The Inquirer editorial titled “Politics as business” (Opinion, 5/8/14) stated that the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (Acef) may not be “of the same scope as the pork barrel scam.” But the P410 million in Acef grants to Palawan and Aurora is just part of the P2.575 billion released to local government units and 12 implementing agencies from 2000 to 2010, based on Commission Audit (COA) annual reports. In addition, the executive committee (execom) for Acef approved and released to 304 proponents P5.888 billion in loans, and disbursed a total P8.465 billion during the period. And with a dismal 15-percent repayment of interest-free/collateral-free loans, it’s difficult not to accept allegations of misuse and possibly tainted project evaluation proposals. And in the absence of any loan repayment from 124 borrowers, what is now left of the Acef? This facility was conceived 14 years ago as a revolving fund derived from tariff collections to prepare agriculture for the Asean integration and to ensure rice self-sufficiency in 2011 yet.
The two legislators’ role may be ministerial, but specific issues and concerns surfaced during the congressional deliberations to extend the Acef beyond its expiry in December 2007. These are:
1. Reversal of the remaining P2 billion unused fund to the national treasury.
2. The Department of Agriculture’s competence to administer/lend Acef funds.
3. The failed Quedancor, recipient of a billion-peso Acef facility in 2004.
4. Low repayment track record and a flurry of requests for loan restructuring without a history of any repayment.
5. The delegation to the agriculture secretary, Acef-execom chair, the authority to approve loans worth P15 million and below.
6. Inclusion of the government-owned Landbank as a member of the execom. (Contradictory to the alleged role by the state bank to entertain applicants and evaluate project feasibility proposals and credit worthiness.) We call on Landbank to define its past/present role in the Acef. The DA is represented in the Landbank board of directors, and other agencies sit in the board as well.
The rest of the congressional deliberations appeared to have focused on general and motherhood statements: raise farmers’ and fisherfolks’ income, market concerns, post-harvest facilities, safety nets etc., with no evidence of a serious effort to pinpoint why projects turned sour or displayed dismal repayment habits.
With past performance of 91 percent in 2007 from 70 percent in 2005, it would appear that the fear of the funds’ reversal upon expiry in 2007 dictated Acef’s renewal.
There goes Acef, there goes PDAF. And Acef statistics tell all!
—MANUEL Q. BONDAD,
manuelbondad@yahoo.com