EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - National Agricultural and Fishery Council ...

114. Less than half of the respondents were aware and satisfied with RDE
activities. Except for PCARRD, majority of the respondents were not
aware of the various RDE institutions.
115. Only about 22 percent of the respondents were satisfied with the irrigation
activities under AFMA. Except for STW irrigation, none of the respondents
felt an improvement in irrigation services. Even for STW irrigation, only 4
percent of the respondents felt that there was an improvement under
AFMA.
116. The result of the survey of the members of the producers associations
very much conform to the earlier findings on the tangible impacts of
irrigation, RDE, and SAFDZ activities on the agriculture sub-sector.
117. The stakeholders’ consultations on AFMA were carried out by the Review
Team in collaboration with National Agricultural and Fishery Council
(NAFC) and the AFMA oversight committee (Congressional Oversight
Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization or COCAFM). In
every region the participants include members of RAFC and Provincial
Agriculture and Fishery Council (PAFC), officials and staff of the regional
offices of the DA, Department of Land Reform (DLR), and Department of
Environment and Natural Resources) DENR; representatives from local
government units (LGUs), AFMA Review Team, COCAFM, and other key
stakeholders.
118. For most regions, the perceived general impact on rice and corn were low
to moderate, and low or none for high value commercial crops (HVCC),
fisheries, livestock and poultry. The implementation of irrigation-related
activities was generally judged as poor although the participants in a few
regions (e.g., CAR) rated the performance for rice, corn, and fisheries fair
to good.
119. In general, the participants perceived positive impacts on yield and
production area except for rice. The perceived impacts for the other
commodities were mixed. For each commodity, at least 3 regions reported
no positive impact. This was in spite of the fact that many of the
participants play key roles in the implementation of AFMA. As usual, the
participants are unanimous in their perception of inadequate budget.
120. The review pointed towards one main conclusion, that is, the irrigation and
SAFDZ components of AFMA were not implemented. One is tempted to
make a sweeping recommendation – implement AFMA! That is, however
easier said than done. Although some of the stipulations on SAFDZ and
irrigation can be implemented if the key players have the political will and
commitment to do so, this is not the case with other stipulations due to a
host of interrelated problems that are beyond the capability of concerned
institutions and individuals to overcome within the specified time frames of
AFMA activities. These problems or constraints include inadequate
baseline information, unrealistic time frames, ambiguity in specific
provisions of AFMA and their corresponding IRRs, inadequate budget for
crucial activities, inadequate institutional arrangements and mechanisms
l