Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA)

The republic act number 8435, according to my readings, is one of just a handful of laws
that is concerned with advancing the mechanization level of the country’s agricultural and
fisheries sector. From what I’ve read, the AFMA law is primarily focused in improving the
living quality of farmers and fisherfolks and help them become more productive as the market
needs—both locally and abroad—grows.
The AFMA law does not directly aim to improve the mechanization level of the said
sectors. Rather, it is just one of the things that it addresses. Since the principle behind the AFMA
law is to improve the “living conditions” of farmers and fisherfolks in the country, there are
several areas of concern that the act encompasses. These areas are mainly divided into
production and marketing support services, human resource development, RDE, rural non-farm
employment, trade and fiscal service, and general provisions. Out of all these broad areas,
provisions concerned in upgrading the agricultural and fisheries mechanization level of the
country was only present in production and marketing support service, and RDE.
As an aspiring ABE, I think that the intentions behind R.A. 8435 is good. It focuses
mainly on improving the living quality of our farmers and fisherfolks by transforming their
respective sectors into a modern and technology-based one. However, considering the fact that
there are no major improvements in both the life of our farmers and fisherfolks, and the
mechanization level of the country’s agricultural and fishery sectors during its 24-year
enactment, it’s hard to believe that AFMA has been effective. Personally, I think that the broad
provisions of the AFMA law made it harder to achieve tangible results. I wasn’t able to find any
detailed action plans or development roadmaps connected to AFMA so I’m not certain what the
law actually produced. In other words, in my view, R.A. 8435 encompasses too much wide areas
in agricultural and fishery modernization instead of making specific and detailed actions for the
gradual improvement of the sectors mentioned.
Agricultural and Fisheries Mechanization Law (AFMECH)
Based on my understanding, the AMTEC law was enacted when the contributions of the
agriculture and fishery sector of the country in terms of employment and GDP were realized.
Although the sector mentioned was a major part of the country’s industry and economy, it was
riddled with obstacles and inadequate policies to help it. Some of the obstacles are low income of
farmers, limited capital, costly energy use, competition with imported goods, and low availability
and access to affordable and appropriate machineries. Hence, to address these problems, the
AFMECH law was enacted.
Unlike the AFMA law that has a broad focus, the AFMECH law prioritizes the
development, adoption, and enablement of appropriate agricultural and fishery machineries.
Specifically, it has three strategic policy goals for the country’s agro-industrial development. The
first policy is to provide access to farmers and fisherfolks to affordable and appropriate
agricultural and fishery machinery and equipment. The second is to provide support to the whole
agricultural and fishery machinery industry including buyers, manufacturers, and distributors.
The last policy is to strengthen Agri-fishery support services by formulating agriculture and
fishery mechanization programs, RDE focusing on machineries and renewable energy, and
human resource development through trainings, seminars, skill certifications, and other
strategies.
Personally, I think that the AFMECH law is the most influential law when it comes to
upgrading the country’s mechanization level in the agriculture and fishery sector. It has fair
policies towards its beneficiaries which are farmers, fisherfolks, and machinery manufacturers
and distributors. It also enables professional and aspiring ABE’s and Agriculturists, like me, to
contribute in uplifting the country’s farm and aquaculture mechanization. I want to see this law
be more effectively implemented in the future.
Rice Tariffication Law and Rice Competitive Enhancement Fund (RCEF)
The Rice Tariffication Law was one more controversial law that was enacted recently.
From my readings, I understand that the principle behind enactment of this law is to secure the
supply of rice in the country. The law essentially removes the limit of rice that can be imported
by the country. A guideline for the tariff of these imported rice was also provided in the law.
This means that as long as there are countries who are willing to export rice to the Philippines,
our rice supply will meet the demand.
However, this also means that local suppliers of rice in the country—particularly, small
farmers—will need to compete with the imported rice. This could be hard for the agricultural
sector. In fact, on the first year of its enactment, the Rice Tariffication Law caused major income
losses to small rice farmers. The RCEF or the Rice Competitive Enhancement Fund was created
under the rice tariffication law for this reason. Under RCEF, the annual tariff from the imported
rice will be allocated to projects that will help rice farmers be able to compete with the import
supply.

Since the local cost of production of rice is one of the obstacles that rice farmers in the
country must overcome to compete with rice imports, RCEF provides that 50% of the annual
tariffs from imported rice shall be used for development and adoption of farm machineries. With
higher mechanization, the cost of production can be decreased. Other allocations under RCEF
includes 30% for Rice Seed Program, 10% for Rice Assistance Fund, and 10% for Extension
Services.
Honestly, I think that the Rice Tariffication Law would be detrimental to the growth of
our agricultural sector. Even if we consider the provisions under RCEF as a good thing to
increase the mechanization level of rice production, the early stages of its enactment will create a
surplus of cheaper imported rice and would make it tough for the local farmers to compete. I
think that this will discourage them from culturing rice since the demand for local supply will be
low. Thus, as someone who chose to be an ABE, the financial implication of Rice Tariffication
Law would be good due to RCEF; however, it may affect some other areas of the agricultural
sector negatively such as the workforce and human resources.