Life or death for coco levy
Coconut farmer leaders believe that next week’s Congress bicameral committee meeting on the coco levy will decide the life or death of a levy beneficial to them. This amounts to about P100 billion, collected largely from small coconut farmers from 1972 to 1981.
This was the consensus during a meeting on May 21 of coconut farmer leaders from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. It was organized by the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries (PCAF), with Alyansa Agrikultura convenor Omi Royandoyan presiding. They passed a resolution stating their concern that the upcoming bicameral conference on the “Coconut Farmers and Industry TrustFundBill” Senate Bill 1233 and House Bill 5745 could possibly result in a decision that would once again exploit small farmers.
A position statement was submitted by the Philippine Coconut Authority-Coconut Farmers Technical Working Group, signed by 11 farmer organizations. It states that SB 1233 andHB5745 were originally a people’s initiative bill submit- ted by the farming sector. These organizations are alarmed that both bills have been “watered down to dilute the participation of the farming sector in the use, management and administration of the coconut levy.”
The question is: “Who will benefit from the funds?” HB 5745 deleted the provision to limit the coco levy beneficiaries only to coconut farmers owning 5 hectares and below. This would allow the funds and programs to be used by large landowners, who are not the intended beneficiaries.
SB 1233 scrapped the Trust Fund Committee composed of more coconut farmers than government representatives. The levy would then carry the risk of addressing government, rather than coconut farmer, needs. SB 1233 proposes that this committee becomes the Philippine CoconutAuthority Board itself. An amendment is proposed that there will be more farmer representatives than government. If the bicameral conference committee does not support this amendment, the levy will once again be dictated by the government, to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries.
At the May 21 PCAF meeting, several groups participated. A common concern was that the levy should be a special, not a general, fund. The Supreme Court earlier made this clear, stating that “the funds are of a special nature belonging to the sector of coconut farmers.” If it becomes a general fund, coconut farmers have to degrade themselves and beg yearly for Congress to give them what they deserve. This will be akin to the pernicious practice of pork barrel allocations. The bicameral conference committee should not allow this travesty to happen. The funds should be decided by a trust committee or the PCA Board, provided that either body should have a majority of coconut farmers deciding on the levy allocation and use.
There are other proposals from the farmer leaders. One is that the coco levy assets, such as coconut oil mills should not be privatized. They should instead remain with the farmers so they can reap the assets’ benefits.
A Dec. 28, 2004 Sandiganbayan document states: “It is high time that the real beneficiaries of the coconut levy funds, the coconut farmers who contributed to it, and the entire coconut industry be given a chance to reap the benefits that are due them.”
If the bicameral committee will ignore the points of the coconut farmers, it will spell the death of the long-awaited coconut farmer upliftment. But if the committee follows the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan and the coconut farmer groups, new life will be injected into the farmers’ dreams of a better life.