Unless certain reforms are undertaken, the P91-billion Department of Agriculture budget for 2016 runs a great risk of being misused. One such reform is following what the law stipulates: the DA must allow the legislated public-private sector Agriculture and Fishery Councils (AFCs) to monitor the DA budget implementation. As this is not happening systematically, there have been reports of DA budget misuse in the past. The lack of a check-and-balance mechanism, such as monitoring, results in disaster.
The 2011 DA budget of P38 billion more than doubled to P89 billion in 2015. However, agriculture growth consistently missed the 4 percent government target. The 2.6 percent growth in 2011 steadily declined to 0.5 percent for the first three quarters of 2015.
Some argue that poor performance should result in a reduced budget. But considering that our agriculture budget is significantly less than those of our neighboring countries, the moderate budget increase to P91 billion can still be justified. What cannot be accepted is that this budget is wasted through inefficiency and corruption. With elections on the horizon, there is an additional temptation to divert these funds.
We commend Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala’s achievements in rice and corn production. He is almost unmatched in the hours he spends helping farmers and fisherfolk. But he cannot do this job alone. He needs the help of the DA bureaucracy. While many are supporting him, some are significantly hindering his efforts. One area is budget use.
Monitoring
With Alcala’s encouragement, the Philippine Agriculture Fishery Council (formerly the National Agriculture and Fishery Council) sent a 16-person public-private sector monitoring contingent to the Bicol Region on Aug. 25-28, 2015 in four separate teams. They reviewed and monitored 51 projects in Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, and Sorsogon. I was part of this group and personally witnessed much of what they saw.
On Aug. 28, the private sector participants of the Budget Monitoring Committee gave a presentation on its positive and negative findings. Where the farmers and fisherfolk were involved, agriculture development and incomes increased. But where they were not involved or even informed, much waste took place.
Among the negative findings were:
- “Ghost” or non-existent projects, with unaccounted fund releases
- Reports claiming 100-percent completion, although they were far from finished
- Identified beneficiary groups, which were unjustifiably substituted by others, including a local government employee association
- Mismatches between stated beneficiary needs and DA delivered goods, such as inappropriate tractors instead of goat-raising livelihood assistance
- Improper site selection, including fenced private land owned by a questionable beneficiary
After more than three months of waiting for the DA response to the private sector’s findings and recommendations, there is still no word. Understandably, private sector participants are dismayed. One of the leaders said she felt used.
Analysis
All this could have been avoided if the law had been followed. The list of DA projects given to the National Budget Monitoring Committee (NBMC) was never seen by the AFCs, which have the legislated responsibility to monitor these projects. How can they do so if they do not even know these projects exist?
Consequently, NBMC members recommended the reissuance of a directive that will order DA regional executive directors to provide the AFCs a complete list of DA-funded projects. To our disappointment, this request was never communicated to Alcala.
This highlights the need for a globally recognized management systems (e.g. ISO 9000) in the DA so that such deficiencies are corrected. Other departments are doing this, so why not the DA?
At the very start of this year, a DA directive should be given so that the AFCs can get the list of DA projects that the law requires them to monitor. A management system should also be put into place so that even the next administration will be required to use the DA budget properly.
If action on this is postponed to wait for the next administration, the possibility of the budget misuse this year will turn into a certainty.
(The author is chair of Agriwatch, former Secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former Undersecretary for Agriculture, Trade and Industry. For inquiries and suggestions, email agriwatch_phil@yahoo.com or telefax (02) 852-2112).