Farmers storm a government-operated golf course and plant rice at the tenth hole
to protest the country's land reform in 1998.
Global area of transgenic crops.
|
The
People’s Caravan
During the
70s, when the country was under martial law, farmers formed clandestine organizations
that came into the open in the early 80s and started to launch mass campaigns. KMP
(Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas) a national federation of militant peasant organizations,
was officially founded in 1985. It counts 55 provincial chapters and an estimated
membership of 800,000 poor and landless farmers.
One of the most powerful organizations of its kind in Asia, KMP is a member of the
international Via Campesina farmers’ movement. It has been involved in several international
campaigns focusing on agro-chemical corporations and GMOs.
From November 13 to 30 2000, it joined the “The People’s Caravan—Citizens on the
Move for Land and Food Without Poisons,” a march comprising thousands of farmers,
landless peasants and anti-GMO advocates which travelled through Tamil Nadu (India),
Bangladesh and the Philippines. Additionally, partners from Japan, Korea and Indonesia
also held events in their respective countries.
During each leg, the Caravan staged educational teach-ins on globalization, pesticides
and genetic engineering; meetings and debates with local scientists along with food
festivals to promote pesticide-free products and celebrate local culinary diversity.
It also organized seed exchanges as an alternative to corporate control on seeds.
For more information:
www.geocities.com/kmp_ph
|
|
Key
figures, Philippines
|
Total population:
74 million (1999)
GNP per capita:
US$ 1,020 (1999)
Agricultural workers as share of total labour force:
40 % (2000)
52 % (1980)
Agriculture as share of GDP:
17 % (1999)
25 % (1980)
Sources:
UN Food and Agriculture Organization, World Bank. |
|
At
the head of the influential Peasant Movement of the Philippines, rice farmer Rafael
Mariano explains why people from across the region are on the march against pesticides
and genetically modified seeds
Can you briefly describe
the situation of agriculture in the Philippines?
Agriculture is still the cornerstone of the Philippine economy: it employs 40
percent of the active population (11.6 million in 1999). A majority of farmers use
only simple tools and draught animals. Most farms are very small: only 2.1 hectares
on average.
Landlessness is a major problem: seven out of ten farmers do not own the land they
till. They are bound by feudal and semi-feudal relations of exploitation as tenants,
farm workers or lease-holders. A few families control vast tracts of land: 60 percent
of the agricultural lands are in the hands of 13 percent of the landowners. The biggest
landlords own more than 20 percent of all agricultural land.
Is your country self-reliant in food?
Since colonization, Philippine agriculture has been export-oriented, and this
is one of its weaknesses. From 1995 to 1999, it exported 8.25 million tonnes of banana,
pineapple and mango, but had to import 4.74 million tonnes of rice and 1.18 million
tonnes of corn.
Our country doesn’t have basic industries. Therefore agriculture has to import most
farm inputs, tools and machines. Nine out of 13 big pesticide companies in the Philippines
are foreign. They control 85 percent of the market. Companies like Nestlé,
Dole and Del Monte dominate the processing and trade of food and agricultural products.
Some of them also engage in agricultural production and own or control vast tracts
of land.
How has the situation evolved since the World Trade Organization came into being
in 1995?
The Philippines has gone through a spectacular shift from food exporter to food
importer. In the first five years after the Agriculture Agreement came into effect
in January 1995, the Philippines incurred a total agricultural trade deficit of $3.5
billion in contrast to a $1.69 billion surplus in the previous five-year period.
Rice is not only the country’s most important crop, providing a source of income
to 3.2 million rice farmers, it also provides 35 percent of the average Filipino
diet. Yet, rice imports peaked at 2.2 million tonnes in 1998, more than a quarter
of local consumption. Unstable prices can lead to large and abrupt swings in purchasing
power for poor consumers. Such uncertainty contradicts the notion of food security.
How does the use of agrochemicals affect Filipino farmers?
It started with the Green Revolution in the 70s which farmers were almost forced
to join as the use of “high yielding varieties” was then part and parcel of the bogus
land reform programme of the Marcos dictatorship. I remember that before we always
brought something home from our farms even between harvesting seasons. There were
mudfish, snails and frogs. In this respect, our farms were much more productive then.
It was only after the introduction of the so-called miracle rice that we started
to incur debts because we always had to buy new pesticides every time there was a
new pest ravaging the fields. Because of their debts, many farmers were driven from
their land.
It is often argued that GMOs are the only way to boost food production and meet the
demand of a rising population. Why do you refute this?
GMOs are the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The problem is not that there
is not enough food, but that too many people have no access to adequate food. Four
out of five hungry people live in countries that are exporting food, while Europe
and North America are facing a food surplus problem. That is why they want to break
open the markets of poor countries for their agricultural products.
Besides, GMOs will increase the stranglehold of transnational corporations. The top
five agrochemical companies also dominate the transgenic seed business. They will
dictate the terms. The farmers will be at the losing end. So what’s the use of increasing
yields when you’re pushing millions of small farmers deeper into perennial poverty?
And then there’s the question of whether GMOs will actually increase productivity.
I doubt it. Farms that produce an adequate and diversified food supply for the local
market are much more productive than those that produce only one crop destined for
cities or export.
Is organic farming an alternative, and is KMP involved in any such experiments?
KMP is first and foremost a campaign centre. We encourage members to engage in
organic farming and to develop alternatives to destructive chemical-intensive farming.
We maintain close ties with a range of Philippine NGOs that are experts in that field.
With one of them, Masipag, we are engaged in the conservation, dissemination and
development of 154 traditional rice varieties.
To be honest, organic farming is still quite marginal in the Philippines because
of the influence of agro-chemical corporations. This is why it’s so important to
combine actual implementation of organic agriculture with nationwide campaigns. Sooner
or later, we will be able to turn the tide. The agriculture of the future will be
much more productive and beneficial for people and the environment because it will
be developed by the farmers themselves.
Has KMP won many battles on the land reform front?
Although it’s easy to focus on the problems, we shouldn’t forget the many victories.
Thanks to their campaigns, farmers have been able to reduce land rents for instance,
curb interest rates on farm capital and increase the wages of farm workers.
There have also been cases of heroic resistance to land grabbing. The farmers of
Hacienda Looc in the province of Batangas, for instance, were awarded Certificates
of Land Ownership Awards by the Department of Agrarian Reform in 1991. Two years
later, the government-controlled Asset Privatization Trust sold the same land to
a company that wanted to convert it into a tourist spot with a golf course. Although
the mighty real estate company Fil-Estate Land Inc. and local politicians are applying
every possible tactic to drive the farmers away, they are still there. Hacienda Looc
has become a symbol of peasant pride and resistance to landlords and big business. |
