JOHN AUBREY JAMERO

JD-1

CARP: DISTRIBUTING POVERTY OR OPPORTUNITY?

Enacted in 1988 by virtue of Republic Act. No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was implemented in
order to advance social justice and rural development through the redistribution of agricultural
land to landless farmers and the promotion of equitable access to land ownership, and productivity
support services. But the question is, has the government proved that CARP is successful? Did
it give hope to the poor to improve their lives, or did it distribute poverty, instead of opportunity?

While CARP's goal is to improve the beneficiaries' quality of life and dignity through increasing
the production of agricultural fields, the program was focused and invested on distributing land
ownership to the landless. According to a report by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in
2018, CARP has distributed a total of 4.9 million hectares of land to more than 2.8 million agrarian
reform beneficiaries (ARBs) since its implementation in 1988. The report also stated that the
government has spent a total of Php 217.9 billion (approximately USD 4.3 billion) on the program.
However, in terms of productivity and the enhancement of quality of life, CARP may have failed
its mission.

Prior to CARP, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 was enacted in 1972 during the administration
of President Ferdinand Marcos. The said law provided for the acquisition of private agricultural
landholdings in excess of a certain limit and the distribution of such land to tenant-farmers who
were qualified beneficiaries. P.D No. 27 mandated that the government would purchase the
excess lands from landowners and distribute them to tenant-farmers to cultivate the said lands.
The tenant-farmers would pay for the land in installments over a period of 15 years, with an
interest rate of 6% per annum. It was projected that the passage of P.D. No. 27 will be a significant
victory for the landless farmers in the Philippines who had long been asking for land reform.
However, the implementation of the law was slow and faced many challenges, including
inadequate funding and resistance from the landowners.

It was then when CARP was enacted in 1988. The latter was intended to address the
shortcomings of P.D. No. 27 and other previous land reform programs. It provided for a broader
and more comprehensive approach to land reform, including not only the acquisition and
distribution of land but also support services to farmers, such as credit, technical assistance, and
infrastructure development. However, the facts and reality that the beneficiaries are experiencing
state otherwise. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP): Time to Let Go, a recent
study by Raul Fabella, claimed that although being intended to improve farmers' economic
welfare, the program really achieved the opposite of what it set out to do. The productivity of
coconut and sugar has severely decreased, and beneficiaries of agricultural reform groups are
more likely to live in poverty than farmers as a whole. According to the same study, CARP has
created a new social class: The landed poor.

Furthermore, a 2008 study conducted by the Asia Pacific Policy Center (APCC) funded by the
Department of Agrarian Reform, concluded that twenty years later, the results of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) launched in the same year were below
expectations. Productivity growth in agriculture has been low by regional standards and poverty
still increases in rural areas. Total agricultural factor productivity has grown only 0.13 percent per
year during 1980–1998, compared to 0.87 percent per year in Thailand and 1.49 percent in
Indonesia. This failure to improve the quality of life of the beneficiaries may have been the reason
for the infectivity of CARP, but where did it go wrong?

For more than 20 years, CARP has been a slow-moving issue. As a result, the property rights
have been ill-defined and contentious for two decades, which has resulted in a highly uncertain
investment setting in agriculture in the Philippines. In the past, unresolved property rights have
consistently predicted economic stagnation, and the Philippine agriculture sector may now be
added to the list of examples of this rule in action. For the time being, it is acceptable to state that
CARP is "incomplete" and that the services necessary to ensure the farmers' economic viability
were "underprovided."

Truly CARP has faced significant challenges and criticisms, which have limited its effectiveness
in promoting land reform and in improving the quality of life of its beneficiaries. The sluggish and
inadequate transfer of land to landless farmers as a result of political and legal barriers, as well
as landowner opposition to the program, has been one of CARP's biggest problems. For many
beneficiaries, this has meant restricted benefits, and it negatively impacted the program's
reputation. Second, the program's ability to improve farmers' lives has been limited by a lack of
adequate finance and support services. This has also given rise to criticisms that the program has
not been successful in reducing rural poverty and inequality. CARP has also faced issues with
corruption and abuse of power in the implementation of the program, which have further
undermined its effectiveness and credibility. Some reports indicate that some government officials
and private entities have taken advantage of the program to enrich themselves and exploit the
beneficiaries.

Lastly, the scope and implementation of CARP have also been limited, with some areas and
beneficiaries not covered by the program. This has led to concerns that the program has not been
able to address the root causes of poverty and inequality in rural areas. Overall, these issues
have limited the effectiveness and impact of CARP in promoting land reform and rural
development in the Philippines. To address these challenges, there is a need to improve the
implementation mechanisms of the program, provide sufficient funding and support services to
farmers, address corruption and abuse of power, and expand the coverage and implementation
of the program.

Based on the facts and the issues that the beneficiaries of CARP have experienced and still
experiencing, the program may have failed to accomplish its main objective and that is to enhance
the beneficiaries’ dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of
agricultural lands. The implementation of CARP should not solely focus on redistribution of land
to its beneficiaries, but the government should also redirect its agricultural policy to focus from
land equity to farm efficiency. As of today, it cannot be denied that the CARP has been
unsuccessful, although the government may still improve and develop this comprehensive
program.