Government killing agrarian reform

Is the government supporting or killing agrarian reform? Based on the current 2012 government budget deliberations, the latter is more likely.

Omi Royondoyan, co-convenor of the “Save Agrarian Reform Alliance,” recently gave us an excerpt on “Declaration of Unity”: “We know from experience that the achievement of agrarian reform goals relies heavily on the annual budget allocated by Congress.”

However, all is not lost. If Congress acts swiftly, an absolutely essential budget component of the Department of Agrarian Reform budget can be included to give agrarian reform hope for success.

SSS

Former US President Bill Clinton, in identifying the major factor ailing his country when he was running for president, said, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Economist Bernardo Villegas, when pinpointing the reason why our economic development has lagged behind our Asian neighbors, said, “It’s agriculture, stupid!” In the same vein, when asked why agrarian reform has failed in our country, our response is: “It’s support services, stupid (SSS).”

Some say Christianity has failed in certain areas. The answer is: “Because it has never been tried.” In the same way, we contend that agrarian reform has failed in the Philippines because it has never been truly tried.

Last Feb. 3, 2010, I was asked to be the speaker on agrarian reform at the UP Academic Congress “Beyond 2010: Leadership for the Next Generation.” I worked with Centro Saka’s Carmencita Flores, who specializes in this area. A 21-page document “Making Agrarian Reform Work” resulted from reviewing the various research studies based on actual experiences that differentiated the successful from failed agrarian reform projects.

There are countless stories where agrarian reform was a dismal failure. Many of these have been validated. Land would be given to the beneficiaries, who sadly became worse off precisely because of agrarian reform. Deprived and cut off from the former landlord’s credit, technical support, and market assistance, the farmer is left with practically nothing. He has no money to plant his crops, and is consequently deprived of his livelihood. He has no choice but to give up, and there goes another failed agrarian reform example.

But the numerous studies done by former Economic Planning Secretary Cielito Habito and other respected national and international research institutions showed that with support services, agrarian reform actually results in higher productivity and increased farmer incomes.

This emphasis on support services is embodied in the common agri-fishery agenda of the Alyansa Agrikultura, a coalition of 42 federations and organizations. One is not allowed to join the Alyansa unless it subscribes to fast-tracking agrarian reform, but with support services.

Sulong CARPER

It is precisely because of this essential element that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reform (Carper-RA 9700) was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives during the previous Congress. Christian Monsod, co-convenor with Bishop Broderick Pabillo of Sulong Carper, has been closely monitoring Congress budget deliberations on this issue.

Recommendation

Last October 11, Monsod wrote us: “The P4.9 billion for support services for initial capital subsidy and socialized credit, which is required under Sec. 14 of RA 9700, was removed from the budget. There will be 400,0000 new Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) up to the end of 2012. The new ARBs need assistance for the critical transition period from dependent serve/farm workers to owner-cultivators. The program has no chance of succeeding without these support services.”

This means the elimination of P12,250 annually per ARB for 2012. For comparison purposes, this is 27 percent less than the potential P16,800 grant per Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) family beneficiary. The former is mandated by law; the latter is an executive initiative.

During these final days of Congressional deliberations, we recommend that Congress carry out its duty of realigning some of the government funds from less critical projects to support key national imperatives. If agrarian reform is such an imperative, then Congress should decide on a no-brainer: it should support, rather than kill, agrarian reform using its vaunted, but sometimes misused, power of the purse.

(The author is chairman of Agriwatch, former secretary for presidential flagship programs and projects, and former undersecretary for Agriculture, and Trade and Industry. For inquiries and suggestions, e-mail [email protected] or telefax 8522112.)