Defective registry deprived farmers of aid

THE BASIC registry for farmers/fisherfolk to avail of financial aid and farm input subsidies from the government– the Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture– was flagged by the Senate as defective and flawed.

At the hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Food and Agrarian Reform, Senator Rafael T. Tulfo said many government interventions have failed to reach beneficiaries.

Tulfo said the problems include unregistered farmers, denial of registration, and so-called “ghost registrants” who are skimming off government aid, according to a report of the Business World.

“Assistance fails to reach beneficiaries because not all farmers and fisherfolk are registered or allowed to register. In some cases, it takes a long time before they are registered. Some individuals are not farmers but received aid, while others are unaware of what the RSBSA is,” he said.

The RSBSA is the government’s official database of farmers, fisherfolk, farmworkers, and young farmers and is key to  availing government services for the agriculture industry, including financial assistance, credit, subsidies, and insurance.

Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) Director Remelyn R. Recoter told the senators that 10.7 million agricultural workers are currently registered with the RSBSA. Of this total, 6.8 million are farmers, 2.7 million fishfolk, around 2 million farm workers, and 328,000 farm youth.

Committee Chairman Sen. Francis Pancratius N. Pangilinan said the Department of Agriculture (DA) relies heavily on municipal agriculturists and local government units (LGUs) for farmer registration, but pointed out that the system is strained by manpower shortages at the local level.

Lea M. Beltran, a member of the League of Municipal and City Agriculturists of the Philippines, also said registration rates remain low primarily because of documentary requirements and the slow process of registration.

In 2023 during my six-months as consultant at the Department of Agriculture rice program I often heard farmers/fisherfolk complain of this anomaly in the registry system. 

Farmers/fisherfolk narrated to me how they have never gotten ayuda from the DA regional field offices because they were not in the list– neither do they know how to go about getting listed for future ayudas.

They said neighbors who were neither farm tillers, farmowners, or farm laborer have been getting ayudas because they have relatives or acquaintances in the municipal or provincial agricultural office who had enlisted them while legitimate farmers like themselves do not get registered nor do they get ayudas and farm inputs subsidies. 

 “There is a requirement for proof of ownership. But what about those who cannot read, write, or fill out forms? Especially in municipalities with many indigenous peoples, they do not have proof of ownership. Sometimes there are also delays in encoding even after documents have been submitted,” she told the hearing.

Aside from farmers, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) said fisherfolk also experience difficulty in accessing government support due to registration requirements.

Amor G. Diaz, who heads the BFAR’s Fisheries Industry Development and Support Services Division, said access to credit remains a “perennial problem” for fisherfolk, as most financing programs require RSBSA registration.

“There is a fisheries registration system (FishR) under BFAR. However, there are fisherfolk who are registered with that system yet are not included in the RSBSA because of stringent requirements,” she said.

To help address gaps in the registry, Pangilinan called for more inclusivity to the registry. He proposed the acceptance of proof of tillage for cases when proof of land ownership is not available or applicable.

“Proof of actual tillage should already be sufficient. Authorization from the landowner, certified by the local government, should be sufficient. Proof of ownership should not be the only option,” he said.

The committee also called on the DA to work with the Philippine Statistics Authority to address issues involving duplicate records and entries of inactive or deceased individuals.

Pangilinan said the government should also look into harmonizing various registries, including the RSBSA, FishR, and the Farmers and Fisherfolk Enterprise Development Information System under the Sagip Saka program.

Similarly, separate bills were filed to institutionalize support for agricultural cooperatives and overhaul extension services.

Senate Bills Nos. 389 and 1183, written by Sen. Risa N. Hontiveros-Baraquel and Pangilinan, respectively, proposed the creation of a Bureau of Agricultural Cooperatives to serve as the lead DA agency for the development, promotion, and regulation of agricultural cooperatives.

The measures seek to provide funding, capacity-building, and access to credit, and promote clustering, consolidation, and mergers to help cooperatives achieve economies of scale.

They also call for the establishment of a National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives to strengthen collective marketing, value-chain participation, and policy coordination.

The bills seek to grant registered agricultural cooperatives tax incentives, preferential loan terms from government financial institutions, and negotiated procurement arrangements with government agencies.

Senate Bill No. 1182, authored by Pangilinan, seeks to strengthen the National Agriculture and Fisheries Extension System through the creation of the Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Extension Agency, which will absorb and expand the functions of the ATI.

“Effective agricultural extension services are critical for sharing best practices, introducing new technologies, and providing crucial education to farmers and flsherfolk,” said Pangilinan in the explanatory note.

The proposed agency will set national standards, provide technical and financial assistance to LGUs, and ensure the uniform delivery of extension services.

The measure also calls for increased funding for extension programs, the professionalization of extension workers, and the designation of agriculture and fisheries officers at the provincial, city, and municipal levels. 

Footnote

I have repeatedly cited the ills of the devolution and decentralization of agriculture extension work to the municipal and provincial levels. Since MAOs and PAOs are under the mayor’s office the funds and service to be dispensed with are largely determined by politicians’ whims and caprices.

These services and farm inputs/mechanization services/ayudas hinge on who voted for the powers that be in their locality while those that did not support the incumbent would have a hard time, if at all, getting such services and goods that by law are due them.

Why don’t we just put the extension service and other agricultural bureaus under the central office so that top management– who are usually appointed by Malacanang– would have better grasp of actual distribution of resources.