Agriculture and the regional economy

By Leo P. Cañeda Regional executive director Department of Agriculture 7 (The Freeman) Updated January 18, 2012 12:00 AM

CEBU, Philippines - Upbeat and buoyant. That’s probably how the passing year would be remembered if the overweening mood of the period was the defining factor. Indeed, at no other time in recent memory has this kind of mood permeated practically all sectors of society throughout the year – both in response to the need for reforms and out of a sense of urgency to get past recurring national issues. Nowhere was this resurgent mood more pronounced than probably in the agriculture sector which, since Day One, had committed itself to perform significantly better in a bid to reserve previous trends and alleviate the well-being of its stakeholders.

Learn what's new in CEBU now, click here

Against this backdrop, the installation of a solid policy and program framework has once again proven its primacy. This explains why, among others, the advocacy on and promotion of such national concerns as the Food Staple Self-sufficiency Program, Organic Agriculture, Agri-Pinoy Framework and the Convergence Initiative were not only continued but pursued with greater zeal and determination. Broad-based consultations likewise became the norm, engendering a better understanding, appreciation and eventual reconfiguration of commodity banner programs with their respective updated roadmaps and specific output targets. Indeed, an air of renewal underpinned most of these national programs and projects.

The results were just as quick in coming. For the agriculture sector, the validation came in the form of an output growth of 13% (as of the 3rd quarter of the year) with all subsectors (i.e. crops, livestock and poultry and fisheries) similarly posting production gains ranging from 3% (fisheries) to 15% (crops). This came accordingly as a result of the generally favorable weather conditions coupled with an enabling environment characterized by the expanded provision of productivity-enhancing mechanisms including LGU extension support, infrastructure and irrigation development and availability of quality planting materials.

Where and how should Region 7 place itself vis-à-vis these challenges and accomplishments? The quick answer: The region had already positioned itself a long time ago and continues to do so in manifold ways.

Getting the Record Straight

While it is a common (and tired?) misconception that Central Visayas can only do so much in terms of its contribution to national food security (due to basic geographic and agroclimatic limitations), the reality is that it can actually do more at least on point of commensurable share of the national output and per capita or per unit productivity. This means, among others, that if, say, the region accounts for 2% of the total rice area, then it should be able to contribute also 2% of the total rice production, if not more. There is actually a need for the region to be on competitive footing with the rest of the country especially that empirical research and field trials have shown this to be achievable.

Question: How can the so-called yield gap be transcended without brandishing the usual scapegoat regarding area size and topography which, as a yield limitation, all previous researches have proven to be surmountable? No matter how the discussion unfolds, the concern about development promotion for agriculture in the region will be vetted against one central yardstick: productivity or yield per hectare or per capita, as the case may be. This has been the paramount challenge, and will be the focus of all program-based interventions in the years to come.

The good news is that the region seemed poised for the challenge. Several years of priming itself up for the proverbial “day of reckoning” appeared to have paid off, resulting in better coordinated and calibrated program implementation and, eventually, much heftier output gains particularly in the crops sub-sector. The region’s performance, if anything, mirrored that of the national situation. This proves that the concept of roadmap, after all, is no mere pipe dream and that it can help chart, nay reinforce, program directions throughout the labyrinth of administrative and operational details from the national down to the regional and provincial/municipal levels. The augury that was 2011 needs to be sustained.

Quo Vadis?

As another year unfolds, the sector will yet again be faced with a plethora of challenges. On the macro front, the foremost challenge is how the sector can improve its relative position in the regional economy. Ideally, this will require both expansion in nominal output (leading to higher output shares) and accelerated output increases or real productivity growth. There have been instances in the past when both these goals were met, just as there were occasions when only one of these was accomplished because, obviously, even the seemingly already high growth of agriculture couldn’t match the much better performance of the other sectors. In this situation, the more urgent and sustained source of competitiveness is productivity growth.

Learn what's new in CEBU now, click here

Another realization is that while the sector’s performance cannot be wholly attributed to the DA, the latter almost always is made to account for such a performance, being the premier agency tasked with the promotion of overall agricultural development. In this sense, the importance of how the DA or its programs is seen by the public in general cannot be overemphasized (indeed, a challenge by itself!). It matters that the DA is viewed favorably by its publics.

The institutional memory and technical base to keep the agency (i.e. DA-RFU7) afloat and performing is viewed to be in place already, largely as a result of training and competence build-up over the years. This seems adequate except that, in a permanently dynamic and changing world, institutions must continue to adapt, grow and evolve to level up the ante. For the agency, this would perhaps mean some retrofitting to ensure commensurable placement of personnel, better and more cost-effective coordination of functions and programs, intra-agency convergence and synergy of working relationships. In the same token, some fine tuning may be forthcoming on the administrative front to enhance the capacity of administrative support in pursuing technical excellence and in bringing the agency itself and its programs to greater heights of development existence. The ramifications of these adjustments should come as a matter of course.

A realization by now is that the DA-RFU must continually work with a community of service providers with whom it can expect not only validation and cross checking of project assistance but most importantly leveraging of resources and deepening of institutional linkages and reaffirmation. - THE FREEMAN