Outdated land reform law
In order for the Philippines to pursue an effective program that will secure the country’s food security, the basic principles that have guided the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) in 1988 needs to be exposed for its obsolescence.
That CARL, and its follow-up amendment extending its life by another five years (called Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Reforms or CARPER), has successfully sought to give land to the landless cannot be denied. But to claim that the law has improved the life of farmers and increased productivity of land can categorically be argued as false, and the sad state that our small farmers now find themselves in is the true measure of how twisted CARL has been for them, and more importantly, for the country.
Over the last 35 years since CARL was passed, we can blame the basic restriction imposed by the law on all the mess that Philippine agriculture finds itself in. We’ve seen productivity in many farm lands held by agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) drop to levels where importations have become more cost-effective.
We’ve seen small farmers unable to benefit from the agrarian reform community (ARC) system or cooperatives that the Department of Agricultural Reform (DAR) is overseeing, and being forced to “sell” their property rights illegally, either because they have given up on farming or have been forced to give up for lack of capital, or because of other pressing needs.
Restrictive land size prohibition
To curtail land ownership within five hectares, as dictated by CARL and CALPER, is perhaps the biggest disincentive to land productivity, and which has distorted the country’s farming science and economics. These absolute rules on land ownership size just go against the science of agronomy.
When farmers cannot expand their lands to benefit from economies of scale and the introduction of modern agricultural machineries, this tells us that the agricultural system that CARL and CALPER have institutionalized over the decades needs to be given a more serious assessment, and in most probability, be dismantled for good.
Let us bring back the science in farming. If we can make rice farming more productive by allowing larger sizes of land ownership, we will give small farmers a real chance to uplift their incomes, and in the process, boost rice production that will ultimately benefit the country’s goal of food security.
This goes true for other crops, like corn and sugar, which are prejudiced by land size restrictions. The Philippines still has enough arable lands conducive to farming produce vital to food security, but only if not confined by CARL and CALPER.
We must move past the epoch of social justice awareness and commitment for our tenant and landless farmers, and give up on the Quixotic idea that giving land to farmers is the right and only solution. We have been dawdling too long on a land reform framework that has become a burden for the whole nation.
Going for a new era of agricultural productivity
The challenge to our lawmakers is to find the right formula that will spawn a new era of agricultural productivity, one that will allow the Philippines to reap the benefits of available land for farming and for people who still would want to earn their living from agriculture.
Some sensitivities may still remain with small farmers who may feel threatened about the tenability of land ownership privileges, and this should be given due consideration when drawing up a new agricultural framework. But this should not be a hindrance.
Hopefully, our lawmakers will be able to draw up a new framework at the soonest time. We are entering a new era where the country recognizes that farms need to be modernized, and that size restrictions imposed by CARL and CARPER have to be hurdled.
Investment opportunities also abound, as well as new concepts in farm productivity. Relying too much on the global food supply chain has been too much of a risk, and we as a nation must find the right balance between counting on other countries for our food needs and growing our own.
Our frustration from diminished agricultural productivity has to end and must transformed into a proactive movement. An action program must be the ultimate goal of the Department of Agriculture (DA), which includes bringing together the best minds to work on this.
Good and useful lessons in agricultural productivity can be found in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and recently, even Vietnam. Not only have these countries managed to secure their own food needs, but have also been able to harvest more for export.
Being developing economies, much like ours, they have given government support in modernizing their agricultural productivity – and have been successful at it. Again, the fundamental difference they share is their openness to land ownership.
Their small farmers can own more than five hectares if there is a good reason to expand cultivation areas. Land banks are more receptive to providing loans when economies of scale can be proven to work. This also applies to crop insurance.
Perhaps one of the most defining advantages that we as a country should recognize is the inflow of remittances from overseas Filipinos. Many of those who work abroad come from rural areas, from parents who were farmers but had opted to monetize their land in the underground market.
Many of our migrant workers will want to invest in agriculture when they retire, especially if they can be assured of a good source of income.
Facebook and Twitter
We are actively using two social networking websites to reach out more often and even interact with and engage our readers, friends and colleagues in the various areas of interest that I tackle in my column. Please like us on www.facebook.com/ReyGamboa and follow us on www.twitter.com/ReyGamboa.