It is imperative that our next president be decisively for agriculture. This is to reverse the dangerous trend in the last nine years: industry growing at an average 6.8 percent vis-a-vis agriculture at just 1.6 percent.
On May 9, we will be electing a president who will largely determine how agriculture will grow—or deteriorate further. We must recognize that even if agriculture directly contributes just 9 percent of our gross domestic product, agri-related services’ contribution is a bigger 35 percent. The latter includes processing, marketing and transportation.
We came up with two sets of criteria that can guide voters’ choice for a pro-agriculture president. They were approved by Alyansa Agrikultura (AA), which was founded in 2003 representing farmers and fisherfolk; and the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP), founded in 2004 representing science and the academe.
Of the six AA criteria, there are three categories: performance, governance and concern for the less privileged.
For performance, the first criterion is a “solid track record of service to the agri-fisheries sector.” The second is “no stain of corruption or abuse.” The third is “judiciousness in handling funds.”
For this set, the records of the candidates show who has actually contributed to this sector, who has integrity lapses, and who has spent our taxes wisely. Official findings from the Commission on Audit will be helpful.
For governance, the criterion given is “importance of participatory governance—that stakeholders must be involved in the crafting and implementation of policies and programs of rural development.” Those who use the top-down approach, believing they know best and that benefits will automatically trickle down to the poor, should be shunned.
For concern for the less privileged, the first criterion is “conscious of the sufferings of farmers and fisherfolk caused by economic doctrines that favor profits for a few.” The second is “humane and caring leadership, especially those who are marginalized by the unjust structures of an entitled and privileged few is our society.” This points to the need for reengineering policies, programs, institutions and structures to address the urgent demand for social justice and equity.
Consistent with its science and academe orientation, CAMP meanwhile lists down its criteria under five categories.
Here are the selected criteria for each category:
1. On national issues: “job creation and jump-starting the economy;”
2. On international issues: “foreign policy, including a strong stand on Chinese intrusion in the West Philippine Sea;”
3. On governance, “optimization of information technology, hiring the best and brightest versus hiring political allies and people from the same geographical area, and measures to control smuggling;”
4. On agriculture, “a policy regarding importation of food versus improving our own productive capability, enabling laws regarding modern agriculture technologies, and equitable programs and policies to uplift farmers and fisherfolk;”
5. On presidential fitness, “transparency and honesty, and track record in the performance of responsibilities in positions held.”
Using the above standards to assess the presidential candidates, one stood out from the rest. Using the same sets of criteria, other groups may also separately evaluate the candidates. The important point is that proper criteria be used.
Used judiciously, we can then elect a president who will decisively be for agriculture.
The author is Agriwatch chair, former Secretary of Presidential programs and projects and former undersecretary of DA and DTI. Contact is Agriwatch_phil@yahoo.com.