|
READING
the World Bank’s latest report on East-Asia and the
Pacific entitled “Will Resilience Overcome Risk?”, one
can’t help but think that the future indeed belongs to
the region.
The
report says growth in emerging
East Asia is expected to grow 8 percent in 2007 and about 8.2 percent
in 2008, to be underpinned by continuing rapid
industrial development and urbanization.
China
and Vietnam will lead the way with growth rates within 8
percent to more than 11 percent. The Philippines is
hitching on to that bandwagon through exports to China,
Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Korea and is poised to
grow more than 6 percent this year.
But wait
a minute, says the World Bank (WB). If we want to spread
the benefits of growth, we need to get back to the
basics, to the farms. In the same report, the bank noted
that “as growth outside of agriculture has taken off,
the gap between rural and urban incomes has widened,
leaving behind many people in the rural areas generating
social and political tensions.”
“Today
more than 90 percent of the $1-a-day poor in EAP
[East-Asia and the Pacific] live in rural areas,” said
the WB.
Solution? The WB says it’s not enough to leave poverty
reduction to economic growth and urbanization;
governments in the region should develop specific
programs to improve the rural areas. Such a strategy,
the bank says, should have two major components. First
is facilitating absorption of rural labor in the urban
economy through investments in urban infrastructure,
human capital and labor-market policies such as
vocational training, transport services and job
matching.
Second
is promoting faster rural-income growth through several
measures, including the promotion of high-value
agriculture demanded by local and global markets as well
as rural nonfarm employment. These measures could be
complemented by policies like the liberalization of
domestic trade. In the case of the Philippines, the full
liberalization of shipping and port operations to
effectively link the rural island-economies of the
Visayas and Mindanao to Manila as well as to global
markets would be extremely necessary to enhance market
access among rural producers.
One of
the major strengths of the Philippines when compared
with its neighbors in the region is that it has sizeable
areas for expansion for agribusiness, especially for
high-value crops like ornamentals, flowers, fruits and
vegetables. After an initial surge in investments in
high-value crops like pineapple, bananas, rubber trees
and oil palm until the 80s, especially in Mindanao, not
much money has flowed into this sector since the country
embarked on a “comprehensive agrarian reform program”
(CARP) under the Aquino administration following the
Edsa Revolution.
The
reason is simple: agrarian reform has introduced
uncertainty into the policy environment for the rural
sector. Landowners were not willing to upgrade their
farms (e.g., planting better and productive crops,
buying better farm machines and equipment, and
establishing orchards) knowing DAR officials will
someday come and distribute the lands to agrarian-reform
beneficiaries. The DAR, in fact, was able to distribute
close to 7 million hectares, a significant portion of
which were public lands, to more than 4 million
farmer-beneficiaries. However, the failure of the
government to provide support services for the “new
landowners” suggests that productivity has not improved
significantly in the countryside.
The
Philippines has been implementing agrarian reform for 34
years now since Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree
27. If we want to inject vigor into the countryside, we
should remove the uncertainty by completing or winding
up such a program as soon as possible. We should put a
timetable for its completion; otherwise, we will be
implementing such a program till kingdom come with no
additional benefit to the country.
Currently, DAR is asking for another 10-year extension
for the distribution of additional 1.2 million hectares
at a cost of another P100 billion. We say, enough! In
fact, the best option is allowing the program to die a
natural death by 2008. And if the government really has
the commitment to improve the countryside, it would be
wiser to spend that P100-billion funds for rural
infrastructure and support services to existing CARP
beneficiaries.
We have
already extended agrarian reform once. It wouldn’t do us
good if we extend it once more. This program has gone
too far and too long to the point that the DAR
bureaucracy seems to have evolved in some parts into a
rent-seeking organization whose interest lies in not
completing its mandate so that it could prolong its
existence. DAR right now has 15,000 officials and
employees, and 60 percent of its money is spent on
salaries and wages. In other words, DAR has become one
huge public-employment agency with less and less
marginal utility for every minute of its existence.
DAR has
been justifying its inefficiency by citing “landowner
resistance” to land distribution. But its own statistics
says that voluntary offers of sale and voluntary land
transfers accounted for 120 percent and 180 percent,
respectively, of its targets. These figures suggest more
of DAR resistance to land distribution.
Let’s
put an end to this charade and move on to give the rural
sector a fresh slate. |