Lutgarda L. Tolentino, Imelda M. Gesmundo, Apolinario L. Zara, Florencia P. Elliot, Juanito B. Reyes,
Pedrito R. Banatlao, Melicio J. Maghanoy, and Moises L. Sardido
Department of Agricultural Education and Rural Studies (DAERS)
College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines Los Baños,
College, Laguna 4031
http://doi.org/10.57043/transnastphl.2000.5408
Abstract
This paper is mainly based on the actual experiences of field personnel of the Agro-Industrial Development Program (AIDP), UPLB-College of Agriculture, from 1993 to 1999. The AIDP is a collaborative research and extension program between and among the UPLB-College of Agriculture, the local government units (LGUs), and the local state colleges and universities (SCUs). It is geared to develop a management organization that delivers agricultural extension in the context of devolution, as mandated in the Local Government Code of 1991 and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA).
The program used two types of agricultural extension management organizations for effective delivery of agricultural extension services to the farming population. These are: (1) the province-wide organization, which is operating in Oriental Mindoro and Marinduque, and (2) the municipal-level organization, which is operating in seven towns of Laguna and a town in Cebu. These organizations are composed of the different stakeholders, particularly the LGUs and SCUs.
In the process of building up the partnership between the different levels of LGUs and the local SCUs, a number of facilitating and constraining factors were identified. The facilitating factors were: (1) joint planning and consultation among different stakeholders; (2) clear identification of roles by the LGUs; (3) shared commitment of the different partners; (4) development emphasis of the LGU; (5) initiative of the people and strong farmers’ organizations; and (6) social networks of individuals in the organizations. On the other hand, the following were the constraining factors: (1) political conflict; (2) insufficiency of financial and manpower capability to share in the partnership; (3) lack of commitment to terms or priority; and (4) absence of clear-cut roles and responsibilities.