Agrarian Reform Could Work If

Agrarian Reform Could Work When… By Salvador H. Feranil Chairperson, PhilNet – RDI Mindanao Regional Council Paper presented in RED Forum in Davao City November 27, 2007 Having been directly involved in the campaign of the landless rural poor in agrarian reform over the last ten years, I want to share my personal and initial impressions on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as it has been implemented in the commercial banana plantations in Davao and Compostela provinces. As the Chairperson of PhilNet-RDI in Mindanao, I greatly appreciate the encouragement and support we have received from reform-minded elites in the bureaucracy, both at the national and local levels, and from various Funding Agencies, in the struggle for land and livelihoods of landless farmworkers in commercial banana plantations. Having been exposed to some of the different struggles for land among the landless rural poor in developing countries, I do recognize that despite some initial gains achieved in the implementation of agrarian reform in our country, there is a need, especially at this critical juncture of our history when the mandate for CARP’s implementation is about to end by 2008, to take a closer look at how such program and its implementation has been problematic in commercial banana plantations. This is of course, not to downplay, the fact that some the officials in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) have exerted considerable efforts to make CARP meaningful for the countless potential and actual agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) in commercial plantations. As a critical partner of the DAR in CARP implementation, PhilNet-RDI has every responsibility and task, however, to view and scrutinize the program and its implementation from the perspective of the landless rural poor. It is toward this end that this paper has been prepared for this gathering. The PhilNet-RDI is one of the many institutions that have been doing critical engagement with the government in CARP implementation. And after ten long years, it must continue to view agrarian reform vis-à-vis its intent to break land monopoly and empower the landless rural poor both in the political and economic sphere of our society. Our own experiences in working with the landless rural poor have been vital in allowing us to learn and gather our lessons in the whole dynamics of agrarian reform implementation. Having been partners with frontline organizations involved in the struggle for land and livelihoods, we hope that as an institution we could offer more critical insights as we all strive to turn good intentions and analyses into productive actions in the near future.

The Workings of Agrarian Reform in Land Acquisition and Distribution The real face of CARP implementation may be found not only in the mass of information contained in voluminous reports of the DAR. Perhaps, more than what these reports tell and claim, the situation of potential and actual ARBs at the grassroots level could not be more revealing. When we started organizing farmworkers in commercial banana plantations in 1997, we immediately pushed for the compulsory acquisition (CA) of landholdings that had been subjected to deferment in land redistribution under CARP. Various violations of landowners that range from massive eviction and retrenchment of farmworkers that are potential ARBs to irregularities in the implementation of production and profit sharing (PPS) have been highlighted to compel the DAR to cancel the deferment order issued in these plantations and for the agency to subsequently and immediately issue Notices of Coverage (NOCs) to landowners. The issues raised however, did not move the DAR to immediately cover these landholdings, nor to start their immediate documentation in preparation for their eventual coverage and distribution. With this, coverage procedures in most banana plantations began only after 1998 when deferment had ended. And since coverage and distribution procedures take time, not withstanding the resistance and legal contestation filed by landowners against the coverage of their lands, it comes without surprise that some landholdings remain in the hands of landowners up to this day. Thus, deferment did not truly end in 1998, but was in reality extended until such time that the ARBs took actual possession of CARPed landholdings. The surfacing of issues in the deferment of commercial farms did not prevent various landowners from circumventing further the CARP and from having substantial portions of their lands exempted or excluded from coverage. Most big landowners appear to have fully utilized the exemption, exclusion and conversion provisions in CARP to their advantage. Even the 5 hectare-retention limit provided for landowners appear to have been fully violated through the use of dummies that appear as new and legitimate landowners of lands previously owned by a big owner. The whole situation is further complicated and made worse by landowners having preferred beneficiaries that are close to their families over petitioner individuals or organizations. Add to this the case of a landholding where a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) had been issued by the DAR, and yet, the actual ARBs could not even take possession of the land and has not been installed by the DAR until now. To date, more than 19 years since the CARL was promulgated, the nexus of control over some if not most of the big landholdings remain in the hands of powerful and influential landowners in plantations. In some cases, it is only now or more recently that the NOC had been issued to landowners or when the screening of potential ARBs had taken place; and considering the pace at which coverage proceeds, not withstanding the potential resistance and maneuvering of landowners in CARP, we wonder if these

lands will ever be truly redistributed to the potential ARBs. I guess something is terribly wrong with the program and how it has been implemented. In Davao and Compostela provinces where most plantations are situated, we have the likes of Davao Fruits Corporation, Apokon Farms, Malon Farms and those of Twin Rivers, where lands have not been redistributed. We have various other plantations where landowners maintain control over landholdings well-beyond the 5-hectare limit. For one reason or another, the technicalities surrounding the agrarian reform-related cases in these areas continue to hamper the transfer of such landholdings to their beneficiaries. What is more frustrating, however, is that some officials at the local DAR tend to use landowners’ resistance to CARP as a convenient, if not lame excuse, for not implementing the law in favor of the landless rural poor. This makes us ponder all the more whether the law is truly above anyone else, or whether the law serves as a convenient instrument only for the rich and powerful in Philippine society. As it is implemented, I believe that we may need to come up with a new program that could and would guarantee that “the law gives more to those who have less in life!” To further aggravate the problems of ARBs in plantations, land valuation of landholdings subjected for distribution often reaches sky-rocketing prices. This is due to the fact that apart from land valuation, crop valuation forms part in the total value of lands targeted for redistribution. Considering for the purpose of argument that land amortization is subsidized by the government, ARBs remain burdened by the high land valuation in commercial plantations. To date, land and crop valuation (combined) in commercial plantations has reached to more than a million pesos per hectare. With the current losses experienced in the foreign exchange rates, and the continuing rise in prices of agricultural inputs, the net profit derived by ARBs in banana production had been dwindling over time. Apart from financial considerations, land valuation and problems related to such continue to cause delays in the acquisition and distribution of some commercial plantations. Take the case of Davao Fruits in Compostela where access to segregated production data have continuously hampered the Land Bank of the Philippines to issue valuation to lands that had been petitioned for acquisition and distribution as early as 1998. Close to ten years after farmworkers and potential ARBs filed their petition in DAR, not a single landholding has been acquired and distributed to beneficiaries. Post-distribution Problems in Agrarian Reform Agrarian reform offers incredible opportunities for ARBs to change their lives and improve their conditions. Yet many of these beneficiaries appear to have more problems now that they are the “owners” of these lands. Among plantations already distributed to ARBs, the real issues surrounding agrarian reform is the real transfer of control over these lands and the fair engagement with the market. While some beneficiaries were able to forge production and purchase contracts with more independent buyers and investors, most if not all of CARPed landholdings have existing contracts

with former landowners or with companies formerly operating in these plantations. To a large extent, beneficiaries in these areas cannot exercise full control and management of their lands. In most cases, these contracts were forged prior to or alongside coverage and distribution procedures crafted by the local DAR in the implementation of CARP in commercial plantations. The whole wisdom of the DAR over such procedure was to ensure that ARBs have a sure market for their produce upon the takeover of such lands. Linking with market forces is necessary considering the nature of crops planted in these landholdings. What is perhaps missing in the whole process is the opportunity given to ARBs to entertain other buyers and companies that could offer better terms and conditions in their contract. Thus, in the end, long-term agreements that often tie ARBs with their former landowners prevail, with provisions in the contracts appearing to be more favorable to the latter. As one of the ARBs in plantations mentioned: “How can we possibly get out of the landowner’s hold when during the coverage and distribution processes, the DAR made every move to ensure that they would still be there even after we have taken over these lands?” One problem in the implementation of CARP in commercial farms, however, is that the government tends to assume that ARBs could manage on their own after lands had been redistributed. Such assumption is dangerous given the current competency levels of ARBs in managing their plantations. One must take note that most beneficiaries were farmworkers that were specialized in certain areas of operations in banana plantations prior to becoming beneficiaries under the CARP. The increasing indebtedness of ARBs in plantations is a concrete and real manifestation of such limitations, and the inefficiencies brought about by deficiencies in management. If the government continues its complacency on these issues and continues to assume that farmworkers could be turned into managers and entrepreneurs overnight, these beneficiaries could soon find themselves on the brink of bankruptcy, or worse, they may find themselves losing these lands to resource-able investors in the agricultural export industry. The transfer of skills, technologies, information, and applied practical knowledge remain a real need among ARBs in commercial plantations. Having mentioned the constraints and problems confronted in the workings of agrarian reform, is there hope for agrarian reform to propel the necessary changes in the lives of the landless rural poor? We remain hopeful, and we continue to believe that some experiences of partners demonstrate that under certain conditions, agrarian reform could work. There is hope in agrarian reform Given the opportunity, people everywhere want to build a better life for themselves and their children. That impulse, if given a chance under agrarian reform, can

contribute to a healthy and prosperous society. Agrarian reform could in more ways than one become a vehicle for people empowerment and rural development. Dominador Atucha is a small farmer that has been working on land for more than two decades. Coming from a poor family in the countryside, he had to stop schooling in order to help his family earn a living. He started with various jobs but later decided to become one of the many “jornaleros” or seasonal farmworkers in banana plantations. In the 1990s, he was employed as an agricultural worker in TS Arietta Farms in Kapalong, Davao Province. With a minimum wage, he had difficulty meeting the needs of his family and could hardly imagine if he could send his kids to college. In 1997, Dominador decided to join ranks with fellow workers and formed the TS Arietta Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (TSAFARBAI) in order to engage the government in its agrarian reform program. Together with the members of TSAFARBAI, they availed the services offered by PhilNet-RDI among farmworkers and potential ARBs in plantations. They went through training and education activities related to agrarian reform and prepared the necessary documents to file their claims over the land they want to acquire. They had tacticising sessions on how to approach their struggle and in partnership with PhilNet-RDI, they prepared their organization for dialogues with the landowner and the DAR. Further, they built their competencies on organizational leadership and development. These preparations were instrumental in subsequent engagements with the DAR and the landowner. The negotiations with the landowner were far from neat and smooth though. No landowner owning vast tracts of land would definitely want his/her own land to be covered by CARP, more especially if such landholding provides him/her substantial income. There was resistance to land reform and TSAFARBAI had to remain strong in their struggle for land and livelihood. Knowing that the struggle could be a long-drawn battle with the landowner, TSAFARBAI continued to consolidate their ranks by holding regular discussions among their members. These activities paid off as not a single member decided to leave their organization despite some offers from the landowner. Hence, organizational consolidation could be a key factor that could spell the success or failure of an ARB organization. After five long years of struggle, the TSAFARBAI was finally awarded their 15hectare land in 2002. But the group had to contend the challenge of not working on their land for 90 days as the landowner was still given the grace period to harvest the fruits from standing crops. Hence, the beneficiaries had to find ways to meet their daily needs while awaiting their actual takeover of the plantation. Without an income to use as initial capital for their operations, the group decided to employ “bayanihan” system of work or unpaid labor in their land and survived on loans from different sources. Their initial harvest allowed them to pay portions of the loans they used to finance the daily needs of their members. After a few months, the group was able to settle their obligations and had the resources to regularly provide wages for their members. As a collective, the TSAFARBAI members also shared some sort of dividends at the end of each year. Compared to when they were still ordinary

workers in plantations, the income derived from their collective undertaking is relatively higher and could provide for the families of their members. Further, TSAFARBAI and its members agreed to automatically deduct from the earnings a specific amount for their land amortization despite the fact that the land valuation case filed by the former landowner remains unresolved to this day. To ensure that the organization would continue to have resources for their activities, portions of their earnings were likewise deducted from the individual income of members. With a simple and yet sound management of finances, Dominador’s group were able to create a reserve fund for various activities and concerns of their members. In 2006, after a careful scrutiny of their production, the group decided to go into individual farming. The decision was in line with the desire of members to further raise incomes by allowing each member to have a defined and specific landholding that they could individually manage. They perceived this move as another attempt to allow every ARB to employ his own system of farm management that he sees best for his land. With their own funds, TSAFARBAI subsequently requested the DAR to individually segregate their landholdings and issue individual CLOAs for each member. To date, Dominador and every member of TSAFARBAI continue to employ their own ‘system’ of management in their respective farms. Further, the Dole-Stanfilco issued individual contracts to each one of them (thereby treating them as individual growers), while maintaining payment for their produce to the whole organization. It is TSAFARBAI that still manages their finances but incomes of members are distributed based on their productivity. Thus, while individual farming provided the necessary motivation for members to raise their productivity levels, the members maintain their organization and observe all previous agreements in the management of their finances. This arrangement has been instrumental in ensuring that the organization would continue to function and exist despite changes in their farming system. Proof of this is the result of renegotiations last year that allowed the group to press for better terms with Dole-Stanfilco. To date, TSAFARBAI remains among the few ARB organizations with a short-term and better contract with private companies. Further, TSAFARBAI managed to bargain for buying price adjustments this year based on the tremendous income losses resulting from changes in the peso-dollar exchange rates. Agrarian reform has in more ways than one changed the lives of beneficiaries belonging to TSAFARBAI. To top it all, there is newfound pride and dignity in the members of TSAFARBAI. These gains prove that far from just being passive beneficiaries of land reform, Dominador and his group actively asserted their rights to land and strives hard to become responsible ARBs with various livelihood options. They have shown that the rural poor can become active participants and stakeholders in the whole process of rural democratization and development. They are among those beneficiaries that provide hope and inspiration to the many landless rural poor that continue to struggle for land and livelihood.

Agrarian reform could work when… The story of TSAFARBAI is perhaps an exception rather than a rule in agrarian reform implementation in commercial banana plantations. But their experiences tend to point to some of the more critical lessons in policy implementation. Allow me to surface some of the insights drawn from what could be crucial in agrarian reform. First, autonomous organizations that are not beholden to landlords nor to the Department of Agrarian Reform are necessary in any agrarian reform program. There are cases when those organized through the initiatives of landowner or through those of the DAR personnel in the field. While this could be perceived as a normal tendency in reform implementation, it becomes a different story when the ARBs become beholden to any of them. Compromises that appear more favorable to landowners tend to surface in the whole process, with ARBs often in the losing end. Second, a reform-minded bureaucracy that is bent on implementing the program for the landless rural poor despite all odds remains an important factor in ensuring that the benefits of reform accrue to its beneficiaries. Recognizing that policy implementers could be influenced by groups that are often with conflicting and competing interests, a bureaucracy that takes bias in favor of the rural poor could spell the difference in the outcomes of agrarian reform implementation. Third, free and fair engagement with the private sector is crucial in the economic empowerment of agrarian reform beneficiaries. The whole point, I guess, is that ARBs and small producers must be provided the opportunity to be exposed to the different players in the market and not to be simply tied to companies operated by their former landowners. Further, full access to information during negotiations tends to lead to fairer and transparent engagement between small producers and private companies. Fourth, maintaining and strengthening linkages for development cooperation with various institutions and agencies. Agrarian reform and rural development cannot singlehandedly be pursued any group or institution. Some Strategic Directions What, then, should be the strategic direction of agrarian reform in the future? Today, I will briefly highlight strategic themes in support of the goal of an inclusive and perhaps a more sustainable engagement in agrarian reform and rural development. One strategic direction that should be taken into consideration is reforming or reframing agrarian reform such that it fits its social justice intention alongside the pursuit of goals in rural development. The intent to break land monopoly should be the foremost concern of agrarian reform when it intends to combat rural poverty. I believe that while agrarian reform takes serious consideration of rural

development both at the national and local levels, access to land remains essential in the pursuit of this economic goal. In the months to come, the agrarian reform community will have to confront the end of CARP’s mandate in 2008. Various and different groups have started to surface their positions in this regard. First, there is a growing campaign among some groups calling for the extension of CARP in order to consummate the distribution of more or less one million hectares of agricultural lands to potential beneficiaries. But as its implementation flaws and irregularities over the last two decades would reveal, this position may not be too popular among civil society groups that have been directly and indirectly involved in its implementation. Some others are seeking amendments to the existing law in order to come up with more progressive provisions that could somehow remedy the deficiencies in program implementation. These groups are further divided into those that simply want to revise the existing law to those that push for framing an entirely new legislation that could somehow approach a genuine agrarian reform in the country. This could mean the passing of a proposed bill that is more radical than the existing one. While such would definitely invite tremendous opposition in the halls of Congress, this group believes that such could be the only way to approach agrarian reform in the future. Despite differences in opinion and perspectives, the general direction of the various and different positions appear geared toward reframing policy revisions that have been highlighted in discussions at the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in Porto Alegre last March 2006. In this regard, agrarian reform and rural development must be geared toward policies that: •

Are people-centered and gender sensitive, addressing people’s own priorities and building on and strengthening their own assets, capabilities and livelihood strategies;

•

Are based on rights, within the context of national laws and customs;

•

Recognize the diversity of socio-economic population groups, their different and sometimes conflicting interests and needs, and their differential access to power, and explicitly redress power disparities, with particular consideration for the poor, through good governance and mechanisms for conflict mediation;

•

Adopt a coherent approach that integrates across multiple sectors, stakeholder groups and levels, including urban-rural linkages, through a territorial perspective;

•

Promote land policies that provide improved access to land and security of land rights for the rural poor;

•

Support national institutions and programmes of land administration that ensure fair and secure rights to land;

•

Provide appropriate incentives for public and private services to operate effectively in rural areas, including adequately staffed and funded decentralized capacities to implement policies and programmes that offer positive discrimination in favour of the poor; and,

•

Are vigilant to the effects of globalization, to exploit opportunities and mitigate negative effects, especially on the vulnerable, poor population groups. National and local policies on agrarian reform and rural development must recognize the need for explicit measures to ensure food sovereignty, small scale family agriculture, secure and remunerative employment for the landless rural poor, social justice, cultural diversity and the right to food;

The landless rural poor cannot simply wait for government to respect, promote and fulfill their rights to land and livelihood. Far more crucial in these policy directions are social mobilizations and collective action that could challenge the government’s political will to provide long-term commitment and adequate resources to design and implement policies, legislation and programs that consistently promote equity and social justice and discriminates in favour of the poor. The current government must be pushed to implement necessary political reforms that could enhance public participation in governance and provide a more enabling environment that promotes public confidence in investments for development, public order and peace, in order to ensure that development is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Another strategic direction that could be taken in the pursuit of agrarian reform and rural development is fine-tuning development cooperation to allow different investments to accrue in favour of the rural poor. This must take serious consideration of the various roles that institutions play in rural democratization and development processes. In the experience of reform implementation in commercial banana plantations, and perhaps in areas planted to other crops, the role of government institutions and market forces are crucial in pursuing the economic empowerment of small producers. The whole intent is to draw-in the confidence and resources of various institutions and organizations toward propelling rural development by enhancing productivity among reform beneficiaries. Toward such end, it is crucial that the convergence among actors and stakeholders in agrarian reform and rural development take a direction that: •

Increase investment and provision of essential technologies, infrastructure (including water management), production inputs and markets, services, education and training to improve land and labour productivity in order to increase incomes and reduce poverty;

•

Are supported through adequate financial resources (both public and development assistance, as well as progressive land taxation if appropriate) and private sector investment, at the appropriate national or decentralized levels;

•

Promote awareness of the crucial importance of appropriate public, civil society and private sector institutions, at different levels, for implementing agrarian reform and rural development policies, and provide the incentives and capabilities for establishing/strengthening horizontal and vertical mechanisms for dialogue and partnership between such institutions;

•

Strengthen the capacities of producers’, workers’ and community-based organizations, cooperatives and other civil society organizations, to be more inclusive of the poor, know their rights and responsibilities so they can hold public services accountable, engage in dialogue and negotiations with policy makers on key policy and legislative issues affecting the welfare of their membership, and provide their members more effective production, processing, marketing or financial services to enhance incomes;

•

Generate more agricultural and non-farm employment through a variety of policy and programme measures that stimulate agricultural productivity growth and the linkages between agriculture and the local rural/urban economy within a territorial perspective, as well as through direct investment or financial support;

In closing: Voices from the Ground Today, Dominador lives as one of the few agrarian reform beneficiaries that truly exercise his right over land. He continues to farm. His wife tends the store, feeds chickens and pigs, and attends to the household needs of their family. Their eldest child is a degree holder already; another one is about to graduate from college and the rest all go to school. Dominador told us: “Our lives used to be a hand-to-mouth existence. But now that we have access and control over our land, we are self-reliant, and can educate our children. We now have the confidence that we can climb out of poverty.” Dominador’s story and that of TSAFARBAI surfaces our day-to-day efforts to create new possibilities for the landless rural poor. Their story echoes the compelling need for a more dynamic intervention and cooperation that could connect the rural poor to people, institutions, ideas and opportunities. Much has changed, and much more could change for the rural poor when they take active part in rural democratization and development.