Executive Order No. 406 (Mandating Certain Departments and Agencies to Align Their Respective Programs and Projects with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, Directing the Department of Agrarian Reform to Accelerate the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Through the Provision of Economic and Social Infrastructure Support,. MANILA, Philippines — Close to 900 hectares of agricultural land on Boracay Island will be covered by the government’s agrarian reform program, an official of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Problèmes liés à l'évaluation de l'impact des programmes de réforme agraire: l'expérience des Philippines
Malgré plusieurs dizaines d'années de recherche sur la réforme agraire, il semble que l'on ne se soit toujours pas accordé sur le rôle de celle-ci dans la réalisation de l'objectif général de développement que représente la croissance fondée sur la justice et la participation. Pour être en mesure de formuler une politique en faveur de la responsabilisation des populations rurales dans les pays en développement, politiciens, responsables locaux, administrateurs et spécialistes des sciences sociales ont besoin d'études objectives et fiables, ainsi que d'informations précises sur ses effets possibles et effectifs, ainsi que sur les avantages et les inconvénients de programmes aussi radicaux et sujets à controverse que les réformes agraires. Dans cet article, l'auteur souligne qu'il importe de procéder à des études d'impact afin de donner aux décideurs des arguments en faveur d'une réforme agraire. Il est toutefois difficile de savoir si ces arguments convaincront ou pas. En l'absence d'une véritable volonté de réforme, même si les experts peuvent toujours concevoir des projets de démonstration coûteux, ils ne parviendront pas à obtenir une amélioration généralisée du sort des cultivateurs. Cette amélioration ne pourra être obtenue que par des groupes de pression tels que les membres d'ONG spécialisées dans la défense d'intérêts particuliers ou d'autres organisations ainsi que par des responsables convaincus. Selon l'auteur, ces deux groupes ont un besoin urgent d'arguments et de faits capables de prouver que la réforme agraire est à même - en tout cas à terme - d'atténuer la pauvreté dans les campagnes et d'avoir des retombées bénéfiques pour les communautés rurales et, partant, pour le pays dans son ensemble.
La evaluación del impacto de los programas de reforma agraria: el caso de Filipinas
La investigación sobre las reformas agrarias se ha llevado a cabo durante varias décadas, pero todavía no hay un consenso sobre el propósito de estas reformas, que es conseguir un desarrollo con equidad y participación. Con el fin de poder formular una política adecuada para el mejoramiento de la población rural en los países en desarrollo, políticos, dirigentes locales, administradores y sociólogos necesitan un objetivo, estudios fiables y una información precisa sobre el potencial, los efectos reales y las ventajas e inconvenientes de programas tan drásticos y controvertidos como las reformas agrarias. Es necesario evaluar el impacto de las reformas agrarias para ofrecer a los responsables de la toma de decisiones los argumentos para llevarlas a cabo. Parece, sin embargo, bastante dudoso que estos argumentos sean convincentes. Si no existe una iniciativa real de reforma, los expertos pueden presentar costosos proyectos de demostración, pero no estarán en condiciones de conseguir mejoras generales y auténticas en la situación de los cultivadores. Estas mejoras sólo pueden provenir de grupos de presión como las ONG y de funcionarios que simpaticen con las reformas. Ambos grupos necesitan argumentos que demuestren que la reforma agraria aliviará a la larga la pobreza rural y beneficiará a las comunidades rurales y al país en su conjunto.
H. Meliczek
Dr Hans Meliczek is Professor at the Institut für Rurale Entwicklung, Waldweg 26, D 37073 Göttingen, Germany
Dr Hans Meliczek is Professor at the Institut für Rurale Entwicklung, Waldweg 26, D 37073 Göttingen, Germany
Despite decades of research on agrarian reform, there is apparently still no consensus about the role agrarian reforms play in achieving the overall development goal of growth with equity and participation. In order to be able to formulate an appropriate policy for the benefit of the rural population in developing countries, politicians, local leaders, administrators and social scientists need objective and reliable studies and accurate information about the potential and actual impacts, as well as the advantages and disadvantages, of programmes as drastic and controversial as agrarian reforms. In this article, the author stresses the need for impact assessment in order to provide decision-makers with arguments in support of agrarian reform. It seems, however, rather doubtful that these arguments will be convincing. If there is no real drive for reform, experts can produce expensive demonstration projects, but they will not be able to achieve any general and genuine improvement in the position of cultivators. This can only come from pressure groups, such as members of advocacy non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and political organizations and sympathetic reform officials. In the author's opinion, these two groups are in urgent need of arguments and facts that prove that agrarian reform will, at least in the long run, alleviate rural poverty and benefit the rural communities and, therefore, the country as a whole.
INTRODUCTION
Since the Second World War, more than 60 countries have enacted agrarian reform laws. While some of these have been executed successfully, many others have been only partially implemented and have not improved the unequal distribution of landownership. Advocates and antagonists of agrarian reform have, over decades, passed positive and negative judgements on the impact of agrarian reforms on the social and economic situation in their respective countries, the former in order to prove that their policies were right and the latter to prove just the opposite.
Despite decades of research on agrarian reform, there is apparently still no consensus about the role agrarian reform plays in achieving the overall development goal of growth with equity and participation. The publication in 1996 of a controversial World Bank study (World Bank, 1996) and the subsequent debate are expressions of these diverging points of view.
In order to be able to formulate an appropriate policy for the enhancement of the rural population in developing countries, politicians, local leaders, administrators and social scientists need objective and reliable studies and accurate information about the potential and actual impacts, as well as the advantages and disadvantages, of programmes as drastic and controversial as agrarian reforms.
In the last few years, agrarian reforms have gained renewed recognition among development thinkers in international organizations and research institutes. The World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), FAO and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) have established an Agrarian Reform Network that aims at promoting 'negotiated land reform'. The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), has also recognized the importance of removing obstacles to rural development by improving the land tenure situation, and has published guidelines on these issues for its staff engaged in technical cooperation (GTZ, 1997).
Despite decades of research on agrarian reform, there is apparently still no consensus about the role agrarian reform plays in achieving the overall development goal of growth with equity and participation. The publication in 1996 of a controversial World Bank study (World Bank, 1996) and the subsequent debate are expressions of these diverging points of view.
In order to be able to formulate an appropriate policy for the enhancement of the rural population in developing countries, politicians, local leaders, administrators and social scientists need objective and reliable studies and accurate information about the potential and actual impacts, as well as the advantages and disadvantages, of programmes as drastic and controversial as agrarian reforms.
In the last few years, agrarian reforms have gained renewed recognition among development thinkers in international organizations and research institutes. The World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), FAO and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) have established an Agrarian Reform Network that aims at promoting 'negotiated land reform'. The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), has also recognized the importance of removing obstacles to rural development by improving the land tenure situation, and has published guidelines on these issues for its staff engaged in technical cooperation (GTZ, 1997).
INTRICACIES OF AGRARIAN REFORM IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Widespread resistance to the implementation of agrarian reform is based on the vested interests of the ruling classes which have prevented changes in the status quo of landownership distribution. Apart from this opposition from large landowners, which is based on narrow personal interests, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have no clear perception about the advantages, disadvantages and, consequently, the usefulness of agrarian reforms. The reasons for this ambiguous attitude towards agrarian reform can be summarized as: conceptual differences; multiplicity of reform objectives; multiplicity of reform components; comprehensiveness of the reform; multiplicity of implementing agencies; the time horizon; and the personal bias of the evaluator. These factors are examined in the following subsections.
Conceptual difficulties
Most rural societies are integrated communities in which the various components - agricultural, non-agricultural, economic, social, political, religious and secular - are closely interrelated and cannot easily be separated. The same integration of components also applies to such measures as agrarian reforms that aim at changing the situation.
Similarly, the performance of the agricultural sector and the complexity of the land tenure situation of a given country are subject to a wide range of external factors as well as to the macro- and microlevel influences of other sectors of the economy and should, therefore, not be observed in isolation. In the Philippines, for instance, changing priorities in public investment in agriculture, trade liberalization, changes in the exchange rate and changes in the price of inputs such as fertilizer and crude oil have had a pronounced effect on the agricultural sector (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 79). In addition, it must be recognized that in the course of economic development the rural population no longer depends solely on farming activities but is engaged in off-farm and non-farm activities as well. For many rural people, therefore, the improvement of their living standard no longer relies on improved access to land, but rather on better access to income.
Furthermore, even within the agricultural sector a large variety of factors effect performance. Climatic influences, the introduction of new technologies in the form of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) and the expansion of the area under cultivation and irrigation have also had direct impacts on agriculture, and these have to be taken into consideration when the impact of reforms is being appraised.
Similarly, the performance of the agricultural sector and the complexity of the land tenure situation of a given country are subject to a wide range of external factors as well as to the macro- and microlevel influences of other sectors of the economy and should, therefore, not be observed in isolation. In the Philippines, for instance, changing priorities in public investment in agriculture, trade liberalization, changes in the exchange rate and changes in the price of inputs such as fertilizer and crude oil have had a pronounced effect on the agricultural sector (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 79). In addition, it must be recognized that in the course of economic development the rural population no longer depends solely on farming activities but is engaged in off-farm and non-farm activities as well. For many rural people, therefore, the improvement of their living standard no longer relies on improved access to land, but rather on better access to income.
Furthermore, even within the agricultural sector a large variety of factors effect performance. Climatic influences, the introduction of new technologies in the form of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) and the expansion of the area under cultivation and irrigation have also had direct impacts on agriculture, and these have to be taken into consideration when the impact of reforms is being appraised.
Multiplicity of reform objectives
Most agrarian reforms pursue simultaneously a mixture of political, social and economic objectives. The classification of these components is somewhat arbitrary, since there is no clear delineation between the objectives, some of which may even contrast with one another. Basically, agrarian reforms are measures that aim at changing power relations. By abolishing large landed property and feudal production systems, the rural population should be appeased and integrated into society, and this would contribute to the political stability of the country.
In the social sector, agrarian reforms aim at reducing inequalities in income, wealth and living standards and at strengthening independent and self-reliant farmers. The economic objectives of such reforms are to abolish inefficient production structures, exploit the efficiency of family farms, increase agricultural production, improve capital formation and increase demand for farm inputs and services that stimulate development in the non-agricultural sector.
As well as these national dimensions, agrarian reforms also have important international repercussions. In the general trend of globalization and international interdependencies, governments have to respect their international agreements. For this reason, some countries are excluding transnational corporations from their land distribution programmes, while others encourage the cultivation of export crops to reduce their foreign debt burden rather than promoting self-sufficiency in food production as a prime objective.
The Philippines Republic Act No. 6657, which institutes the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), declares two objectives in its title: to promote social justice and to promote industrialization. Section 2 of the Act is more specific by pronouncing: 'The welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers will receive highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization.... To this end a more equitable distribution and ownership of land shall be undertaken to provide farmers and farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands' (Government of the Philippines, 1988, p. 3).
In the social sector, agrarian reforms aim at reducing inequalities in income, wealth and living standards and at strengthening independent and self-reliant farmers. The economic objectives of such reforms are to abolish inefficient production structures, exploit the efficiency of family farms, increase agricultural production, improve capital formation and increase demand for farm inputs and services that stimulate development in the non-agricultural sector.
As well as these national dimensions, agrarian reforms also have important international repercussions. In the general trend of globalization and international interdependencies, governments have to respect their international agreements. For this reason, some countries are excluding transnational corporations from their land distribution programmes, while others encourage the cultivation of export crops to reduce their foreign debt burden rather than promoting self-sufficiency in food production as a prime objective.
The Philippines Republic Act No. 6657, which institutes the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), declares two objectives in its title: to promote social justice and to promote industrialization. Section 2 of the Act is more specific by pronouncing: 'The welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers will receive highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization.... To this end a more equitable distribution and ownership of land shall be undertaken to provide farmers and farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands' (Government of the Philippines, 1988, p. 3).
Multiplicity of reform components
Agrarian reform in its narrow sense comprises measures that aim at the redistribution of large landed property in favour of the landless rural population and small farmers. In the Philippines, as the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Ernesto Garilao, pointed out: 'The essence of an agrarian reform programme is land distribution. If you are not doing land distribution, you are doing community development' (Government of the Philippines, 1994, p. 13).
Yet, as experience in many countries has shown, the mere distribution of lands is not sufficient to guarantee an improvement of the living standard of the reform's beneficiaries. Land transfer has to be accompanied by the provision of support services, such as input supply, extension, marketing and credit. These two components, land distribution and support services, form the core of any agrarian reform programme.
The Philippine agrarian reform programme encompasses much more than land redistribution and support services and covers the following additional components: land transfer activities, land settlement, leasehold operations, stock distribution options, production and profit sharing, development of beneficiaries, and land use conversion.
This list of reform components suggests a lack of clearly defined priorities. One section of the reform facilitates the establishment of a class of independent small landowners, while another aims at raising the income of tenants and agricultural labourers without changing their social status. One component encourages the investment of agribusiness firms and profit sharing arrangements in large corporations, while another aims at strengthening small farmers' organizations.
As these various components of the reform have different consequences on different actors and different repercussions on production, productivity and the social situation of the rural population, it is not possible to assess their general impact. The impact assessment of CARP therefore requires the analysis of the specific components.
Yet, as experience in many countries has shown, the mere distribution of lands is not sufficient to guarantee an improvement of the living standard of the reform's beneficiaries. Land transfer has to be accompanied by the provision of support services, such as input supply, extension, marketing and credit. These two components, land distribution and support services, form the core of any agrarian reform programme.
The Philippine agrarian reform programme encompasses much more than land redistribution and support services and covers the following additional components: land transfer activities, land settlement, leasehold operations, stock distribution options, production and profit sharing, development of beneficiaries, and land use conversion.
This list of reform components suggests a lack of clearly defined priorities. One section of the reform facilitates the establishment of a class of independent small landowners, while another aims at raising the income of tenants and agricultural labourers without changing their social status. One component encourages the investment of agribusiness firms and profit sharing arrangements in large corporations, while another aims at strengthening small farmers' organizations.
As these various components of the reform have different consequences on different actors and different repercussions on production, productivity and the social situation of the rural population, it is not possible to assess their general impact. The impact assessment of CARP therefore requires the analysis of the specific components.
Comprehensiveness of the reform
The impact of an agrarian reform depends primarily on the intensity of the reform measures, i.e. on how much land and how many landowners will be covered by the reform and how many rural people will benefit from its various components.
Other issues are whether compensation will be paid to the former landowner and, if so, how much it will be. It is quite obvious that compensation payments at the market value of the land have no immediate effect on the redistribution of wealth since the land transfer will constitute, at least initially, a mere sales operation.
It has been estimated by L. Cornista that CARP, if properly implemented, would benefit 60 percent of all rural households in the Philippines. As poverty was estimated to prevail among 50 percent of households, she anticipated that poverty incidence would be greatly minimized, if not eradicated. Her estimates were based on the assumption that CARP would be fully implemented, i.e. that 3.3 million beneficiaries would receive land through CARP (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 177 and 191). As of December 1997, however, only 82 percent of this target had been achieved (Government of the Philippines, 1998, p. 1).
Other issues are whether compensation will be paid to the former landowner and, if so, how much it will be. It is quite obvious that compensation payments at the market value of the land have no immediate effect on the redistribution of wealth since the land transfer will constitute, at least initially, a mere sales operation.
It has been estimated by L. Cornista that CARP, if properly implemented, would benefit 60 percent of all rural households in the Philippines. As poverty was estimated to prevail among 50 percent of households, she anticipated that poverty incidence would be greatly minimized, if not eradicated. Her estimates were based on the assumption that CARP would be fully implemented, i.e. that 3.3 million beneficiaries would receive land through CARP (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 177 and 191). As of December 1997, however, only 82 percent of this target had been achieved (Government of the Philippines, 1998, p. 1).
![Philippines Philippines](http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/00001/000089568.jpg)
Multiplicity of implementing agencies
The implementation of an agrarian reform is usually the responsibility of one government agency, ministry, department, institute or authority. Assessment of the impact of operations is facilitated by access to statistical data from a central office, which can be used as benchmarks for impact assessments. If, on the other hand, as in the Philippines, several institutions are in charge of executing specific components of the reform, the evaluation process is impeded by the multiple sources of information. For the purpose of collecting, processing and storing specific data that can be useful for agrarian reform evaluation, a wide range of offices have relevance. In the Philippines, the most important of these are: DAR, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Land Bank of the Philippines, the Land Registration Authority, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the National Irrigation Authority and the Department of Labor and Employment.
The issue of multiple sources of information becomes even more complex because most of these offices collect and store information at barangay, municipality, province and region levels, and several national agencies have devolved functions to local government units.
In recent years, DAR has involved a number of NGOs and political organizations in the process of land distribution, and their offices also collect and process information that can be tapped for the purpose of assessing the programme. Whenever possible, impact evaluation missions should obtain and use data from beneficiaries and beneficiary organizations to elicit their assessment of the reform (Asian Development Bank, 1991, p. 30). Such sources of information are particularly important, since the ultimate determinant of social and economic impact is the attitude of the beneficiaries themselves to the success or failure of the programme.
The issue of multiple sources of information becomes even more complex because most of these offices collect and store information at barangay, municipality, province and region levels, and several national agencies have devolved functions to local government units.
In recent years, DAR has involved a number of NGOs and political organizations in the process of land distribution, and their offices also collect and process information that can be tapped for the purpose of assessing the programme. Whenever possible, impact evaluation missions should obtain and use data from beneficiaries and beneficiary organizations to elicit their assessment of the reform (Asian Development Bank, 1991, p. 30). Such sources of information are particularly important, since the ultimate determinant of social and economic impact is the attitude of the beneficiaries themselves to the success or failure of the programme.
Time horizon
An important consideration in impact assessment is the establishment of an appropriate time frame. Data may be collected at various times, depending on the type of data and the purpose for which they are required. There are three main possibilities:
- The one-off approach. In this case data are collected and presented for one particular point in time only. Such data provide a snapshot of the present situation and allow comparisons with other areas and situations at a given time.
- The time series approach. This approach involves collecting data at regular intervals over a predetermined period of time. Time series data provide information about historical trends and variation over time and are, therefore, more convenient for impact assessment purposes than are data gathered according to the one-off approach.
- The before and after approach. This procedure involves two major data collection exercises; one before an anticipated change or event and one afterwards. This approach is the most suitable for the impact evaluation of a particular policy, programme or project. Frequently, however, benchmarks of the situation before are not available since, at the beginning of a reform, the authorities concentrate their efforts on programme implementation rather than on data collection.
When the impact of agrarian reforms is being assessed, different time frames need to be considered.
Short- and long-term effects. It is frequently observed that, immediately after the implementation of a reform, the marketable surplus of agricultural products declines, mainly because the former landowning class ceases to provide the supporting services they used to furnish to their former tenants in the form of seeds, fertilizer, irrigation water and other inputs, while the new institutions for providing these services are not yet in place. However, as macrodata on agrarian reform accomplishments in Latin America have shown, this is a transitory phenomenon. In the Latin American case, marketable surplus was generated and exceeded pre-reform levels as soon as the beneficiaries increased production and productivity (Thiesenhusen, 1989).
Differences in impact can also be observed in the case of government income. While during the first years of implementation reforms have to be funded out of the budget, increased tax revenue will be generated in the long term when the anticipated increases in agricultural productivity materialize.
Differences in impact can also be observed in the case of government income. While during the first years of implementation reforms have to be funded out of the budget, increased tax revenue will be generated in the long term when the anticipated increases in agricultural productivity materialize.
Inception of the assessment. Impact evaluations are usually conducted five to ten years after the completion of the respective projects (World Bank, 1995a, p. 16). In the case of agrarian reform, such a time frame would considerably postpone the commencement date for impact evaluations, since many reforms, including CARP, are implemented over a period of ten years. As the programme started in 1988, it would still be too early to expect a valid assessment at present. Furthermore, reforms are frequently conducted in several phases, starting with the confiscation of the largest landholdings and then gradually covering smaller estates.
Personal bias of the evaluator
There are two basic policy perspectives regarding agrarian reform. One approach presumes that reform is a viable and necessary policy measure for achieving stability and for creating a more egalitarian rural society since it will improve the social situation in the countryside and, together with other support services, will lead to increased agricultural production and increased rural incomes which, in turn, will promote rural industrialization.
The other approach doubts the feasibility of implementing an agrarian reform programme and contends that its enforcement may be dispensable considering that other policy measures can produce similar results.
One particular aspect to be considered in this context is the support under CARP of two main types of productive organizations. RA 6657 promotes the creation of small farms producing food and other cash crops, on one hand, and large agribusiness-operated farms cultivating essentially export crops, on the other.
The preferential treatment of agribusiness plantations under CARP is not compatible with the equity objective of the reform, but is grounded (as well as on the convenience of plantation owners) on the belief that there are economies of scale in farm production, processing and marketing of export crops. Many social scientists have disputed this assumption. Their views are supported by a recent report of the World Bank which states: 'Data show a deep decline in income per acre as farm size increases, with productivity of the largest size category less than half that of the smallest' (Hoff, Braverman and Stiglitz, 1996, p. 236).
The other approach doubts the feasibility of implementing an agrarian reform programme and contends that its enforcement may be dispensable considering that other policy measures can produce similar results.
One particular aspect to be considered in this context is the support under CARP of two main types of productive organizations. RA 6657 promotes the creation of small farms producing food and other cash crops, on one hand, and large agribusiness-operated farms cultivating essentially export crops, on the other.
The preferential treatment of agribusiness plantations under CARP is not compatible with the equity objective of the reform, but is grounded (as well as on the convenience of plantation owners) on the belief that there are economies of scale in farm production, processing and marketing of export crops. Many social scientists have disputed this assumption. Their views are supported by a recent report of the World Bank which states: 'Data show a deep decline in income per acre as farm size increases, with productivity of the largest size category less than half that of the smallest' (Hoff, Braverman and Stiglitz, 1996, p. 236).
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Despite the difficulties connected with the evaluation of agrarian reforms described earlier, it is still possible to conduct meaningful impact assessments, provided that evaluation concentrates on specific aspects of the reform.
Impact evaluations build up an overall assessment of the situation from investigations of the following aspects:
Impact evaluations build up an overall assessment of the situation from investigations of the following aspects:
- technical impact: includes changes in technology, effects on output, changes in the use of inputs, changes in cropping patterns, resource flows and resource productivity;
- institutional impact: such as development of markets, establishment and operation of financial systems, changes in trading relations and effect on local government or regulations;
- economic impact: reflected in changes in consumption, savings, asset levels and other indicators of change in families' net worth, such as increased agricultural production or larger number of animals. An overall assessment is made through cost-benefit analysis, which reflects both positive and negative benefit flows;
- social and cultural impact: assessed through changes in income distribution, migration, household structure, gender roles, demographic patterns, labour force participation, patterns of community interaction, health and education, working conditions and the burden on different household members;
- environmental impact: changes in the natural resource base, water and air quality and other indicators related to specific locations, such as biodiversity and survival of wildlife.
Methods of impact assessment
The ideal way of overcoming the conceptual difficulties outlined above would be to conduct experiments with random assignment of control groups that effectively exclude alternative explanations (World Bank, 1995b, p. 22) but, in general, this procedure is too costly and very time-consuming, so it is not suitable for agrarian reform evaluation.
Another, cheaper method of assessing the impact of agrarian reforms is to describe the state of affairs, at least at the lower levels of investigation, in terms of a 'with and without' situation, which means comparing the economic and social situations of those who benefited from the reform with those who did not.
Data can be obtained from many different sources, and can be divided into two main categories: primary and secondary. Primary data are those collected for the particular purpose in question, while secondary data are those that have already been collected as part of another data collection programme and are then applied to the evaluation.
Another, cheaper method of assessing the impact of agrarian reforms is to describe the state of affairs, at least at the lower levels of investigation, in terms of a 'with and without' situation, which means comparing the economic and social situations of those who benefited from the reform with those who did not.
Data can be obtained from many different sources, and can be divided into two main categories: primary and secondary. Primary data are those collected for the particular purpose in question, while secondary data are those that have already been collected as part of another data collection programme and are then applied to the evaluation.
Collecting primary information. Most impact evaluations use relatively formal study methods, in particular field surveys that use key questions to gather the opinions of stakeholders, including the ultimate beneficiaries. Such surveys are carried out by standardized questionnaires directed to a selected sample of persons.
The reliance on aggregate statistical data based on sample surveys may be a mechanism for regulation of the information flow from source which ensures wide coverage and is representative. However, this approach to data collection is highly selective, expensive and often too slow to keep up with the pace of decision-making demands (Moris and Copestake, 1993, p. 12).
Despite the laborious procedures involved in collecting primary information, there is no guarantee that the results are always reliable. Even data collected from the same institution at different levels tend to diverge when computed at the national level. This also applies to the statistical data of the Department of Agrarian Reform, which are somewhat ambiguous (Putzel, 1992, p. 312). Confusion sometimes arises regarding the correct terminology - data on lands covered by CARP do not indicate how the land has been distributed and data on lands for which emancipation patterns and certificates of landownership award have been issued may be confused with those for which such certificates have merely been registered. This situation has a number of causes, including political motivation, inadequate data collection and transmission methods and pressure on field staff to report successful performance to the next administrative level (Foth, 1996,
p. 219).
Impact evaluation can also be done by other, low-cost methods such as participatory observation and rapid rural appraisal which operate with open question interviews and direct observation. Participatory rural appraisals are normally carried out by members of the community, not by policy analysts from outside the study area. Because these are, in a sense, 'short-cut' methods of data collection, the information obtained is often not as accurate or comprehensive as that which would be obtained from a conventional census or sample survey. However, this is not always the case. The results of a good rapid rural appraisal are likely to be far more accurate than those of a bad census or sample survey (FAO, 1993, p. 109).
Another method by which valid information can be collected is through case studies. 'Cases' may be households, villages, watershed areas, or other units. Because sample sizes are small and samples are not randomly selected, the validity of results is often restricted to the specific case or area that has been investigated. Case studies are normally used where high data quality is essential or topics are sensitive (von Braun and Puetz, 1993, p. 52).
The reliance on aggregate statistical data based on sample surveys may be a mechanism for regulation of the information flow from source which ensures wide coverage and is representative. However, this approach to data collection is highly selective, expensive and often too slow to keep up with the pace of decision-making demands (Moris and Copestake, 1993, p. 12).
Despite the laborious procedures involved in collecting primary information, there is no guarantee that the results are always reliable. Even data collected from the same institution at different levels tend to diverge when computed at the national level. This also applies to the statistical data of the Department of Agrarian Reform, which are somewhat ambiguous (Putzel, 1992, p. 312). Confusion sometimes arises regarding the correct terminology - data on lands covered by CARP do not indicate how the land has been distributed and data on lands for which emancipation patterns and certificates of landownership award have been issued may be confused with those for which such certificates have merely been registered. This situation has a number of causes, including political motivation, inadequate data collection and transmission methods and pressure on field staff to report successful performance to the next administrative level (Foth, 1996,
p. 219).
Impact evaluation can also be done by other, low-cost methods such as participatory observation and rapid rural appraisal which operate with open question interviews and direct observation. Participatory rural appraisals are normally carried out by members of the community, not by policy analysts from outside the study area. Because these are, in a sense, 'short-cut' methods of data collection, the information obtained is often not as accurate or comprehensive as that which would be obtained from a conventional census or sample survey. However, this is not always the case. The results of a good rapid rural appraisal are likely to be far more accurate than those of a bad census or sample survey (FAO, 1993, p. 109).
Another method by which valid information can be collected is through case studies. 'Cases' may be households, villages, watershed areas, or other units. Because sample sizes are small and samples are not randomly selected, the validity of results is often restricted to the specific case or area that has been investigated. Case studies are normally used where high data quality is essential or topics are sensitive (von Braun and Puetz, 1993, p. 52).
Use of secondary information. As the collection of primary information is costly and time-consuming, recourse is often made to other, indirect ways of obtaining data that could also be used for impact assessment although they were not collected for this purpose.
Secondary data are available in published materials, reports and records from private and government institutions such as statistical offices, tax offices, banks, police records and trade statistics. The most comprehensive official source of information on land tenure and land use in the Philippines is the Census of Agriculture which is conducted every ten years and issued by the National Statistical Coordination Board. With regard to landownership distribution, the only available source is DAR's Land Registration Program, Listaka I and II, which provides better data than the 1980 census, although it is somewhat incomplete in its coverage (Putzel, 1992, p. 360).
Secondary data may take many forms and their quality and value for impact assessment can vary considerably. It is therefore advisable for those engaged in programme evaluation on a regular basis to familiarize themselves with the kinds of secondary data available so that they know where to go when the need arises. One problem connected with the use of secondary data collected from different sources is that they are frequently not comparable.
Secondary data are available in published materials, reports and records from private and government institutions such as statistical offices, tax offices, banks, police records and trade statistics. The most comprehensive official source of information on land tenure and land use in the Philippines is the Census of Agriculture which is conducted every ten years and issued by the National Statistical Coordination Board. With regard to landownership distribution, the only available source is DAR's Land Registration Program, Listaka I and II, which provides better data than the 1980 census, although it is somewhat incomplete in its coverage (Putzel, 1992, p. 360).
Secondary data may take many forms and their quality and value for impact assessment can vary considerably. It is therefore advisable for those engaged in programme evaluation on a regular basis to familiarize themselves with the kinds of secondary data available so that they know where to go when the need arises. One problem connected with the use of secondary data collected from different sources is that they are frequently not comparable.
Indicators of impact assessment
Qualitative versus quantitative indicators. The wide variety of indicators can be grouped into two main categories: qualitative and quantitative. The distinction between these groups tends to be drawn as a sharp dichotomy. On the qualitative side are those used by anthropologists, sociologists and historians. In the past, the approaches of these groups entailed the use of primary data (from either participatory observation or extended interviews), before the investigator formulated an inductively derived picture of a specific situation, institution or system.
On the quantitative side are the data used by agricultural economists, demographers and census-takers whose main interest is to obtain empirical measurements (either directly or indirectly) which can be analysed within the framework of a deductively defined methodology. At the extremes, the two approaches - qualitative and quantitative - are very different.
Problems arise when this distinction is practically applied, because observational data go through several stages in the process of utilization and quantification may occur at different points in the process. Thus, any qualitative information may be transformed and treated quantitatively at a higher level of analysis, if only to count the presence or absence of some trait.
On the quantitative side are the data used by agricultural economists, demographers and census-takers whose main interest is to obtain empirical measurements (either directly or indirectly) which can be analysed within the framework of a deductively defined methodology. At the extremes, the two approaches - qualitative and quantitative - are very different.
Problems arise when this distinction is practically applied, because observational data go through several stages in the process of utilization and quantification may occur at different points in the process. Thus, any qualitative information may be transformed and treated quantitatively at a higher level of analysis, if only to count the presence or absence of some trait.
WCARRD indicators. The World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD), held in Rome in July 1979, stressed the need for comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of agrarian reform and rural development programmes. As a follow-up to this conference, FAO developed an extensive set of socio-economic indicators, pilot tested them in 26 countries over a period of six years and, in 1988, published Guidelines on socio-economic indicators for monitoring and evaluating agrarian reform and rural development (FAO, 1988). The guidelines comprise the following 11 core indicators:
- percentage of population below the poverty line;
- percentage of income accruing to each quartile of the population;
- percentage of children aged one to five years at less than 80 percent of the average weight for their age, less than 90 percent of the average height for their age and less than 80 percent of the average weight for their height;
- percentage of undernourished population;
- infant and child mortality rates;
- adult literacy rate;
- percentage of people with access to potable water, health services and schools;
- percentage breakdown of total number and total area of agricultural holdings by size and tenure;
- percentage of heads of rural household without land;
- average wage of agricultural labourers;
- percentage of landless agricultural labourers in the total population active in agriculture.
In addition, FAO has proposed ten other primary indicators and 37 supplementary indicators. These have been used, to varying degrees, by governments for the preparation of four-year reports on worldwide progress (or the lack of it) in agrarian reform implementation. These reports have been reviewed by every second FAO Conference as an agenda item on the follow-up to WCARRD.
Indicators for Asia and the Pacific. While the WCARRD indicators were found useful by FAO, government officials and researchers, some difficulties arose from the non-comparability of the indicators among and between countries owing to the application of different definitions and methodologies (CIRDAP, 1993, p.1). As a result, the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and Pacific and the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, in cooperation with their member countries, developed a revised set of indicators which include (CIRDAP, 1993):
- number of migrants from rural to urban areas;
- percentage of rural adults with membership in formal and informal organizations;
- percentage of rural population participating in local decision-making bodies;
- number of beneficiaries of redistribution programmes;
- area of land under government disposal after land reform;
- area of expropriated land redistributed;
- area of government land redistributed.
These indicators are more directly oriented towards the evaluation of agrarian reform programmes than the WCARRD indicators, but the latter have been designed as a basis for establishing benchmarks and provide more comprehensive information on the long-term impact of these programmes.
IAST indicators. In order to assess the effectiveness of CARP, the Institute of Agrarian Studies (IAST) of UPLB designed a monitoring and evaluation system that aims at keeping track of the progress of programme implementation while determining the effectiveness, impact and relevance of activities to their objectives (IAST, 1996, p. 2). The indicators that were used in interviews with 3 400 households of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) include some of those mentioned above, such as educational attainment of ARBs and their children, availability and use of social services, membership in ARB organizations and farming activities. They are, however, far more detailed and cover, inter alia :
- housing facilities and household assets;
- marketing and credit arrangements;
- employment;
- farm income, income inequity and farm expenditure;
- farm investment;
- ARBs' perceptions of their socio-economic status.
These indicators seem to be the most suitable for assessing the impact of CARP. As they have been used in socio-economic surveys of a large sample of the rural population, their use would have the advantage that the information collected in 1995 could be used as a benchmark.
Other indicators. In recent years, two additional types of indicators have gained prominence: ecological or sustainability indicators and political indicators. The former measures a programme's environmental impacts such as the indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides which is frequently found on large estates or the use of integrated pest management methods as applied by small farmers, including ARBs.
The civil liberties, political rights and civil rights situation can be assessed through political indicators that have been developed by international NGOs such as Amnesty International or Freedom House. They classify the legal and political situation in a country or region according to certain criteria, and rank them numerically.
The civil liberties, political rights and civil rights situation can be assessed through political indicators that have been developed by international NGOs such as Amnesty International or Freedom House. They classify the legal and political situation in a country or region according to certain criteria, and rank them numerically.
Assessment of external influences. In order to understand the effect of agrarian policies on the living conditions of the rural poor it is necessary to consider changes that are the result of external influences. Selection of the appropriate appraisal methods will depend on the cause of the change. Some factors are beyond the control of individuals, such as droughts, floods, typhoons, forest fires and the eruption of volcanoes. Agriculture is also affected by international economic influences, such as exchange rates, trade liberalization and world market prices for agricultural inputs and agricultural commodities.
Poverty-oriented programmes frequently have strong effects on the rest of the economy through backward and forward linkages. Thus, a proper social accounting would label them as profitable investments even when they are unprofitable for the individual households involved. While the indirect effects of projects and programmes may be substantial, they tend largely to benefit the non-poor (ILO, 1990, p. 13).
The influence of the large number of external factors on the impact of agrarian reforms is not easy to measure but, as they have considerable leverage, such factors should not be ignored and should be taken into due consideration, possibly on a case-by-case basis.
Poverty-oriented programmes frequently have strong effects on the rest of the economy through backward and forward linkages. Thus, a proper social accounting would label them as profitable investments even when they are unprofitable for the individual households involved. While the indirect effects of projects and programmes may be substantial, they tend largely to benefit the non-poor (ILO, 1990, p. 13).
The influence of the large number of external factors on the impact of agrarian reforms is not easy to measure but, as they have considerable leverage, such factors should not be ignored and should be taken into due consideration, possibly on a case-by-case basis.
Different levels of indicators
National-level indicators. An important indicator of the state of development of a country is the gross national product (GNP). Information on changes to GNP is easily available in national statistical yearbooks and in the World Bank's World Development Reports. However, when a programme that has both economic and social consequences is being assessed, it is not sufficient merely to appraise the general level of GNP - the question of how widely the benefits of increased GNP are being distributed across different sections of the society also needs to be taken into account. This can best be done by constructing the Gini coefficient which is a useful indicator of income and landownership distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, indicating an equitable or inequitable distribution of assets.
In order to overcome the difficulty of measuring national development merely in terms of the economic performance of a nation, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) developed the human development index (HDI) in 1990. This is a composite of three basic components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living.
Another frequently used formula is the index of human suffering which incorporates ten indicators, including life expectancy, calorie supply, school enrollment, GNP, political freedom and civil rights (FAO, 1993, p. 44).
The impact of an agrarian reform can also be assessed by reviewing changes in the number of individuals or households who live below the poverty line. In fixing the poverty line, food intake is an important element, and allowance is usually also made for expenses on non-food items, such as clothing, housing and fuel, as well as education and health.
In the field of agriculture, changes in production patterns and yields of the most important crops can be expressed in absolute terms or by index numbers. These are published, for all countries, in FAO's annual production yearbooks. On a more sophisticated level, FAO also produces the Aggregate Household Food Security Index, which assesses, on a scale from 1 to 100, the nutritional situation in a given country.
In order to overcome the difficulty of measuring national development merely in terms of the economic performance of a nation, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) developed the human development index (HDI) in 1990. This is a composite of three basic components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living.
Another frequently used formula is the index of human suffering which incorporates ten indicators, including life expectancy, calorie supply, school enrollment, GNP, political freedom and civil rights (FAO, 1993, p. 44).
The impact of an agrarian reform can also be assessed by reviewing changes in the number of individuals or households who live below the poverty line. In fixing the poverty line, food intake is an important element, and allowance is usually also made for expenses on non-food items, such as clothing, housing and fuel, as well as education and health.
In the field of agriculture, changes in production patterns and yields of the most important crops can be expressed in absolute terms or by index numbers. These are published, for all countries, in FAO's annual production yearbooks. On a more sophisticated level, FAO also produces the Aggregate Household Food Security Index, which assesses, on a scale from 1 to 100, the nutritional situation in a given country.
Household- and district-level indicators. Many of the national-level indicators mentioned above are based on investigations at the household level. The majority of these relate to economic aspects and are measured by quantitative indicators. Appraising the impact of agrarian reforms on the social situation is less easy and can best be done through qualitative indicators. These are collected at the household level and include information on beneficiaries' perceptions, degree of motivation, adoption of better farming practices and incentive to invest in their land.
Demographic changes, levels of education, health and nutrition of the rural population, and the extent of their participation in decision-making also have impacts on the performance of agriculture.
Several other appraisal methods have been used in impact assessment, including anthropometric measurements (such as weight-for-age, height-for-age and body mass of children). These explore the nutrient intake and the nutritional situation and are frequently used as proxy indicators, since an increase in caloric intake results in a substantial increase in the efficiency and productivity of agricultural workers. An improvement of the nutritional level of the rural population may be used as an indication of improved living conditions.
In order to achieve the main objective of agrarian reforms, which is the enhancement of the dignity of farmers and farm workers, these groups should be given the opportunity to organize themselves in self-help association or cooperatives and to participate in the design and management of programmes that determine their way of life. The extent to which such participatory bodies are allowed to function and to influence decision-making can be taken as indicators for the social status of the rural population. Investigations of this type should preferably be undertaken at the district or municipality level.
Demographic changes, levels of education, health and nutrition of the rural population, and the extent of their participation in decision-making also have impacts on the performance of agriculture.
Several other appraisal methods have been used in impact assessment, including anthropometric measurements (such as weight-for-age, height-for-age and body mass of children). These explore the nutrient intake and the nutritional situation and are frequently used as proxy indicators, since an increase in caloric intake results in a substantial increase in the efficiency and productivity of agricultural workers. An improvement of the nutritional level of the rural population may be used as an indication of improved living conditions.
In order to achieve the main objective of agrarian reforms, which is the enhancement of the dignity of farmers and farm workers, these groups should be given the opportunity to organize themselves in self-help association or cooperatives and to participate in the design and management of programmes that determine their way of life. The extent to which such participatory bodies are allowed to function and to influence decision-making can be taken as indicators for the social status of the rural population. Investigations of this type should preferably be undertaken at the district or municipality level.
CONCLUSIONS
As outlined above, most agrarian reforms pursue a variety of diverse objectives which may complement or oppose one another. Consequently, assessment of the impact of reforms cannot be summarized in one aggregated conclusion but has to be component-specific. Review of a large number of indicators that can be used for impact assessment of agrarian reforms has shown that most of them pertain to narrow reform issues and are closely interrelated with other parameters. As none of these indicators alone can give a proper assessment of the reform's impact, for further investigations it is expedient to use a mixture of the most relevant indicators.
It is recognized that the national gains and losses from an agrarian reform depend not only on the numbers of landowners and beneficiaries affected by the reform and the extent of the area of arable land that is being redistributed, but also on the extent of consequential changes in output, income and government tax revenue, employment and patronage (GTZ, 1997, p. 83), yet: 'after all is said and done CARP will be evaluated on the basis of the changes in land tenure arrangements that have resulted and the number of farmers that benefited from the programme' (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 91).
In the introduction to this article, the need for impact assessment was stressed as a way of providing decision-makers with arguments to support agrarian reform. It seems, however, rather doubtful that these arguments will be convincing. A prominent agrarian reform specialist, Doreen Warriner, once observed: 'Land reform in its initial and crucial stage is emphatically not a question of experts; it cannot be advised into existence. If there is no real drive for reform, experts can produce expensive demonstration projects, but they will not be able to achieve any general and genuine improvement in the position of the cultivators' (Warriner, 1957, p. 9). This can only come from pressure groups such as members of advocacy NGOs and political organizations and sympathetic reform officials. These two groups seem to be in urgent need of arguments and facts that prove that agrarian reform will, at least in the long run, alleviate rural poverty and benefit rural communities and, therefore, the country as a whole.
It is recognized that the national gains and losses from an agrarian reform depend not only on the numbers of landowners and beneficiaries affected by the reform and the extent of the area of arable land that is being redistributed, but also on the extent of consequential changes in output, income and government tax revenue, employment and patronage (GTZ, 1997, p. 83), yet: 'after all is said and done CARP will be evaluated on the basis of the changes in land tenure arrangements that have resulted and the number of farmers that benefited from the programme' (Gordoncillo and Batangantang, 1992, p. 91).
In the introduction to this article, the need for impact assessment was stressed as a way of providing decision-makers with arguments to support agrarian reform. It seems, however, rather doubtful that these arguments will be convincing. A prominent agrarian reform specialist, Doreen Warriner, once observed: 'Land reform in its initial and crucial stage is emphatically not a question of experts; it cannot be advised into existence. If there is no real drive for reform, experts can produce expensive demonstration projects, but they will not be able to achieve any general and genuine improvement in the position of the cultivators' (Warriner, 1957, p. 9). This can only come from pressure groups such as members of advocacy NGOs and political organizations and sympathetic reform officials. These two groups seem to be in urgent need of arguments and facts that prove that agrarian reform will, at least in the long run, alleviate rural poverty and benefit rural communities and, therefore, the country as a whole.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asian Development Bank. 1991. Guidelines for social analysis of development projects. Manila.
CIRDAP. 1993. Report on national action for developing a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for agrarian reform and rural development. Dhaka, Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and Pacific.
FAO. 1988. Guidelines on socio-economic indicators for monitoring and evaluating agrarian reform and rural development. Rome.
FAO. 1993. Guidelines on social analysis for rural area development planning. Rome.
Foth, H.P. 1996. Landreformpolitik auf den Philippinen. Hamburg, Germany, Die Aera Aquino, Institut für Asienkunde.
Gordoncillo, P.U. & Batangantang, H.C. (eds). 1992. Macro issues and policies: implications for CARP. Laguna, the Philippines, Institute of Agrarian Studies.
Government of the Philippines. 1988. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), RA No. 6657, Presidential Issuances. Quezon City, the Philippines, Diliman, Department of Agrarian Reform.
Government of the Philippines. 1994. Proceedings of the Conference on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, 6 April 1994, Philippine International Convention Center, Manila. Quezon City, the Phillipines, Diliman, Department of Agrarian Reform.
Government of the Philippines. 1998. Accomplishment Report 1997. Quezon City, the Phillipines, Diliman, Department of Agrarian Reform.
GTZ. 1997. Land tenure in development cooperation, guiding principles. Eschborn, Germany, German Agency for Technical Cooperation.
Hoff, K., Braverman, A. & Stiglitz, J. (eds). 1996. The economics of rural organization, theory, practice and policy, a World Bank paper. New York, Oxford University Press.
IAST. 1996. Agrarian reform beneficiaries performance monitoring and evaluation system, final report. Laguna, the Philippines, Institute of Agrarian Studies, in collaboration with the Department of Agrarian Reform.
ILO. 1990. The socio-economic impact of technical co-operation projects concerning rural development. Geneva.
Moris, J. & Copestake, J. 1993. Qualitative inquiry for rural development. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Putzel, J.A. 1992. Captive land, the politics of agrarian reform in the Philippines. London, Catholic Institute for International Relations.
Thiesenhusen, W. 1989. Searching for agrarian reform in Latin America. Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Unwin.
von Braun, J. & Puetz, D. (eds). 1993. Data needs for food policy in developing countries. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Warriner, D. 1957. Land reform and development in the Middle East. London, Oxford University Press.
World Bank. 1995a. Assessing development effectiveness, evaluation in the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1995b. Key indicators for family planning projects, World Bank Technical Paper No. 297. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1996. A strategy to fight poverty, Philippines. Washington, DC.
Land reform in the Philippines has long been a contentious issue rooted in the Philippines's Spanish Colonial Period. Some efforts began during the American Colonial Period with renewed efforts during the Commonwealth, following independence, during Martial Law and especially following the People Power Revolution in 1986. The current law, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, was passed following the revolution and recently extended until 2014
- 1History
- 1.2Commonwealth Period
- 1.5Macapagal administration
History[edit]
Much like Mexico and other Spanish colonies in the Americas, the Spanish settlement in the Philippines revolved around the encomienda system of plantations, known as haciendas. As the 19th Century progressed, industrialization and liberalization of trade allowed these encomiendas to expand their cash crops, establishing a strong sugar industry in the Philippines, especially in the Visayan island of Negros.
American period[edit]
The United States of America took possession of the Philippines following the Spanish–American War in 1898 and after putting down the subsequent rebellion in the Philippine–American War. The Second Philippine Commission, the Taft Commission, viewed economic development as one of its top three goals.[1] In 1901 93% of the islands' land area was held by the government and William Howard Taft, Governor-General of the Philippines, argued for a liberal policy so that a good portion could be sold off to American investors.[1] Instead, the United States Congress, influenced by agricultural interests that did not want competition from the Philippines, in the 1902 Land Act, set a limit of 16 hectares of land to be sold or leased to American individuals and 1,024 hectares to American corporations.[1] This and a downturn in the investment environment discouraged the foreign-owned plantations common in British Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, and French Indochina.[1]
Further the U.S. Federal Government faced the problem of much of the private land being owned by the Roman Catholic Church and controlled by Spanish clerics. The American government—officially secular, hostile to continued Spanish control of much of the land of the now-American colony, and long hostile to Catholics—negotiated a settlement with the Church handing over its land.
The 1902 Philippine Organic Act was a constitution for the Insular Government, as the U.S. civil administration was known. This act, among other actions, disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for $7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares (410,000 acres), of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners.[2]
Commonwealth Period[edit]
During the American Colonial Period, tenant farmers complained about the sharecropping system, as well as by the dramatic increase in population which added economic pressure to the tenant farmers' families.[3] As a result, an agrarian reform program was initiated by the Commonwealth. However, success of the program was hampered by ongoing clashes between tenants and landowners.
An example of these clashes includes one initiated by Benigno Ramos through his Sakdalista movement,[4] which advocated tax reductions, land reforms, the breakup of the large estates or haciendas, and the severing of American ties. The uprising, which occurred in Central Luzon in May 1935, claimed about a hundred lives
Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933[edit]
When the Philippine Commonwealth was established, President Manuel L. Quezon implemented the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933.[5] The purpose of this act was to regulate the share-tenancy contracts by establishing minimum standards.[5] Primarily, the Act provided for better tenant-landlord relationship, a 50–50 sharing of the crop, regulation of interest to 10% per agricultural year, and a safeguard against arbitrary dismissal by the landlord.[5] The major flaw of this law was that it could be used only when the majority of municipal councils in a province petitioned for it.[5] Since landowners usually controlled such councils, no province ever asked that the law be applied. Therefore, Quezón ordered that the act be mandatory in all Central Luzon provinces.[5] However, contracts were good only for one year. By simply refusing the renew their contract, landlords were able to eject tenants. As a result, peasant organizations agitated in vain for a law that would make the contract automatically renewable for as long as the tenants fulfilled their obligations.[5]
In 1936, this Act was amended to get rid of its loophole, but the landlords made its application relative and not absolute. Consequently, it was never carried out in spite of its good intentions. In fact, by 1939, thousands of peasants in Central Luzon were being threatened with wholesale eviction.[5] By the early 1940s, thousands of tenants in Central Luzon were ejected from their farmlands and the rural conflict was more acute than ever.[5]
Therefore, during the Commonwealth period, agrarian problems persisted.[5] This motivated the government to incorporate a cardinal principle on social justice. Dictated by the social justice program of the government, expropriation of landed estates and other landholdings commenced. Likewise, the National Land Settlement Administration (NSLA) began an orderly settlement of public agricultural lands. At the outbreak of the Second World War, major settlement areas containing more than 65,000 hectares were already established.[5]
Roxas Administration[edit]
When the Philippines gained its independence in 1946, much of the land was held by a small group of wealthy landowners. There was much pressure on the democratically elected government to redistribute the land. At the same time, many of the democratically elected office holders were landowners themselves or came from land-owning families.
In 1946, shortly after his induction to Presidency, Manuel Roxas proclaimed the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 effective throughout the country.[5] However problems of land tenure continued. In fact these became worse in certain areas.[5] Among the remedial measures enacted was Republic Act No. 1946 likewise known as the Tenant Act which provided for a 70–30 sharing arrangements and regulated share-tenancy contracts.[5] It was passed to resolve the ongoing peasant unrest in Central Luzon.[5]
As part of his Agrarian Reform agenda, President Elpidio Quirino issued on 23 October 1950 Executive Order No. 355 which replaced the National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.[6]
Ramon Magsaysay administration[edit]
President Ramon Magsaysay at the Presidential Study, Malacañan Palace
To amplify and stabilize the functions of the Economic Development Corps (EDCOR), President Ramon Magsaysay worked[7] for the establishment of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA),[7] which took over from the EDCOR and helped in the giving of some sixty-five thousand acres to three thousand indigent families for settlement purposes.[7] Again, it allocated some other twenty-five thousand to a little more than one thousand five hundred landless families, who subsequently became farmers.[7]
As further aid to the rural people,[7] the president established the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration (ACCFA). The idea was for this entity to make available rural credits. Records show that it did grant, in this wise, almost ten million dollars. This administration body next devoted its attention to cooperative marketing.[7]
Along this line of help to the rural areas, President Magsaysay initiated in all earnestness the artesian wells campaign. A group-movement known as the Liberty Wells Association was formed and in record time managed to raise a considerable sum for the construction of as many artesian wells as possible. The socio-economic value of the same could not be gainsaid and the people were profuse in their gratitude.[7]
Finally, vast irrigation projects, as well as enhancement of the Ambuklao Power plant and other similar ones, went a long way towards bringing to reality the rural improvement program advocated by President Magsaysay.[7]
President Ramón Magsaysay enacted the following laws as part of his Agrarian Reform Program:
- Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 – Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.
- Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) – Governed the relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for corporations.
- Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration) – Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest rates of six to eight percent.[6]
Macapagal administration[edit]
Land Reform Code[edit]
The Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was a major Philippineland reform law enacted in 1963 under President Diosdado Macapagal.[8]
The code declared that it was State policy
- To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development;
- To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices;
- To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater productivity and higher farm incomes;
- To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural wage earners;
- To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land distribution; and
- To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.
and, in pursuance of those policies, established the following
- An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems in agriculture;
- A declaration of rights for agricultural labor;
- An authority for the acquisition and equitable distribution of agricultural land;
- An institution to finance the acquisition and distribution of agricultural land;
- A machinery to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture;
- A machinery to provide marketing, management, and other technical services to agriculture;
- A unified administration for formulating and implementing projects of land reform;
- An expanded program of land capability survey, classification, and registration; and
- A judicial system to decide issues arising under this Code and other related laws and regulations.
Marcos administration[edit]
On 10 September 1971, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines into law which established the Department of Agrarian Reform, effectively replacing the Land Authority.
In 1978, the DAR was renamed the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
On 26 July 1987, following the People Power Revolution, the department was re-organized through Executive Order (EO) No. 129-A.
In 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law created the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program which is also known as CARP.
Corazon Aquino administration[edit]
President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian and land reform as the centerpiece of her administration's social legislative agenda. However, her family background and social class as a privileged daughter of a wealthy and landed clan became a lightning rod of criticisms against her land reform agenda. On 22 January 1987, less than a month before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, agrarian workers and farmers marched to the historic Mendiola Street near the Malacañan Palace to demand genuine land reform from Aquino's administration. However, the march turned violent when Marine forces fired at farmers who tried to go beyond the designated demarcation line set by the police. As a result, 12 farmers were killed and 19 were injured in this incident now known as the Mendiola massacre. This incident led some prominent members of the Aquino Cabinet to resign their government posts.
In response to calls for agrarian reform, President Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229 on 22 July 1987, which outlined her land reform program, which included sugar lands. In 1988, with the backing of Aquino, the new Congress of the Philippines passed Republic Act No. 6657, more popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.' The law paved the way for the redistribution of agricultural lands to tenant-farmers from landowners, who were paid in exchange by the government through just compensation but were also allowed to retain not more than five hectares of land.[9] However, corporate landowners were also allowed under the law to 'voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries', in lieu of turning over their land to the government for redistribution.[10] Despite the flaws in the law, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1989, declaring that the implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) provided by the said law, was 'a revolutionary kind of expropriation.'[11]
Despite the implementation of CARP, Aquino was not spared from the controversies that eventually centered on Hacienda Luisita, a 6,453-hectare estate located in the Province of Tarlac, which she, together with her siblings inherited from her father Jose Cojuangco (Don Pepe).[12]
Critics argued that Aquino bowed to pressure from relatives by allowing stock redistribution under Executive Order 229. Instead of land distribution, Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a corporation and distributed stock. As such, ownership of agricultural portions of the hacienda were transferred to the corporation, which in turn, gave its shares of stocks to farmers.[12]
The arrangement remained in force until 2006, when the Department of Agrarian Reform revoked the stock distribution scheme adopted in Hacienda Luisita, and ordered instead the redistribution of a large portion of the property to the tenant-farmers. The Department stepped into the controversy when in 2004, violence erupted over the retrenchment of workers in the Hacienda, eventually leaving seven people dead.[12]
Ramos administration[edit]
President Fidel V. Ramos speeded the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of former President Corazon Aquino in order to meet the ten-year time frame. However, there were constraints such as the need to firm up the database and geographic focus, generate funding support, strengthen inter-agency cooperation, and mobilize implementation partners, like the non-government organizations, local governments, and the business community.[5] In 1992, the government acquired and distributed 382 hectares of land with nearly a quarter of a million farmer-beneficiaries. This constituted 41% of all land titles distributed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) during the last thirty years. But by the end of 1996, the DAR had distributed only 58.25% of the total area it was supposed to cover. From January to December 1997, the DAR distributed 206,612 hectares. That year, since 1987, the DAR had distributed a total of 2.66 million hectares which benefited almost 1.8 million tenant-farmers.[5]
One major problem that the Ramos administration faced was the lack of funds to support and implement the program.[5] The Php50 million, allotted by R.A. No. 6657 to finance the CARP from 1988 to 1998, was no longer sufficient to support the program. To address this problem, Ramos signed R.A. No. 8532 to amend the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which further strengthened the CARP by extending the program to another ten years.[5] Ramos signed this law on 23 February 1998 – a few months before the end of Ramos' term.[5]
Arroyo administration[edit]
On 27 September 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, signed Executive Order No. 364, and the Department of Agrarian Reform was renamed to Department of Land Reform. This EO also broadened the scope of the department, making it responsible for all land reform in the country. It also placed the Philippine Commission on Urban Poor (PCUP) under its supervision and control. Recognition of the ownership of ancestral domain by indigenous peoples also became the responsibility of this new department, under the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).[13]
On 23 August 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Executive Order No. 456 and renamed the Department of Land Reform back to Department of Agrarian Reform, since 'the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law goes beyond just land reform but includes the totality of all factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries.'[14]
When President Noynoy Aquino took office, there was a renewed push to compete the agrarian reform. The Department of Agrarian Reform adopted a goal of distributed all CARP-eligible land by the end of Pres. Aquino's term in 2016.[15] As of June 2013, 694,181 hectares remained to be distributed, according to DAR.[15]
Hacienda Luisita, owned by the Cojuangco family, which includes the late former President Corazón C. Aquino and her son, former President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III, has been a notable case of land reform.[16]
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program[edit]
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is the current law under which land reform is conducted. Large land-holdings are broken up and distributed to farmers and workers on that particular hacienda. The crops grown on such haciendas include sugar and rice. Each farmer is giving a 'certificates of land ownership award' or CLOA for their new property.[15] Under the law, a landowner can only retain 5 hectares, regardless of the size of the hacienda.[15] Conflict can arise between previous landowners and 'beneficiaries' and between competing farmers' groups that have conflicting claims.[15]
In December 2008, CARP expired and the following year CARPer was passed. CARPer stands for 'Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms'. CARPer expired in 2014.
See also[edit]
General:
References[edit]
- ^ abcd'Ronald E. Dolan, ed. Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991'. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
- ^Seekins, Donald M. (1993), 'The First Phase of United States Rule, 1898–1935', in Dolan, Ronald E. (ed.), Philippines: A Country Study (4th ed.), Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, retrieved 25 December 2007
- ^'Philippine history American Colony and Philippine Commonwealth (1901–1941)'. Windows on Asia. MSU. Archived from the original on 10 October 2007. Retrieved 11 February 2007.
- ^Roces, Luna & Arcilla 1986, p. 140.
- ^ abcdefghijklmnopqrsManapat, Carlos, et al. Economics, Taxation, and Agrarian Reform. Quezon City: C&E Pub., 2010.Print.
- ^ abDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR) – Organizational Chart
- ^ abcdefghMolina, Antonio. The Philippines: Through the centuries. Manila: University of Sto. Tomas Cooperative, 1961. Print.
- ^'Republic Act No. 3844 : The Agricultural Land Reform Code of the Philippines'. 8 August 1963.
- ^'Section 6, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law'. Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 23 August 2007. Retrieved 13 March 2010.
- ^'Section 31, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law'. Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 23 August 2007. Retrieved 13 March 2010.
- ^Association of Small Landowners v. Luz, 175 SCRA 343, 386 (Supreme Court of the Philippines 14 July 1989).
- ^ abcRussell Arador (4 May 2007). 'Life once 'sweeter' at Hacienda Luisita'. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 5 October 2008. Retrieved 25 March 2008.
- ^Executiver Order No. 364
- ^Executive Order No. 456
- ^ abcdeYap, DJ (29 June 2013). '4 haciendas distributed; 270 sugar farmers cheer'. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 29 June 2013.
- ^It is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.
External links[edit]
- Agricultural Land Reform Code on the LAWPhil Project.
- The Sa-up (Bill)
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_reform_in_the_Philippines&oldid=918835330'