I
was born to a middle-class family that owned dispersed tenanted tracks of land
planted to palay in Bulacan. Before I
could even know what it meant to be called “señorito”, martial law and land reform had set in that left to the
family only non-productive patches of rice land in different isolated areas. In
an effort to fend off the expected bad effects of land reform, I involved
myself in the corporatized integrated farm operations of haciendas in Nueva Ecija that provided year-round irrigation,
farming implements and inputs to farmers, while providing post-harvest and modern
processing facilities, such as drying, milling, packaging and marketing and
distribution of branded packaged quality whole-grain rice. This effort also eventually
failed partly because of the refusal of tenants to become salaried employees of
the corporation. They preferred to become landowners themselves.
With the savings I was able to
generate as an employee in Metro Manila, I was able to own a residential lot
that I paid for over ten (10) years. In time I also lost this lot to “informal
settlers” that invaded Metro Manila from failed farms, ironically after helping
out in the ouster of the dictatorship.
Now
we have come full-circle. Fast forward to the emergence of the new Asian Tiger
as President P-Noy attempts to lift the masses from poverty.
In his column, DEMAND AND SUPPLY, Boo Chanco aptly writes:
“UP economist Noel de Dios has a
good idea on how to get more inclusive growth: get big business deeply involved
in the fight against poverty. Since the bulk of our poverty stricken population
are in the rural areas, get big business involved in agriculture.
Noel, in a recent Business World
column, argues his point: “A leap in productivity and incomes among today’s
poor can come only by linking them with those who already possess exceptional
access to knowledge and resources. If one speaks of agriculture, for example,
this cannot be done without inducing major corporate businesses – those already
inserted in national and global value-chains – to enter agriculture in a big
way and include the poor in their plans.”
Indeed, all the Corporate Social
Responsibility activities of the large corporations are only self serving feel
good press releases unless the outcome makes dramatic transformations in the
lives of those at the bottom of the pyramid. As Noel puts it, “only large
infusions of capital, technology, and market intelligence from the private
sector can transform the conditions of the
poor today.”
But Noel knows things are always
easier said than done specially in this country. Thus, he points out that “for
all this to occur, difficult questions must first be answered: What policies
and regulations hinder the entry of private capital and technology in
agriculture? (Here one must wonder what hinders conglomerates like Metro
Pacific, San Miguel, SM, and Ayala from becoming more involved in commercial
agriculture rather than in malls, condos, airlines, and toll ways.)
“What feasible production and
trading arrangements in agriculture can reduce transactions costs and yield
scale-economies for major companies? How can massive corporate entry into
agriculture be facilitated without undermining the spirit and reversing the
gains of a completed agrarian reform?
“What organizational preparations
are needed to build trust between small holders and large corporate ventures?
What facilitative role should local and national governments play? None of
these questions admits of an easy or quick answer, although each of them is
urgent. The answers required are not only intellectual but also political.”
Among the major conglomerates, only
San Miguel has experience in working with farmers as part of their supply
chain. But even with San Miguel, they had big problems in the case of the
Sumilao farmers in Bukidnon. Church and some influential lay leaders took San
Miguel through the wringer and accused the conglomerate of using its clout to
dispossess farmers of their land.
What San Miguel had was a plan to
integrate the farmers with their supply chain. San Miguel will buy their
produce and thus give them a ready and steady market. Some of their children
will also have employment opportunities in the on-site processing facilities of
San Miguel. But San Miguel was demonized.
In the end some compromise agreement
was reached. But the drama of farmers walking all the way from Bukidnon to
Manila damaged the corporate reputation of San Miguel. It probably discouraged
similar forays of other conglomerates into agriculture, which almost always
necessarily means getting into problems with land reform.
Indeed, we may have to reconsider our concept of land
reform. We have failed to use it as a means to uplift our farmers out of
poverty for many decades now. But we still insist on this same tired concept
anyway.
Economist Noel de Dios observes that we are forcing the
farmer to be an entrepreneur under our current land reform concept and I guess
we should know by now that such assumption is simply faulty. Says Noel: “a
major reason that interventions in behalf of the poor have been small in scale
and limited in scope: the poor are improperly and indiscriminately shoe-horned
into the unrealistic role of entrepreneurs…
“From this misconception flow the
many well-meaning but ultimately feckless small credit schemes for ‘livelihood
projects’ such as the ineluctable sari-sari stores, jeepney and tricycle
purchases, food-stalls, and precarious small-scale subsistence agriculture.”
Noel continues: “No doubt,
individual success stories can always be told. But to think that the poor can
systematically lift themselves up en masse by such means is a pipe dream.”
I suppose this is where leadership
from Malacanang comes in. Will P-Noy be bold enough to break out from proven
past failures to try new approaches towards inclusive economic growth?
I realize doing something on land
reform is politically tricky for P-Noy given the Luisita problem. But
there should be enough Filipinos willing to go with a bold plan that offers a
greater promise for success than the approach we are now taking.
We missed some past opportunities to
improve efficiency in the agricultural sector because it is just too bloody
(sometimes literally so) to deal with land reform issues. We have one other
deadline we need to take note of and that is 2015 when Asean becomes one big
market. By then, we simply have to be competitive in agriculture, or be eaten
up by our Asean neighbors.
We just have to be constantly
innovative in our approaches to fight poverty. Dump old concepts that didn’t
work. Try new ones. We may fail with some new approaches too but we may also
succeed with some. We will never know unless we try. Trying is what P-Noy
should be all about. I hope he is up to it.”
As my grandson would say: “Go ahead, try it. This is a new
world, genius . . .”
