1. The Philippine Land Reform Program: Assessment and the Way Forward (Learning From Recent Studies)
Virgilio R. De Los Reyes
Fellow
Stanford Law School
Jane Lynn Capaccio
Annette Balaoing-Pelkmans

2. Presentation flow: Magnitude of the Program Studies Recommendations
Comparing Farmers’ Communities
Status of Beneficiaries
Agricultural Credit
Large Scale Land Agreements
Land Governance
Recommendations
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

3. Philippine Surface Area 30,000,000 has. Land Area 29,817,000 has.
Alienable and Disposable (A & D) Land
14,194,675 has. (47.6% of Land Area)
Agricultural Land
9,671,000 has. (68.1% of A&D Land)
Scope of Agrarian Reform Program
8,756,176 has. (29.4% of Land Area and 61.7% of A&D Land)
Total Area of Land Distributed (estimates)
7,700,000 has. (24.1% of land area and 50.6% of A&D Land)
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

4. Highlights of the land distributed (7.7 million hectares)
5.3 million beneficiaries (all public and private land)
24.38 million in agrarian reform beneficiaries’ households
Philippine population: 105 million
Rural population million
4.596 million hectares are public land
2.585 million hectares are private land
2.145 million hectares were collective titles
Of private lands distributed,
1.48 million hectares were thru voluntary modes of acquisition (835,000 hectares thru Voluntary Land Transfer and 645,000 hectares thru Voluntary Offer to Sell)
934,000 hectares were thru compulsory modes
Balance are lands foreclosed by government
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

5. Balance of 1 million hectares
625,000 hectares are private land
375,000 hectares are public land
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

6. Studies in

7. Beneficiaries in Agrarian Reform Communities (ARC) v Farmers outside ARCs*
Started in 1993
Critical mass of beneficiaries in several villages; participatory planning
At least 70% of the land target distributed
Package of services (infrastructure, capacity, interventions)
Official Development Assistance (ODA) + local budget priority
Method: national statistics, segregation of village level, proxies for welfare or income
Findings:
Poverty reduction is faster in ARCs
A farmer-beneficiary in an ARC = higher per capita income
ARC villages have better access to govt support
Land ownership has a substantial impact on welfare
Beneficiaries in ARCs are better off than non-beneficiaries
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

8. Strategies Forward
Targeted interventions work (clear baselines and characteristics)
A participatory plan can make a difference
Collective action makes a difference
Land ownership is a big plus; but not sufficient (because there are more rural dwellers than there is land)
Poverty alleviation cannot be achieved with only one intervention (agriculture)
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

9. AR Beneficiaries Survey*
Methodology
Population: 2.4 million beneficiaries**
Sample: 6,000 farmer-beneficiaries
5% margin of error
Computer-aided collation with verification
Findings
There is 95.19% in individual titles retained by beneficiaries
84.87% retention in collective titles
Retention of land higher in AR Communities (ARCs) than in non-ARCs: RE
1/3 of on-beneficiary-farmers ARE tenants/lessees
Beneficiaries are older than other farmers (why?)
Across indicators (houses, education, sanitation) – beneficiaries are better-off than non-beneficiaries (validates earlier study)
More non-beneficiaries work off-farm; more beneficiaries work on-farm
There are more lands under individual title that have remained agricultural THAN collective title (higher diversion to non-agricultural use if collective title); but diversion to non-agricultural is moving at a rapid pace
*Philippine Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016
**The population here is only for beneficiaries with CARP title (Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Land Ownership Award – does not include beneficiaries with Free Patents under the Public Land Act)

10. AR Beneficiaries Survey
Findings (continuation)
Across indicators, farmer-beneficiaries invest more, access government support more, have more diversified sources of income, use better technology, avail more credit (formal and microfinance) and have higher income more than non- beneficiaries (1/3 of whom are tenants)
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

11. Agreements between farmer-beneficiaries AND agri-corporations*
Background: land in large plantations run by corporations distributed to workers; workers form groups; groups enter into agreements with corporations; normally high-value export crops (banana, palm-oil, pineapple)
Methodology: Focus-group discussion, case history, interviews, literature review, workshops
Findings:
Beneficiaries are unaware of the effects of the agreements; are left holding the shorter end of the stick (“unfair” contracts)
Severe lack of capacity (of the beneficiaries) to negotiate, manage, re-negotiate agreements
Approval process is not followed
*FAO, Multi-sectoral study on the Agribusiness Venture Arrangement policy and implementation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, 2016

12. Strategies Forward Decentralize approval process
Strengthen capacity of government to assist beneficiary groups (including agency on cooperatives)
NGOs must coordinate to avoid duplication of efforts
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

13. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS
Contrary to expectations, secure rights does not necessarily result in the poor selling the asset
Secure and clear rights over public lands possessed or controlled by the poor BRINGS benefits
Re-distribution of land to landless tenants or workers BRINGS benefits
Collective ownership have downsides (collective control may not work) BUT coordinated and collective action has benefits
COLLECTIVE ACTION is better than COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
Limitation: Beneficiary v non-beneficiary
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

14. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS
SECURING LAND RIGHTS and DISTRIBUTING LAND can WORK
Participatory planning with targeted intervention in farmers’ communities can work Collective action by farmers
Secure individual land rights are a necessary condition
Approval is a poor substitute for collective action (that can only occur if there is capacity-building
LAND RIGHTS cannot exist alone + agriculture policy + macroeconomic policy
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

15. Other Studies
Study on Agricultural Credit (Philippine Institute for Development Studies), 2016
Mindanao Land Governance Assessment Framework, 2016
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016

16. Thank you
*Phil Statistical Research Training Institute (PSRTI ARB Survey 2016