From Peace History

Research group IBON said that the spirit of the Duterte administration’s rejection of official development aid (ODA) from the European Union (EU) for being used to intervene in the Philippines’ internal affairs is welcome. There is however a much clearer and stronger basis to reject ‘aid’ from the United States (US), which has used its aid programs to become the most interventionist foreign power in the country, said the group.

The Duterte government reportedly informed the EU that it will cease accepting aid from the bloc for future projects. There is still no formal explanation but it can be recalled that Pres. Rodrigo Duterte said in October 2016 that he is willing to forego financial aid from countries critical of his anti-drug campaign. He has also repeatedly said that he views foreign criticism as intervention in the country’s internal affairs.

IBON noted that EU aid accounts for a very small share of total ODA to the country. The US$227 million from the EU in 2015 was just 1.5% of total ODA for the year. Even if aid from multilateral agencies is not counted, EU aid to the Philippines is still less than 3% of total bilateral aid from individual donor countries. Japan leads with a 65% share of total bilateral aid followed by the US at 15%, Australia at 7%, and Korea at 6 percent.

The US meanwhile, according to IBON, is the most interventionist foreign power in the country and aggressively interferes in the country’s economic and political affairs far beyond what the aid figures might indicate. Former United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Andrew Natsios has candidly said that ‘development aid’ is “the most important tool of American influence in the developing world”.

IBON added that the US is the single-biggest foreign influence on Philippine economic policy-making. Taking just the period since 2011, the US government had been using the US$739 million Partnership for Growth (PFG) initiative to bring the Philippines into its flagship Asia-Pacific economic integration scheme – the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Though the new US Trump administration has junked the TPP, the PFG will certainly still be used to push pro-US economic policies, said the group.

There is also the US$1 million USAID-funded The Arangkada Philippines project (TAPP) administered by the American Chamber of Commerce from 2010 to 2016. This lobbied policymakers on 471 policy recommendations of which some 80% have been started or already completed, noted IBON. In addition to this, there are four other USAID economic policy intervention projects cumulatively worth some US$50 million (Php2.4 billion): Trade-Related Assistance for Development (TRADE), Facilitating Public Investment (FPI), Investment Enabling Environment (INVEST), and Advancing Philippine Competitiveness (COMPETE) Project. These are multi-year projects but it is still striking that their combined budgets rival the personnel expenses of the government’s entire economic planning agency National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), IBON observed.

According to IBON, the US wants policies that benefit American corporate export and commercial interests as well as create the kind of free market-driven trade and investment system in the Asia-Pacific that allows it to maintain its hegemony and dominant economic position. US intervention in Philippine economic policy-making has always been to serve its own economic interests and not to develop the country, IBON said.

Yet international development cooperation should be about development and improving the lives of people, said the group. Rejecting US ‘aid’ will send the strongest possible signal that the Duterte administration indeed upholds independent foreign policy including in the vital economic realm, IBON concluded. ###


Sugar cane plantation. Khanh Hoa province. Vietnam
​​The fight of Filipino peasants such as the farmworkers of Hacienda Luisita and Lapanday Foods Corporation for land, food, and justice, stands to be further undermined once the Philippine government fully accedes to the China-backed mega Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
While the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was seemingly put off by United States president Donald Trump, RCEP is now a major highlight in the currently Philippines-chaired Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) meetings towards its 50th year summit in November this year. Millions of Filipino farmers will be among those at the losing end of the RCEP agreement which intends to remove all remaining protection over the Philippine economy towards unhampered trade and investment. Here are the reasons why:

1. RCEP threatens the country’s food security. A Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)-funded study shows that rice production would sink by 4.3% as import volume rises by a huge 33.15% under RCEP.  Another PIDS study projects that Philippine rice import volume could increase by 100% from the current 2.2 million metric tons (MT) to 4.4 million MT from 2017 to 2022. This is especially when the Philippine quantitative restriction* (QR) on rice under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture is lifted this July. 

Studies show that the income of already impoverished rice farmers will drop by 29% upon the lifting of the rice QR. This is because subsidized cheap rice imports will flood the domestic market, compete with local rice expensively produced by Filipino farmers who lack State support, and depress more the farmgate price of palay. The Philippines is among the five RCEP countries in the list of the world’s biggest rice importers.
Weakening rice production will lend to shrinking agricultural production. While palay used to account for almost one-fourth of the gross value added (GVA) in agriculture at current prices, its GVA has been falling by 10.4% annually from 2014 to 2016, contributing to overall agriculture decline of almost 1% yearly.
This trend will worsen with greater liberalization and a deluge of rice imports under RCEP and WTO. This will impact on the livelihood of close to 20 million Filipinos, or about a fifth of the national population, made up of 2.5 million small farmers, several hundred thousand farm laborers and other workers involved in the supply of farm inputs and machinery, milling/processing, warehousing, transport, other services, and related economic activities. It will impact on the entire nation’s food security, much more that of the direct food producers.
FTAs like RCEP will also open up countries’ natural resources further to foreign investments. Pushing amendments to the Philippine Constitution to make it attune to investment liberalization can lead to full foreign ownership of arable lands, converting more land supposedly devoted to food and other national needs to profit-seeking ventures of few big and foreign corporations, such as ecozones and tourism complexes. This will worsen the country’s food insecurity and make land distribution to farmers even more remote.

2. RCEP will pose a threat on poor Filipino farmers who rely on saving and exchanging seeds for their planting needs.  In Asia, it is said that farm-saved seeds account for as much as 90% of all seeds used in the region. But the long tradition of farmers of saving and freely exchanging seeds among themselves has been under relentless attack by big agribusinesscorporations promoting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-protected agrochemical-intensive seeds including the so-called high-yielding varieties (HYVs), genetically modified (GM) seeds, as well as hybrid seeds.

There are alarming proposals that may privatize farmers’ seeds through RCEP: first, Japan and Korea’s proposal that all RCEP countries join the UPOV 1991**; (2) Japan’s proposal to ‘criminalize’ seed saving; and (3) India’s proposal to codify traditional knowledge and make it available to patent offices. FTAs like RCEP allow corporations to rake in bigger corporate profit by displacing farmers’ seeds and replacing them with patented, commercial seeds that farmers have to buy. This will also mean more expenses and greater bankruptcy and poverty for farmers.

3. RCEP will further restrict the Philippine government from using policy and regulatory tools to promote national economic development.

​ ​

“Fair and equitable treatment” of foreign investors is one of the rights that negotiators want RCEP to guarantee. This pertains to a “standstill” on laws and regulations, according to critics of RCEP. It means that RCEP governments are not allowed to revise or amend their existing laws if it would harm the interest of RCEP investors.

This principle is problematic especially for underdeveloped countries like the Philippines. Many poor countries do not yet have the needed laws or a sufficient regulatory capacity to deal with emerging economic, environmental and other issues, to which they are more vulnerable, that may impact their development and people. For instance, RCEP will prevent the country from advancing a genuine agrarian reform program that would distribute land for free to tillers and institute sufficient support services to farmers and farmworkers as central to a genuinely people-centered development program.
It will also further prevent government from reversing neoliberal policies and programs that have been causing massive economic and social harm. Thus, RCEP can also hinder the Philippines from revoking trade and investment policies that have caused the deterioration of the agriculture sector and that currently opens the country’s land and agricultural resources for big and foreign corporations to plunder. 
Additionally, one of the contentious issues that have emerged in the RCEP negotiations is that of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). With it, foreign corporations from RCEP countries could legally oblige RCEP governments to implement the deal’s provisions on investment protection and file charges before an international tribunal in case the latter fails to fulfill such obligation. Reports say that foreign investors can be considered to have won 67% of such cases against RCEP governments, but with the latter having to shell out for legal fees 70% of the time. For countries like the Philippines, whose poor majority are farmers and fisherfolk, the ISDS is not only another financial burden but an affront to the sovereign will of a nation to decide what is best for its people.

4. RCEP will not necessarily increase Philippine food and agriculture exports and will further undermine the country’s agriculture sector. Philippine trade officials claim that the Philippines would push for more exports of local goods in the RCEP to include agri-food commodities such as canned tuna, fresh pineapple, mango, garments of synthetic fibers, raw cane sugar, crude coconut oil, cut tobacco, bananas, coconut, copra, and cooking oil. But the country could not expect to increase exports or substantially gain from more trade liberalization. RCEP markets have already been opened up for Philippine productss in the past, but the country has not taken advantage of this so-called market openness. This is because the country’s weak manufacturing base and underdeveloped infrastructure continue to hamper any potential to improve production. In other words, the country needs to focus more its efforts on developing domestic production for domestic consumption, instead of the competitive yet uncertain markets.

Trade and investment liberalization has only seen the deterioration of the Philippine agriculture sector, increasing agricultural deficits and the deluge of foreign products to the detriment of the Filipino farmers. 
FTAs have not served the country’s development contrary to promise. Instead of agreeing to FTAs, the government should seriously consider breaking free from unequal agreements the Philippines is already in and refuse to be bound to more of the same.

*Quantitative restriction (QR) limits rice importation into the Philippines to protect Filipino rice farmers and consumers
**UPOV 1991 or the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants is a set of common standards on how countries should implement plant variety protection. But it is biased towards seed companies whose patented varieties are protected, which farmers could not save nor exchange unless they pay or government allows it. 

From Arkibong Bayan

The land-to-the-tiller clamour mounts. This, amid the recent spate of farmers’ killings and other forms of military attacks against peasant communities nationwide. These human rights violations have escalated even after both panels of the government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) have acknowledged in the on-going peace talks the country’s agrarian problem and the imperative of free land distribution.

Indeed, breaking land monopolies remains to be a grim challenge. The fierce opposition from powers-that-be to putting a stop to land use conversion regardless of its negative impact on production and food security is a case in point.

Failed land reform. A moratorium on land use conversion can provide not only respite to farmers who have either been already displaced or whose livelihoods stand to be interrupted. It can also be a first step in securing arable land that should be used to produce crops for the nation’s food and industry needs.

Land monopoly persists. Many of the largest haciendas remain intact because land reform programs and laws such as the Presidential Decree No. 27, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), National Tourism Act of 2009 and Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, have allowed landowners to skirt land distribution, expand their land ownership and even convert lands to non-agricultural use.

Government has not ascertained the real extent of success of the land reform program that concluded in 2014. Land acquisition distribution (LAD) has been reported to be 88% accomplished with 4.9 million hectares supposedly distributed to 2.4 million farmer beneficiaries. Yet former agrarian reform secretary Virgilio delos Reyes himself admitted that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)’s data “has no base”, thus it lacks basis to verify how much of the land are now actually in the hands of farmer beneficiaries.

Meanwhile, thousands of hectares of lands are reported to have been reconcentrated to their original owners – old-rich families controlling large haciendas who have diversified into real estate development, energy, mining and telecommunications, among other businesses. Philippine oligarchs led by the country’s billionaires such as Henry Sy, the Zobel-Ayalas, the Roxases, the Lopezes, the Yulos, Cojuangco of Negros Islands, the Cojuangco-Aquinos of Central Luzon, the Floirendos, and the Consunjis, among others, have taken advantage of various land laws to gain or regain control over vast tracts of land.

Rampant LUC. DAR records show that 98,939 hectares of land were approved for conversion from 1988 to 2016, while 120,381 hectares were approved for exemption from land reform coverage for the same period. Yet according to the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), an average of 165,000 hectares of irrigated prime agricultural lands are converted to other uses annually.

Varying data and evidence from the ground show that there have been illegal conversions and correspondingly, violations of social and economic rights of farming and fishing communities affected by such conversions. DAR consultant Atty. Jobert Pahilga disclosed that one such case of illegally converted land is the sprawling 8,650 hectares Hacienda Looc in Nasugbu, Batangas which extends to Bgy. Patungan (now Bgy Sta. Mercedes) in Maragondon, Cavite.

Prior to conversion, some 10,000 Hacienda Looc farmers made productive coconut, mango and various fruit-bearing trees alongside farms planted to rice and corn. Maragondon folk, numbering more than 600 families mostly in fishing, also planted rice and banana in nearby kaingin farms.

In 1994, the Philippine government through its Asset Privatization Trust (APT) sold the entire 8,650 hectares of Hacienda Looc to billionaire Henry Sy’s Manila Southcoast Development Corporation (MSDC), which covered the 5,303 hectares already distributed to farmers and fishermen under CARP. To make way for the conversion, armed state and private security forces displaced the tillers and put their livelihoods in uncertainty. But farmers stood their ground and sought the Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA) to aid them in their legal battle.

In 2013, farmer beneficiaries that continued to assert their rights to the hacienda filed a case at the DAR against the SM Investment Corporation, SM Land Corporation, and Costa de Hamilo Inc. of Sy for the unauthorized conversion of some 5,800 hectares in the said hacienda. Pahilga said that DAR only ordered conversion for 94 hectares of land while the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) gave environmental clearance certificate for the development of only 411 hectares.

The 5,800 hectares that the farmers alleged to have been illegally converted by Henry Sy’s corporations cover the famous tourist destination in Hamilo Coast, which includes 13 natural coves inside the contested Hacienda Looc. Hamilo Coast is being marketed as a seaside residential and leisure property.

Many Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were also former haciendas. For example, large portions of the 7,100-hectare disputed Hacienda Yulo have been converted to the existing Laguna Technopark, Greenfield Estates and Nuvali of the Ayala-Zobel clan and the First Philippine Industrial Park of the Lopezes. Meanwhile, the Luisita Industrial Estate is part of the disputed 6,453-hectare Hacienda Luisita, which was converted by the Cojuangco-Aquino family. The Angara family in Aurora and Quezon established the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone (Apeco) through Republic Act (RA) 10083, which covers about 13,000 hectares of agricultural lands, forested areas in public domain, and thriving coastal areas.

The Ayalas through their real estate development arm Ayala Land, Inc. lead the business of real estate development. Aside from their vast haciendas, they have an accumulated land bank of 8,453 hectares across the country. On the other hand, SM Prime Holdings of Henry Sy has a land bank of about 5,900 hectares of prime lands. These big family corporations dominated the top 50 Philippine corporations in 2012, also indicating that real estate development is the lucrative business in an economy still characterized by land monopoly despite four decades of land reform implementation.

Blocked. Late last year, the DAR led by peasant leader and former Anakpawis party list representative Secretary Rafael Mariano proposed a two-year moratorium on land use conversions and applications for exemption from coverage and processing thereof.

The move met strong opposition from the socioeconomic planning, finance, trade and budget secretaries and the Vice President no less. According to them, a moratorium on land use conversion will hinder jobs creation and poverty alleviation.

Consequently, exemptions were inserted in the fourth draft of the executive order (EO). To be exempted now from the LUC moratorium are energy development projects under the Department of Energy; housing projects under the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council; economic zone development projects under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority; and tourism development projects under the Department of Tourism. However, these huge, business-driven projects are exactly the purposes for which many of the applications for LUC have been approved.

The rabid business-biased defense of the administration’s key officials affirms the continuing domination of profit-oriented neoliberal thinking in the country’s economy and politics.

The DAR has also reportedly revoked the reclassification of and marked for distribution some 700 has of the iconic Hacienda Luisita’s Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) and 384 has sold to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). Upholding this and starting free land distribution in the controversial Cojuangco-Aquino landholding can signal the breaking of land monopolies on a nationwide scale. But Hacienda Luisita Incorporated (HLI) and its partners have appealed against the revocation, partly showing how large private landholdings could comprise a huge percent of the LAD.

Genuine land reform challenge. The ongoing peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the NDFP is set to tackle the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Rights (CASER), which includes the implementation of genuine agrarian reform as a necessary first step in addressing the root causes of pervasive poverty especially in the rural areas.

During the third round of the peace talks, both the Philippine government and the NDFP agreed that land monopoly shall be broken up and that safeguards against the reconcentration of lands and recurrence of exploitative relations between farmers and corporate agribusiness or landowners shall be instituted. Agricultural lands under the NDFP CASER refer to lands that are devoted to agricultural production and such other uses connected with agriculture such as cattle and livestock farms, aquaculture, including foreshore, pasture farms, and lands that are suitable for agriculture.

Meanwhile, farmers’ groups have vowed to sustain their concerted action pressing for genuine agrarian reform.

The Duterte government, which strives to uphold its pro-poor stance, is faced with the choice of either heeding Filipino peasants’ call or turning its back in favor of powerful landlord and comprador interests.


Sign In

Reset Your Password

This is a demo online bookshop for testing purposes — no orders shall be fulfilled.