4 minute read
The NIPAS Law and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
comparative Legal Analysis of the NIPAS Law
Advertisement
Assessment
The NIPAS Act was enacted with the objective of creating integrated protected areas within the classification of national parks. The purpose of these protected areas is for the protection, management and enhancement of biological diversity and to protect the same from destructive human exploitation. The subject of the law is the PA that is legally recognized to be protected and conserved.
On the other hand, the AFMA was enacted in order to increase productivity of the agricultural sector, increase market efficiency and promote modernization. The object of the AFMA is to modernize and industrialize the agriculture and fishery sector of society.
While it also creates a physical area called the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone (SAFDZ), it is not the protection of this area that is the object of the law. The object is to give both farmers and fishermen the opportunity to optimize production.
It would thus appear that the policies of both laws are divergent. The NIPAS law is aimed at conservation and preservation of wildlife and biodiversity through settingup legal demarcations as to where human activities may be prohibited, allowed or minimized in certain geographical areas. On the other hand, AFMA is aimed at modernizing Philippine agriculture and aquaculture, which in itself encourages utilization and exploitation of resources rather than conservation and protection.
There are various activities supporting the production and marketing aspects of agriculture and fisheries development under AFMA. Foremost is the identification of Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZ). These are zones identified based on the network of protected areas for agricultural and agroindustrial development or NPAAAD. What makes SAFDZ vital is the principle of using efficiency in assigning agricultural areas for food production and security.
Areas of concern
A key feature of the NIPAS law is that it not only includes terrestrial areas but include marine and freshwater habitats as well. This is where a conflict between the two laws may arise. Much like the conflict between the NIPAS law and the Fisheries Code, there are some marine habitats which have been declared as protected seascapes. If an area delineated in the AFMA as a SAFDZ comes within an area created by the NIPAS law as a protected area, then there is conflict in jurisdiction and policy implementation. Section 20 of the NIPAS Act prohibits, among others, the hunting of animals and possession of plants within the protected area. The SAFDZ, on the other hand, is supposed to be an area of production. When a SAFDZ is included in a protected area, which one prevails, the NIPAS Act or
comparative Legal Analysis of the NIPAS Law
the AFMA?
It appears that there is no conflict on this respect, because the definition of “seascape” in the NIPAS Act is “an area of national significance which [is] characterized by the harmonious interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and economic activity of the areas”. The “harmonious interaction between man and land” can be interpreted as including production and harvesting, but “within the normal economic activity of the area”, as the law says. However, what is “normal”? Does this include economic production and economic harvesting? If it does not, then there is a problem, because AFMA envisions commercial production and harvesting. The fact that AFMA intends to use technology on the resource indicates that the use of the resource is above normal.
Another problem is that one of the objectives of AFMA is “to modernize the agriculture and fisheries sectors by transforming these sectors from a resource-based to a technology-based industry”. The fact that the AFMA intends to use technology to enhance production automatically is antithetic to conservation and is inconsistent with what the NIPAS Act might consider normal.
It therefore appears that if an area is considered a SAFDZ, it cannot be a protected seascape. It cannot be both.
This conflict of jurisdiction has yet to be resolved. It would appear that the NIPAS law prevails over AFMA in marine areas declared and identified as PAs. However, the LGUs occupying the coast of the marine PA, in most cases, would prefer utilization of marine resources rather than conservation. It is to be noted that the PAMB, which is the governing board of a particular PA is composed mostly of elected officials of the LGU. Given this scenario, the LGU would more likely prefer to execute policies concerning SAFDZ, than the protectionist policies if the area is also declared as a PA.
To resolve this conflict, either law should provide for education or information drive on the local officials in order to make them understand that conservation is better than utilization in the long run, and that conservation should be given preference over utilization where an area is declared as a protected seascape.
