More than 18 old ages ago. in June 1988 President Corazon Aquino signed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and therefore laid the foundation for the execution of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The jurisprudence was passed after about a twelvemonth of het treatments in Congress. It was passed after the violent death of 19 provincials who were members of a presentation of 15 000 provincials inquiring for a meeting with the President and under the subsequent force per unit area of a alliance of 13 major farmers’ organisations who had formed a powerful umbrella group. the Congress for a People’s Agrarian Reform. dwelling of one and a half million members.
The execution of the reform did non travel swimmingly and met. as in other states implementing an agricultural reform. strong opposition from big landholders. Some used their political influence to forestall arrogation. while others tried to besiege the reform by illegal land transportations. land usage transition and other illegal agencies. Furthermore. the landlord dominated Congress delayed persistently the allotment of financess for the execution of the plan.
Yet. despite many obstructions the Department of Agrarian Reform ( DAR ) and its cooperating bureaus have accomplished many of their aims. Some 2 million landless husbandmans have received a secret plan of land of their ain and about 1 million renters were given unafraid occupancy conditions. The reform has improved the well-being of the rural society and contributed to socio-economic stableness in the countryside. With a coverage of approximately 40 per centum of the rural population and 75 per centum of all arable land the reform can be considered as one of the most successful in recent times.
While some big latifundia are still to be covered. the clip has come to reflect about the future function of the Department and its staff once the land acquisition and distribution constituent of the reform has been completed. i. e. in the station land acquisition and distribution ( station LAD ) period. As the experience in the Philippines and in other states has shown the mere allotment of land to reform donees is non sufficient. In order to go successful they have to be provided with back uping services.
In the yesteryear they were. to a big extent. supplied by the Department of Agrarian Reform. However. if a chief portion of its activities comes to an terminal. the inquiry arises whether there is still need for DAR and if so. for which undertakings. or whether other histrions are better suited to transport out the staying activities. In this province of personal businesss the Department became cognizant of the demand for a survey which would reexamine assorted institutional options for back uping reform donees and the rural community as a whole.
The Department approached the German Technical Cooperation ( GTZ ) to help in the readying of such a survey. GTZ has. for more than 30 old ages. cooperated with the Government of the Philippines in implementing its development plans. It has given particular accent to economic reforms and poverty relief. In acknowledgment of the importance of keeping the additions of the reform for the relief of rural poorness GTZ responded favorably to the petition. In audience with the Director of the Policy and Strategic Research Service. Mrs.
Martha Carmel Salcedo. GTZ commissioned five agricultural reform specializers and a undertaking director to carry on the survey. A maneuvering commission composed of DAR and GTZ was responsible for the coordination of the survey. The advisers prepared an analysis of the assorted constituents of the plan and made proposals for agricultural and rural development in a period after land acquisition and distribution. In order to formalize their preliminary findings and decisions GTZ organized regional audiences in Davao. Cebu. Zamboanga. Baguio and San Fernando and a national workshop in Metro Manila.
The meetings provided an unfastened forum for treatments among representatives of authorities and civil society about the hereafter of CARP. DAR and its cooperating bureaus. The positions expressed in these meetings were considered by the advisers and every bit far as executable incorporated in the survey. Director Salcedo and her staff followed the assorted phases of study readying and offered valuable remarks on earlier bill of exchanges. without. nevertheless. interfering in the conceptual work of the advisers.
In order to supply necessary background information which is needed for the apprehension and justification of the assorted options proposed. the book traces in its first portion the events that characterized the execution of the plan and describes in several sub-chapters its chief constituents. It appraises plan achievements and impact. It analyses defects and restraints in its execution. Each sub-chapter pinpoints lessons learned and identifies constituents which require farther intercessions.
In the 2nd portion of the book the advisers provide several options for institutional alteration for the hereafter development of the rural community and give particular accent to the function of the Department of Agrarian Reform and its specialised units. On the footing of their analysis in the first portion of the survey they propose a figure of recommendations which the authorities may see in order to safeguard the accomplishments of the reform.
In this context it is proposed that full usage should be made of the experience of the able and motivated staff of DAR. both in the field and in central offices. On the other manus it is of import to recognize that agricultural reform and rural development can non be achieved by authorities intercessions entirely. While the authorities can supply the general legal model. sustainable rural development requires the active engagement of local degree self-help groups. independent peasant organisations and NGOs.
