Draft For Discussion

Strengthening Agriculture and Fisheries Services

of Local Government Units

A Framework for Department of Agriculture and

Local Governments Partnership
League of Provinces of the Philippines

I. Introduction

The on-going efforts of the National Government to rationalize the bureaucracy

are not only a welcome move but more importantly a necessary effort to improve
governance, promote, efficiency, and ensure delivery of services. Two (2) Executive
Orders that Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued are opportunities
to accomplish this goal and at the same time enhance decentralization and local
autonomy.

First, is Executive Order No. 366, signed on October 4, 2004 “DIRECTING A

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND PROVIDING OPTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
RATIONALIZATION OF THE FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.” For the local governments through their Leagues, this is an opportunity to
engage the national agencies that have devolved some of their functions in the
furtherance of local governance and improving NGA-LGU relationships while the former
are rationalizing their functions.

Second, is Executive Order No. 444, issued on July 5, 2005 “DIRECTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT A
STRATEGIC REVIEW ON THE CONTINUING DECENTRALIZATION AND
DEVOLUTION OF SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS IN SUPPORT OF THE RATIONALIZATION
PROGRAM OF THE FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.”
Very much related to E.O. 3666, this issuance is welcomed by the local governments as
an essential prospect to formulate strategic and long term recommendations and
courses of action to support and strengthen decentralization efforts to achieve genuine
local autonomy.

Thus, this paper hopes to contribute to these National Government initiatives by

providing insights and strategies on how the local governments (through their respective
Leagues) could actively participate in achieving the goals of these two Executive Orders.
The recommendations are particularly forwarded to the Department of Agriculture with
whom the League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP) was assigned to partner in this
process by the Committee on Devolution.
II. Underpinnings of Partnership: The LGU Perspective

In order to capture the basis for a new DA-LGU partnership, it was necessary to
get feedback from the frontliners upon which the ground work for engagement by may
be laid to set some basic principles. Information was gathered through two instruments,
namely, the survey questionnaire developed by the Committee on Devolution of E.O.
444 and the questionnaire on agricultural services delivered by LGUs which was
developed by the LPP in cooperation with the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies (PIDS) and the Economic Policy Reform and Advocacy (EPRA) Project of the
Ateneo School of Economics. The results of these surveys were collated and
synthesized in the “LPP Workshop on Agriculture and Fisheries Development” at the
NEDA sa Makati on December 14-16, 2005. The workshop was attended by 19
participants (mostly Provincial Agriculturists) who were representing the governors who
are officers and members of LPP’s National Executive Board.

Basic Principles

The workshop generated the following principles which should guide the
rationalization of the DA and the further devolution of functions.

1. The goal of Philippine development is Poverty Alleviation and Social

Equity. Government plans and projects must focus on improving the quality of
life of its citizens. In particular, agricultural development must better the lives not
only of the farmers but of the rural poor in general who comprise more than a
half of the population. Programs and services must result in greater productivity,
access to market and resources both financial and technical, competitiveness,
and better income.

2. National development goals are best achieved through strengthened local

autonomy and decentralization. While national development goals must by
necessity established at the national or central level, ensuring their
accomplishment greatly depends on the autonomy and capability of local
governments to implement doable, relevant and feasible programs at their level.
Therefore, all efforts to rationalize government must work toward strengthening
of local autonomy and decentralization. All efforts must proceed from the gains
under the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) and therefore, there must be no
diminution of powers and authorities. Rather empowerment of LGUs must be
paramount, whereby “Home Rule” must prevail in which local concerns are
better addressed by local governments. National government agencies must
work along the principles of subsidiarity, that is, plans and decisions must be
made at the lowest possible political level by extending powers, authorities,
powers and resources to sub-national levels.

3. National Government focuses on national goals, local governments focus

on effective programs and services. National level of government must
concentrate on providing the appropriate policies, goals, standards, and targets.
Its resources shall be geared toward supporting the implementation of goals and
 targets while local governments are the key actors and are expected to deliver
their mandates.

4. National Government steers, local governments row. National Government

is expected to create a conducive environment and to set directions for
development, while local governments are expected to provide goods and
services for public welfare. However, it should be also emphasized that each
level of LGU must perform steering functions based on their exclusive mandates.

5. Effective planning and implementation is participatory. In planning,

budgeting and implementation of programs and projects, participation of all
stakeholders is necessary to establish ownership and thus ensure quality and
acceptability of the undertakings.

6. Government must address public goods and leave the private goods to the
private sector. Public goods are those whose value do not diminish but instead
increase while private goods are those whose value diminish over time. Public
goods include vital infrastructures, extension services, technical assistance,
standards, rules and regulations, research and development and the like. Their
value has a multiplier effect and will benefit more people in the long run; seed
and fertilizer distribution, on the other hand, strains scarce government resources
and benefit a limited number of people. Government should identify which
benefits a greater number of beneficiaries in the long run, given its limited
resources. On the other hand, the private sector particularly business, including
non-government organizations and people’s organizations, serve a specific
population and have the means and expertise to address private goods.

7. Particularly in agriculture, Government should look beyond political

boundaries and instead develop viable areas of operation. Some agricultural
development programs require operating beyond political boundaries, depending
on the requirements of the program and the resources of the area. Thus, the
DA-LGU partnership must consider the most viable area of operation as the most
economically viable geographic or political unit. This may be a single province, or
a single municipality, or a cluster of towns that will yield better and efficient
services.

8. Integration and synergistic Intergovernmental Relations are key to program

effectiveness and success. In a decentralized set-up integration of plans and
projects, especially at the local level, is necessary. Bottom up planning, from the
lowest LGU level up to the national government must be the norm. This will avoid
redundancy, overlapping of functions and services, duplication and waste of
resources. Consolidation, collaboration, and cooperation should mark the
partnership relations. Furthermore, in the integration of plans, roles of each level
of government are clearly defined.

9. Development requires equitable distribution of resources and

opportunities. The DA-LGU partnership must always consider equity when
making available resources and opportunities. Priority must be given to those
 who need help most. Likewise, there must be a system also for the LGUs to “buy
into” grants and a reward scheme for those performing well.

10. Information Exchange systems must be installed and accessible. To enable

all levels of government to share between and among themselves information
that will result in innovation, productivity, marketability, competitiveness, and
efficiency. A database system must be established and Information must be
shared to all stakeholders.

III. The Agricultural and Fisheries Functions of Local Governments: A Review

Two instruments were used to provide and indication of what is happening at the
LGU level with regard to devolved agricultural services. First is the Survey Questionnaire
on Decentralization and Devolution (Survey 1) designed by the E.O. 444 Devolution
Committee. Second, is the Survey Questionnaire on Agricultural Services Provided by
Municipalities and Barangay (Survey 2) designed by the LPP in cooperation with the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Economic Policy Reform
and Advocacy (EPRA) Project of the Ateneo de Manila University.

Both surveys were based on the provision of the LGC particularly Section 17 –
Basic Services and Facilities, which stipulates that:

“Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue

exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested
upon them. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of
national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local
government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such
other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate or incidental to
efficient and effective provision of basic services and facilities enumerated
herein.”

Section 17 likewise defines the basic services and facilities of the barangay,
municipality/city and provincial governments with regard to agriculture.

Due to lack of material time and resources, the results of both surveys were used
as mere indications and perceptions of the respondents. A more detailed conduct and
statistically acceptable gathering of data will be undertaken in the process of
implementing E.O. 444. However, the respondents are LGU experts in the field of
agriculture and have taken time to answer the questionnaire.

A. Survey 1 (Annex A). The survey covers the agricultural functions at the
municipal/city and provincial levels as provided in Section 17 of the LGC. The survey
form was sent to the Office of the Provincial Governor and was sent to the Office of the
Provincial Agriculturist (OPA).

The survey shows that not all of the devolved agricultural services and functions
stipulated in the LGC are not yet fully implemented in some LGUs, but some functions
and services are partially done by the LGUs with the assistance of the DA. There were
no indications that the services are not provided by the LGUs as mandated by the Code,
except those functions that could not be performed due to local conditions and
geographical locations.

B. Survey 2 (Annex B toB5). Similarly, the survey was based on Section 17 of the
LGC. It was administered during the LPP Policy Formulation Workshop cited earlier. In
addition to functions of municipalities and the barangay mandated by the Local
Government Code, questions were asked on functions beyond Section 17 which should
be performed at the provincial level. There were also questions on what are the
perceived problems encountered by the LGUs. These were answered by frequency. A
separate section was added to gauge the Satisfaction Level of the personnel. A profiling
of the participants was also generated.

The survey reveals that the barangays appear to lean toward “seldom” and
“never” degree of frequency when it comes to implementing the mandate of the LGC.
For municipalities provision of services gravitates toward the “sometimes” column. In the
case of the provinces, figures are relatively high in the “always” column. The provision of
livestock markets, animal breeding stations and artificial insemination appear in equal
percentage for both provinces and municipalities in both the “always” and the “never”
columns.

For the other services and functions on top of what Sec. 17 require, the
respondents said that they: a) “Always” conduct program planning, monitoring and
evaluation (57%); b) “Frequently” do data collection and validation (50%); c)
“Sometimes” provide local farmers’ groups linkages with higher level organizations
(43%); d) “Sometimes” they formulate local regulations to ensure the quality of the
agriculture inputs (36%); e) “Sometimes” they prevent/regulate the use and sale of
products that may cause negative externalities (43%); f) “Seldom” that they certify the
quality of the products/competence of suppliers (36%) but there were respondents who
also said they “never” did (36%).

There were 31 items listed as problems encountered by the LGUs. The top ten
(10) problems that are “always” encountered are:

1. Financial Constraints (50%)

2. Financial Constraints of Clientele (50%)
3. Insufficient/Delayed Transportation Allowance (43%)
4. Politics (43%)
5. Lack of Transportation Facilities (43%)
6. Repayment of Loans (43%)
7. Dole Out Mentality of Farmers (36%)
8. Marketing (36%)
9. Devolution Related (36%)
10. Problems with the Bureaucracy (36%)

It is interesting to note that 50% of the respondents said that “sometimes” peace
and order is a problem (50%) while only 7% said that it is “always” a problem.
IV. Proposed Framework for Department of Agriculture and
Local Governments Partnership

Based on the workshop results, the following “Proposed Framework for

Rationalization, Continuing Decentralization and Devolution of Agriculture and Fisheries
Development” are being forwarded to the DA for consideration.

Two graphical presentations Annex C and Annex D complement this textual

presentation.

A. Proposed Framework for Rationalization, Continuing Decentralization and

Devolution of Agriculture and Fisheries Development (Annex C)

In the rationalization of the DA under E.O. 366 and in the process of continuing
decentralization and devolution of agriculture and fisheries functions and services, the
“Goal Focus” of the DA should be paramount. The partnership between the Department
and the LGUs must always strive to work within the framework of the goals that RA No.
8435, otherwise known as the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of
1997, hopes to achieve. These are: 1) Prosperity of Farmers; 2) Competitiveness; 3)
Food Security; 4) Sustainable Production Systems.

To be meaningful and responsive, the partnership must advance the

achievement of the following cross-cutting goals:

1. Poverty Alleviation. Programs and services should uplift the conditions of

the farmers but the whole community, in particular the agricultural
community, and ultimately the whole country.

2. Social Equity – Information and resources should be available to as many

people and government units and agencies as possible. Benefits must be
accessible to all.

3. People Empowerment – The farmers and other stakeholders in the

community must be able to participate in all aspect of the development
process.

The achievement of these goals requires the integration of plans and programs
through bottom-up planning from the barangay and client level to municipal/city and
provincial levels up to the DA.. This can be achieved only through genuine consultation
and participation of all implementers.

On the other hand, the LGUs must be able to work toward consolidation,
coordination, collaboration, and complementation. Accountabilities and resource sharing
mechanisms must be identified and agreed upon. At present the most viable area or unit
of operation is the province. This being the case, the DA should coordinate with the
provincial governments and in no instance directly deal with other lower LGUs, except in
specific instances in which a cluster of municipalities could be defined as a viable area of
operation.

In terms of what roles to play, both DA and the LGUs should probably revisit and
redefine their mandates. For the DA, as a national agency it should transform its focus
from a commodity (production) to goal (AFMA goals). This requires that it should
strengthen its capacity to deliver extension services, provide capability-building/technical
support to LGUs, and to perform effective regulatory functions and state-of-the-art
research and development. For their part, LGUs must be able to define specific roles
and targets in the translation of national goals to local development programs and
projects. This process should include fund utilization and allocation of resources of their
Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA) shares and grants for national and local programs.

To effectively achieve national goals, funds for implementation must be

distributed to the local governments. A National Fund Transfer System (NFTS) must be
set up to prioritize those who are in need and allow capable LGUs to “buy into” grants.
This will ensure equitability of resources and provide incentives for good performers.

Furthermore, LGUs must define their specific roles in rendering appropriate

extension service, setting their regulatory scope, formulating their research and
development niche, and contributing to information, communication and education
campaigns. The DA-LGU Partnership Framework – Key Result areas (KRA) form
provided in Annex D2 proposes an outline of the roles of the DA and LGUs for general
engagements and specific purposes.

It must be emphasized, again, that the relationship between the DA and the
LGUs must be anchored on the principles of decentralization and local autonomy.

B. The DA-LGU Framework for Partnership

The DA-LGU Framework for Partnership Matrix (ANNEX D1) shows the
“Steering” roles of DA and the “Rowing” roles of DA and the LGUs, respectively, on the
left side of the box. The DA in order steer shall have a National Agriculture and Fisheries
Policy developed in a participatory manner. To implement this policy, it must come up
with a National Agriculture and Fisheries Strategic Plan that will specify the guidelines,
technical assistance, funding and monitoring and evaluation systems that it shall provide

For the “rowing” function, provincial governments must come up with their own
Provincial Agricultural Development Strategic Plan in response to the national policy.
This will include the issuance of the necessary guidelines, technical assistance, funding
and monitoring and evaluation systems for their component cities and towns. Parallel to
this the provinces will also craft their own Annual Performance Plan. For the
municipalities/cities they will likewise follow the same exercise that of the province, the
only difference is that the municipalities/cities could directly deal with farmers and fisher
folks.

At the right-half side of ANNEX D1, the roles of central government, in this case
the DA are clearly on policy making and implementation coordination. The DA is also
tasked to determine the national public goods through research and development,
information, communication and education campaigns and strict enforcement of
regulations and standards. At a lower scale and based on their specific conditions, the
LGUs are expected to similarly determine the public goods they should be providing. In
addition to these, the provinces must identify and support the Strategic Agriculture and
Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs). The municipalities/cities are in charge of the
Farm Diagnosis and Planning while the barangays will do the farm clustering.

V. Conclusion

The agriculture performance of the Philippines compared to neighboring

countries is not to boast about. For the past decades the country has been, in many
agriculture indicators and statistics, is taking the down trend. Although some agricultural
functions and services were already devolved as enshrined in the 1991 Local
Government Code, not has been achieve to dramatically uplift the conditions of the
farmers and the communities.

The League of Provinces of the Philippines supports the implementation of EO

366 and EO 444. However, beyond their goals of rationalization and administrative
efficiency, these EOs must be carried out in the spirit of national development and
poverty alleviation. This requires that national and local government roles must be
empowered to play, and synergize, their steering and rowing roles, respectively. In the
process, decentralization and local autonomy must be nurtured and strengthened, as it
is only through these that national development can be accelerated and made
meaningful and relevant to the very people the government—both local and national—
has committed to serve.
 ANNEX A

LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES

SURVEY ON THE STATE OF DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION

AGRICULTURE
Total No. of Respondents : 15 Provinces

I. Section 17 of the Local Government Code devolved the following functions and services to the
Local Government Units (LGUs). Is your LGU actually performing these functions?
1. Extension and on-site research services and facilities to agriculture and fishery
activities which include:
• Dispersal of Full = 7 Partial = 6 (40%) Not at all = 0%)
livestock and (46.66%) With support from:
poultry a. DA?
Yes = 6 (40%) No = 0
If yes, what type of
assistance?
Financing = 3 (20%)
Technical = 6 (40%)
Others-breeding animals =1
(6.6%)
b. Province?
Yes = 6 (40%) No = 0
• Dispersal of Full = 5 Partial = 9 (60%) Not at all = 0
fingerlings (33.33%) With support from:
and other a. DA
seeding Yes = 9 (60%) No = 0
materials for If yes, what type of
aquaculture assistance?
Financing = 1 (6.6%)
Technical = 8 (53.33
Others :
fingerlings = 3 (20%)
inputs = 1 (6.6%)
b. Province? = 7 (46.66%)
• Dispersal of Full = 5 Partial = 8 (53.33%) Not at all = 1 (6.6%)
other seedling (33.33%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s
materials for a. DA? • not applicable to
aquaculture Yes = 8 (53.33%) No = 0 local conditions,
If yes, what type of geographical
assistance? location
Financing = 1 (6.6%) • financing
Technical = 8 (53.33%) constraints
Others: • lack of technical
seaweed seedling = 1 expertise
inputs = 1 • Others________
b. Province? = 6 (40%) b. DA performs functions?
Yes
• Extension and Full = 2 Partial = 13 (86.66%) Not at all = 0
 on-site (13.33%) With support from:
research a. DA?
services and Yes = 13 (86.66%) No =0
facilities for If yes, what type of
palay, corn assistance?
and vegetable Financing = 6 (40%)
seed farms Technical = 13 (86.66%)
b. Province?
Yes = 9 (60%) No = 4
(26.66%)

• Extension and Full = 2 Partial = 4 (26.66%) Not at all = 6

on-site (13.33%) With support from: a.Cite reasons:
research a.DA? • not applicable to
services and Yes=3 (20%) No= 0 local conditions
facilities for If yes, what type of /geographical
medicinal assistance? location =0
plant gardens Financing=0 • financing
Technical=2 (13.33%) constraints=3
Others=None • Lack of technical
b.Province? expertise=2
Yes=3 (20%) No=1 (6.6%) • Others:
not a priority=1
b.DA performs functions?
Yes = 1 No =0
• Extension Full=6 Partial=9 (60%) Not at all=None
and on-site (40%) With support from:
research a. DA
services and Yes=7 (46.66%) No=2
facilities for (13.33%)
fruit trees, If yes, what type of
coconuts assistance?
and other Financing= 3 (20%)
kinds of Technical= 7 (46.66%)
seedling Others:
nurseries CDF Funds
Seedlings
ROS
b. Province:
Yes=6 (40%) No=1 (6.6%)
• Demonstrati Full=5 Partial=10 (66.66%) Not at all=0
on Farms (33.33%) With support from:
a. DA
Yes=8 (53.33%) No=2
(13.33%)
If yes, what type of
assistance?
Financing=5 (33.33%)
Technical=9 (60%)
Others:
inputs
b. Province
 Yes=7 (46.66%) No=2
(13.33%)
• Quality Full=1 Partial=2 (13.33%) Not at all=5 (33.33%)
control of (6.6%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
copra and a. DA?
improvemen Yes=1 No=1 -not applicable to
t and If yes, what kind of local
development assistance? conditions/geogra
of local Financing=0 phical location=1
distribution Technical=1
channels, Others=None -financing
preferably b. Province? constraints=0
through Yes=1 No=1
cooperatives -lack of technical
expertise=1

-Others:
-not under
agriculturist ofc

b. DA performs
functions?
Yes=2 No=1

• Inter- Full= 6 Partial=7 (46.66%) Not at all=2 (13.33%)

barangay (40%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
irrigation a. DA?
system Yes= 6 (40%) No=1 -Not applicable to local
If yes, what type of conditions/geographical
assistance? location=0

Palay = 9
-financing=1

Corn = 1 -Technical=6 (40%) -Financing constraints=1

Fruits & Others:
vegetables -equipments -lack of technical
=4 b. Province? expertise=1
Yes=7 (46.66%) No=0

Others; = Others:
1 -function is under NIA
Note: Bulacan
has b. DA performs functions?
regular Yes= 0 No=0
program
on
OSP/STW
and SFR

• Water and Full = 6 Partial = 9 (60%) Not at all = 0

soil resource (40%) With support from:
utilization a. DA?
and Yes=9 (60%) No=0
conservation If yes, what type of
projects assistance?
-financing= 4 (26.66%)
-Technical=9 (60%)
 Others:
b. Province?
Yes=6 (40%) No=3
(20%)
• Enforcement Full = 6 Partial = 8 (53.33%) Not at all= 0
of fishery (40%) With support from: No=
laws in a. DA?
municipal Yes= 8 (53.33%) No=0
waters If yes, what type of
including the assistance?
conservation -financing= 3 (20%)
of -Technical= 8 (53.33%)
mangroves Others:
b. Province?
Yes= 7 (46.66%) No=
2. Agriculture extension and on-site research services and facilities include (Sec. 17 3i ):
• Prevention Full= 2 Partial= 13 (86.66%) Not at all=0
and control (13.33%) With support from:
of plant a. DA?
pests and Yes= 13 (86.66%) No=
diseases 0
If yes, what type of
assistance?
-financing= 5 (33.33%)
-Technical= 13 (86.66%)
Others:
-chemicals
b. Province?
Yes= 9 (60%) No= 4
(26.66%)
• Prevention Full= 3 Partial= 10 (66.66%) Not at all= 0
and control (20%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
of animal a. DA?
pests and Yes= 10 (66.66%) No= 0 -Not applicable to local
diseases If yes, what type of conditions/geographical
assistance? location=
-financing= 6 (40%)
-Technical= 7 (46.66%) -Financing constraints=
Others:
-drugs, biologies, disinfectants -lack of technical
b. Province? expertise=
Yes= 6 (40%) No= 4
(26.66%) Others:

b. DA performs functions?
Yes= No=
• Dairy Farms Full= 1 Partial= 10 (66.66%) Not at all= 2
(6.6%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
a. DA?

Big scale = 0 Yes= 8 (53.33%) No= 2 -Not applicable to local

Small Scale (13.33%) conditions/geographical
= 4 (26.66%) If yes, what type of location= 1

Backyard = assistance?
6 (40%) -financing= 4 (26.66%) -Financing constraints= 2
 -Technical= 6 (40%)
Others: 0 -lack of tech.expertise = 1
b. Province?
Yes= 5 (33.33%) No= Others:
5 (33.33%)
b. DA performs functions?
Yes= 0 No= 0
• Livestock Full= 3 Partial = 7 (46.66%) Not at all= 3
markets (20%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
a. DA?
Yes= 5 (33.33%) No= -Not applicable to local
2 (13.33%) conditions/geographical
If yes, what type of location= 1
assistance?
-financing= 3 (20%) -Financing constraints= 2
-Technical= 5 (33.33%)
Others: -lack of tech. expertise= 1
b. Province?
Yes= 6 (40%) No= Others:
1 (6.6%) -no facilities

b. DA performs functions?
Yes= 0 No= 0
• Animal Full= 2 Partial= 9 (60%) Not at all= 1
breeding (13.33%) With support from: a. Cite reason/s:
stations a. DA?
Yes= 7 (46.66%) No= -Not applicable to local
2 (13.33%) conditions/geographical
If yes, what type of location=
assistance?
-financing= 0 -Financing constraints=
-Technical= 5 (33.33%)
Others: -lack of technical
-breeder stocks =2 (13.33%) expertise=
b. Province?
Yes= 6 (40%) No= Others:
3 (20%) -facilities not used for the
purpose

b. DA performs functions?
Yes= 0 No= 0
• Artificial Full= 2 Partial= 9 (60%) Not at all= 0
insemination (13.33%) With support from:
centers a. DA?
Yes= 9 (60%) No= 0
If yes, what type of
assistance?
-financing= 1
-Technical= 9 (60%)
Others:
-supplies
-semen, AI paraphernalia
-PCC
b. Province?
 Yes= 4 26.66%) No=
5 (33.33%)
• Assistance Full= 7 Partial= 7 (46.66%) Not at all= 0
in the (46.66%) With support from:
organization a. DA?
of farmers’ Yes= 6 (40%) No= 1
and If yes, what type of
fishermen’s assistance?
cooperatives -financing= 0
and other -Technical=
collective Others:
organization b. Province?
Yes= 6 (40%) No= 1
• Assistance Full= 2 Partial= 12 (80%) Not at all= 0
in the (13.33%) With support from:
transfer of a. DA?
appropriate Yes= 12 (80%) No= 0
technologies If yes, what type of
assistance?
-financing= 3 (20%)
-Technical= 12 (80%)
Others:
b. Province?
Yes= 9 (60%) No= 3
(20%)
II. Aside from the Local Government Code other special laws as enumerated below, also
devolved to LGUs certain functions /services. Are there functions provided in such laws or
other laws that you may know of that are supposed to be performed by LGUs but are
continued to be performed by the DA?

Special Laws:
• AFMA
• Agricultural Engineering Act*
• Fishery Code *
• RA 8550 *Provided by LGUs

If yes, please enumerate services /functions: if no proceed to the next question:

1. augmentation funds for updating of salaries and wages
2. on-site researches
3. bottoms-up planning
4. maintenance of provincial plant nursery
5. extension services
6. Chapter 4 of AFMA (irrigation) : No turn-over to LGUs has been done yet by NIA on the ff:
a. operation and maintenance of HIS
b. planning, design and management of CIS
III. What other functions/services retained by DA (as enumerated below) should be
devolved to LGUs?
(Please tick the box)
1. Crop prioritization as banner program at LGU level
2. regulatory services / functions
3. plant quarantine
4. fisherman’s license
5. funding and financial aspects
6. implementation of agri-infra projects (irrigation, post-harvest, etc...)
7. decision-making should be participatory in nature
8. project proposals emanating from LGUs should be given attention, not the blueprints from DA.
Agricultural projects should be adoptive
9. regulation and registration of fishponds

No. of respondents to questions II and III = 6

 ANNEX B
Policy Formulation Workshop
Agriculture and Fisheries Development
Survey Results

Indicate in your Degree of Frequency # Staff

assessment, which of the assigned
services enumerated are
provided by your
province.
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
For a Province:
1. Agricultural extension and on- 4
site research services and
facilities
• Prevention and control of plant 57 21 7 7 0 12
and animal pests and diseases
• Dairy farms 14 7 7 36 0 1
• Livestock markets animal 29 21 7 7 29 4
breeding stations, and artificial
insemination centers
• Assistance in the organization 71 0 29 0 0 6
of farmers’ and fishermen's
cooperatives and other
collective organizations
• Transfer of appropriate 71 0 21 7 0 11
technology
2. Program planning, monitoring 57 29 0 7 0 20
and evaluation
3. Data collection and validation 29 50 14 7 0 15
4. Provide local farmers’ groups 36 14 43 7 0 13
linkages with higher level
organizations
5. Formulate local regulations to 0 21 36 21 21 5
ensure the quality of the
agriculture inputs available.
6. Prevent/ regulate the use and 14 0 43 21 21 2
sale of products that may cause
negative externalities
7. Certify the quality of the 21 0 7 36 36 1
products/ competence of
suppliers
8. Use of ICT: Kindly assess the 7
number of technical staff that
uses computers
 ANNEX B2
Indicate in your assessment, which Degree of Frequency
of the services enumerated are
provided by: municipality and
barangay.
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

For a Barangay:
1. Agricultural support services which
include
• Planting materials distribution system 29 14 14 29 14
• Operation of farm produce collection 14 0 43 36 7
• Buying stations; 7 0 14 50 21
2. Maintenance of barangay roads and 14 36 14 36 0
bridges and water supply systems
3. Satellite or public market, where 7 0 7 57 29
viable;
For a municipality
1. Extension and on-site research
services and facilities related to
agriculture and fishery activities:
• Dispersal of livestock and poultry, 36 14 29 14 7
fingerlings, and other seeding
materials for aquaculture
• Palay, corn, and vegetable seed 7 29 43 14 7
farms
• Medicinal plant gardens; fruit tree, 21 7 43 21 0
coconut, and other kinds of seedling
nurseries
• Demonstration farms 29 14 50 7 7
• Quality control of copra and 0 0 21 21 29
improvement and development of
local distribution channels, preferably
through cooperatives
• Interbarangay irrigation system* 0 29 21 14 21
• Water and soil resource utilization 0 21 21 43 14
and conservation projects**
• Enforcement of fishery laws in 21 50 7 7 14
municipal waters including the
conservation of mangroves;
2. Infrastructure facilities intended
primarily to service the needs of the
residents of the municipality and which
are funded out of municipal funds:
• Municipal roads and bridges 36 7 50 7 7
• Communal irrigation 7 21 43 21 7
• Small water impounding projects and 0 43 29 7 14
other similar projects
 • Fish ports 0 29 14 21 14
• Artesian wells 21 14 36 29 0
3. Public markets, slaughterhouses and 43 0 50 7 0
other municipal enterprises
4. Perform inspections and report 29 29 29 7 7
violations on local ordinances about
agriculture.
5. Collection of data through established 21 21 43 7 7
procedures
* NA = 4
** NA = 2
 ANNEX B3
Problems encountered by
LGU
Problems Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Financial constraints of the LGU 50 21 7 0 21
43 7 21 7 21
Insufficient/delayed transportation
allowance
Lack of support from LGU 14 0 36 36 21
14 7 36 14 21
Mobility (Inaccessibility of
municipalities)
Farmers' attitude 7 14 64 14 0
0 14 57 29 0
Farmers lack of willingness to adopt
new technology
Lack of supplies and facilities 29 7 36 7 21
Politics 43 7 21 14 14
Dole out mentality of farmers 36 29 29 7 7
Farmers are difficult to organize 21 7 43 21 7
Devolution-related problems 36 7 29 7 7
50 43 7 0 0
Financial constraints of the clientele
7 36 43 14 0
Lack of assistance from national
government
Office lack transportation facilities 43 14 21 7 14
Weather conditions/calamities 29 14 43 14 0

Repayment of loans 43 21 29 7 0

Marketing 36 21 21 21 0

Problems with the bureaucracy 36 14 21 7 7

29 21 29 7 14
Lack of trainings for staff development
Insufficient manpower 29 14 43 14 0

Lack of support at the brgy level 14 14 36 36 0

Peace and order 7 0 50 21 21

7 29 29 29 0
Coordination/communication problem
7 14 36 29 7
Lack/inaccessibility of mature
technologies
Hiring of non-technical personnel 14 7 36 21 21
Inaccessibility of new technology 0 21 50 7 21
 21 7 43 7 29
Inconsistent programs between the
national and local government
29 14 21 29 0
Farmers do not like the projects being
implemented
Collection of reports 29 14 21 29 0
29 7 57 7 0
Duplication of functions at the
provincial and national
Low quality of inputs 7 21 50 14 7

TOP 10
 ANNEX B4
Satisfaction Level Survey

Satisfaction Level
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Strongly
Strongly Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Areas
Pay 21 50 0 0 21
Work Assignment 43 57 0 0 0
Physical Environment 43 57 0 0 0
Working Relationship
- With peers 43 50 0 7 0
- With subordinate 21 64 0 14 0
- With Superiors 36 64 0 0 0

ANNEX B5
Profile of Participants

Degrees Attained
6

0
BSA Agri-Eng. Agri-Eco Agri- Masters' Ph.D. Ph.D.
Educ. Deg HRM Pub Ad.
 Age Profile
8

0
30-40 41-50 51-60 61 & up

No. of Years in Position

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
>1 1-5 years 6-10 years 11- 15 years 16-20 years
 ANNEX C

Proposed Framework for Rationalization, Continuing Decentralization and

Devolution of Agriculture and Fisheries Development

• Poverty Goal Focused

Alleviation
• Social Equity • Extension
• People DA • Regulatory
Empowerment •R&D
I
N
AFMA Goals T
PROV. I Specific Roles and
E
N
• Prosperity of G
T
Targets
Farmers R
E • Cost Sharing/Fund
A Utilization – IRA,
•Competitiveness T
R
Grants for
• Food Security I CITY/MUN Programs, Grant
L
O
• Sustainable N
G Formula for
Production U Equalization
Systems • Service Delivery –
Extension, R&D, IEC,
Bgy./ Regulatory
Clients

LOCAL AUTONOMY
 ANNEX D1
Proposed DA-LGU Framework for Partnership

National Agriculture & Fisheries Central Government

Policy (participatory) • Policymaking; Policy
Central National Agriculture & Fisheries Implementation
Government Strategic Plan Coordination (NG Goals)
(Steering) (Guidelines, TA, funding and M&E)
• R&D for national public
goods
• IEC for national public
Provincial Annual Provincial Level (production
Agricultural Provincial of provincial public
Dev’t. Strategic Performance goods)
Plan Plan • R&D, IEC, Regulations
(Guidelines, TA, (Guidelines,
funding and TA, funding • Strategic A&F Dev’t. Zones
M&E) and M&E)
Local
Government
Units Municipal Annual Municipal Level (production
Agricultural Municipal of municipal public goods)
(Rowing)
Dev’t. Strategic Performance • IEC
Plan Plan
(Guidelines, TA, (Support • Regulations
funding and Services in • Farm Diagnosis & Planning
M&E) A&F)
Guidelines, TA, funding and M&E
Barangay Level
Annual Barangay Farmers/fish • IEC Support
Performance erfolk
Plan • Farm Clustering
(Coordination,
M&E)
 ANNEX D2
KRA Matrix for DA-LGU Partnership

Key Result Role of the DA Role of the LGU

Areas

Province Mun/City Barangay

1. Policy &
Planning

2. Program
Implementati
on
2.1 R & D
2.2 IEC
2.3 Regulation

3. Monitoring &
Evaluation

4. Admin &
Finance

5. Knowledge
Management

6. Capability &
HR
Development