PROJECT PROPOSAL

FARM-TO-MARKET BRIDGES
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Proposed by
Department of Agriculture

January 2025

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Basic Information …………………………………………………………………... 3

2 Historical Context of the Proposed Project to Sector Development ……… 3
3 Project’s Sectoral Program Context: Relevance of the Proposed Project
to the Philippine Development Agenda ………………………………………… 6
4 Project’s Regional and Spatial Context ………………………………………… 8
5 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………. 13
5.1. General Objective ………………………………………………………………. 13
5.2. Specific Objectives ……………………………………………………………... 13
5.3. Logical Framework ……………………………………………………………... 13
6 Institutional Arrangement ………………………………………………………… 15
7. Project Description ………………………………………………………………… 18
7.1. Project Background …………………………………………………………….. 18
7.2. Technical Design ………………………………………………………………... 21
7.3. Selection Criteria ……………………………………………………………….. 37
7.4. Prioritization Criteria ……………………………………………………………. 38
8. Project Cost and Financing ………………………………………………………. 38
9. Project Implementation ……………………………………………………………. 43
9.1. Pre-Implementation …………………………………………………………….. 44
9.2. Project Implementation ………………………………………………………… 44
9.3. Project Monitoring and Evaluation ……………………………………………. 46
10. Economic Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 47
11. Social and Environmental Safeguards …………………………………………. 52
11.1. Social Assessment ……………………………………………………………. 54
11.2. Environmental Assessment ………………………………………………….. 55
12. Implementation Schedule ………………………………………………………… 55
13. Risks …………………………………………………………………………………. 57
14. Sustainability ……………………………………………………………………….. 59
15. Annexes ……………………………………………………………………………… 61

2
 PROJECT PROPOSAL

1.​ BASIC INFORMATION

Project Title Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program

Project Location Nationwide

Estimated Project Cost PHP27,693,531,250.00

Loan Proceeds: PHP22,154,825,000.00

(EUR 350,000,000.00)1
GOP Counterpart: PHP5,538,706,250.00

Source of Funding Official Development Assistance (French

Government)

Implementation Period Four Years (2025-2028)

Proponent Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Agricultural

and Fisheries Engineering (DA-BAFE)

2.​ HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND RELEVANCE

TO SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

The modernization of Philippine agriculture has long been a critical objective of the
government, as encapsulated in the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act
(AFMA), or Republic Act No. 8435. This landmark legislation establishes the foundation
for transforming the agriculture and fisheries sectors into globally competitive,
sustainable industries that contribute to national development. AFMA mandates a
multi-faceted approach to enhancing agricultural productivity, with a focus on the
development of rural infrastructure (e.g., farm-to-market roads), efficient resource
management, the adoption of advanced technologies, and the improvement of
agricultural value chains. By fostering sustainable practices, the Act aims to increase
income opportunities for farmers and fishers, reduce rural poverty, and ensure food
security for the nation.

President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr., in his second State of the Nation Address
(SONA) on 24 July 2023, reaffirmed the critical importance of revitalizing the agriculture
sector as part of the national strategy for inclusive economic recovery. His
administration has prioritized agriculture as a driver of growth, recognizing that a
1
1 EURO = PHP63.2995 as of July 25, 2024 (BSP).

3
robust, self-sufficient food system is essential not only for poverty alleviation but also
for maintaining price stability and food security amidst global economic volatility. The
President's vision is to reignite job creation and accelerate poverty reduction by
modernizing agricultural practices and infrastructure, thereby reinvigorating rural
economies.

The Department of Agriculture (DA) has been tasked with leading this agricultural
renaissance, confronting entrenched challenges such as low productivity, weak
infrastructure, and vulnerability to climate change. By aligning with AFMA’s core
objectives, the DA is poised to implement strategic interventions that will tackle these
issues head-on, from boosting farm mechanization and improving irrigation systems to
expanding farm-to-market roads and bridges. These initiatives are designed to promote
market access, enhance value chain integration, and improve the overall
competitiveness of Filipino farmers and fishers. The success of these efforts will be key
to achieving the President’s broader goal of sustainable agricultural growth, which is
crucial for fueling economic development, fostering inclusive growth, and ensuring the
country’s food security in the years to come.

Figure 2.1 shows that the Philippine GDP growth rate is headed in the right direction
with the economy recovering from the lowest contraction of (9.5%) ever during the
pandemic year 2020 to 5.7% the following year, leaping to 7.6% growth in 2022.

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

Figure 2.1. ANNUAL GDP GROWTH RATES, 2012-2021

The Philippines remains predominantly an agricultural country with a large chunk of the
population living in rural areas, dependent on agriculture as their primary, if not the only
source of income. Data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (Figure 2.2) show that
about 24.0% of employed workers are in the agricultural sector comprising four (4)
subsectors: (i) farming; (ii) fisheries; (iii) forestry; and (iv) livestock.

4
Looking back in the mid-1990s, agriculture was the biggest employer in the economy,
accounting for 43.0% of the total Filipino workforce. However, this share has seen a
continued decline as the booming services sector lured away workers seeking higher
income sources, and by year 2019, the number almost halved at 23.0% while services
leaped from 41.0% in 1995 to its highest ever record of 58.0% share in 2019.
However, one can observe a slight 26.0% share pick-up in 2020 when the COVID-19
pandemic general community quarantine resulted in a diaspora from the city living
towards the countryside where people opted to find work in agriculture. This was made
formal as a short-term program through the “Balik Probinsya” joint undertaking of the
national and local governments. Nevertheless, the declining pattern reappeared
immediately the following year which can be interpreted that the challenges remain and
more appropriate policy decisions will have to be made sooner.

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

Figure 2.2. BASIC SECTORS SHARE IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (1995-2021)

PSA) reported that for FY 2021, agriculture posted a gross value added (GVA) of about
PHP1,760.0 billion or approximately 9.6% share in the country’s GDP for the same
year. However, it must be noted that this contribution could have been higher if not for
the lingering effects of the pandemic lockdown and the natural calamities that shrunk
the sector’s gross output by 1.7% in 2021.

Issues and Challenges

The challenges besetting the agriculture sector are highlighted against this backdrop,
where natural disasters or human errors in decision-making cater to weak
performance. A Philippine Institute for Development Studies policy paper attributed the
weak performance of the agriculture sector partly to its lack of competitiveness
manifested in weak export performance. Slow-paced growth, if not perennially

5
contracting, agriculture productivity issues can be traced back to slow expansion or low
investment in the factors of production, to wit:

a.​ Reduced size of farmlands. The growing rural population has increased the
need for and use of land which is a fixed asset. Land distribution under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), while a noble step towards
improving the plight of poverty among farmers, has also aggravated
economies of scale when farmlands were fragmented. According to a 2020
study, CARP’s weak implementation inadvertently reduced sectoral
productivity by 17.0% as farm size was reduced by 34.0% and the share of
landless farmers by 20.0%.

b.​ Loan and credit financing for AFF. While government financial institutions
offer available credit lines for agriculture businesses and capital investments,
accessibility remains a proverbial challenge. Despite existing laws and
mandated regulations, agriculture finance has been scarce, and if not, the
cumbersome and complex process and voluminous requirements a small
farmer availing a loan must go through is a huge deterrent. As an alternative,
farmers resort to informal lenders or loan sharks charging higher interest rates.

c.​ Workers leaving the sector for more incentives. Related to the issue of
reducing farming areas due to rising population and declining income, farm
workers tend to shift to more rewarding employment opportunities, like
services or industry.

d.​ Climate change has also taken its toll in the agriculture sector. Extreme
weather events bring damage to crops, livestock and infrastructure that
hampers the timely delivery of goods and supplies. Though a persistent global
concern, worsening climate extremes and the looming scarcity of water
resources because of increased and unhampered domestic and industrial use
have added to the problems the agriculture sector has to reckon with.

e.​ Low investment in rural infrastructure. While the Marcos Administration has
embarked on a massive Build Build More infrastructure worth PHP8.3 trillion in
the next five (5) years, the chunk of the funding allotted for rural infrastructure
remains to be made known. Adding to the pressure is the archipelagic
geography of the country, posing significant logistical challenges in trade and
transporting agricultural products.

3.​ PROJECT’S SECTORAL PROGRAM CONTEXT: RELEVANCE OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT TO THE PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

Rationalizing the modernization of agriculture and agribusiness is articulated in the

Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023-2028 duly anchored on the agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries (AFF) sector as an integral part of the bigger agri-food system.
The Plan covers: (a) addressing the systemic ills of AFF through a

6
whole-of-value-chain approach that considers AFF production as tightly linked to
processing, marketing, consumption, and waste management; (b) restoring the local
food culture toward improving system resiliency, empowering local farmers, and linking
AFF production to consumer nutrition and health of the environment; and (c) opening
up more opportunities in the blue economy to leverage and optimize the country’s vast
coastal and marine resources and maritime domain.
Specifically, the proposed project is consistent and would contribute to the PDP
2023-2028 Chapters 52 and 123 outcomes and strategies on (a) creating opportunities
for the participation of primary producers in the value-adding of A&F products; (b)
improving physical and digital infrastructure; (c) moving people and goods through
modernized and expanded transport systems; and (d) addressing universal mobility
and connectivity needs. Likewise, it is included in the updated DA’s Public Investment
Program (PIP) 2023-2028, as a priority project.
Following the directive of His Excellency President Marcos, Jr during his State of the
Nation Address on July 25, 2022 of coming up with a national network of
farm-to-market roads (FMRs) that will link production areas to the markets, the
Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), and the Department of Tourism (DOT) issued a Joint Administrative
Order (JAO)4 on the formulation, implementation and updating of the National Network
of FMRs. The JAO covers the establishment of an FMR common database through the
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Management Information System (ABEMIS)5
and the Geographic Information System for Agricultural and Fishery Machinery and
Infrastructure (GEOAGRI).6 The JAO also covers the formulation and updating of the
FMR Network Plan, including the FMR Network Investment Plans at the national and
local levels (regional, provincial, city, and municipal).
Upgrading roads in the rural areas and marginalized sector stands out as the prioritized
project of the DA as this will increase crop yields and reduce losses by ensuring that
locally produced perishable goods can easily reach nearby markets. Such efforts are in
line with the nation's goal of supporting all farmers and promoting sustainable
agricultural development. Improved road networks will not only benefit farmers but also
contribute to overall economic growth across the country. Additionally, they will facilitate
rural farmers' access to markets, offering them more opportunities to generate income
and narrowing wealth disparities.
2
Modernize Agriculture and Agribusiness
3
Expand and Upgrade Infrastructure
4
Joint Administrative Order (JAO) No. 01, Series of 2023 (Formulation, Implementation, and Updating of
the National Network of Farm-to-Market Roads).
5
ABEMIS is an in-house developed web-based information system that serves as the central data
repository and a monitoring tool of all agricultural and fisheries machinery and infrastructure projects of
the DA. It helps accelerate the monitoring of project implementation from the proposal, validation,
procurement, construction, and completion to operation.
6
GEOAGRI is a microservice under ABEMIS developed to automate computation and ranking of
proposed FMRs following the AO No. 16, Series of 2020 revised prioritization criteria. The criteria were
normalized and standardized in order to arrive at a standard logic that any programming language can
understand.

7
The DA is mandated to undertake various agri-fisheries infrastructure projects involving
the construction, restoration, and rehabilitation of irrigation systems, and post-harvest
and marketing facilities. The FMRs which are designed to connect agricultural and
fisheries production areas to markets and post-harvest facilities are under
co-implementation by the DPWH and DA. A special provision is contained in the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2023 tasking the DA through the Bureau of
Agricultural and Fisheries Engineering (BAFE) to develop FMRs that must lead to
arterial or secondary roads and key production areas to facilitate the transport needs of
farmers and fisherfolk. This is coherent with the mission of DA to sustain the Philippine
Agri-Fisheries and food system transformation through the revitalized FMR
Development Program.
Based on the aggregate data of all FMR-implementing agencies (as of June 2022)
67,255.46 km farm-to-market roads have been built or constructed in the country as
against the required target of 131,410.66 km. Hence, the Marcos administration is
targeting to construct 64,155.20 km within the medium term.
Crucial to the maximum utilization of the fully built or constructed FMRs of 67,255.46
km, is the lack or absence of bridges that will establish connectivity including the
creation of a transport network for ease and seamless transport of agricultural products
to major markets. The master list of FMR proposed bridge sites indicate that there are
1,479 FMR areas in the country needing urgent construction of bridges. Out of the
master list, the 300 farm-to-market bridges that are included in the priority list are
shown in Annex 15.1.

4.​ PROJECT’S REGIONAL AND SPATIAL CONTEXT

A sound agricultural development through a holistic agri-food system measures

espoused in the National Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization and Industrialization
Plan (NAFMIP) 2021-2030 will be pursued, to raise the level of income of primary
producers (i.e., farmers and fisherfolk) beyond the poverty threshold. The
transformational interventions shall strive to yield: (a) efficiency of agriculture, forestry,
and fisheries production enhanced; (b) access to markets and agriculture, forestry, and
fisheries-based enterprises expanded; (c) resilience of agriculture, forestry, and
fisheries value chains improved; and (d) agricultural institutions strengthened.
NAFMIP's key strategies will push these interventions to accelerate the agri-fishery
sectoral transformation.

While FMRs have been widely developed to enhance market connectivity, there
remains a significant gap in the transportation network—especially at critical points
where road networks are cut off by rivers, streams, or waterways as shown in Figures
4.1 to 4.3 below.

8
Figure 4.1. SATELLITE IMAGE OF TWO FMRs SEPARATED BY RIVER LOCATED AT
BRGY. ANTUNGALON, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE

(Red Shaded Area: Left side FMR) (Yellow Shaded Area: Right side FMR)

(Blue Shaded Area: River separating two FMRs)

9
 Figure 4.2. TWO FMRs SEPARATED BY A RIVER LOCATED AT BRGY. STO TOMAS, STO.
DOMINGO, ILOCOS SUR

Figure 4.3. UNPASSABLE EXISTING RURAL GRAVEL ROAD WITH DILAPIDATED SPILLWAY ALONG
A RIVER LOCATED AT BRGY. MONTE ALEGRE, MATALOM LEYTE

Without bridges to complete these connections, FMRs fall short of their potential,
leaving farmers and fisherfolk with limited transport options. Farmers and traders often
resort to transporting goods across waterways or through inefficient detours, resulting
in higher transport costs, delays, and significant post-harvest losses due to damage or
spoilage. The absence of bridges undermines the core objective of FMRs, which is to
efficiently move farm inputs and agricultural products from farms to trading centers,
thereby reducing logistical costs and boosting farm productivity.
The Provincial Commodity Investment Plans (PCIPs), developed jointly by the DA and
Local Government Units (LGUs), emphasize the essential role of bridges in ensuring
seamless connectivity between agricultural production sites and markets. While FMRs
have improved accessibility in some areas, these plans highlight that strategic bridges
are still missing to complete the transport networks. The absence of these bridges
continues to hinder the full realization of the economic benefits of FMRs, leading to
inefficiencies in the value chain and limiting market access for rural farmers.

10
The aforementioned goals, plans, policies, and Presidential pronouncements are
intended to uphold the policy of the State under RA 7607 (An Act Providing a Magna
Carta of Small Farmers) to give the highest priority to the development of agriculture
such that equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities, is realized through the
empowerment of small farmers. While the State recognizes the welfare and
development of the small farmers is their primordial responsibility, the State shall
provide the necessary support mechanism towards the attainment of their
socioeconomic endeavors. Section 11 (Transportation Infrastructure) provides that: the
Government shall provide farm-to-market roads, feeder roads, and bridges which will
link the farms to the market. Priority shall be given to areas predominantly populated by
small farmers and where agricultural productivity is relatively low.
Furthermore, RA 7607 stipulates that: “To ensure accessibility of markets to farmers
and thereby minimize product wastage, the Government shall also provide for the
construction of additional piers or wharves and airports and the improvement of such
existing facilities especially in areas having surplus agricultural production and in other
strategic areas in the country. It shall devise schemes to allow farmers to operate and
eventually obtain their transport equipment. Farmers' organizations are encouraged to
participate in site identification, preparation, actual execution, and maintenance of
infrastructure projects especially in tapping available local manpower and materials.”
Responding to the President’s directive to implement FMRs to ease the transport and
delivery of farm inputs and products from the farms to the trading centers, is the
crafting of the National Farm-to-Market Roads Network Plan 2023-2028 by the BAFE
under the DA. The JAO No, 1, Series of 2023 is meant to formulate, implement, and
update the national network of FMRs. Its coherence is defined in Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 8435 or the "Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997”, where
FMRs are roads linking the agriculture and fisheries production sites, coastal landing
points, and post-harvest facilities to the market and arterial roads and highways.
Specifically, these FMRs are local roads such as provincial, city, municipal, and
barangay roads.
The JAO underscores the FMRs' impact on transport costs for farmers where roads
close to farms would yield lower production costs and raise the prices that farmers get
for their products. The DA, together with the DPWH, shall undertake the planning and
implementation of the Farm-to-Market Roads Development Program (FMRDP). Other
agencies or inter-agency collaboration programs that plan, fund, and implement road
networks that also pass through the agricultural production areas and support the
establishment of a national network of FMRs include the LGUs for local roads.
Essential to establishing connectivity and linkage along the FMRs is the construction of
bridges. The construction of farm-to-market bridges is a connectivity infrastructure
intervention intended to ease the transport and delivery of farm inputs and products
from the farms to the trading centers, decrease transportation costs, and add value to
agricultural products to enable farmers to increase income.
The farm-to-market bridge is a critical component of agricultural development as a
crucial linkage to production areas, markets, places of storage, processing, and
transshipment points allowing a more efficient supply chain of food and other

11
agricultural commodities. Specifically, the construction of FMRs and bridges shall bring
about a substantial decrease in the handling and hauling costs of agricultural products,
a reduction in transport costs, time savings in the transport of commodities, and lesser
crop wastage or damages. Other effects include the growth of enterprises and
transportation facilities as a consequence of ease of access to and from the
communities.

In light of the foregoing, the DA is proposing to implement the “Farm-to-Market

Bridges Development Program.” The project covers the design, supply, and
construction of 300 farm-to-market bridges covering an implementation period of four
years, 2025-2028. The proposed project costs of EUR350 million (loan component) is
being proposed for Official Development Assistance (ODA). The bridge sites were
previously identified by the DA that are strategically placed at key points of FMRs, to
complement the existing road network. The identification and prioritization in the
construction of these FMR bridges shall be undertaken based on the criteria of the
agency (see Annex 15.2).

Likewise, the proposed bridge sites will not duplicate or overlap with the existing FMR
with bridge component of PRDP and the PBBM Bridge Program of DAR as shown in
the GEOAGRI system map. Shown in Figure 4.4 are the proposals in the island of
Mindanao alongside the proposals from DAR and PRDP. The detailed proposed
bridges per region are illustrated in Annex 15.3.

Figure 4.4. MAP OF THE MINDANAO ISLAND WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGES OF
DA AND DAR

12
5.​ PROJECT OBJECTIVES

5.1​ General Objective

The “Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program” aims to increase the income of

the farmers and fisherfolk by improving connectivity in the farming communities
through the construction of climate-resilient farm-to-market bridges.

5.2​ Specific Objectives

Specifically, the project intends to:

(1)​ Increase farm production by enhancing transport and market access;
(2)​ Reduce transport costs and transport losses due to better road condition;
and
(3)​ Improve access and mobility efficiency in the project’s area of influence.

5.3 ​ Logical Framework

The proposed project envisioned the improvement of the economic status of the
beneficiaries within the influence areas.7 According to a 2013 SEARCA study,8
provision of infrastructure such as farm-to-market road and bridge are significant
determinants of agricultural productivity. These interventions provide important access
and connectivity with markets, reducing input and transaction costs of producers and
consumers as well as shortened travel time. This in turn will result in increasing the
income of the beneficiaries which will then redound to economic growth in the rural
area.

Likewise, during the construction of the bridges, the project is expected to generate
employment to at least 3,900 temporary skilled jobs and 10,800 unskilled women and
men. The logical framework (see Table 5.3) showed that the proposed construction of
farm-to-market bridges would improve the links between production areas to the
markets, hence increasing the income of the beneficiaries.

7
Road influence area is equivalent to 110 hectares/kilometer of bridge and connecting road based on
the FMRDP Strategic Plan 2022-2031.
8
Llanto, G. 2013. The Impact of Infrastructure on Agricultural Productivity. Los Baños, Laguna/Quezon
City: SEARCA, DA-BAR, PhilRice.

13
 Table 5.3. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSED FARM-TO-MARKET BRIDGES

Objectives Project Means of Key

Indicators/Target9 Verification Assumptions/Risks

1.​ Goal Socio-economic

a. To increase a.1. Farmers’ and profile of
farmers’ and fisherfolk annual beneficiaries (i.e.
fisherfolk income income increased by farmers)
at least 10% by the
end of the project10 Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) data

2. Purpose

a.​ To improve the a.1. Transport losses Impact assessment Assumptions:

links and enhance reduced by 6%11 and evaluation report
accessibility ●​ The LGU and
between a.2. Hauling cost other government
production areas reduced by 30%12 agencies extends
and the markets their programs on
the influence
a.3. Travel time
areas of the
reduced by 20%13 bridge
sub-projects
●​ Investments from
private sector
●​ Beneficiaries use
the farm bridge to
transport their
goods to the
market

3. Outputs

Project monitoring Assumptions:

a.1. 106.75 linear
meter bridge reports/turn-over
●​ Availability of

9
The indicators/targets in the logical framework were based on the FMRDP Strategic Plan 2022-2031
Strategic Results Framework, and the study of SEARCA and PHilMech.
10
Based on 2021 PSA data, net annual average returns for palay, and corn is PHP19,680, and
PHP18,047, respectively. For fisheries, milkfish and tilapia have net returns of PHP84,444 and
PHP220,032, respectively. With the project, at least 10% increase in income is envisioned.
11
According to DA (2024), nearly 30% of the country’s agricultural produce is wasted due to poor logistics
(https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/17/2326363/da-30-percent-crops-wasted-due-poor-logistics).
12
In 2020, the average transportation cost of one cavan of rice amounts to PHP9.44
(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transportation-cost-of-rice-produce_tbl5_343254945).
13
For comparison, the average travel time before the implementation of PRDP was 55.87 minutes based
on World Bank appraisal in 2021.

14
a. Farm-to-market constructed (standard reports of DA-BAFE, Government of the
bridges single lane) Certificate of Philippines (GOP)
constructed Acceptance counterpart
a.2. 11,272.80 linear ●​ Host LGUs’ active
meter bridge participation in the
constructed (extra implementation of
the project
wide single lane)
●​ No problem with
ROW acquisition
●​ Procurement is on
time with no
delays in project
implementation

Despite previous efforts to construct FMRs, many farmlands remain disconnected from
essential markets and production areas due to the absence of critical bridge
infrastructure. These FMRs are frequently interrupted by waterways, creating
significant transport challenges. Farmers and fisherfolk are often forced to use
inefficient and costly transportation alternatives, such as fording rivers or relying on
temporary, unsafe crossings. These solutions not only increase travel time but also
result in greater post-harvest losses due to spoilage and damaged goods.

Without the construction of bridges, the intended benefits of the FMR network, such as
reduced transport costs and improved market access, remain unfulfilled.
farm-to-market bridges are thus critical components in achieving the program's
overall goals of increasing farmer and fisherfolk incomes and ensuring efficient
transport of goods. By building the proposed 300 farm-to-market bridges, the program
targets a reduction in transport losses by 6%, hauling costs by 30%, and travel
time by 20%. This infrastructure will significantly improve supply chain efficiency,
leading to better market access, reduced wastage, and ultimately, a 10% increase in
farmers' incomes.

The importance of bridging these transport gaps is further emphasized in the FMRDP
Strategic Plan 2022-2031. The plan aims to address these systemic issues by
ensuring that future farm-to-market projects include the necessary bridge
infrastructure, fully integrating disconnected areas into the national market system.

6.​ INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT

The Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program will be managed primarily by

the BAFE under the DA. BAFE will serve as the Project Management Office (PMO),
ensuring that the project’s technical, administrative, and operational components are
efficiently implemented. The PMO will coordinate closely with the DPWH on the
provision of technical assistance, specifically in bridge design, materials testing, and
other engineering requirements. LGUs will support the project by handling social

15
preparations, resolving right-of-way (ROW) issues, and ensuring post-construction
maintenance of the bridges.

At the PMO level, the overall implementation of the Farm-to-Market Bridges

Development Program will be handled mainly by the DA-BAFE’s Special Engineering
Programs and Projects Division (SEPPD). The division is tasked to oversee and
manage the planning, implementation, construction, monitoring, and evaluation of
FMRDP and serve the other infrastructure requirements of the DA.

The SEPPD has two sections, catering to the pre-implementation and implementation
requirements of the FMRDP and other infrastructure projects with the following
supervisory and technical positions:

●​ One (1) Engineer V;

●​ One (1) Engineer IV;
●​ Two (2) Engineer III;
●​ Six (6) Engineer II; and,
●​ Seven (7) Engineer I

The Engineer I to III positions are mainly composed of experienced and licensed
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineers (ABEs), Civil Engineers (CEs), and Geodetic
Engineers that are supervised by an Engineer IV, an ABE. The division is headed by an
Engineer V who is also a licensed ABE.

Likewise, the SEPPD will be supported by the Infrastructure Plans and Designs
Section (IPDS) of the Engineering, Plans, Designs and Specifications Division
(EPDSD) in the implementation of the proposed project. The EPDSD-IPDS is
composed of various experts in the field of agricultural and biosystems, and civil
engineering wherein it has technical engineers with Engineer I to III positions
consisting of licensed ABEs and CEs. The inventory and mapping of the
farm-to-market bridges, and the monitoring of the progress of the project will be
through the ABEMIS and GEOAGRI system which are being managed by the
Planning, Knowledge Management and Digitalization Division (PKMDD) of DA-BAFE.
Other necessary personnel and experts for the implementation of the project will be
hired by the PMO to support the existing manpower of DA-BAFE.

At the regional level, implementation will be carried out by the DA Regional Field
Offices (RFOs) through their Regional Agricultural Engineering Divisions (RAED),
which will act as the Regional Support Offices (RSO) for the project. The RAED/RSO
will manage field validation, community consultations, and LGU coordination. To
prevent political interference and ensure efficient execution, the provincial and
municipal governments will directly coordinate with the RAED/RSO, keeping technical
and operational matters focused on project goals.

In relation to this, under DA Department Order No. 12, Series of 2019, titled
“Establishing the Institutional Linkage and Strengthening Coordination between the
Bureau of Agricultural and Fisheries Engineering and the Regional Agricultural

16
Engineering Divisions of the Regional Field Offices of DA,” the DA-BAFE and RAEDs
were mandated to establish strong institutional links. This directive ensures effective
and efficient coordination between national and regional offices, enabling operational
coherence in the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and regulation of
agricultural and fisheries engineering, mechanization, and infrastructure projects
across the DA.

The project management structure is shown in Figure 6.1, which illustrates the detailed
communication lines between DA-BAFE, DPWH, RAED/RSO, LGUs, and other key
stakeholders.

6.1 ​ Fiduciary and Cost-Sharing Arrangements

The project will follow a transparent funds flow mechanism that specifies the allocation
and distribution of financial resources. The Government of the Philippines (GOP)/DA
through GAA will contribute 20% of the total project cost, with the remaining 80%
financed through loan proceeds from the French ODA. This balanced cost-sharing
arrangement promotes shared responsibility and active commitment from all
stakeholders involved.

6.2​ Proposed Management Structure for Project Implementation

The project management structure outlines the guidance, oversight, and operational
functions, ensuring smooth implementation at all levels. Under Republic Act No. 10601,
also known as the Agricultural and Fisheries Mechanization (AFMech) Law of 2013,
DA-BAFE is responsible for:

●​ Coordinating national planning and implementation for agricultural engineering,

farm-to-market road, and other infrastructure projects.
●​ Preparing, evaluating, validating, and recommending engineering plans,
designs, and specifications for mechanization and infrastructure projects.
●​ Providing technical assistance to the DA Regional Field Offices' (RFO)
agricultural engineering divisions.

Based on the AFMech Law, the DA RFOs have established the Regional Agricultural
Engineering Divisions (RAED) to implement agricultural engineering programs and
projects at the regional level. These RAEDs will serve as the Regional Support Offices
(RSO) for the Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program, ensuring efficient
field-level execution in coordination with the national PMO.

6.3​ Role of Other Key Agencies

The DPWH will provide technical expertise in the design of bridges, materials testing,
and other related engineering activities. Meanwhile, LGUs will lead efforts on social
preparations, including addressing ROW concerns, and resettlement of affected
persons. They will also be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure after the
project’s completion and turnover by the DA-BAFE and RAED/RSO.

17
6.4​ Project Timeline and Reporting

The entire project process, from pre-construction to post-construction phases, will

follow strict time frames to ensure timely delivery of results. Quality assurance
inspections will be conducted by the RAEDs to ensure that construction meets
standards, followed by a final inspection involving the DA-BAFE, RAED, LGUs, and
community representatives. Upon successful completion, the bridges will be formally
turned over to the recipient LGUs.

For a more detailed breakdown of roles and responsibilities, including who is

Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) during each phase of the
project, refer to the RACI matrix in Annex 15.4.

Figure 6.1 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

7.​ PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7.1​ Project Background

The “Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program'' involves the nationwide

construction of 300 farm-to-market bridges, equivalent to about 11,379.55 linear meters
(106.75 Linear Meters - Standard Single Lane; and 11,272.80 Linear Meters – Extra
Wide Single Lane), providing linkage along farm-to-market roads (FMR) in farming
communities to create connectivity with economic nerve centers. The project is being

18
proposed for ODA amounting to EUR 350 million. The project implementation covers a
period of four years, from 2025 to 2028.
Currently, the DA implements farm-to-market road projects through the Farm-to-Market
Road Development Program (FMRDP) and the Philippine Rural Development Project
(PRDP). The FMRDP prioritizes the concreting of existing unpaved FMRs, new road
opening that links production area to the market, as well as FMRs that need to be
rehabilitated. While proponents and other stakeholders are already requesting for farm
bridges that would connect existing FMRs, this intervention is not included in the
program. The FMRDP contributes to the strategy no. 4 of the agency specifically on the
development of efficient logistics systems for both inputs and production outputs. From
2016-2023, the FMRDP already completed around 8,871 projects with an equivalent
length of 4,900 kilometers and investment cost of PHP82.0 billion. For 2024, PHP19.6
billion is allocated to fund 1,139 projects with a target length of 1,201.64 kilometers.
On the other hand, the PRDP’s rural infrastructure component includes the
construction and rehabilitation of FMRs and farm bridges. This World Bank-funded
project aims to establish a government platform for a modern, climate-resilient, and
market-oriented agri-fishery sector. Since the year 2014, funding allocation of
USD950.0 million was provided to the original project until 2025 with another
USD600.0 million approved for the PRDP Scale-Up from 2023-2029. Around 603
infrastructure projects were already approved with an investment cost of PHP42.0
billion and more are still in the pipeline. The recently approved scale-up project targets
1,174 kilometers of FMRs and 1,962 linear meters of farm bridges to be constructed
and rehabilitated to provide connectivity in the areas of influence.
The proposed project will complement FMRDP and PRDP in terms of providing access
and in stimulating the economy in the rural areas (see Annex 15.5 for the different
government implemented farm-to-market bridge). To avoid duplication with ongoing
interventions, all farm-to-market bridge sites shall be identified and prioritized by the
DA-BAFE which shall form part of the National Farm-to-Market Road Network Plan
(FMRNP) and will be inputted in the GEOAGRI system. The DA-BAFE manages the
repository of the data and ensures security and data integrity from its use, storage, or
disposal.

Moreover, the DA-BAFE developed the selection and prioritization criteria for the
proposed 300 farm-to-market bridges. These criteria are based on multiple factors to
ensure that the bridges provide maximum benefit to agricultural areas. Parameters
include the road influence area (RIA), the agricultural potential of the region, the
number of beneficiaries in nearby barangays, average daily traffic (ADT), and the
vulnerability of the site. These factors ensure that the bridges connect critical
agricultural zones with markets and economic centers. Importantly, each bridge is
planned to be located within strategic agriculture and fisheries development zones
(SAFDZ), in line with the goal of improving access and transportation in rural areas.

In the absence of these bridges, farmers have had to rely on alternative and less
efficient transportation methods, such as crossing rivers and waterways, often resulting
in higher transportation costs, spoilage of goods, and lost market opportunities. Without

19
a proper connection to roads, the transport of goods via waterways has led to
significant post-harvest losses and a dramatic increase in the cost of logistics, affecting
the competitiveness of the agriculture sector. By addressing these infrastructure gaps,
the program aims to unlock the economic potential of rural areas, reduce wastage, and
improve farmers’ and fisherfolk’s incomes.

The project shall utilize a modular steel panel bridge (MSPB) technology that is
permanent and low-maintenance under the strict ISO controls to ensure efficiency,
accuracy and quality which assures a service life for the steel under the climatic
conditions of the Philippines of up to 80 years. Steel bridge innovation shall be
employed in this project using modularity/standardization of the steel beams which
offers a flexible solution that can be implemented in different site conditions. All
farm-to-market bridges shall be designed to carry a minimum AASHTO load of HL-93
loadings, compliant with international standards. The selection for the utilization of the
aforementioned steel bridge for this project is based on comparative analysis between
the reinforced concrete deck girder (RCDG) bridge, and steel warren truss bridge. The
comparative parameters used are as follows:

a.​ Cost per linear meter;

b.​ Construction duration;
c.​ Remote area suitability;
d.​ Loading/lifting to hauling vehicles;
e.​ Installation equipment;
f.​ Type of hauling vehicle used for superstructure transportation;
g.​ Maintenance;
h.​ Service lifespan; and
i.​ Transferability/Reusability to other project site

In relation to this, a tabular summary of comparative analysis between the

above-mentioned types of bridges is shown below, based on the information provided
by the DPWH - Bureau of Construction.

Table 7.1. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS TYPE OF BRIDGES

Bridge Type
Parameter
Modular steel Steel warren
Score RCDG bridge Score Score
panel bridge truss bridge

Cost per linear

2,157,584.23 1 874,285.09 3 1,294,670.77 2
meter (PHP/lm)

Construction
duration 3 3 18 to 24 1 6 2
(months/bridge)

Remote area
high 3 medium 2 low 1
suitability

20
 Loading/lifting to
manual 3 by crane 1 by crane 1
hauling vehicles

Installation
Backhoe 3 Crane 1 Crane 1
equipment

Type of hauling Trailer for

vehicle used for pre-stressed Big
Elf truck 3 1 1
superstructure concrete truck/Trailer
transportation girder

Maintenance high 1 low 3 medium 2

Service lifespan
80 2 50 2 50 2
(years)

Transferability/Reu
sability to other high 3 N/A 1 medium 2
project site

Total Score
(highest – most 22 15 14
recommended)

Percentage out of
81.48% 55.56% 51.85%
27 (highest score

Note: Scoring System; 3 – Highest, 2 – Average, 1 – Lowest

Based on the comparative analysis, the MSPB is most appropriate to be used in the
project due to its advantageous features such as shortest construction duration, most
suitable type of bridge for remote areas, and utilization of small equipment for handling
and transportation of bridge materials to the remote areas. Moreover, an in-depth
comparison on the advantages of the MSPB against the RCDG bridge, and steel
warren truss bridge in terms of its life cycle cost analysis is discussed in Section 9.

7.2​ Technical Design

All MSPBs are made up of lightweight and interchangeable standard elements.

Moreover, MSPBs are built to ISO quality standards and proven technology with the
end goal of providing a long life with minimal maintenance. The only major component
that is affected by the type of soil is the piers and abutments, which may require some
investigation. The superstructure is a modular steel panel structure with a maximum
span of about 61 linear meters which is of high strength and low maintenance (refer to
Annex 15.6 for the general specification of the proposed farm-to-market bridge design).

The MSPB is composed of the following components as shown in the figure below.

21
 Figure 7.1. COMPONENTS OF MODULAR STEEL PANEL BRIDGE (MSPB)

Furthermore, the cross-sectional general dimension of MSPB is illustrated in Figure

7.2, wherein the dimensional specifications is shown in Table 7.2.

22
Figure 7.2. CROSS-SECTIONAL GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF MSPB

Table 7.2. DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATIONS OF MSPB

23
The length of a one panel unit MSPB is 3.05 meters. Hence, an example of span
length with the number of MSPB panels required is shown in Table 7.3 while the
illustration of its configuration is presented in Figure 7.3.

Table 7.3. EXAMPLE OF SPAN LENGTH WITH CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF MSPB PANELS
NEEDED

*Note: 3.05 m/panel x 18 panels = 54.90m

Figure 7.3. 18 PANEL MSPB WITH A SPAN LENGTH OF 54.90 METERS

In terms of width, the MSPB type structures can be categorized in three different widths
such as the following:

a.​ Standard Single Lane: 3.15 meters

b.​ Extra-wide Single Lane: 4.20 meters
c.​ Double Lane: 7.35 meters

24
In terms of configuration, the type of MSPB configurations varies depending on the
loading, allowable deflection, the length of span, as well as the presence or absence of
sidewalks. The MSPB configurations are generally categorized into two heights such
as the Single Height (2.25m) and Double Height (4.50 m). Each of the categories has
sub-sections as discussed below.

A.​ Single Height (2.25m)

A.1. Single Panel

a.​ Single Single (SS) Configuration

Single panel line on each side and single storey high

Figure 7.4. SINGLE SINGLE (SS) CONFIGURATION

b.​ Single Single Reinforced (SSR) Configuration

Single panel line on each side, single storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all panels

Figure 7.5. SINGLE SINGLE REINFORCED (SSR) CONFIGURATION

A.2. Double Panel

a.​ Double Single Structure (DS) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side and single storey high

25
 Figure 7.6. DOUBLE SINGLE STRUCTURE (DS) CONFIGURATION

b.​ Double Single Reinforced 1 (DSR1) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side, single storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all the inner panels of the truss
only

Figure 7.7. DOUBLE SINGLE REINFORCED (DRS1) CONFIGURATION

c.​ Double Single Reinforced 2 (DSR2) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side, single storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all panels

Figure 7.8. DOUBLE SINGLE (DSR2) CONFIGURATION

26
A.3. Triple Panel

a.​ Triple Single (TS) Configuration

Triple panel lines on each side and single storey high

Figure 7.9. TRIPLE SINGLE (TS) CONFIGURATION

b.​ Triple Single Reinforced 2 (TSR2) Configuration

Triple panel lines on each side, single storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all the inner and outer panels of
the truss only

Figure 7.10. TRIPLE SINGLE REINFORCED 2 (TSR2) CONFIGURATION

c.​ Triple Single Reinforced 3 (TSR3) Configuration

Triple panel lines on each side, single storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all panels

27
 Figure 7.11. TRIPLE SINGLE REINFORCED 3 (TSR3) CONFIGURATION

B.​ Double Height (4.50m)

B.1. Double Panel

a.​ Double Double (DD) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side and double storey high

Figure 7.12. DOUBLE DOUBLE (DD) CONFIGURATION

b.​ Double Double Reinforced 1 (DDR1) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side, double storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all the inner and outer panels of
the truss only

28
 Figure 7.13. DOUBLE DOUBLE REINFORCED 1 (DDR1) CONFIGURATION

c.​ Double Double Reinforced 2 (DDR2) Configuration

Double panel lines on each side, double storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all panels

Figure 7.14. DOUBLE DOUBLE REINFORCED 2 (DDR2) CONFIGURATION

B.2. Triple Panel

a.​ Triple Double (TD) Configuration

Triple panel lines on each side and double storey high

Figure 7.15. TRIPLE DOUBLE (TD) CONFIGURATION

29
 b.​ Triple Double Reinforced 2 (TDR2) Configuration
Triple panel lines on each side, double storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all the inner and outer panels of
the truss only

Figure 7.16. TRIPLE DOUBLE REINFORCED 2 (TDR2) CONFIGURATION

c.​ Triple Double Reinforced 3 (TDR3) Configuration

Triple panel lines on each side, double storey high and reinforced with a
reinforcement chord to top and bottom of all panels

Figure 7.17. TRIPLE DOUBLE REINFORCE 3 (TDR3) CONFIGURATION

A new innovation in bridging technology shall be employed for this project by using
modularity of the panel which offers a flexible solution that can be implemented in
different site conditions. The modular bridges are sized in parts on simplified forms and
assembled quickly on-site with little need for heavy or complex lifting equipment. In
addition, the selection of design configuration for MSPB depends on the design loads
on the bridge, allowable deflection of bridge, bridge span length, and the presence or
absence of sidewalks.

Furthermore, the Farm-to-Market Bridge Development Program will employ the single
lane, both standard (SSL) and extra-wide (EWSL), since the identified project sites are
located in rural areas. According to American Associations of State Highways and

30
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, roads that are located in rural areas
typically have low volume of traffic wherein the utilization of single lane is
recommended. As a result, the project includes 296 EWSL bridges, and four (4)
locations qualifying for the SSL configuration. In cases where there is a high volume of
traffic in the identified project sites, the implementation of a double lane farm-to-market
bridge will be employed.

7.2.1. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

All structures are designed using the Design Guidelines, Criteria, and Standards
(DGCS) established by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

7.2.1.a. Road Design Specifications

Highway design entails geometrically combining the elements that define the road
layout, such as horizontal and vertical alignment, pavement width and formation, cross
slopes, and so on, to ensure that the finished road is an appropriate component of the
traffic system. The system must be suitable for all relevant environmental conditions in
order for the highway to provide maximum service to the public with the least amount
of risk at a reasonable cost.

It must be built to last and provide adequate safe passage for vehicles. To achieve this
goal, the design must adhere to specific criteria or standards for strength and
uniformity. Because roads are inextricably linked to environmental conditions, vehicles,
human factors, and economic considerations, which rarely conform to mathematical
concepts, the criteria and standards are subject to change.

For this project, DPWH has set a minimum design standard specifically for
farm-to-market roads (see Table 7.4).

Table 7.4. MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARD

LAND CONDITION DESIGN STANDARD

Design Speed (kph)

Flat Topography 60

Rolling Topography 40

Mountainous Topography 30

Radius (meters)

Flat Topography 120

Rolling Topography 55

Mountainous Topography 30

31
 Grade (percent)

Flat Topography 6.2

Rolling Topography 8.0

Mountainous Topography 10.0

Pavement Width (meters) 4.0

Shoulder Width (meters) 0.5

Right-of-Way Width (meters) 20

Super-Elevation (meters/meter) 0.08 (max)

Passing Sight Distance (meters)

Flat Topography 420

Rolling Topography 270

Mountainous Topography 190

Gravel, crushed gravel, stone,

bitumen preservative
treatment, single or double
Type of Surface
bituminous surface treatment,
Portland cement concrete
pavement

Source: Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) 2015,

Volume 4 – Highway Design, Design Guidelines, Criteria & standards
(DGCS)

Since the farm-to-market bridges aim to complement the FMR projects, the
above-mentioned road design specifications must be seamlessly integrated to bridge
design to provide safety, functionality, and user comfort. Relevant connection between
the road design specifications to the bridge design are as follows.

A.​ Alignment and Continuity - Roads and bridges must have compatible alignment
to ensure a smooth, safe transition. This includes consistent lane width,
curvature, and elevation changes, which are especially critical at the points
where the road meets the bridge (approaches). Moreover, the specifications for
the stopping sight distance and passing sight distance on the road must carry
through the bridge.

B.​ Load and Structural Capacity - Bridges must support the same live load
specifications as the adjoining roads. These loads are based on anticipated
traffic volumes and types (e.g. light vehicles, heavy vehicles, trucks).

C.​ Pavement and Deck Design - the type of pavement on the approach roads often

32
 guides the choice of materials and finishes on the bridge deck for a consistent
driving surface and to reduce wear from differential surface properties. In
addition, both road and bridge specifications consider drainage systems. Road
drainage design often extends onto the bridge, requiring integrated water
management to prevent pooling or erosion at the bridge approach.

7.2.1.b. Bridge Design Specifications

1.​ Permanent Loads

These are the pressure forces that are either constant or vary over time until the bridge
structure's service life span is reached. The following are permanent loads, but not all
of them may apply to every bridge design.

a.​ Dead Load

The weight of all structural components based on member geometry and material unit
weight shall be included in these loads. Appurtenances, utilities, ground cover, wearing
surface, and future overlays are all included in the dead load. The unit weights of the
materials that can be used in the design are listed in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5. MATERIALS UNIT WEIGHT

UNIT WEIGHT
MATERIAL
(kg/m³)

Aluminum alloys 2800

Bituminous wearing surface 2250

Cast iron 7200

Cinder filling 960

Compacted sand, silt or clay 1925

Concrete (low density) 1775

Concrete (sand-low-density) 1925

Concrete (Normal w/ f’c ≤ 35Mpa 2400

Concrete (Normal w/ 35Mpa <f’c ≤ 105Mpa 2250 + 2.29f’c

Loose sand, silt, gravel 1600

Soft clay 1600

Rolled gravel, macadam or ballast 2250

Steel 7850

33
 UNIT WEIGHT
MATERIAL
(kg/m³)

Stonemasonry 2725

Wood (hard) 960

Wood (soft) 800

Water (fresh) 1000

Water (salt) 1025

Transit rails, ties, and fastening per track 0.30 kg/mm

b.​ Horizontal Earth Pressure

The abutment and wing walls are subjected to lateral loads known as earth pressures.
These forces will be calculated using the parameters provided by the geotechnical
report, such as soil type and weight, groundwater table location, earth-structure
interaction, surcharge amount, and compaction degree.

c.​ Earth Surcharge

The earth surcharge effect is a lateral force effect expected from materials near the top
of the abutment wall. Stockpiled materials, machinery, roadways, residences, and any
other influences resting on the soil surface near the wall can all contribute to the force.
This can be calculated using the following formula:

∆𝑝 = 𝑘𝑠𝑞𝑠

Where:
∆𝑝 - Surcharge load (kN/m2)

𝑘𝑠 - Coefficient for Active Pressure (unitless)

𝑞𝑠 - Load on the Soil Surface (kN/m2)

2.​ Transient Loads

These are the forces that vary over a short time interval and are either concentrated or
uniformly distributed. Transient loads can include, but are not limited to:

34
 a.​ Vehicular Live Loads
The AASHTO LRFD standard, HL-93, shall be used for the design's vehicular live load
for both the design truck and the design tandem. The live load combination must
include (a) design truck or design tandem and (b) lane loading.

Figure 7.17 depicts the weights and dimensions of the design truck. The design
tandem shall consist of a pair of 100kN per axle with 1200mm longitudinal spacing and
1800mm longitudinal spacing (transverse). The design lane loading must be 9.3 kN/m
distributed uniformly along the longitudinal direction and greater than 3000mm width in
the transverse direction.

Figure 7.18. DESIGN TRUCK

b.​ Earthquake Load

The parameters to be used for seismic loading computation must be based on the
provisions of the DPWH BSDS and the AASHTO LRFD. The dynamic loading must be
determined by the structural mass, structural period, and the Acceleration Response
Spectrum (see Figure 7.19). The design must include a clear seismic load path that
allows seismic forces to be properly transmitted from the superstructure to the
substructure and foundation. The seismic design must take into account the stiffness
properties of each structural component and member connection.

35
 Figure 7.19. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (PGA) FOR LEVEL 1 (100 YEAR RETURN PERIOD)
and Level 2 (1000 Year Return Period) Earthquake (DPWH BSDS)

3.​ Design Flood Level

The bridge design must take into account applicable hydraulic analysis when
determining the appropriate elevation of the bridge soffit. The hydraulic analysis must
identify potential riverbed degradation and allow the designer to implement appropriate
countermeasures. Furthermore, the hydraulic data must be used to avoid soffit damage
caused by debris impact during flooding. Table 7.5 shows the minimum design flood
requirements for various road classifications.

Table 7.6. DESIGN FLOOD FREQUENCIES FOR BRIDGES (DPWH DGCS 2015)
RIVER
BRIDGE DESIGN
ROAD STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC SCOUR
CLASSIFICATION
DESIGN CHECK DESIGN CHECK DESIGN CHECK
FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD

Expressway 100 yr 200 yr *100 yr *500 yr 25 yr 50 yr

National Roads 50 yr 100 yr *100 yr *500 yr 10 yr 25 yr

Other Roads 25 yr 50 yr 50 yr 100 yr 5 yr 10 yr

*or from an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence level, whichever is the more severe based on
AASHTO LRFD 2012 Sec 2.6.4.4.2 Bridge Scour

36
 a.​ Navigational Clearance Requirement and Freeboard

The HPCG/CG-8, Memorandum Circular Number 01-14, Navigational Clearance for

Road Bridges and Other Structures over Navigational Inland Waters, shall be followed
as the minimum requirement for bridge vertical clearance between the ordinary water
level and the soffit. The minimum vertical clearance must be calculated using the
formula below.

𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝐻𝑊𝐿 + 𝐻𝑉 + 𝐾

Where:

𝐻𝑊𝐿 - Highest Water Level Recorded within the

Area of Responsibility

𝐻𝑉 - Height of Vessel

𝐾 - Is a constant 1 meter allowance

In the case of non-navigable channels, freeboard is defined as the vertical clearance

between the bridge soffit and the design flood level. The provided freeboard for bridges
in coastal environments must take into account wave impact and storm surge. The
minimum freeboard requirement for bridges is shown in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7. FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT (DPWH DGCS 2015)

CONDITION FREEBOARD

The Bridge Located in River Carrying Debris 1.5 m

Other bridges 1.0 m

7.3​ Selection Criteria

The inclusion of any proposed bridge to be part of the project’s masterlist is based on
the following sets of criteria:

1.​ The farm-to-market bridge serves a road influence area (RIA) with significant
agricultural potential, benefiting farmers and fisherfolk in the barangay or
cluster of barangays;
2.​ It is part of a connected road network system, i.e., within a proposed or
existing FMRs and located inside the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries
Development Zones (SAFDZ) that provides vital access to and from the
existing or potential key production areas and the nearest market centers or
agri-tourism areas;

37
 3.​ It shall benefit the farmers and fisherfolks within barangay or cluster
barangays;
4.​ The proposed farm-to-market bridge is for new construction;
5.​ The proposed bridge and road must not be part of nor proposed under any
existing government projects such as DA-PRDP, DAR bridge project, and
other related government interventions;
6.​ The proposed bridge must connect to all-weather roads;
7.​ There should be no issue with the road right-of-way;
8.​ The proposal must not encroach on environmentally protected areas; and
9.​ The proposed farm-to-market bridge is appropriate for steel bridging
technology with a bridge length requirement of 18 to 54 linear meters.

7.4​ Prioritization Criteria

From the masterlist, the final 300 priority farm-to-market bridges were selected based
on the following process and criteria:

1.​ The list of validated, eligible with complete requirements of proposed

farm-to-market bridge projects were prioritized using the following criteria: (a)
Estimated RIA, (b) Agricultural Potential Indicator, (c) Number of Beneficiaries
in Barangays within the RIA, (d) Average Daily Traffic, and the (e) Vulnerability
of the Project Site; and
2.​ The weighted point allocation system is used to measure the relative
importance of each criterion with respect to the project being evaluated. After
assessing the proposed farm-to-market bridge, all points were summed up per
major category to obtain the total points earned. Furthermore, the ranking of
farm-to-market bridge projects in terms of priority considers the following:
(a)​ The threshold points or number of the total earned points for each
proposal; and

(b)​ The amount available for implementation by summing up the estimated

total cost of each project, starting from those which get the highest point
until the amount available for funding is exhausted in the computation.

8. ​ PROJECT COST AND FINANCING

ODA fund and GOP counterparts will be utilized for the project to finance the estimated
total project cost. In addition, the GOP counterpart is approximately 20% of the total
project cost. In relation to this, the utilization of ODA is based from the following
justifications:

38
1.​ In the context of infrastructure development, different available funding
strategies are present in the Philippines such as Public-Private Partnership
(PPP), Locally Funded Programs (LFP), and ODA wherein each strategies
includes the following:
●​ PPP focused on the cooperative arrangement between the government
and private sector companies to finance, design, implement, and operate
infrastructure projects wherein these projects are revenue generating;
●​ LFP infrastructure projects are funded directly by the government through
internal funds utilization such as national or local budget allocations, tax
revenues, or government bonds. LFP projects focused on economic
improvement rather than revenue generation; and
●​ ODA refers to financial aid or concessional loans provided by foreign
governments or international organizations to support the development and
infrastructure needs of developing countries. ODA is typically aimed at
projects that address critical social or economic issues.
Since the purpose of the Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program is to
stimulate and alleviate the economy of agricultural areas by increasing farm
production activities, reducing transport costs and losses, and improving
access and mobility efficiency, LFP and ODA funding strategies can be utilized
due to its focus on economic-driven projects. However, LFP has constraints
due to limited availability and prioritization of government financial resources.
On the other hand, ODA funds are provided by donor countries or international
institutions, large-scale infrastructure projects that are crucial for economic
development can be funded while providing affordable financing due to
concessional terms. Hence, to prioritize and realize the implementation of the
proposed program, ODA funding strategy will be used.

2.​ To steadfast the development of agricultural areas in terms of connectivity,

transportation, and cost-efficient production between the farm production
areas and the market, the implementation of DA’s Farm-to-Market Bridges
Development Program will contribute to the objectives of FMRDP. However,
based on the fiscal year (FY) 2020 to 2024, the approved and funded (i.e.,
through GAA) FMR projects versus its proposed list ranges from 7% up to
39% as shown in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1. HISTORICAL DATA ON THE PROPOSED VERSUS FUNDED

FMR PROJECTS UNDER GAA FROM FY 2020-2024

Farm-to-Market Road
FY Projects (Php, in billion) Funding
Percentage
Proposed Funded

2020 68.03 4.79 7.04%

39
 2021 74.96 16.72 22.31%

2022 65.29 7.49 11.47%

2023 60.71 14.48 23.85%

2024 50.00 19.6 39.20%

​ ​ ​

Based on the historical data, there is a limited local financial resources on the
implementation of FMR projects which cannot accommodate all the proposals
per fiscal year. Relevant to this, since the proposed bridges project will
complement the FMRDP, a foreign financial resource is needed to finance the
proposed projects hence, the utilization of ODA.
3.​ The proposed project will integrate advanced climate-resilient and efficient
bridge technology thru the ODA with following attributes:
●​ Versatile and simple design which can compensate for various conditions
such as topography, soil type, weather, and flood hazards;
●​ High-grade steel panels with modular short length for easiness of storage
handling, transportation, and assembly to rural areas;
●​ Low operating and maintenance cost; and
●​ Minimum lifespan of 50 years

The breakdown of components in the derivation of indicative cost for the

“Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program” is shown below.

Table 8.2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

PARTICULARS INDICATIVE COST

In Euros​ In Philippine Pesos

A. FOREIGN/LOAN PROCEEDS (EUR) (PHP)

1. Design, Supply, Construction Abutment and

Approaches, and Installation Bridges

1.1. Design, manufacture, and supply of modular

steel panel bridges:

1.1.a. 4 Standard Single Lane, 3.15m width x

106.75 linear meter. 880,667.95 55,745,840.76
1.1.b. 296 Extra-wide Single Lane, 4.20 m width
x 11,272.80 linear meters. 103,004,576.95 6,520,138,218.89

40
1.2. Supply & Delivery of Piling Materials (H-Piles)
and Reinforcing Steel Bars 52,603,356.40 3,329,766,158.14
1.3.a. Provision for local advising, technology
transfer, training for the erection of the
superstructure.
1.3.b. Consultancy services (local) for bridge designs
and construction.
1.3.c. Supply of construction materials, equipment,
and labor for the construction of abutment and
erection of superstructure.
1.3.d. Transport of bridging materials from depot to
construction site.
1.3.e. Project turnover and commissioning. 168,289,083.29 10,652,614,827.47
Sub-Total 324,777,684.58 20,558,265,045.26
2. Local Support Fund for the Operations of the
Implementing Project Management Office (PMO) 25,222,315.42 1,596,559,954.73
TOTAL FOREIGN/LOAN PROCEEDS 350,000,000.00 22,154,825,000.00

B. LOCAL COST/GOP Counterpart

1. Engineering and Administrative Overhead

Expenses, EAO (1.5%) 5,250,000.00 332,322,375.00

1.1. Hiring personnel thru job orders, contract of

service.

1.2. Technical Services: Topographic Surveying,

Detailed Engineering, Program of Works, etc.

1.3. Project Supervision, Monitoring, and

Management.

1.4. Conduct Constructors Performance

Evaluation System.

1.5. Testing, Evaluation, and Quality Control.

2. Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses,

MOOE (3.5%) 12,250,000.00 775,418,872.00

2.1. Travel and training expenses, office supplies

& equipment expenses. 10,346,548.90 654,931,372.00

2.2. Communications, Office rentals, utilities

expenses. 1,208,540.35 76,500,000.00

2.3. Other MOOE 694,910.70 43,987,500.00

3. Property, Plant, and Equipment Outlay ( 5%) 17,500,000.00 1,107,741,250.00

41
 3.1. Approach extension, Road slope
management, Markings and signages.

3.2. Steel barrier/railings, Street lightings, Flood

control structures and facilities.

4. Duties and Taxes (3%) 10,500,000.00 664,644,750.00

5. Value Added Tax (12%) 42,000,000.00 2,658,579,000.00

TOTAL LOCAL COST/GOP Counterpart 87,500,000.00 5,538,706,250.00

TOTAL PROJECT COST 437,500,000.00 27,693,531,250.00

On the other hand, summary of yearly estimated budget cost for the proposed project
from FY 2025 to 2028 are shown below.

Table 8.3 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST PER YEAR

Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total (PHP)

(FY 2025) (FY 2026) (FY 2027) (FY 2028)
Number of 4 SSL+26 EWSL 110 EWSL 110 EWSL 50 EWSL 4 SSL+296 EWSL
Single Lane
(SL) + Double
Lane (DL)
Total No. 30 Bridges 110 Bridges 110 Bridges 50 Bridges 300 Bridges
Bridges
Foreign Costs / Loan Proceeds
Foreign Cost Component – Bridging Materials
Modular steel
panel bridges
without
sidewalk
609,675,332.30 2,423,882,552.15 2,423,882,552.15 1,118,443,623.05 6,575,884,059.65
Foreign Cost Component – Construction Materials & Services
Reinforcing
Bars 36,812,946.52 144,939,620.11 144,939,620.11 66,878,980.46 393,571,167.21
H PILES, 305 x
305 x 126 Univ
Bearing Piles 206,346,566.29 812,425,946.83 812,425,946.83 374,874,854.65 2,206,073,314.59
Delivery
Foreign
materials from
Port to depot,
depending on
depot of
location 105,105,373.56 413,819,983.37 413,819,983.37 190,947,503.24 1,123,692,843.54
Foreign Design
Cost 39,099,194.21 153,941,015.08 153,941,015.08 71,032,462.56 418,013,686.92
Local Cost Component – Materials & Services
General
Requirements 32,622,807.15 128,442,239.01 128,442,239.01 59,266,651.77 348,773,936.95

42
 Construction
Materials14 244,888,474.76 964,172,821.27 964,172,821.27 444,894,882.59 2,618,128,999.88
Construction
Manpower15 94,500,230.27 372,065,503.37 372,065,503.37 171,680,880.01 1,010,312,117.03
Construction
Equipment
Rental 475,855,037.15 1,873,532,407.46 1,873,532,407.46 864,497,486.41 5,087,417,338.48
Delivery
Foreign
materials from
depot of
location to site 13,166,879.14 51,840,524.62 51,840,524.62 23,920,591.42 140,768,519.79
Local
Management16 148,916,475.13 588,131,916.32 588,131,916.32 271,379,646.98 1,596,559,954.73
Local Design
Cost (Local
Design
Consultant) 59,183,773.54 234,191,550.93 234,191,550.93 108,062,185.80 635,629,061.21
Total Loan
Proceeds 2,066,173,090.01 8,161,386,080.52 8,161,386,080.52 3,765,879,748.94 22,154,824,999.99
GOP Counterpart
Engineering
and
Administrative
Overhead
Expenses
(1.5% of Total
Loan Proceeds) 30,992,596.35 122,420,791.21 122,420,791.21 56,488,196.23 332,322,375.00
Maintenance
and Other
Operating
Expenses
(3.5% of Total
Loan Proceeds) 72,316,058.15 285,648,512.82 285,648,512.82 131,805,791.21 775,418,875.00
Property, Plant
and Equipment
Outlay (5% of
Total Loan
Proceeds) 103,308,654.50 408,069,304.03 408,069,304.03 188,293,987.45 1,107,741,250.00
Duties and
Taxes (3% of
Total Loan
Proceeds) 61,985,192.70 244,841,582.42 244,841,582.42 112,976,392.47 664,644,750.00
Value Added
Tax (12% of
Total Loan
Proceeds) 247,940,770.80 979,366,329.66 979,366,329.66 451,905,569.87 2,658,579,000.00
Total GOP
Counterpart 516,543,272.50 2,040,346,520.13 2,040,346,520.13 941,469,937.24 5,538,706,250.00
TOTAL (in PhP) 2,582,716,362.51 10,201,732,600.65 10,201,732,600.65 4,707,349,686.18 27,693,531,249.99

14
Construction materials include concrete, steel decks. formworks, falseworks, riprap, earthworks,
paints, metal railings, site miscellaneous.
15
Construction manpower includes manpower for substructure and superstructure.
16
Local management includes office expenses, vehicles, travels, salaries, training expenses, depot
maintenance, documentation and handling, and other miscellaneous expenses.

43
9. ​ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of “Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program” shall cover
the following major components:

9.1 ​ Pre-Implementation

(a)​ Pre-engineering Activities

The socio-economic data gathered during the community consultations and the
results of the technical validation will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of
the bridge project. Specifically, eligible sites will be validated and duly evaluated
by the field offices of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in consultation with LGU
concerned in generating information on the project site. For the technical
validation, the team will obtain the following data: name and profile of connecting
roads; distance in kilometers from the nearest municipality; road access;
character of the approach to the proposed bridge site; name and profile of the
river; character and profile of the river banks; Proposed span; existing structures;
foundation/soil type; flooding history; and other relevant information.

(b)​ Project Proposal Preparation and Refinement

Initial activities include gathering socio-economic data, conducting community

consultations, and preparing the project proposal. This phase ensures all
necessary information is collected and analyzed to establish feasibility, validate
eligible sites, and secure initial approvals.

(c)​ ICC Review, Evaluation, and Approval

The National Economic and Development Authority - Investment Coordination

Committee (NEDA-ICC), will review and evaluate the project for approval. This
step is essential for aligning the program with national infrastructure standards
and securing funding commitments.

(d)​ Funding Negotiation and Approval

Following NEDA-ICC Board approval, funding negotiations and approvals will be

pursued to finalize the financial aspects, allowing for smooth transition to the
subsequent phases.

9.2​ Project Implementation

9.2.1. Pre-construction Implementation

(a)​ Fabrication, Shipping, Delivery and Storage of Bridging Materials

44
 Bridging materials will be fabricated by the contractor ensuring that all materials
and parts conform to international quality standards. The supply, shipping,
delivery and storage of the bridging materials will be inclusive in the contract
including the technical assistance to ensure proper installation of the bridges.

(b)​ Detailed Engineering Design

Proposed farm-to-market bridges shall be subjected to detailed engineering

design to determine the exact length of the bridge, the appurtenant structures,
approaches and river protection works that are required to ensure the structural
integrity, sustainability and climate resiliency of the project. The necessary
topographic survey, soil investigation, and design of structures shall be prepared
with the assistance of a local consultant nominated by the supplier. Substructure
design will be site-specific, and cost estimates, including approaches and
necessary structures, will be computed for budget allocation. Licensed engineers
will sign the design, with concurrence from the DA, to be used as the construction
reference,

During this stage, the community and LGU concerned should have acquired all
right-of-way requirements of the project for the bridge approaches and any detour
that may be required.

(c)​ Feasibility Studies

The feasibility study (FS) will be done to evaluate the technical, environmental,
financial, socio-economic and management viability of each bridge project site.
This phase will confirm the eligibility of sites based on socio-economic data and
technical validation. It will be conducted to all 300 bridges prior to implementation
in the following schedule: 30 bridges in Year 1, 110 bridges each in Years 2 and 3,
and the remaining 50 bridges in Year 4. Findings from the FS will guide the
detailed design, budgeting, and construction schedule for each bridge.

9.2.2. Construction Implementation

(a)​ Construction/Installation

Starting Year 1, the construction of the substructures and installation of the

superstructures for 30 bridges will be carried out in accordance with the approved
design and time frame set by the DA. The required standards for bridge
construction as well as safety standards will be adopted in the construction of
each bridge project. In Years 2 and 3, 110 bridges per year will be constructed,
leveraging the program’s momentum and optimizing resources. By Year 4, the
remaining 50 bridges will be completed, finalizing the program’s target of 300
bridges across the specified locations.

45
 Installation of the modular steel panel bridges will be jointly supervised by the
contractor through their designated competent engineers and DA. Construction of
approaches, substructures and river protection works will be undertaken through
contracts with competent construction firms with proven good track record in
bridge construction.

Moreover, the construction duration for the substructures for each project will be
eighty (80) calendar days while the installation of the superstructure will be ten
(10) calendar days. Hence, the total construction duration for each project is
ninety (90) calendar days.

Furthermore, a preconstruction conference will be conducted prior to start of

construction works to inform the community leaders and sectoral representatives
of the nature of work, schedule of implementation, the implementing team and
contact persons during construction and the safety measures that should be
observed by the construction team and the community to avoid accidents.

9.2.3. Post-Construction Implementation

(a)​ Quality Assurance and Final Inspection

Upon completion of the installation and construction works, the DA Regional Field
Office shall conduct quality assurance inspection and take note of any
deficiencies in a punch list so that the contractor/s can undertake the necessary
corrective measures. Upon compliance to the Quality Assurance
recommendations, a Final Inspection Team of DA, LGU and the community will
conduct final inspection and if the project is found compliant, will recommend the
acceptance of the Project.

(b)​ Turnover and Acceptance

Each bridge project will be turned over to the recipient LGU together with an
official turnover and acceptance document to finally transfer ownership of the
project to the LGU concerned for proper maintenance. Every completed project
will be documented in an Individual Project Completion Report that would
describe the project including the photos of before and after construction including
the initial benefits to the constituents.

9.3. Project Monitoring and Evaluation

The DA will institutionalize the conduct of the project monitoring and evaluation. It
will employ methodologies, software, and procedures to assess the performance
and impact of projects, programs and policies. Monitoring and evaluation tools
such as ABEMIS and GEOAGRI system will be fully utilized to ensure
accountability and optimize outcomes and outputs in compliance with government
rules, regulations, and guidelines.

46
The delineation of duties and responsibilities in the implementation of the
Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program is detailed in Annex 15.7.

10.​ ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

To assess the economic viability of the nationwide bridge construction project, a

comprehensive economic and financial analysis (EFA) was conducted. This analysis
factors in construction and operational costs, anticipated benefits, and the project's
potential to enhance agricultural productivity and rural connectivity throughout the
Philippines.

The primary objective of the economic assessment is to determine whether costs

incurred during the construction and operation in project implementation is viable
based on the computed costs and benefits of the project. Meeting the required hurdle
rates and threshold would render the project economically feasible. Per NEDA
Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) guidelines, projects that are non-revenue
generating shall be subjected to economic evaluation to ascertain its viability. The
outcome of this analysis will inform decision-makers on the potential long-term benefits
and sustainability of the project across different regions of the Philippines.

The evaluation focuses on key indicators of economic viability, such as:

​ ​ 1. Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings​

​ ​ 2. Savings in Output Hauling​
​ ​ 3. Savings in Input Hauling​
​ ​ 4. Travel Time of Commuters​
​ ​ 5. New Agricultural Area​
​ ​ 6. Savings in Transport Losses​

The economic evaluation employed indicators such as Economic Net Present Value
(ENPV), Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), and the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR).
A project shall be deemed economically viable if the value of the ENPV is positive,
EIRR is valued higher than the social discount rate, and if the BCR is above 1.0. As of
September 14, 2016, the NEDA Board issued a directive to decrease the hurdle rate
from 15% to 10% due to significant improvement of the country’s economic
performance. Maximum and minimum limits of major parameters (i.e., increasing cost
and capital investment, and decreasing amount of savings) affecting the practicability
of the project were employed. In addition, the different measures of economic viability
were computed so as to obtain the best result as a guide for decision-making given the
vulnerability of the market environment.

For the sensitivity analysis, four (4) scenarios were considered, viz:

Case A: Reduction in benefits by 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 30% respectively, while
operating expenses and capital investment are unchanged;

47
 Case B: Increase in operating cost and capital investment by 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%
and 30% respectively, while benefits are unchanged;

Case C: Combination of Cases A and B which a reduction in benefits and a

simultaneous increase in operating costs and capital investment;

Case D: A Delay in realizing benefits by 1 year and 2 years, respectively.

Overall, the economic analysis demonstrates that the project meets the required
standards for viability. Based on the result, the project is economically viable with an
EIRR of 26.0% which is higher than the hurdle rate of 10%. Likewise, ENPV is positive
at PhP35.09 billion with a BCR of 2.26 (See Table 10.1).

Table 10.1. BASE SCENARIO

EIRR 26.0%

ENPV (000’ PHP) 35,088,996.83

BCR 2.26

In terms of the sensitivity analysis, even under adverse conditions, such as reductions
in benefits and increases in costs, the project remains feasible. For instance, in Case
C, where a 20% increase in costs is combined with a 20% reduction in benefits, the
EIRR still holds at 16.91%, with a positive ENPV of PHP16.91 billion, proving the
resilience of the project.

Table 10.2. CASE A: REDUCTION OF BENEFITS

-5% -10% -15% -20% -30%

EIRR 24.68% 23.35% 22.01% 20.65% 17.86%

ENPV (000’PHP) 31,938,899 28,788,800 25,638,702 22,488,604 16,188,408

BCR 2.14 2.03 1.92 1.81 1.58

Table 10.3. CASE B: COST INCREASE

+5% +10% +15% +20% +30%

EIRR 24.74% 23.59% 22.54% 21.56% 19.80%

ENPV (000’PHP) 33,693,348 32,297,700 30,902,052 29,506,403 26,715,107

BCR 2.15 2.05 1.96 1.88 1.74

48
 Table 10.4. CASE C: COMBINATION OF CASE A AND B
EIRR Cost Increase

25.8% +5% +10% +15% +20% +30%

-5% 23.48% 22.38% 21.36% 20.42% 18.73%

Decrease
of -10% 22.20% 21.15% 20.17% 19.27% 17.64%
Benefits
-15% 20.91% 19.90% 18.96% 18.10% 16.54%
-20% 19.60% 18.63% 17.74% 16.91% 15.41%
-30% 16.91% 16.03% 15.21% 14.45% 13.08%

ENPV​ Cost Increase

(PHP’000)

31,052,083 +5% +10% +15% +20% +30%

-5% 30,543,250 29,147,602 27,751,954 26,356,305 23,565,009

Decrease
of -10% 27,393,152 25,997,504 24,601,855 23,206,207 20,414,910
Benefits
-15% 24,243,054 22,847,406 21,451,757 20,056,109 17,264,812
-20% 21,092,956 19,697,307 18,301,659 16,906,011 14,114,714
-30% 14,792,759 13,397,111 12,001,463 10,605,814 7,814,518

Table 10.5. CASE D: DELAY OF REALIZING BENEFITS

1 YEAR 2 YEARS

EIRR 22.18% 18.91%

ENPV (000’PHP) 30,115,906 24,294,285

BCR 2.08 1.87

Moreover, EFA was conducted for each of the 300 farm-to-market bridges covered by
the nationwide project which yielded positive results, indicating that the majority of the
bridges meet or exceed economic feasibility thresholds. Utilizing rigorous
methodologies, these assessments demonstrate that the bridges offer significant
benefits in terms of cost savings, reduced travel time, and improved agricultural
productivity, reinforcing the project's potential to promote long-term sustainable
development in rural areas. Shown below are the four representative bridges across
various regions, showcasing the localized impacts of the construction program,
particularly in rural and agricultural areas where access to markets is often hindered by

49
inadequate infrastructure. These analyses emphasize the substantial role the bridges
will play in enhancing connectivity, reducing transportation costs, and stimulating
economic activity in rural communities.

To achieve balanced representation, DA-BAFE selected these sample projects

randomly from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. While specific parameters such as
linear meter, geographic location, and prioritization results were not the primary criteria,
this random sampling approach captures a cross-section of the varied regional
infrastructure needs, offering insights into the project’s impact across different rural and
agricultural contexts nationwide.

Site 1: Ayugan Bridge located in the Municipality of Ocampo, Province of

Camarines Sur (Region V)

Site 2: Igbangcal Bridge located in the Municipality of Tobias Fornier A, Province

of Antique (Region VI)

Site 3: New Barbaza - New Janiuay Bridge located in the Municipality of M’lang,
Province of Cotabato (Region XII)

Table 10.6. BRIDGE DESIGN OF THREE REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Bridge Lane EWSL EWSL EWSL

Proposed Length (l.m.) 24.40 21.35 51.85

Table 10.7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THREE REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

EIRR 17.20% 15.90% 16.80%

ENPV (000’PHP) 62,051.12 50,607.16 78,002.24

BCR 1.68 1.57 1.65

The economic analysis of the three (3) representative projects demonstrates their
robust financial viability and significant positive impact on rural communities. With
EIRR values ranging from 15.90% to 17.20% and favorable ENPV and BCR results,
these projects promise substantial economic returns.

The nationwide bridge construction project is expected to transform rural infrastructure

in the Philippines, directly benefiting 1.6 million individuals by improving agricultural

50
productivity and market access. By reducing transportation costs and travel time, the
project will help farmers transport their produce more efficiently, thereby minimizing
post-harvest losses and increasing incomes. The improved connectivity will open up
isolated agricultural areas, promoting more efficient production and distribution
networks across the country.

Overall, the bridge project will have far-reaching benefits, not only boosting economic
activity but also enhancing social development by improving access to essential
services such as education, healthcare, and employment. This investment in critical
infrastructure will serve as a cornerstone for achieving sustainable rural development
and fostering economic growth nationwide.

Furthermore, the project was subjected to Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis to account
for all the cost (e.g., investment, annual, and periodic maintenance) that will occur in
the economic life of the farm-to-market bridge project. It is useful when project
alternatives that fulfill the same benefits of a modular steel panel bridge to the
community but differ in respect to the initial cost and maintenance cost. The LCCA
helps in determining which among the alternatives is cost-effective.

Table 10.8. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS TYPE OF BRIDGES

Bridge Type
Parameter
Modular steel RCDG Steel warren
Frequency Frequency Frequency
panel bridge bridge truss bridge

Initial Cost per linear

1,915,449.21 N/A 874,285.09 N/A 1,294,670.77 N/A
meter (PHP/lm)

Replacement of Panel
435,736.42 20 yrs N/A N/A N/A N/A
(PHP)

Replacement of
N/A N/A 488,818.46 15 yrs 647,335.39 15 yrs
Superstructure Parts

Redecking N/A N/A 254,386.66 25 yrs 254,386.66 25 yrs

Annual Maintenance Cost

25,699.12 1 43,714.25 1 64,733.54 1
per linear meter

Discount rate 10%

Inflation Rate 3.6%

Economic Life used 50 yrs

LCC Net Present Value

4,582.46 6,481.74 8,982.39
(NPV), (000’PHP)

The result of the LCCA (Table 10.8) clearly demonstrates that MSPBs offer the most
cost-effective long-term solution compared to other types of bridges. Despite the higher
initial cost of PHP1,915,449.21 per linear meter, the modular steel panel bridge exhibits

51
the lowest NPV at PHP4,582,460.22 over a 50-year period, outperforming Reinforced
Concrete Deck Girder (RCDG) bridges (PHP6,481,736.16) and steel Warren truss
bridges (PHP8,982,385.46). This lower NPV reflects the modular steel panel bridge's
superior economic viability, as it minimizes the total costs of construction, maintenance,
and replacements over its economic lifespan.

A major advantage of the MSPB is its reduced maintenance requirements, with an

annual maintenance cost of just PHP25,699.12 per linear meter. This is significantly
lower than the costly maintenance and frequent superstructure replacements required
for the other bridge types. For instance, RCDG and Warren truss bridges require
substantial interventions, including replacements every 15 years and redecking every
25 years, contributing to their higher lifecycle costs. In contrast, the modular steel panel
bridge requires panel replacements only every 20 years, providing a more predictable
and manageable maintenance schedule.

In conclusion, the LCCA underscores the MSPB as the optimal investment for
long-term infrastructure development. Its lower overall cost, minimal maintenance
requirements, and superior NPV make it a financially sound and sustainable choice,
ensuring that it delivers consistent value while addressing the country’s infrastructure
needs.

11.​ ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS

The proposed Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program will undergo a

comprehensive social and environmental assessment to evaluate the existing
conditions at the project sites. This assessment will ensure that the project complies
with all relevant laws and regulations, including the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(Republic Act 8371), the Right of Way Act (Republic Act 10752), and the Environmental
Impact Statement Law (Presidential Decree 1586). The insights gained will guide the
design and implementation of the project, mitigating potential adverse impacts on both
the environment and local communities.

The project prioritizes environmental protection and social responsibility. A rigorous

environmental screening process will be carried out to ensure that the project avoids
harm to people and ecosystems. Additionally, a thorough assessment of potential
impacts on local communities will be conducted, including the development of
resettlement and compensation plans, in strict adherence to established land
acquisition procedures.

During the initial stages of project preparation, a project screening checklist will be
developed to ensure that all investments align with sound social and environmental
principles. This will minimize potential negative impacts and promote sustainability
throughout the project lifecycle.

52
Furthermore, the Social and Environmental Assessment will actively involve
consultations with rural communities, particularly indigenous peoples, to ensure their
needs and concerns are integrated into the planning and design of the subprojects.
This engagement will be conducted in accordance with the Indigenous Peoples (IP)
Policy.

The assessment will also provide a detailed overview of the environmental and social
conditions at each project site, ensuring that stakeholders are informed and engaged at
every stage of the project.

Table 11.1: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT FOR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS

Project Management Office (BAFE) Regional Support Office (RSO)
●​ Provide training and technical ●​ Provide assistance to the LGUs in
assistance to RSO to safeguard conducting safeguards activities
staff and preparation of safeguards
documents

Table 11.2. ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS (SES) ACTIVITIES AND RESPONSIBLE
UNITS

Stage in Preparation Safeguards Activity Responsible Unit

Project Conduct Environmental and LGU with the assistance

Identification/Validation Social Screening to Assess from SES StaffProject
the potential environmental proponent with assistance
and social impact of the from ESS
project
Feasibility ​ Conduct Rapid LGU with assistance from
Study Preparation Environmental and Social PMO and RSO
Assessment (EA and SA) to
provide a preliminary
evaluation of the potential
environmental and social;
impact
Prepare an Impact
Management Plan to outline
the measures to be
implemented to mitigate or
minimize the adverse
environmental and social
impact

53
 Conduct a survey to gather
information on the
socio-economic
characteristics, livelihoods,
and concerns of individuals
and communities affected
by the projects
Detailed Engineering and Acquisition of road LGU
Project of Works right-of-way
Preparation
Incorporating appropriate
mitigating measures into
the design
Review and Approval Review of safeguards PMO and RSO Team
compliance and and
issuance of clearance
Construction Site Monitoring of PMO and RSO Team
Safeguards compliance

Turnover Compliance Evaluation PMO and RSO Team

Refer to Annex 15.8 for the template on the Environmental and Social Management
Plan and Annex 15.9 for the farm bridge screening procedure.

11.1​ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

All development projects in the Philippines must undergo environmental screening

under the Philippines Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS), according to
the country’s environmental guidelines. The DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 30,
Series of 2003, classifies projects based on their type, scale, and location, requiring
them to follow specific levels of environmental assessment and permitting. This
ensures that projects are planned and implemented in an environmentally sustainable
and responsible manner.

Under DAO No. 30, projects are categorized into four groups based on their
environmental impact and location:

●​ Category A: Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs), which pose significant

environmental risks.
●​ Category B: Projects that are not inherently critical but are located within
Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) or exceed defined thresholds of scale or
size.
●​ Category C: Environmental enhancement projects such as wastewater
treatment or solid waste management initiatives.

54
 ●​ Category D: Projects that are neither environmentally critical nor situated in
ECAs and are below specified scale or size thresholds.

The Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program will fall under Category B, which
requires an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) to identify any potential adverse
environmental impacts.

The impacts identified through the IEE will be addressed by implementing appropriate
mitigating measures, which will be incorporated into the design preparation.
Additionally, an Impact Management Plan (IMP) will be developed and submitted along
with the project proposal and feasibility study reports. This process ensures that the
project adheres to regulatory standards and achieves environmental sustainability,
leading to the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

11.2​ SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

The DA-BAFE recognizes the importance of early engagement and meaningful

consultation with stakeholders during the project preparation stage. To ensure
long-term sustainability, extensive consultations will be conducted with stakeholders at
the onset of the project.

A social assessment will be carried out in the communities where the project will be
implemented. This assessment will identify the extent of land acquisition and
displacement, potential exclusion or involuntary restriction of access to traditional
livelihoods, and any other social impacts that may arise. The focus will be on
understanding the needs and concerns of affected community members to minimize
any adverse effects.

For land acquisition related to the road right of way (ROW), the Department will strictly
adhere to the Road Right of Way Act (Republic Act 10752), which ensures just
compensation for affected landowners and provides for rehabilitation measures. This
includes guaranteeing that any loss of trees, standing crops, or fruits resulting from
ROW acquisition is appropriately compensated and rehabilitated.

In cases where the proposed bridge project is located within ancestral domain areas,
the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) process will be followed in compliance
with the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA 8371) and other relevant laws and
regulations to respect and protect the rights of Indigenous communities.​

12.​ IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

To ensure the completion of 300 bridges ((4 Standard Single Lane (SSL) and 296
Extra-wide Single Lane (EWSL)), a detailed implementation schedule has been
developed. The targets for each type of bridge have been distributed yearly based on
the estimated budget costs, as follows:

55
 Table 12.1 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Year 1 ​ Year 2 ​ Year 3 ​ Year 4 ​

Particulars Total
(FY 2025) (FY 2026) (FY 2027) (FY 2028)

Standard Single
4 - - - 4
Lane (SSL)

Extra-wide Single
26 110 110 50 296
Lane (EWSL)

Total 30 110 110 50 300

Table 12.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BRIDGES PER REGION

Number of Proposed Number of Proposed

Region
Standard Single Lane Extra-wide Single Lane

CAR (Cordillera Administrative Region) 5

I (Ilocos Region) 3

II (Cagayan Valley) 28

III (Central Luzon) 22

IV-A (CALABARZON) 15

IV-B (MIMAROPA) 9

V (Bicol Region) 1 4

VI (Western Visayas) 3 13

VII (Central Visayas) 15

VIII (Eastern Visayas) 12

IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) 18

X (Northern Mindanao) 35

XI (Davao Region) 43

XII (SOCCSKSARGEN) 47

XIII (CARAGA) 27

TOTAL 4 296

56
 Table 12.3 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MAJOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Project Components Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Pre-Implementation
Project Proposal
Preparation and
Refinement
ICC Review, Evaluation,
and Approval
Funding Negotiation and
Approval
Project Implementation
Pre-construction
Procurement of
consulting services
(i.e. feasibility study
and detailed
engineering design
Conduct of feasibility
study
Conduct of detailed
engineering designs
Procurement of
materials and civil
works
Construction
Civil works
Installation of the
modular steel panel
bridge
Post-construction
Quality assurance,
final inspection, and
turn-over
Project Monitoring and
Evaluation

13.​ RISKS
In the implementation of the "Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program," it is
crucial to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks that may hinder the achievement
of project objectives. The following outlines the primary risk categories and
corresponding mitigation strategies:

13.1​Technical Risks

●​ Extreme Weather Events: The Philippines is highly prone to typhoons, floods,

and heavy rainfall, which may disrupt construction activities, damage unfinished
infrastructure, or cause delays. To mitigate this risk, climate-resilient designs
and construction schedules that account for seasonal weather patterns will be
employed.

57
 ●​ Geotechnical and Hydrological Challenges: Some bridge sites may
encounter problematic soil conditions, high flood risks, or geological instability.
To manage this, detailed site-specific geotechnical and hydrological
assessments will be conducted prior to construction, and designs will be
adapted to local conditions to ensure structural integrity.
●​ Supply Chain Interruptions: Disruptions in the supply of key construction
materials (e.g., steel, cement) may delay project timelines. This risk will be
mitigated through advanced procurement planning, diversification of suppliers,
and stockpiling of critical materials where feasible.

13.2​Financial Risks

●​ Cost Escalation: Fluctuations in the prices of materials, fuel, and labor could
result in budget overruns. To mitigate this risk, a contingency fund will be
included in the budget to accommodate unforeseen cost increases. Contractual
provisions for price adjustments (e.g., escalation clauses) will also be
incorporated.
●​ Delays in the disbursement of foreign funds, Government of the Philippines
(GOP) allocations, or other financial sources could affect project timelines. This
risk will be managed through early financial planning and ongoing coordination
with funding agencies, ensuring that necessary resources are released in a
timely manner to avoid delays.

13.3​Institutional Risks

●​ Coordination Issues with Local Government Units (LGUs): Misalignment in

priorities or poor communication between the DA and LGUs could lead to
inefficiencies or delays in project implementation. To mitigate this, the project will
establish a formal coordination mechanism through Memorandums of
Agreement (MOAs) with participating LGUs, delineating roles, responsibilities,
and timelines.
●​ Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition: Delays in securing ROW for bridge
construction may lead to project postponements or legal disputes. A proactive
approach to ROW acquisition will be employed which will be handled by the
LGUs, including early engagement with landowners, barangay leaders, and
local communities, as well as compensation frameworks based on prevailing
market values.
●​ Insufficient LGU Allocation for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) After
Turnover:​
After the turnover of the completed bridge, the responsibility for its operation and
maintenance (O&M) falls on the local government. There is a risk that some
LGUs may not have adequate budget allocations for the proper maintenance of
the bridge, which could lead to deterioration and safety issues. This risk will be
mitigated by securing commitments through MOA from LGUs prior to turnover,

58
 ensuring that they allocate sufficient funds in their annual budgets for bridge
O&M. Additionally, the project will offer technical support and training for LGU
personnel on maintenance protocols.

13.4 Operational Risks

●​ Labor Shortages: Difficulty in recruiting skilled and unskilled labor, particularly

in remote areas, could affect construction schedules. The project will mitigate
this by implementing local hiring policies and conducting on-site training to build
the necessary workforce capacity.
●​ Logistics and Transportation: Transporting heavy equipment and materials to
remote or geographically challenging sites may encounter logistical difficulties.
To address this, careful logistical planning will be undertaken, including the use
of modular components that can be easily transported and assembled on-site.

14.​ SUSTAINABILITY
Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Farm-to-Market Bridges Development
Program is essential for maximizing its benefits to rural communities. Sustainability is
addressed through several key dimensions:

14.1​Technical and Structural Sustainability

●​ Climate-Resilient Design: The proposed bridges will be constructed using

climate-resilient technologies and materials to withstand the Philippines'
frequent exposure to extreme weather events. Composite steel technology will
be employed to ensure that the structures are durable, with minimal
maintenance requirements. These bridges are designed to have an operational
lifespan of up to 80 years under local climatic conditions, providing long-term
resilience against natural hazards.
●​ Modular and Standardized Components: The use of standardized modular
steel bridge designs allows for efficient construction and future scalability. This
design approach facilitates cost-effective repairs and upgrades, ensuring that
the bridges can be easily adapted to future demand and technological
advancements.

14.2​Economic Sustainability

●​ Reduction of Transportation and Transaction Costs: By improving

connectivity between agricultural production areas and markets, the project is
expected to reduce transportation and post-harvest losses. This will lower input
costs for farmers and increase their income by providing better access to
markets, thus promoting long-term economic viability.
●​ Enhanced Agricultural Productivity: Improved infrastructure will spur
increased agricultural production and encourage further investments in rural
areas. By providing more efficient links between farms and markets, the project

59
 will enable farmers and fisherfolk to expand their output and engage in
value-added processing, contributing to rural economic growth and poverty
reduction.
●​ Job Creation: In addition to temporary employment opportunities during the
construction phase, the enhanced infrastructure will support long-term job
creation by promoting local economic activities and encouraging investment in
rural businesses.

14.3​Environmental Sustainability

●​ Environmental Protection Measures: Environmental sustainability is a core

consideration in the design and implementation of the project. Comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) will be conducted for each project
site to identify and mitigate potential environmental risks. Environmental
Management Plans (EMPs) will be strictly implemented to ensure compliance
with both national and international environmental standards.
●​ Sustainable Materials and Low-Maintenance Design: The use of composite
steel technology reduces the need for frequent maintenance, minimizing the
environmental footprint associated with repair activities. The bridges are also
designed to minimize interference with natural watercourses and local
ecosystems.
●​ Biodiversity Preservation: The project will include measures to preserve local
biodiversity by ensuring that bridge designs do not obstruct wildlife corridors or
disrupt critical habitats. Special attention will be given to the potential impacts on
water bodies, ensuring that construction activities do not lead to water
contamination or sedimentation.

14.4​Social Sustainability

●​ Community Engagement and Participation: The active involvement of local

communities in all phases of the project is critical to its sustainability. From
planning to implementation, participatory approaches will ensure that the needs
and concerns of stakeholders are incorporated into the project. This will foster a
sense of ownership and increase community support for the project.
●​ Gender Inclusion: Gender-responsive strategies will be employed to ensure
that women benefit equitably from the project, both in terms of employment
during the construction phase and improved access to markets for their
agricultural products. Efforts will be made to ensure that women are represented
in decision-making processes at the community level.
●​ Health and Safety: Ensuring the health and safety of both workers and local
communities is a priority. The project will implement stringent health and safety
protocols during construction and operation, in compliance with national labor
laws and international safety standards.

14.5​Institutional Sustainability

60
 ●​ Capacity Building for LGUs and Community Leaders: The project will include
capacity-building initiatives to ensure that LGUs and local stakeholders are
equipped with the skills and knowledge to manage and maintain the bridges
after project completion. This will include training on infrastructure maintenance,
financial management, and environmental monitoring.
●​ Institutional Integration: The Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program
will be integrated into the National Farm-to-Market Road Network Plan (FMRNP)
and the GEOAGRI system, ensuring that the data collected from the project is
used for future infrastructure planning and development. The DA-BAFE will
maintain oversight to ensure the long-term sustainability of the program.

By addressing these dimensions of risk and sustainability, the project ensures that its
benefits are sustained over the long term, contributing to economic growth,
environmental preservation, and social well-being in rural communities across the
Philippines.

15.​ ANNEXES
15.1 Priority List of Proposed Farm-to-Market Bridge Sites
15.2 Prioritization Indicators
15.3 Mapping of Proposed Farm-to-Market Bridge Sites
15.4 Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) Matrix
15.5 Comparative Matrix of Different Government-Implemented Farm-to-Market
Bridges
15.6 General Specification of Proposed Farm-to-Market Bridge Design
15.7 Delineation of Duties and Responsibilities for the Implementation of the
Farm-to-Market Bridges Development Program
15.8 Environmental and Social Management Plan
15.9 Farm-to-Market Bridge Screening Procedure

61