|
IT is
good that the House of Representatives, maligned in
recent months over mostly political controversies, did
something worthwhile this week. The House approved on
third and final reading a bill providing for the
extension of the use of the Agricultural Competitiveness
Enhancement Fund (Acef), a sum needed to modernize a
sector that accounts for more than a third of GDP and
employs nearly half of the labor force, yet has been
pretty much left to its own devices amid the
tsunami-sized challenges of globalization.
Voting
152-2, House members approved House Bill 2976, certified
as urgent by President Arroyo, which seeks to allow the
use of duties collected from the importation of
agricultural products under the minimum-access volume (MAV)
for agricultural activities.
As
stated in the bill, the entire amount collected would be
earmarked by Congress for irrigation; farm-to-market
roads; postharvest equipment and facilities; credit
research and development and other marketing
infrastructure; provision of market information,
retraining and extension services to micro-, small- and
medium-scale enterprises in agriculture, aquaculture and
fisheries sectors; for young entrepreneurs,
out-of-school youth, graduates of agriculture, fisheries
and related courses; for agriculture and fishery
cooperatives engaged in economic enterprises; and other
forms of assistance; and support to the agricultural
sector.
Besides
these, the agricultural programs are aimed at
strengthening agricultural competitiveness in the world
market.
Certainly, no one can dispute the essential need for
carrying out all of these. The extension of Acef
acquires even greater sense when one considers that the
fund—set up by virtue of RA 8178 with an original life
span of nine years to cushion the effect of the lifting
of quantitative restrictions on affected sectors of
agriculture—had not fully benefited the sectors
intended. Why? For at least three years, 1996 to 1998,
the money collected from Acef was not disbursed
according to its purpose because the collections were
used for budgetary support instead.
Authors
of HB 2976 cited the need to extend the utilization
period of Acef in order to enable the government to
further provide the farming sector the opportunity to
use the funds to strengthen their development activities
and enhance their competitiveness.
Among
other things, the bill provides for the extension of the
utilization period of Acef until 2015. All duties
collected from the importation of agricultural products
under the MAV mechanism, unused balance and repayments
from loan beneficiaries including interests, if any,
shall accrue to Special Account 183 and shall be
deposited with the National Treasury, and after the
expiration of the extension utilization in 2015, the
remaining balance shall revert to the general fund.
As we
stated at the start of this editorial, we have no
dispute with the notion of extending Acef, and had
endorsed the idea when Sen. Edgardo Angara called for
its extension in early October. The Senate counterpart
bill, by the way, has been passed, so it’s fair to
presume this measure will beat the deadline before
Congress goes on Christmas recess.
As a
matter of justice, extending Acef will give government a
chance to fulfill a promise to the farmers and fishers
who were thought to be among those at risk from a
liberal trading order. Though that promise for safety
nets was never substantially sustained—the Department of
Agriculture budget waned a few years after the
GATT-Uruguay Round Agreement was ratified—to its credit,
Acef has provided the sector some relief. It provided
money for important farm and fishery projects like
irrigation, farm-to-market roads, postharvest equipment
and facilities, research and development, and marketing
infrastructure, among others.
According to Angara, “As of 2006, Acef still had a
balance of P5.81 billion and funded 173 projects worth
P2.76 billion that year,” he said. “An additional 55
projects worth P1.14 billion was approved by the Acef
committee this year.”
The Acef
money, amounting to P1.9 billion this year, has also
been also used to finance small farmers’ credit needs.
Were the
Acef fund allowed to simply expire this year, however,
this kind of money will revert to the National Treasury,
thus depriving farmers the much-needed resources for
countryside development. The farming and fishery sector
certainly deserves support for modernization and
competitiveness, not only because of the onslaught of
globalization, but also in light of recent reports
sounding the alarm on food security—ironically, both
because, on one hand yield everywhere is suffering from
extreme weather and climate change, and on the other,
because one solution to such climate change, i.e., the
stampede to biofuels without rationalizing the
situation, is itself proving to be a bane as well. This
is no idle warning, coming from various international
agencies and exports with diverse persuasions. Recent
reports have the same alarming message: farmlands are
mindlessly being harnessed for energy-oriented purposes,
driving food supply down and food prices up.
Of
course, cynics will say putting fresh billions into the
hands of agriculture bureaucrats could heighten the risk
of providing more opportunity for new scams, such as the
fertilizer scandal involving ex-agriculture official
Jocjoc Bolante.
But to
deprive the sector of much-needed funds simply because
of a desire to prevent corruption is a cop-out. If that
were the mindset, everything would come to a standstill.
And as the current situation proves, there’s so much to
be done in the farm and fishery sector, and no time left
to lose.
It is up
to the honest bureaucrats and whistle blowers in
government, the farmers themselves and the NGOs
supporting them, not to mention a vigilant media, to
make sure a new lease on life for Acef will not mean
throwing good money after bad. Let them make sure Mr.
Scrooge doesn’t ruin their Christmas; and that no
crooked Santa Claus will divert their gifts to his
pocket. |
