he Agriculture and
Fisheries Modernization Act was passed in 1997 and was ex-tended in 2004. The
law was aimed at modernizing agriculture and fisheries, enhance incomes of
farmers and fishermen and ensure the accessibility, availability and stability
of food supply at all times.
The law covered practically all bases: credit for farmers,
incentives for business, dissemination of technology, research and development,
irrigation, farm-to-market roads, etc. To achieve the law’s aims, P20 billion
was appropriated for AFMA during the first year of implementation and P17
billion during each of the following years.
So where did we go wrong that 10 years after the passage of
AFMA? Farm and fishery productivity remains low due to antiquated technology,
farmers and fishermen are as poor as ever and we are now suffering a rice
crisis.
Did the government perhaps fail to allocate sufficient funds
to bankroll AFMA programs or if such funds were appropriated were these diverted
to other purposes if not outright stolen? Or, another possibility, perhaps the
government simply did not give sufficient attention to pursuing the
modernization program? Or perhaps the AFMA was flawed from the very beginning
because it laid down inappropriate or unworkable programs to realize the
objective of modernizing the farm and fisheries sectors?
These questions beg for answers. After 10 years, AFMA is a
proven failure. So by all means let’s review it. Surely a better law can be
crafted. On the other hand, if the law is good and adequate, but the
implementers botched it, then probably there’s nothing we can do about it until
the next opportunity to kick out the bastards comes.
Sen. Edgardo Angara, chair of the Senate committee of
agriculture, said a year ago AFMA should be reviewed because the P17 billion
yearly appropriation appeared to have been diverted to bankroll the agriculture
department’s regular programs.
Angara should know. He once served as agriculture secretary.
If that’s the case, then we could be throwing throw more money into the problem
without seeing food production keeping pace with a fast-growing population.
Surprisingly, we have not heard Angara supporting calls by
his colleagues for an inquiry into why, despite all the good intentions, the
country has failed to ensure "accessibility, availability and stability of food
supply."
Angara, however, is not the whole agriculture committee, much
less the whole Senate. The times demand a legislative inquiry. We expect the
Palace to cooperate, for surely there is no reason to invoke executive privilege
when asked questions about the failure to ensure that every Filipino family has
food on the table. Or is there?
Shades of Joc-Joc Bolante.
