Impoverished farmers/fisherfolk

Here is a similarity between the 44 murdered PNP-SAF commandos and the six million impoverished farmer/fisherfolk families. They are both subjected to suffering they do not deserve.

But while a Board of Inquiry was created to get an accurate picture of what really happened in the Mamasapano tragedy, there is no need to create any new board to look at the causes of rural poverty.

There is already a public-private sector body created in 1987 to do this: the National Agriculture Fisheries Council-NAFC (also known as the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries). With units at the regional, provincial and municipal levels, the AFCs can identify and recommend solutions relevant to the poverty statistics below provided by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA):

Poverty Incidence      2009 (%)     2012 (%)
National average         26.3              25.2
Farmers                        38.0              38.3
Fisherfolk                     41.3               39.2
Urban residents          12.6               13.0

The PSA calculates poverty incidence estimates using the Family Income and Expenditure Survey every three years. The next will be this year.

There is an assertion that poverty dropped by 3 percent in 2013 from 2012 level. However, Jose Ramon Albert of government think tank Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) disagrees. He says the analysis behind this assertion looks at two sets of data using different methodologies that cannot be compared.
In an article published on Nov. 19, 2014, he wrote: “We do not have yet evidence of decreased poverty or income distribution. Measures of inequality such as the share of the bottom on the national income and the Palma ratio (defined as the ratio of the income of the top 10 percent to the bottom 40 percent) have been unchanged from 2009 to 2012.”

The table above shows farmers and fisherfolk have a poverty rate of 30-41 percent, worse than the national average of 25 percent. It is also triple the poverty incidence of urban residents.

For 2013 and 2014, the growth in industry was 9.3 and 7.5 percent, respectively. This is about 400 percent the growth in agriculture of 1.1 and 1.9 percent, respectively. This is unfortunate, considering that the Department of Trade and Industry budget was less than 6 percent of the Department of Agriculture budget for both years. Consistent with the poverty table, it appears the rural sector is again left behind.

We do not need a board of inquiry to find out why agriculture grew so slowly at only half of the government’s growth target of 3.5-4.5 percent. All we need is for the NAFC to fulfill its mandated function, a key recommendation of AF2025.

In its website, the NAFC states its two most critical functions: (a) serve as a consultative/feedback mechanism on the policies, plans, and programs of the DA and  monitor agriculture and fisheries programs of all government agencies.”

Under the Aquino administration, the NAFC has done better than under the previous one. Its secretariat is both competent and committed. However, other DA officials should show much more support for Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala’s goal of private sector participation in agriculture governance. This can be done in three ways:

•NAFC public-private sector councils should be harnessed to perform their mandated two functions instead of being relegated to the background.

•An P85-billion DA budget the year before national elections constitutes a temptation to misuse the funds “in aid of elections.” The AFCs at the local level should identify the sources of rural poverty, and recommend ways to use these funds properly. They have the added advantage of being legally mandated to monitor fund use, although their monitoring budget was cut this year. It should instead be increased to show the government’s sincerity in pursuing inclusive growth.

Importance should be given to the AFCs. Only last year, the NAFC Committee on Yolanda unanimously decided to end its efforts because its members were never allowed to join a DA meeting on this issue. This was a violation of an agreement reached before the NAFC committee was created.
Another indication is the low-level representation the government sends to the AFC meetings. Representatives lower than a division chief level often respond to suggestions from heads of farmer and fisherfolk federations and agribusiness organizations. As a result, many of the private sector leaders have stopped attending these meetings.

In conclusion, there is no need for a board of inquiry to find the causes and suggest solutions for the continued poverty of farmers and fisherfolk. All that is needed is political will. Courage is needed to fully activate the AFCs at the national and local levels. This will allow private sector leaders to participate in the fight against poverty. It will then give substance to PNoy’s statement: “Ikaw ang boss ko.”

(The author is chair of Agriwatch, former Secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former Undersecretary for Agriculture, Trade and Industry. For inquiries, email [email protected] or telefax  8522112).