What to do with agriculture in 2016 and beyond (Part 2)
Our slow progress in the attainment of our national economic and social development goals trace their roots to a large extent to the relative lack of productivity in agriculture. Pervasive poverty, underemployment, high food prices and malnutrition could be attributed to the failure of the agriculture sector to contribute significantly to the growth of our economy. The 1.7% rate of growth of agriculture, not even matching population growth, during the last five years (2011-2015) is symptomatic of this malaise.
And yet the ingredients to make agriculture move forward, to make it more productive, competitive, sustainable and economically rewarding to our millions of small farmers and fisherfolk are largely in place. Our moderate tropical environment and rainfall with irrigation make yearround growing possible. Our vast fisheries resources, carefully managed, should provide a sustainable supply of affordable, quality animal proteins in our diets. We have a fairly educated workforce and a modest but working higher education and scientific research infrastructure in agriculture. We have an established and increasingly competitive food and beverage manufacturing subsector. Progressive legislations are in place with the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997 and the Fisheries Code of 1998, and a palpable improving political will to support agriculture as manifested by the expanding congressional appropriations for the Department of Agriculture (DA).
The members of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP), most of whom are senior citizens but with broad international experience in agricultural development, are dismayed but not fazed by the anemic standing of Philippine agriculture. The challenge of modernizing Philippine agriculture is huge and complex but as President Fidel Valdez Ramos keeps exhorting us: KAYA NATIN ITO!
There is no single magic bullet that will cure all the ills of Philippine agriculture. We need to marshall and direct our resources along four major platforms of reform, namely:
•Reform of the bureaucracy of the DA,
•Meaningful participation of stakeholders in the governance of agriculture,
•Continuing investments in rural institutions and infrastructure, and
•Closure on a few important but contentious issues.
Part 1 of this series dealt with reform of the bureaucracy of the DA
Meaningful Participation
of Stakeholders in the Governance of Agriculture
The modernization of agriculture is a huge, complex undertaking. However, it is not the responsibility alone of the national government and its lead agency, the DA. It is a joint and common responsibility of all sector stakeholders including the local governments units (LGUs), the farmers themselves and their associations; the business sector and their industry associations; nongovernmental organization (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs), as well as professionals, academics and researchers and their respective agencies, and organizations.
Actually the AFMA and the Fisheries Code legislated provisions for the participation of farmers and fisherfolk, LGUs, the agribusiness sector, banking and finance, state colleges and universities (SCUs) and research institutions, in setting directions and priorities, developing strategies and actual implementation, monitoring and evaluation of agriculture development programs. These agriculture and fisheries councils are in place at the town/city, provincial, regional and national levels.
A few of the councils are working and meeting regularly but the majority are moribund. There is a dedicated office in the DA mandated to provide secretariat support to the Philippine Agricultural and Fishery Council (PAFC) but the office is understaffed, underfunded and largely ignored.
The most often lament of farmers and private sector representatives to the agriculture and fisheries councils is the lack of seriousness of the agencies concerned as betrayed by the lack of visibility of senior officials in meetings.
Three years back, under the Agriculture and Fisheries (AF) 2025 initiative led by Alyansa Agrikultura and its chair, Ernesto Ordoñez, the sector stakeholders organized ourselves into committees to dialogue with our counterparts in the DA. After attending one or two meetings, we realized the futility of our efforts when we got to meet only junior officers. Their superiors were always busy elsewhere with more important functions. This token (not real, meaningful) participation is a perception shared by farmers, fisherfolks, the agribusiness associations and the science community.
Each of these stakeholders have important roles to play. They have expertise, resources and points of view which taken together with those of government make for better, more effective, inclusive and sustainable programs. The stakeholders should be empowered and be given space to make their contributions.
Integrated agri-industry
roads maps
A key instrument for mobilizing stakeholders and fostering their meaningful participation in governance is through industry road maps which they helped draft. The sense of ownership will bring the stakeholders together in implementing the programs that they themselves helped conceive. However, to be relevant and useful, industry road maps need to be periodically revisited and updated. Thus this is a continuing, recurring exercise.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has developed/updated road maps for the food and beverage manufacturing and agri-input industries. However, we have yet to see industry road maps from the DA.
Actually, it will make better sense if the two departments (DTI and DA) come out with integrated agri-industry road maps, instead of two separate plans and programs.
The disjoint between primary production versus food and beverage manufacturing had been a structural weakness which has afflicted the way Philippine Agriculture is planned, organized and implemented. Before DA proceeds any further, the heads of the two agencies should sit down and develop joint DTI/DA roadmaps for the various agriculture and fisheries subsectors.
Contract farming as an agri-business model
It is becoming abundantly clear that for agribusiness corporations to stay competitive in the emerging global food chains, they must secure the source of their raw materials in the quality, quantity and timing demanded by the markets. Many of more successful ones maintain nucleus farms as their basic sources but increasingly they rely on outgrowers.
The food giant Del Monte Foods in the US recently acquired by Del Monte Philippines, sources its fruits and vegetables from hundreds of thousands of acres of farmlands, all owned by contract growers.
Our food and beverage manufacturing sector is facing greater competition from our ASEAN competitors. With corporate land acquisition out of the question because of agrarian reform, the only recourses for our domestic manufacturers to secure their raw material supplies are more imports or local sourcing through contract farming.
Likewise, we should now come around the realization that the lack of economies of scale of small farmers, and consequently their lack of competitiveness can only lead to exclusion from the emerging global food chains and their ultimate marginalization.
Contract farming as a business model can be a win-win arrangement as it addresses both the concerns of agri-business for access to quality raw materials for global competitiveness as well as the plight of small farmers for lack of productivity, lack of access to inputs, technology and credit and exclusion from profitable supply chains. If we want to make contract farming to work for us (like it does for Thai farmers) there ought to be better planning and coordination between DTI and DA and closer working relationships with stakeholders (agribusiness and farmers associations) in crafting integrated agri-industry road maps.
To be continued . . . Continuing investments in rural institutions and infrastructure (Part 3)
*** Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP).
For any feedback, email eqjavier@yahoo.com