|
|
|
|
epublic Act No. 8435, otherwise known as the Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act (AFMA) became effective as law on February 9, 1998,
slightly ahead of Republic Act No. 8550, the Fisheries Code of 1998 (FC),
which became effective on March 23, 1998. Although related in that both
deal with the fisheries sector, these legislative initiatives proceeded
largely independently of each other. The AFMA was more concerned with
providing the appropriate budgetary and logistical requirements for the
modernization of the country’s entire agricultural base and encouraging
a more rapid shift towards industrialization, while the FC was the product
of a long-drawn lobby effort by concerned fisheries groups. Both laws
were enacted at the end of term of the Ramos Administration, which had
committed itself to several major legislative initiatives as part of its
socio-economic and political program, and are only now beginning to see
implementation.
This article presents the contextual premise by which the two laws operate
and subsequently identifies possible areas of conflict arising from the
subtle differences between the two. It highlights areas of contradictions
so that the concerned national government agencies can give appropriate
attention to reviewing and revising the administrative rules and regulations
that operationalize the laws.
Modernization
of the fisheries sector under AFMA entails increases in the utilization
of limited coastal space and more efficient extraction methods, and is
likely to increase habitat destruction and resource exploitation. (Photo
by S. Green)
Divergence of Principles
Key Issue.
The AFMA places priority on sustained increase in production, industrialization,
and full employment. The FC, on the other hand, prioritizes management,
conservation and protection of fishery and aquatic resources, optimal
utilization of existing resources, and maintenance of ecological balance
and the quality of the environment. Although both laws coincide in some
general objectives such as achieving poverty alleviation, social equity,
food security, rational use of resources, people empowerment, and sustainable
development, the AFMA’s distinct character is borne out of its additional
goal of seeking global competitiveness. These differences create a subtle
tension between the two laws, which can have far-reaching impacts.
Recommended
Intervention. To prevent this fundamental difference from resulting
in disaster for the more vulnerable fisheries and aquatic resources, it
necessary for the Department of Agriculture (DA) to issue additional guidelines
clarifying this potential conflict, and reiterate the policy thrusts of
the FC for conservation, management, and protection of limited and stressed
resources. The DA must recognize that the fisheries sector must be treated
separately, or under a different framework, from the rest of agriculture
instead of lumping fisheries with agriculture. The fisheries sector must
be regarded with a different perspective that de-emphasizes the maximization
of production, and orients the AFMA implementation towards conservation
and protection.
Operational Complications
In addition to the divergent principles by which the AFMA and FC are
separately founded, there are also clear operational conflicts that may
arise from implementing the two laws, particularly when coastal resource
management (CRM) is taken into context. These complications are anticipated
to have an adverse impact in the overall, if not long-term sustainable
management of coastal resources.
Complicated
Zones
Key issue.
The AFMA has created a new but very complicated system of zone-based
management of agricultural and fisheries development that has serious
implications on local CRM. The Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development
Zones (SAFDZ) are special areas set aside for agricultural and agro-industrial
development, where government resources and development efforts are to
be concentrated to encourage the creation of geographically-distributed
sites of agro-industrial development; the apparent hope being that the
existence of the SAFDZ will result in benefits spilling over to adjacent
areas. SAFDZs are to have their own integrated development plans consisting
of production, processing, investment, marketing, human resources, and
environmental protection components. However, the SAFDZ represents enormous
potentials for clashes with the framework of decentralized and localized
fisheries management not only under the FC, but also under the Local Government
Code (LGC).
Recommended
Intervention. If the AFMA is to be legally challenged in the
future, one of the most likely issues from which this challenge will arise
is the matter of LGU jurisdiction over municipal waters within a SAFDZ.
A local CRM approach or project may actually be the catalyst for this
issue. In anticipation of this probable conflict, the DA should therefore
endeavor to include within the national Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Plan (AFMP) provisions that will allow for the establishment of a national
CRM strategy, perhaps in conjunction with the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR). This exercise will provide the means by which local initiatives
in CRM may be integrated into the formulation of the AFMP, identification
of SAFDZ, and the implementation of the AFMA at an early stage.
Industrialization
and Protecting the Environment
Key issue.
The AFMA clearly makes industrialization as the main objective of
modernization of the agricultural and fisheries sectors. The modernization
of the fisheries sector would however, entail increases in the utilization
of limited coastal space and more efficient extraction methods, and is
therefore more likely to increase the rate of destruction of vital habitats
and the exploitation of resources beyond sustainable levels. These objectives
run counter to the stated objectives of the FC.
Recommended
Intervention.The potential conflict arises from implementation
of the SAFDZ system and principles that guide it. Remedial action will
have to be in the following forms:
- The implementation of the SAFDZ system should not proceed without
ensuring that a resource accounting system is tested and found to be
a reliable gauge of the tradeoffs between industrialization and conservation.
Research and development should place utmost priority on the establishment
of such an accounting system.
- The LGUs should be given a much greater role in the identification
and delineation of SAFDZs than the national or regional administrative
agencies since LGUs are in a much better position to exercise reliable
judgment if choices are to be made between rapid industrialization and
precautionary conservation.
- The DA should flesh out precisely how it intends to incorporate the
principles of environmental sustainability in the AFMP. It should be
noted that even in the AFMA Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR),
there are still no guiding principles that will enlighten planners and
decision-makers with respect to how they are to regard the environment
in the context of the industrialization that the AFMA promotes. Perhaps
this guidance can be found in Agenda 21, or any number of international
documents on food security, fisheries, and environment. The DA must
now turn to enacting provisions on how these are to be tempered by rules
of similar legal stature that will allow the realization of its stated
dedication to environmental sustainability.
Conflicts
in Land Use Planning and Zoning
Key Issue.
All cities and municipalities are required to prepare land use and
zoning plans incorporating the SAFDZs. The incorporation of SAFDZs, however,
may run counter to any existing land use and zoning plans that may have
already been enacted by the cities or municipalities pursuant to their
general powers under the LGC. This may entail changes in the land use
and zoning plans of the LGUs on the basis of national pressure on account
of the creation of the SAFDZs, rather than local pressures arising from
actual local needs.
Recommended
Intervention. Since SAFDZs can include fishery areas, it is only logical
to expect that the cities and municipalities should also prepare coastal
water use and zoning plans. Otherwise, gaps within the SAFDZs are created
if the LGU does not specify the classification or use of geographical
areas; at the very least, there may be inconsistencies between the classification
and use of areas of coastal land and the actual use of the adjacent coastal
waters.
Planning
Mechanisms
Key Issue.
The DA is mandated to formulate and implement a medium and long-term
comprehensive Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan (AFMP). The
national AFMP is to be an aggregation of local, regional, and subsectoral
AFMPs, which are to incorporate integrated SAFDZ plans that consider in
particular multi-area projects and programs that cross-administrative
and political boundaries. The initial difficulty that can be foreseen
here is that plans that cross-administrative and political boundaries
require coordination and synchronization of various stages of local and
national government planning, which may become impossible to manage on
account of many possible differences in objectives, jurisdiction, powers,
and perceptions.
With so many
different LGUs, distinct powers, national agencies, special bodies, jurisdictions,
and a multitude of laws and policies, it will be very difficult to conduct
an efficient, effective, and consensus-based planning process. This makes
traditional top-down planning and decision-making a preferable alternative;
this in turn contravenes the principles of decentralization and local
autonomy so essential to coastal resource management.
Recommended
Intervention. It is imperative that the work of the various planning
bodies that derive their mandates from separate laws such as the LGC and
the FC, be harmonized. The DA is currently in the best position to initiate
this harmonization because it is the agency that provides the impetus
for the additional planning entailed by the implementation of the AFMA.
Rather than create new overlapping and confusing mechanisms, it would
be more prudent for the DA to make use of existing planning mechanisms.
Realigning
Watershed Management
Key Issue.
The AFMA advocates a policy of preventing further destruction of watersheds,
rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems, and development of better
irrigation systems. It requires the preservation of areas identified as
watersheds, which are sources of water used for irrigation and consumption.
In so doing, the DA is given the lead role in the preparation and implementation
of programs and projects for protection, conservation, and rehabilitation
of such watersheds, in collaboration with the DENR, and concerned LGUs,
state universities and colleges (SUC), people’s organization (PO) and
non-governmental organization (NGO). To this end, the DA emphasizes strategies
for erosion control, sediment transport, reservoir sedimentation, water
yield enhancement, and development of cost-effective and socially acceptable
watershed rehabilitation measures.
However,
there appears to be no limitations as to the character, location, and
extent of these watersheds. Although certain watersheds may be located
deep within the large islands, in many cases the watersheds straddle the
coastal areas, especially since the country is made up of islands. It
is possible that these watersheds may be located along large coastal areas.
The DA’s watershed protection strategy may therefore impact upon existing
CRM strategies where they happen to overlap.
Recommended
Intervention. Watershed protection by the DA needs to be coordinated
with CRM planning. Initially, this will require a review of current watershed
protection programs and strategies, together with future plans; it will
then be necessary to identify where these programs or plans may converge
with CRM proposals and programs. In the case of coastal watersheds, it
may be possible to make these two programs complement each other, especially
in cases where the maintenance of the coastal environment requires management
of the adjacent watershed.
Choosing
Infrastructure
Key Issue.
Infrastructure usually either introduces changes in environmental conditions,
by physically altering some aspect of the locality, or becomes the focal
point of changes by drawing intensified human activity. An example falling
under the first instance is reclamation, which alters the coastline and
can be the source of various environmental impacts; in the second instance,
the construction of a port within a formerly pristine bay is likely to
begin the environmental deterioration of the bay. Infrastructures may
have either immediate or cumulative effects on the environment in which
they are located, and in most cases, it is only the immediate locality
that feels the impact.
Recommended
Intervention. It is important that infrastructure development be guided
by local inputs and not completely left to national planners, who tend
to focus only on the national impacts in disregard of local effects.
Infrastructure development should be based more prominently on local inputs,
in the same way as the planning and decision-making for industrialization
purposes. Since the LGC mandates LGUs to provide infrastructure as among
their basic services, it would be proper to allow LGUs to guide the DA
in identifying, selecting, and undertaking the appropriate and relevant
infrastructure projects.
Where infrastructure
affects coastal resources, it becomes even more important for the DA to
pay closer attention to both the community’s current needs and the requirements
of maintaining their fragile coastal environments. Guidelines may be needed
to ensure that infrastructure planning gives greater weight to the different
needs and characteristics of the coastal environment. In this regard,
the FC has required certain minimum standards for fisheries-related infrastructure;
these should be adopted as part of the implementation of the AFMA.
Human
Resource Development
Key Issue.
The AFMA reiterates the declaration of policy for the State to promote
industrialization and full employment, based on sound agriculture and
fisheries development and agrarian reform, through industries that make
full and efficient use of human and natural resources. With respect to
human resources, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has been tasked
with the establishment of a National Agriculture and Fisheries Education
System (NAFES), while the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) is to establish an Agriculture and Fisheries Education Program
(AFEP) especially designed for elementary and secondary levels. For vocational
schools, a Post-Secondary Education Program is to be developed by Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). The CHED and DA are
to formulate an integrated human resource development plan in agriculture
and fisheries, which shall serve as an instrument that will provide the
over-all direction in setting priorities in curricular programs, enrolment,
performance targets, and investment programs. But under the FC, the DA
is to coordinate with the CHED, DECS, and TESDA to upgrade state fisheries
schools and colleges that provide both formal and non-formal education.
These include the formulation of standards to upgrade all schools so that
those that do not meet standards shall be closed. However, the FC is more
liberal in that it does not necessarily require affiliation with a national
center of excellence for an institution to engage in the teaching of agriculture
and fisheries courses. Such affiliation is, in effect, the minimum standard
for operation of agriculture and fisheries educational institutions.
Recommended
Intervention. With the responsibilities allotted by the AFMA, it would
be possible to incorporate education for coastal resource management in
the standard agriculture and fisheries curricula. The DA can initiate
the development of formal and non-formal courses in coastal resource management,
which has the potential of combining the best of two worlds, namely land
management for agriculture, and management of inland and coastal fisheries.
Both fields are, after all, sorely needed in the context of the archipelagic
nature of the country. Courses in CRM may even become standardized core
courses for agriculture and fisheries education.
Rationalizing
Research and Development
Key Issue.
In line with the stated policy of promoting science and technology
in agriculture and fisheries, the DA is to collaborate with the Department
of Science and Technology (DOST) in enhancing, supporting, and consolidating
the existing National Research and Development System in Agriculture and
Fisheries (NRDSAF). "Consolidation" has been defined by the
AFMA as the unification in strategy, approach, and vision of the agriculture
and fishery components of the ongoing National Agriculture Research and
Extension Agenda (NAREA). But then again, the AFMA states that fisheries
research and development is to be pursued separately from, though in close
coordination with, that of agriculture. The fishery research subsystem
is composed of the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development
System (NARRDS) including the Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine
Research and Development (PCAMRD), selected units of the Department of
Agriculture Research and Development System (DARDS), selected SUCs, the
DENR, the private sector, and specialized agencies.
However,
with respect to fisheries, there is a slight inconsistency between the
AFMA and the creation under the FC of a National Fisheries Research and
Development Institute (NFRDI). The NFRDI is the primary research arm of
the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), tasked with conducting
fisheries research in development, management, conservation, and protection
of fisheries and aquatic resources. With the AFMA and FC, there are at
least four different bodies that may be involved in research, development,
and extension in fisheries and aquatic resources, namely, the NARRDS and
Council and Extension, Research and Development in Agriculture and Fisheries
(CERDAF), and the NFRDI and BFAR. Each has an independent mandate to set
policies and implement them with respect to the fisheries sector. There
is therefore the possibility the CERDAF / NARRDS and the BFAR / NFRDI
priorities and agendas for research, development, and extension may not
coincide. Oddly enough, the BFAR is not even specifically mentioned as
among the agencies forming part of the NARRDS; had it been so, there might
be a basis for assuming that as part of the NARRDS the NFRDI, acting for
BFAR, will be able to undertake its activities as part of the former.
Recommended
Intervention.The ambiguity in this situation needs to be clarified.
A decision must be made as to what role the NFRDI is to play in the implementation
of the National Research and Development System in Agriculture and Fisheries
(NRDSAF). If fisheries research is to be undertaken separately from agriculture,
then it would probably be better for the BFAR/NFRDI to attain a kind of
"autonomous" status from the CERDAF/NARRDS framework. This would
be in line with the specialized characteristics of the fisheries sector
that cannot be treated as mere incidental to agriculture, which is chiefly
land-based. Resolution of this issue of having a lead institution is an
important one, because all CRM efforts require some degree of research,
development, and extension activities before, during, and throughout the
CRM undertaking.
Reconsidering
Extension Services
Key Issue.
The AFMA makes it the State’s policy to support the development of
a national extension system that will help accelerate the transformation
of Philippine agriculture and fisheries from a resource-based to a technology-based
industry. The LGUs are responsible for delivering direct agriculture and
fisheries extension services to farmers, fisherfolk, and agribusiness
entrepreneurs. The DA provides extension services mainly through the
Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) Training Centers. Under the FC,
the DA is to develop cost-effective, practical, and efficient extension
services on a sustained basis, in addition to those provided by state
educational institutions, especially to municipal fisherfolk in undeveloped
areas, called the National Fisheries Extension Program.
Recommended
Intervention. These extension services are a possible future
tool for ensuring the replication and continuity of CRM efforts in the
long term. Since under the AFMA the existing training institutions of
the DA are being tapped to develop training programs, it would be a worthwhile
idea to formally include within the offerings of these training centers
the essential skills and capacity-building activities needed for the conduct
of CRM.
Finding
Basic Needs
Key Issue.
While LGUs have indeed been given authorization to engage in investment
and marketing missions, a rapid shift towards industrialization may not
be what they need. In fact, in many ongoing CRM initiatives, moves toward
industrialization become focal points for concern because of the environmental
costs that they usually entail. Since the AFMA requires LGUs to now identify
industrial sites, CRM planning must now always contend with the additional
problem of industrial siting.
In the case
of CRM, the more basic question that needs to be answered is whether the
idea of industrialization itself is appropriate for the community. Is
it acceptable for basic needs to be satisfied only by wages in the context
of an industrialized economy, or is it more feasible not to adopt industrialization
and instead concentrate on ensuring that the current level of the local
economy, however it may be set up, accomplishes the fundamental task of
allowing all resources and benefits from these resources to be equitably
shared by all the members of the community?
The "basic
needs approach" appears to assume that in all cases the populace
will accept industrialization as the key to a better life. This is not
necessarily true. In using the "basic needs approach", the DA
should emphasize development objectives that are appropriate and relevant
for the specific needs of the local communities
Recommendation
Intervention In using the "basic needs approach",
the DA should emphasize development objectives that are relevant for the
specific needs of the local communities.
Training
of Workers
Key Issue.
The TESDA is mandated to organize local committees that will advise
on the scope, nature, and duration of training for the Basic Needs Program
and Rural Industrialization and Industry Dispersal Program. As a nod to
the role of coastal management, the AFMA also specifically provides that
the DA and DENR shall organize the training of workers in CRM and sustainable
fishing techniques. This is to be undertaken in coordination with CHED,
TESDA, DECS, ATI and Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA),
within the Basic Need Program (BNP) areas and SAFDZs. The problem is that
the AFMA seems to assume that coastal resources management and sustainable
fishing techniques are of the same category and are appropriate subjects
for "workers". There are two possible meanings of this term:
(1) generally, persons who undertake particular tasks required of them,
and (2) a class of persons who perform labor in exchange for wages or
goods. That the term "workers" has these meanings is all the
more highlighted by the fact that the TESDA is mainly a vocational skill
training institution; it is not a school for managers or decision-makers.
Recommended
Intervention. It would be useful for the DA to distinguish
between (1) CRM training as part of an educational program to develop
competent and professional coastal managers, and (2) CRM training as part
of the implementation of CRM strategies or programs. Using this distinction
in providing CRM training, TESDA will be concerned with two groups of
people: (1) "managerial"-level people, such as LGU officials
and government agency personnel, who will require re-orientation into
the CRM approach, and (2) "implementers", those members of the
community affected who will be asked to undertake certain activities or
take actions as part of the CRM plan. These will require different training
designs and curricula, and in some cases may be beyond TESDA’s capabilities
or scope as a vocational institution. Particularly for the first category,
other educational institutions may be more appropriate venues. It would
be helpful if TESDA were to define the scope of CRM-related training that
it can provide, so that provisions can be made through the other aspects
of the NAFES to fill in the gaps in CRM-education that will likely be
identified thereafter.
Providing
Incentives
Key
Issue. The AFMA provides for fiscal incentives for enterprises
engaged in agriculture and fisheries, which for five years from the effectivity
of the law, shall be exempt from tariff and duties for agriculture and
fisheries inputs, equipment, and machinery, including fishing equipment
and parts thereof. A word of caution is appropriate here, as the grant
of fiscal incentives for fishing equipment and gear, thereby making them
cheaper and more accessible, would run counter to the policy of conservation
and protection in the long run, since cheaper fishing equipment will lead
to a more active fisheries sector, which becomes more efficient in production
of catch, which then translates to faster extraction of the already limited
fishery and aquatic resources.
Recommended
Intervention. In selecting goods and services that will be subject
to fiscal incentives, the DA must exercise caution that it is not actually
accelerating the pace of development of fishing gears and extraction of
fishery resources. Through BFAR, the DA should still take care in regulating
the entry and use of fishing gears that will only contribute to the faster
degradation of fishery resources.
A
Question of Funding
Key Issue.There
are significant fiscal allocations that may be the source of funding for
various activities related to CRM, from both the AFMA and the FC.
Recommended
Intervention. CRM projects may benefit from the AFMA and FC
by funding projects or activities that come within the pertinent funding
windows. The LGUs should also participate in these projects or activities.
Danger and opportunity
The Chinese
character for "crisis" is said to mean both "danger"
and "opportunity". In much the same way, the AFMA represents
a possible danger or opportunity to CRM on account of how it interacts
with the current legal regime for fisheries and aquatic resources. The
AFMA is a rather enormous attempt at micro-management of agriculture and
fisheries, but fisheries have already acquired a management system of
its own.It would be very easy to dismiss the possible conflicts between
the AFMA and the FC as resolvable through the simple rules of a later
law amending the prior law, and a special law prevailing over the general
law. But certain complications arise from the fact that the implementing
arm of the FC is a subordinate bureau of the implementer of the AFMA;
that the fisheries sector is still considered a part of agriculture; that
the implementing rules of the AFMA were issued after the implementing
rules of the FC; and that in many cases, the overlaps between the AFMA
and FC are so subtle as to require harmonization, because they cannot
be viewed as outright amendments.
CRM, which places great reliance on both the FC and LGC, will find itself
challenged by the AFMA and the system it provides. The opportunities for
conflict are numerous, but so are the means by which they can be avoided.
Bachelor of Laws, University of the
Philippines 1991, Master of Marine Management, Dalhousie University (Canada)
1997. Mr. Batongbacal is a Research Fellow of the UP Archipelagic and
Ocean Studies Program, and currently Executive Director of the Philippine
Center for Marine Affairs, Inc., and a member of the Coastal Resource
Management Network. He is a legal expert in marine policy. His areas
of study have included international maritime boundaries, marine environmental
policy, coastal resource management, and fisheries management
***
|
