chairperson- Coordinator, and Vice Chairperson- Vice Coordinator respectively, the council’s other members are the heads of 15 national government agencies, chairpersons of the 5 national sectoral committees, chairperson of the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council, 1 representative of the Agricultural and Fishery Councils, and 8 people’s organizations and non-government organizations engaged in agriculture and fisheries issues and with operations nationwide, for a total of 32 people (listed below).13

a. Department of Agricultureb. Commission on Higher Education,c. Department of Agrarian Reform,d. Department of Budget and Management,e. Department of Education, Culture and Sports,f. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,g. Department of Finance,h. Department of Interior and Local Government,i. Department of Labor and Employment,j. Department of Public Works and Highways,k. Department of Science and Technology,l. Department of Social Services and Development,m. Department of Trade and Industry,

12 NAFC’s Vision, Mission, Goal (VMG) statement at http://nafc.da.gov.ph/misvis.php. 13 If we’re not to count the 5 consultative committees, there will only be 10 peoples representative or non- government members in the council, or 1/3 of membership (NFARMC, AFC, 8 PO /NGO/ PS). With the committees, its 15 out of 32, or ½ of membership.


http://nafc.da.gov.ph/misvis.php

n. Department of Transport and Communications,o. National Economic and Development Authority,p. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority,q. Chairpersons of the national committees of the NAFC (5),r. Representative of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council (FARMC), and 8

Representatives of key, duly organized and registered national associations of farmers, farm women, fisherfolk and concerned Pos and NGOs, appointed by the Secretary for one year, with option for reappointment.

This Council, which almost represented the entire Cabinet, was to meet at least once in a semester, or more often at the behest of the Secretary or Chairperson-Coordinator. Regrettably but quite expected, since reconstitution in 1998, the National Council has not met until recently, and this was only in late November of last year!14

Luckily, the parallel AFCs that exist at the regional, provincial, city and municipal levels (RAFC, PAFC, CAFC, and MAFC) are not as timid. By NAFC secretariat’s monitoring and report, local councils are making an effort into meeting occasionally.15 Local AFCs are organized stakeholders committed to promoting the development of agriculture and fisheries in their locality. They are led by the private sector, but not without their public sector counterparts at the local level.

The AFCs are to meet every month, conduct assessments of the development conditions and prospects of agriculture and fisheries in their locality. Local AFCs are able to assist the DA and their LGUs identify problems and constraints, and recommend measures. Specific to local governments, AFCs can help in the formulation of local development plans.

There are 15 corresponding regional AFCs across the country, plus 84 provincial and (big) city AFCs, and about 1,600 municipal and (regular) city AFCs. For technical and other needs, the local AFCs can turn to regional coordinators of the NAFC, the DA Regional Field Units, and by the provincial LGUs.

The Council’s sectoral committees are functioning as well. The NAFC have 5 committees organized along major commodity groups:

Committee on Food Crops Committee on Poultry, Livestock and Feed Crops Committee on Commercial Crops Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture Agriculture and Fisheries Mechanization Committee

The national sectoral committees are also private-sector-led, with representatives of industry and professional associations, large private firms, business chambers, persons from the business sectors, academe and government agencies. They stand as fora for consultations and public hearings on issues affecting areas of concerns, such as research, technology, extension, credit, marketing and processing; they link the private sector with government. The committees meet at least quarterly to assess the development prospects of the industry, analyze problems and policy issues, including those raised by the AFCs, and offer recommendations to government, through NAFC. The NAFC sectoral committees enjoy the participation of more than a hundred organizations, from peoples organizations to business groups from all over the Philippines.16

14 NAFC meeting conducted 30 November 2006. From SACY convenes 7th NAF Council meet Member-agency roles in DA thrusts, NAFC Website: Events, http://nafc.da.gov.ph/news/fullnews.php?id=15, accessed 6/29/2007 11:15:53 AM.15 NAFC Quarterly, various issues from 2000- 2005.16 The sectoral committee membership can be downloaded at http://nafc.da.gov.ph/PDFs/nationalsec.pdf.


http://nafc.da.gov.ph/PDFs/nationalsec.pdf

http://nafc.da.gov.ph/news/fullnews.php?id=15

1.2 The NAFC Secretariat

The NAFC Secretariat was put in charge of organizing and coordinating the council’s work.17 Whereas the laws mentioned earlier assigned various responsibilities to NAFC, it is only with the full mobilization of the secretariat that fulfillment of these responsibilities is possible. For this reason, the Secretariat is an agency within NAFC, with structure and an assigned task to satisfy. And as it was spelled out by law, the Secretariat has an Executive Director with the equivalent rank of an Assistant Secretary, and below him are four (4) departments, namely: (1) Agriculture and Fishery Support Staff that monitors the provision of various support services to clientele through the network of government and non-government agencies and entities; (2) Sectoral Coordination Staff that provides secretariat services for the participatory process of decision-making and resource allocation for the various sectors, integrating issues, concerns and positions; (3) Institutional Development and Linkages Staff, that carries out the NAF Council’s agenda to build and nurture linkages and partnerships with all entities concerned with agriculture and fisheries modernization; and (4) Finance, Administration and General Services Staff that provides logistical services to the NAF Council and the Secretariat.

In 1995, the complements of NAFC showed 266 filled positions (David, 1997). Back then, the Local Government Code is barely in effect, and devolution of personnel and deconcentration of authority and function are ongoing. A decade after, the 2005 government staff registry tells us that NAFC have 165 personnel left, or a decrease in number by 62%.18 This is only to show how much the agency had to work with, given the mandates, their functions and list of activities.

(NAFC Organizational Structure).

SECRETARIATNational Agriculture and Fisheries Council

17 Rule 113.5 of DAO No. 6 states The Secretariat and staff of the NAF Council shall mobilize and strengthen its resources and structure in order to serve the requirements of the NAF Council and the AFMP.18 Data for 1995 was from David (1997), while the 2005 figure was from DBM’s Government Staffing Summary which can be found at http://www.dbm.gov.ph.


http://www.dbm.gov.ph/

With regards to the agency’s funding, the Council’s budget history go way back to 1988, when NAFC just started under the new DA. The agency enjoyed a three (3) year adjustment period before financial resources were cut drastically. The NAFC office suffered cuts beginning 1991, and only regained its past high in 1997. Circumstances on what transpired must be explicated somewhere, for now we can only note the trend. In 1999, after AFMA’s passage, the agency budget jumped by 55%, an additional PhP 30 million over the previous year’s budget. The item to which it (Php 30 million) was allotted read Implementation of prototype agricultural and fisheries enterprise development program sourced from an AFMA grant.19 The following year, allotment for this item doubled to PhP 70 million, bringing the NAFC’s total resources for the year 2000 to PhP 123 million. Except for 2003 and 2004 where the agency’s budget slump to a low (AFMA grant was reduced), the NAFC budget for the most part grew rapidly at double- digit rate.

Year NG Budget (‘000) Growth Year NG Budget (‘000) Growth1988 38,909 - 1998 54,660 17.2%1989 45,612 17.2% 1999 84,850 55.2%1990 47,852 4.9% 2000 123,023 45.0%1991 39,410 -17.6% 2001 422,213 243.2%1992 32,820 -16.7% 2002 469,732 11.3%1993 33,979 3.5% 2003 166,513 -64.6%1994 35,927 5.7% 2004 135,841 -18.4%1995 38,335 6.7% 2005 183,667 35.2%1996 42,682 11.3% 2006 384,695 109.5%1997 46,627 9.2% 2007 473,430 23.1%Source: For years 1988-2000, the NEDA Database Online, 2001- 2007 from COA Reports, the General Appropriations Act, National Expenditure Program, and Budget Expenditures and Sourcesof Financing, DBM various years.

The agency received a budget total of PhP 183.6 million for the year 2005. For 2006 and 2007, NAFC’s budget (as submitted to Congress) have amounted to PhP384.7 million and PhP 473.4 million respectively. Without its AFMA share, NAFC’s regular budget places the agency in the 5th

place among 11 agencies (including the Office of the Secretary). But with AFMA, it comes to 3rd after the Secretary and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).

2.3 NAFC Status and Accomplishment

How does the NAFC operationalizes its mandates is reflected in the activities it had undertaken. To review, NAFC’s statement of activities are as follows:

Activity 1 Monitors agricultural and fishery programs of all government agencies; Activity 2 Assists DA in mobilizing and evaluating the contributions of government agencies to

agriculture and fishery modernization; Activity 3 Promotes consensus on the support for national and local budgets for agriculture

and fisheries; Activity 4 Assists DA in supervising and assessing the impact of Strategic Agriculture and

Fisheries Modernization; and Activity 5 Reviews and recommend for the DA Secretary’s approval reports to the

Congressional Oversight Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization.

19 The COA report identified the monetized commodity grants from PL480 and others as sources.


The information below shows inputs as well as outputs of NAFC’s year long activities for fiscal year 2005. For comparison purposes, the same table for years 2003 and 2004 were reproduced as annexes.

1.3.1 Information, Education / Training Component

NAFC sees its extension- support, education and training component as one of providing training to AFC members. For 2004 and 2005 it had only targeted one (1) training activity, to a group of AFC members numbering 30-35. It also reported distributing thousands of published IEC materials, and updating its website as part of its accomplishment.

2005 Activity / Component Input / Output Indicator Target Actual %AccExtension Support, Education and Training Services

No. of trainings conducted 1 1 100%

No. of AFC members trained 35 33 94%

No. of IEC /Advocacy materials distributed

40,500 40,683 100%

Information Support Services No. of Website Updated 1 1 100%

Source: NAFC Audit Report, Commission on Audit, 2005.

1.3.2 On policy development and advocacy

To fulfill its mandate as an advisory body that ensures the success of programs and activities of the DA, NAFC maintains a policy development and advocacy component. Shown are the inputs and outputs to these activities.

2005 Activity / Component

Input / Output Indicator Target Actual %Acc

Policy Formulation, Planning and Advocacy Services

No. of consultation/ workshops conducted

779 604 78%

No of policy agenda prepared 772 593 77%No. of resolutions/ position papers endorsed

556 435 78%

No. of plans and profiles distributed 1,711 2,648 155%No. of agreements / commitments forged / MOA

12 12 100%

No. of programs and projects approved

2 2 100%

No. of Policy studies/Assessment 29 25 86% No. of reports disseminated 3,207 3,640 114%Source: NAFC Audit Report, Commission on Audit, 2005.

1.3.3 Resource generation, monetization and management of commodity grants / ODA

A special division within NAFC undertakes the activities that fall under this component. Currently, NAFC manages four commodity grants under the following bilateral agreements:


RP- Japan grant assistance for underprivileged farmers (also known as KR2/ Kennedy Round Program)

Grant assistance by the Japanese Government that aims to support efforts in the agriculture sector that increases agriculture productivity and incomes of small farming and fishing families. It is used in funding various agricultural and fishery-based income-generating projects, research and development and institutional development projects.

Japanese Non-Project Type Grant

Grant assistance by the Japanese Government on non-project-specific official development assistance awarded by the Japanese Government to a select number of partner-countries around the world. It aims to help alleviate economic difficulties being experienced by recipient-countries and help promote structural adjustments in the country.

US Public Law 480 Title I Program

Loan with a grant component by the US Government that provides for government-to-government sale on credit of US commodities under long-term, concessional arrangement. This also include commodity sale to private entities. Payment of the commodities is expected over 30 years with a grace period of seven years, and interest premium of only 1%. Beneficiaries of the program are developing countries that find it difficult to provide for the food needs of its citizens through commercial sources because of foreign exchange problems.

Section 416-B , US Agricultural Act of 1949

Grant assistance by the US Government provides for overseas donation of surplus commodities to help carry out assistance programs in developing countries. The Philippine has time and again been awarded commodity grant under the program.

The above mentioned grants are used in support of the objectives of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), and specifically programs and projects conceived by the Department. In both budget books and audit reports, part of the monetized grants were disbursed by NAFC starting 1999.

Year Regular Budget

AFMA/ Grants

Total NAFC Budget

Year Regular Budget

AFMA/ Grants

Total NAFC Budget

1988 38,909 0 38,909 1998 54,660 0 54,660

1989 45,612 0 45,612 1999 54,850 30,000 84,850

1990 47,852 0 47,852 2000 53,023 70,000 123,023

1991 39,410 0 39,410 2001 51,107 231,700 422,213*

1992 32,820 0 32,820 2002 55,274 399,150 469,732

1993 33,979 0 33,979 2003 52,810 113,703 166,513

1994 35,927 0 35,927 2004 55,502 83,094 135,841

1995 38,335 0 38,335 2005 54,257 129,410 183,667

1996 42,682 0 42,682 2006 53,347 331,348 384,695

1997 46,627 0 46,627 2007Prop**

54,649 418,781 473,430

2007GAA**

51,852 0 51,852

Source: NEDA Database online; DBM-NEP 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007; GAA 2003, 2005, 2007.

*Because of Unobligated releases for MOOE, RA 8760**Prop (as Proposed in the National Expenditure Program); GAA (General Appropriations Act).


EO 754 (s.1981) and DAO 6 (s.1998) have established the NAFC as the agency in charge of agriculture- related Official Development Assistance, and of monetizing grants for the Department. What is not clear is if it has the same authority to use the grant that it started receiving starting AFMA’s implementation in 1999.

The unit that was established to administer this task, the Special Project’s Division, appeared competent to have raised so much for the sector. The 2005 COA audit report shows that NAFC have in escrow with the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) around PhP9.54 billion. Additional accounts in 2005 include notes receivables amounting to PhP713.88 million from the grants mentioned, the proceeds of which go directly to the Treasury.

2.3.4NAFC Vehicle Loan Fund for Government Employees

On the side, the Council also administers a Special Vehicle Loan Fund (SVLF) Program that guarantees motorcycle loans to government employees actively engaged in agricultural development, the rationale being for (their) increased mobility and improved performance. It is a serious program requiring NAFC to provide a guaranty deposit of PhP360 million (in 2005). This guaranty means government employees can avail of SVLF from the Philippine National Bank.

2.3.5Interagency Fund Management and Disbursement

Finally, in all this confusion on what NAFC is supposed to be doing vis-à-vis its mandate, adds the (fund) management of several DA program, and sector- related activities, including Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other special purpose allocations negotiated between Congress and the President. NAFC stands in the middle of the disbursement process, serving as “fund conduit”, i.e. connect the fund allocation to the recipients identified by the program, or in the case of PDAF, by legislators. These activities and projects have budgets that run into hundred of millions, thus between FY2000 and 2005, PhP 707.2 million flowed through NAFC (average of PhP 117 million worth of transaction per year).

To make this happen, NAFC signed memorandum of agreements (MOA) with other government agencies, legislators, local governments, and non- government and peoples organizations. Disbursements are authorized by the Budget Department (DBM) through Notice of Cash Allocations (NCA), and in the case of special purpose funds, Special Allotment Release Orders (SARO). NAFC then transfers the funds to these recipients directly, or thru the DA Regional Field Units.

The COA report on NAFC gives details on these fund transfers, the programs and activities, the allocation source and names of primary and secondary recipients, and the amount transferred. As of December 2005, PhP346.9 million has already been transferred to NGO/ POs, sourced from special purpose funds, i.e. Countryside Development Fund (CDF), Countryside Initiative Allocations (CIA), Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), and various Food Security Programs from prior years.

Step 1

Appropriationthrough the GAA:Special Purpose

Funds(CDF, CIA, PDAF,

Food SecurityPrograms, GMA Rice

and Corn, etc)

Step 2

Coordination /Identification of

recipients.Negotiation betweenthe Executive and

Legislative Branches(Office of the

President, DBM,DA,LGU, other

agencies)

Step 3

MOA between DA,NAFC and recipient

agencies,organizations. DAtransfers funds to

NAFC.

Step 4

Upon DBMclearance (issuance

of NCA, SARO)NAFC releases to

recipients.

Fund Conduit Service Provided by NAFC


3. Discussion

To start with, the realities of organizational design and administrative behavior create headaches for those trying to summarize them. Those who design departments (with due respect to them) are guided only partly by psychological and economic theories, none of which are definitive. For the most part, officials respond pragmatically to the pressures of the day, and pattern organizations so that it may have wide appeal, and assign powers to offices and individuals (positions) with many considerations. What is important in these matters is that we consider the influence of a group (groups) or key individuals (personalities), and what will happen if certain power is assigned to certain administrators.

It is apparent that the reform of NAFC may be less controversial if it were not handling billions in AFMA grant money that later converts to special purpose funds. If it were simply a policy monitoring and consultative agency that needs tweaking, this review will have been academic and stale, but (fortunately for this paper) it is not.

NAFC’s history reveals half the story. It started as one of the closest agencies behind the sector, and at one time, being the lead agency behind the Department (1958-1968). During the implementation of the Rice and Corn program, it performed for the sector both staff and line function, and the agency remained in this position of responsibility for those years. Understandably, NAFC’s relationship with the Office of the Secretary will always be suspect to being fused de facto with the latter. The present could have been otherwise but not and this was made possible by NAFC’s continuing secretariat role that is assigned with or dedicated to the Council, but specifically with the Secretary’s office. Unlike other agencies, i.e. commodity- specific offices which have their own programs and subsector to worry about, NAFC’s agenda without its governing Council will be at the discretion of the Coordinator (the Secretary of the DA), technically.

Yet NAFC’s past also revealed that the council was not a broad consultative body to begin with. It is a highly centralized coordinating agency with a Secretary-level membership, definitely difficult to gather, and more difficult if one expects it to churn out a defined policy output. The previous councils existed only for the purpose of passing along information from the DA to other departments, inversely, other departments and agencies in the aid of the DA in accomplishing crucial laws (e.g. Rice and Corn Law between 1958-1968; AFMA since 1999). Considering that past council members (administrators) now head the Department, one cannot dismiss the possibility, arguably it is very likely that old attitudes and orientation have carried on until the present.

The problems of the whole agricultural bureaucracy have been instrumental in obscuring the identity of NAFC. With bureau and agency mandates, function and activities all in a complicated mix, the council is hard-pressed not to be an exemption. Moreover, the same circumstances have limited what the council can do, as it did found difficulty in monitoring and integrating policies during the past fifty years. The consequence of all these was to fall back to routines, and borrow credence and legitimacy by retreating into the department Secretary’s wing.

History considered, NAFC’s dismal performance can only be an offshoot. In performing to be an extension of the Office of the Secretary, it had focused on its menial information dissemination role. Conveniently, the sectoral committees are called together for this purpose, when it can do more. Given the mandate to give policy recommendation to the Department, the council had at its disposal the infrastructure of participation to draw from. Credibility and legitimacy of any policy decision could have followed on account of participation and transparency in the process. But it failed to convene the Council as required by AFMA, worse activities are not known to stakeholders. As far as consultative mechanisms and participation are concerned, NAFC was a non-functioning stakeholder’s council.

Using the agency’s budget this time around, one is perplexed with what the NAFC Secretariat does with PhP 473 million in public funds (fiscal year 2007). Definitely, website updating does not cost this much, but seriously, this is a budget that is bigger compared to most agencies and bureaus in the DA.


A closer look had shown that the NAFC Secretariat’s annual operations can only cost PhP 54 million average for the last five (5) years 2003-2007. And as it was pointed out earlier, additional allocations have only appeared starting 1999, the period when AFMA began implementation. What programs and activities fall under the remaining amount (PhP 200 million average) remain a mystery, since neither the NAFC secretariat had targeted or listed such program and activities, nor the NAF Council and the different sectoral committees have programs and activities to be funded. All of this falls down to discussing a less known fact, an arrangement that also figures substantially in the problematique, and this is NAFC functioning as a fund conduit to the DA.

Again, PhP 54 million should be sufficient to cover the current regular NAFC Secretariat operations, its consultative mandate included. And the remaining hundreds of millions were spent to operations not of the Council, but the Office of the Secretary and other government agencies. As far as the governing Council and committee stakeholders are concerned, neither have anything to do with the disbursement of this larger part of NAFC’s budget. Yet to begin with, the targeting and appropriation of this sum were only known to a select number of people, namely the Office of the DA Secretary, the Department of Budget and Management, several legislators, and the President.

The irony of it all was NAFC (presumably the DA too) must have worked so hard to make those grants happen, last counted by the Commission on Audit to have reached PhP 10 billion in 2005, but only to loose it to politicians wanting a piece of the pie for self- serving political reasons. The foreign grants are available and being accessed to this day.

Many would be disappointed, including the ODA donors, that money earmarked to support AFMA (for agricultural modernization, support for underprivileged farmers and other reasons) are repackaged as Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) and other special purpose allocations, which everyone knows, is technical- speak for pork- barrel. Sadly, as pork barrel funds go, most are not accounted and (most likely that) the funds were pocketed. To date, NAFC still has to answer its participation in the “fertilizer scam”, i.e. overpriced liquid (foliar) fertilizers distributed in selected areas around the country (Please refer to COA’s Report on NAFC, FY2005). Moreover, there are other lapses, e.g. PDAF, GMA Rice and Corn Program, and many others, were given to questionable recipients, specifically non- existent NGO and POs. In the end, what made the practice unpardonable was the fact that COA found similar transgressions in the past, and raised the problems to NAFC and the DA every year since 1998, but the agency and the DA ignored the State Auditor’s warning and continued.

4. Options and Concluding Comments

The fragmentation and overlapping of functions in the agricultural bureaucracy did not sit well with the sector, as it did cost the country overtime. As each agency had both line and staff functions, i.e. a little bit of everything from training, to research and policy formulation, none of which did good and definitely made things difficult for everyone, for farmers and fishers the most.

NAFC suffered from this problem as well, with hands dipped to too many tasks. Policy development but with little coordination to what is already being done by attached research agencies in the Department and other mini- research desks within bureaus; monitoring and integration hampered by semi-autonomous attitude, and dissonance between agencies; resource generation and utilization that is neither transparent nor participatory, and only accountable to itself, and a select few, but not the agricultural sector and certainly not to the people.

The current NAFC was envisioned by its framers as a policy advisory agency and consultative venue. These twin mandates are not mutually exclusive and one just fulfills the other. Monitoring and integrating agricultural policies come from having 15 of the executive departments sitting in the Council, sharing information and strategies on how to best implement the laws regarding the sector. While consultation is at the very start of the process, with other departments and government agencies, and more importantly with peoples representatives sitting with them. Policies are then enriched and validated by the network of private business and non- profit, development- oriented


NGOs and POs, and through the sector committees, where commodity –specific policies are discussed. Finally, implementation issues and others arising from communities have the local AFC backbone to go to.

Needless to say, the process of participation and consultation gives the stakeholders ownership over the outputs and results while from a technical point of view, policies that went through this process have a better chance of getting implemented since (other than the sense of ownership) it achieves the purpose of possible (near) completeness of information (benefiting from collective anticipation of all possible risks).

Reforming NAFC appears simply as sticking to its mandates, as it was meant to be: acting as an advisory body to the Department, its position and recommendations arising from its monitoring and integrating functions, and done through the consultative nature of the agency that encourage participation to the fullest. However, before embarking on this task, the agency must carry no organizational baggage, and that it should not be constrained by its history. Otherwise, an identity crisis results and will present problems that is similar to what we have now.

Delinking politics and NAFC will be asking the impossible; besides, it is government that we are dealing with in the first place. The NAFC can be improved if it becomes a full time staff office under the Secretary, providing administrative and financial support to the OS. The NAFC secretariat as it stands now currently fills this void: the monitoring and evaluation of programs, and the management of DA’s special projects, as well as the logistics. Resource generation and utilization, i.e. ODA and monetization of commodity and food grants are better handled by the OS directly, in a transparent manner preferably. And when all of this is done, the entity will not be the Council that everyone is yearning for, nor is it the organ that was created in DAO No. 6 of RA 8435, and DAO No. 34. It will just be simply another secretariat providing general service however, this time it is one that is clearly and explicitly under the Office of the Secretary.

On the other hand, the NAF Council and its network of sectoral committees and local AFCs are indispensable. As times favor to realize the wave in democratizing governance, participation venues are entry points that afford people the voice in decision- making. This said, 15 cabinet Secretaries may be the membership that the council needs for the integrative function, but not its consultative one. If this is the case, the integrative mission should also be passed along to the general secretariat of the Office of the Secretary, and or coordinated with the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and to the Cabinet Cluster on Agriculture. The Council will be better off with only the DA, along with an inclusive membership from private business and peoples organizations, and the equivalent social infrastructure at the local level. The reference mark for the design of the Council can be the National Anti- Poverty Commission (NAPC), with sector- based memberships that are institutionalized into government’s anti- poverty alleviation programs, and representation elected among organizations registered with that sector. The other one can be the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMC) that is embedded to the governance structure of every fishery office. Both may not have ideal outcomes to date especially for the poor and the fisherfolk, one can only highlight the extended hand given to the marginal and disenfranchised sectors, and is being offered here as starting point.

A new NAFC will greatly benefit from the service of a dedicated secretariat, which will coordinate and implement the administrative requirements of consultation. The technology required is on the side of encouraging participation, of promoting an inclusive agricultural sector membership. Facilitating peoples demands with government will be the main thrust. Harmonizing commodity-specific position and other sector concerns within CSOs are challenges waiting. It is very important that the DA support the Council, for it is here that they can find legitimacy and build credibility; CSO’s will be best to support the institutionalization of participation, but should not get “captured” in the process.

In conclusion, there is a need to break NAFC from the hold of its past. Reorienting might work, but it would be better to start anew instead. The present Secretariat is better off to continue doing its work with the Office of the DA Secretary, as clearly there is need. This “general secretariat” work can


include the monitoring, integration, harmonization and development of agricultural policies. Resource generation and ODA utilization are also better off with the same secretariat, under the Secretary’s marketing and finance arms.

The recreation and reinstallation of the NAF Council is warranted, and its structure and mandate redefined. To continue on its policy advisory role, it must have capacity. The new NAFC with its CSO partners must develop technical capability for policy monitoring and analysis. This requirement is important to both so that each can support the other. Within NAFC, keeping the committees along commodities is advised, basically because people and communities think naturally along their produce and or line of work. Technically, there will be economies of scale in commodity- based experiences, i.e. similar interests.

NAFC’s equally important role as an arena for consultation and participation requires the agency to be all inclusive. The DA must take cue from the Constitution (Article XIII, Sections 15-16)

The state shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interest and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

Consultation and participation only need to be wary about ‘capture’ by private interests and this can be deterred through an inclusive Council, where no interest dominates and the share of political power is equal. Relevant to local AFCs is the link to local decision- making venues. Unlike the FARMC structure, local AFCs are not integrated into local structures, and come as national government creations. Local AFCs are in a better position to influence agricultural policies if and when institutionalized to local processes.


REFERENCES

BOOKS , JOURNALS, WORKING PAPERS

Balisacan, A and Hill, H. (2003). Philippines Economy: Development, Policies and Challenges, ADMU Press: Quezon City.

Bautista, Power and Associates (1979). Industrial Promotion in the Philippines, PIDS, NEDA- Makati City.

de Dios, and Associates (ed.) Poverty, Growth and the Fiscal Crisis, PIDS, NEDA- Makati City.

Jurado, G. (1993). Industrial and Trade Policy for Poverty Eradication, in de Dios, and Associates (ed.) Poverty, Growth and the Fiscal Crisis, PIDS, NEDA- Makati City.

David, C. (1997). Philippine Agriculture’s Institutional Structure of Governance PIDS Working Paper No. 1997-12, NEDA- Makati City.

__________ (2002). Philippine Agriculture: Victim of Weak Governance Paper delivered at PIDS Symposium Series, September 3, 2002, NEDA-Makati City.

_________ (2003). Agriculture, Chapter 5 in Balisacan and Hill (ed.) Philippines Economy, ADMU Press: Quezon City.

David, Ponce and Intal (1992). Organizing for Results: The Philippine Agricultural Sector, PIDS Working Paper No. 92-08, NEDA-Makati City.

Drucker, P. (1986). Managing for Results, Harper Perennial: New York.

Fulmer, R. (1979). Management and Organization: Introduction to Theory and Practice of Modern Business, Barnes & Noble, New York.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation, Harper Business: New York.

Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995). The Reengineering Revolution: A Hand Book, Harper Business: New York.

Medalla and Associates (1994). Catching Up with Asia’s Tiger, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, NEDA- Makati City.

North, D. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History, Norton: New York.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Penguin: New York.Ponce, E. (2000). Decentralizing Philippine Agricultural Extension, from the Integration of Agricultural Research and Extension, Asian Productivity Organization (APO).

_________ (2003). Agricultural Research and Extension Systems: Organizational Linkages, Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS), World Bank.

Ponce, E. (2006). DA Rationalization: Key Features, power point presented to the National Advocacy Forum on Fisheries and Fiscal Reform, Sulo Hotel, September 11, 2006.

Ruttan and Hayami (1984). Towards a Theory of Induced Institutional innovation, Journal of Development Studies 20, No.4 (July), pp. 203-223.


Sharkansky, I. (1982). Public Administration: Agencies, Policies and Politics, Freeman: New York.

Scott, WR (1987). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Prentice Hall: New York.

Suleiman, E. ed.(1984). Bureaucracies and Policy Making, Holmes & Meier: New York.

LAWS

Department of Agriculture Administrative OrdersDAO 6 (s.1998). Implementing Rules and Regulations AFMADAO 34 (s.2000) Strengthening the NAFC

Executive Orders / Series (Year Issued)EO 62 (s.1964). Creating the Rice and Corn Authority (RCA)EO 50 (s.1966). Creating the Rice and Corn Production Coordinating Council (RCPCC)EO 183 (s.1969).Creating the National Food and Agriculture Council (NFAC)EO 596 (s.1980). Redefining NAFCEO 754 (s.1981). Expanding NAFCEO 116 (s.1987). Renaming the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as Ministry of Agriculture, Reorganizing its units; integrating all offices and agencies whose functions relate to agriculture and fishery into the ministry and for other purposesEO 292 (s.1987). Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987EO 162 (s.1999). Reorienting the Functions and Operations of the Department of AgricultureEO 338 (s.2001). Restructuring the Department of Agriculture, Providing Funds thereof and for other purposesEO 172 (s.2003). Creation of the National Council on Food Security and Job CreationEO 366 (s.2004) Rationalization Order (Strategic Review Of The Operations And Organizations Of The Executive Branch And Providing Options And Incentives For Government Employees Who May Be Affected By The Rationalization Of The Functions And Agencies Of The Executive Branch)

Republic Act / Series (Year Issued)RA 2084 (1958). The Rice and Corn Production Act, also creating the Rice and Corn Coordinating Council (RCCC)RA 7160 (1991). Act Providing for the Local Government CodeRA 8435 (1998). Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA)RA 8550 (1998). Act Providing for the Fisheries Code

OTHER GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Department of Agriculture- Change Management TeamThe Change Process Newsletter, Various Issues

Department of Budget and ManagementBudget Expenditures and Sources of Financing, years 2003- 2007National Expenditure Program, years 2003- 2007General Appropriations Act, years 2003, 2005, 2007

Commission on Audit Audit Report on the National Agricultural and Fisheries Council, years 1999- 2005


EPRA (ECONOMIC POLICY AND REFORM AGENDA) CONFERENCE, PROCEEDINGS

Agriculture Policy Reform Agenda Consultation Workshop, Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City, May 30, 2005.

Agriculture Policy Reform Agenda Consultation Workshop, DA Region 7 Conference Hall, Guadalupe, Cebu City, June 3, 2005.

Caucus of Development NGO (CODE-NGO) Luzon Consultation Workshop on the Agriculture Policy Reform Agenda, BSWM, Department of Agriculture, Quezon City June 8, 2005.

Making Agriculture Programs Work for the Poor: Policy Discussions On Coconut, Fisheries, And Sustainable Agriculture, NSQCS Conference Room, Bureau of Plant Industry, Dept. of Agriculture, Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, August 22-23, 2006

WEBSITE SOURCES

Department of Agriculture, http://www.da.gov.ph.Department of Budget and Management, http://www.dbm.gov.ph. NEDA Agricultural Statistics Database, http://www.neda.gov.ph.NAFC News and Features, http://nafc.da.gov.ph/news.

ANNEXES

Annex 1.A: NAFC Accomplishments, 2004 and 2005

Annex 1.B NAFC Accomplishments, 2003 and 2004

Annex 2 Fund Conduit / Transfer Services, Sample Table from the COA- Audit of NAFC for 2005

Annex 3 NAFC Cash Flow Statement, FY 2005

Annex 4 NAFC Disbursement to NGO- POs, Foliar Liquid Fertilizer Scam


http://nafc.da.gov.ph/news

http://www.neda.gov.ph/

http://www.dbm.gov.ph/

http://www.da.gov.ph/

Annex 1.A: NAFC Accomplishments, 2004 and 2005

Program/ProjectActivity

PerformanceIndicator

Target2005

Accomp-lishment

2005

PercentAccom-Plished

Target2004

Accomp-lishment

2004

PercentAccom-plished

1. Extension Support, Education and

Training Services

1.1 No. of trainings conducted

1.2 No. of AFC members trained

1.3 No. of IEC /Advocacy materials distributed

1

35

40,500

1

33

40,683

100.00 %

94.28 %

100.45 %

1

30

40,500

1

30

29,526

100.00 %

100.00 %

72.90 %2. Information

Support Services

2.1 No. of website updated 1 1 100 % 1 1 100 %

3. Policy Formulation, Planning and Advocacy Services

3.1 No. of consultation/

workshops conducted

3.2 No of policy agendaPrepared

3.3 No. of resolutions/position papersendorsed

3.4 No. of plans and Profiles distributed3.5 No. of agreements / Commitments forged3.6 No. of programs and projects approved3.6 No. of Policy Studies/Assessments conducted

3.7 No. of reports disseminated

779

772

556

1,711

12

2

29

3,207

604

593

435

2,648

12

2

25

3,640

77.54 %

76.81 %

78.23 %

154.76 %

100.00 %

100.00 %

86.21 %

113.50 %

764

764

460

8

-

3

120

-

750

743

526

9

-

3

123

-

98.17 %

97.25 %

114.35 %

112.50 %

-

100.00 %

102.50 %

-

Source: COA Audit Report of NAFC, CY2005.


Annex 1.B: NAFC Accomplishments, 2003 and 2004

Program/Project/Activity

Performance Indicator

Target2004

Accom-Plishment2004


Target2003

Accom-Plishment2003


1. Extension Support, Education and Training Services

1.1 No. of trainings conducted1.2 No. of AFC members trained1.3 No. of IEC materials distributed

1

30

1

30

100%

100%

90,963 59,007 65%

2. Information Support Services

2.1 No. of website updated

1 1 100%

3. Policy Formulation, Advocacy Services

3.1 No. of consultation and workshops conducted3.2 No. of policy agenda prepared3.3 No. of resolutions/ position papers endorsed3.4 No. of plans and profiles distributed3.5 No. of policy studies conducted3.6 No. of programs and and projects endorsed3.7 No. of advocacy materials distributed

764

764

460

8

120

3

40,500

750

743

526

9

123

3

29,526

98%

97%

114%

113%

103%

100%

73%

629

629

4

1

211

211

500

500

4

1

87

284

79%

79%

100%

100%

41%

135%

Source: COA Audit Report of NAFC, CY2004.


Annex 2: Fund Conduit Services, Sample YearSource: COA Audit of NAFC, FY2005 (Annex 1.B)


Annex 3. Cash Flow Statement, FY2004 vs. 2005 Source: COA Audit of NAFC, FY2005


Annex 4: DA- NAFC Disbursements to NGO- POs, Foliar Liquid Fertilizer Scam

Schedule of Estimated Excess Cost of Foliar Fertilizers Purchased by NGOs Based on Project Proposal & Liquidation Reports

A B C D E F G H ILBP Chk

No.Location

of purchase/d

elivery

Name of NGO

Brand Name

Description Quantity Price per Unit

Amount (D x E)

Canvass Price*

Amount per Canvass (D x

G)

Amount of Excess Cost

(F - H)

93741 Region 11 1. POPDFI not provided Foliar liquid 2,185 bots @ 800 1,748,000.00 180.00/li. 393,300.00 1,354,700.00

(Compostela Valley) fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter93743 Region 8 2. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 2,185 bots @ 800 1,748,000.00 180.00/li. 393,300.00 1,354,700.00

(Leyte) fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter93744 Region 1 3. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 2,187 bots. @ 800 1,749,600.00 165.00/li. 360,855.00 1,388,745.00

(La Union) fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter93745 Region 10 4. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 2,185 bots @ 800 1,748,000.00 180.00/li. 393,300.00 1,354,700.00

(Camiguin) fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter93845 3,125 bots** @ 800

Region 8 5. PSDFI not provided 1 li./bot. per liter 2,496,000.00 180.00/li. 561,600.00 1,934,400.00(Leyte) 3,120 bots***

@ 1 liter/bot.93846 Region 10 6. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 3,125 bots** @ 800 2,496,000.00 180.00/li. 561,600.00 1,934,400.00

(Camiguin) fertilizer 1 li./bot. per liter3,120 bots***@1 liter/bot.

93847 Region 11 7. POPDFI not provided Foliar liquid 3,125 bots** @ 800 2,496,000.00 180.00/li. 561,600.00 1,934,400.00(Compostel fertilizer 1 li./bot. per litera Valley) 3,120 bots***@

1 liter/bot.93848 Region 3 8. POPDFI not provided Foliar liquid 3,125 bots** @ 800 2,496,000.00 150.00/li. 468,000.00 2,028,000.00

Nueva Ecija fertilizer 1 li./bot. per liter3,120 bots***@1 liter/bot.

93851 Region 1 9. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 3,125 bots** @ 800 2,497,600.00 82.5 257,565.00 2,240,035.00La Union fertilizer 1 li./bot. per 500ml per

3,122 bots***@ 500ml****


500ml/bot.93868 CAR 10. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 280 bots @ 800 224,000.00 165.00/li. 46,200.00 177,800.00

Benguet fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter93872 Region 6 11. PSDFI not provided Foliar liquid 937 bots. @ 800 749,600.00 180.00/li. 168,660.00 580,940.00

Negros fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per literOccidental

94023 Region 7 12. POPDFI not provided Foliar liquid 375 bots. @ 800 300,000.00 180.00/li. 67,500.00 232,500.00Bohol fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter

94159 Region 2 13. POPDFI not provided Foliar liquid 1.580 bots @ 1,500.00 2,370,000.00 180.00/li. 260,700.00 2,109,300.00Cagayan Valley fertilizer 1 liter/bot. per liter

TOTAL 27,516 nots. P 23,118,800.00 4,494,180.00 18,624,620.00

* Based on P 150.00 per canvass in Region 3(copy attached), mark-up of 10% for transportation cost & another 10% for shipping cost is added depending on the regional location.**** Based on canvass price of P 150/li. In Region 3 plus mark-up on transportation & shipping costs divided by 2.Note: Quantity used in the computation for F Column was based on the quantity stated in the Liquidation Report.Source: COA Audit of NAFC, FY 2005 (Annex 1.C)


national agricultural and fisheries council: the challenge ...€¦ · for such, and as manifested...

Documents