RP land reform: Going the way of Zimbabwe?

“HOw can CARP be extended “with reforms” but without audit? How will the taxpayers know whether the new extension law will address the real causes of CARP’s failure during the past 20 years?

This is the statement of Atty. Gil Alba, Legal Counsel of the Confederation of Sugar Producers’ Associations, Inc. (Confed) when asked if new reforms proposed for CARP are enough to make the program finally successful.

“Land has been a much disputed issue since the country started realizing its worth for the Filipino,” Atty. Alba explains. “All I am saying is that: We cannot shrug the serious issues that had made CARP a losing proposition among our farmers all because the country will be the one to suffer ultimately if our farmers do not get out of poverty. We do not want to be another Zimbabwe.”

According to Atty. Alba, land is the most hotly contested political issue in Zimbabwe since the 1920s. According to historians, after self-government was granted to African in 1923, a legal framework for land distribution was established by the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly as a prelude to agrarian reform.

So-tagged as the Land Appointment Act of 1930, it paved the way for the Lancaster House Agreement, which paved the way further for other laws to be created whereby all lands where apportioned from its traditional owner to government authorities.

To cut to the chase, land reform in Zimbabwe, especially the post-2000 reforms, have been no less disastrous to the economy of that African region, eventually causing the downfall of its economic standing, even provoking a countrywide famine.

According to one report on the causes and consequences of land reform in Zimbabwe, the primary beneficiaries of agrarian reform land had been members of the government and their families, people with no experience in running the farms.

As a result, widespread drop in total farm output and performance compelled many regions in Zimbabwe to record tremendous levels of starvation and famine. About 45% of the population became malnourished. Famine ensued, and as such, tourism plummeted to record lows, costing the country millions of dollars in revenue losses.

“The situation is not as different as it seems; in the Philippines, we are beginning to see the consequences of our very low farm outout. From being a net exporter of rice, today, we a net importer of rice. Despite what the surveys tell you, all you have to do is visit the country’s agrarian provinces and you will see the extent of poverty our farmers are suffering from.”

Atty. Alba further states that what is ironical in CARP is that it was supposedly designated as a measure of social justice, a means for the farmer-beneficiary to increase and enhance his way of life, and improve on the possibility of more produce.

But it’s the CARP, he says, the very law that was supposed to improve the farmer’s lot, was the very law that made it worse.

“Right from the start, when the land is awarded to the agrarian reform beneficiary, his title is automatically mortgaged to the Land Bank of the Philippines for the next 30 years, during which time the farmer must disburse regular payments for the land,” he maintains. “Do you think a regular farmer who once lived by hard-to-mouth, will suddendly be able to operate a three hectare land without capital and financial and technological support from government?”

According to figures released by DAR-GTZ Report, less than one in five beneficiaries (17.7%) are able to pay their amortizations. Actual amount collected from farmer beneficiaries as of 2005 is a mere PhP2.5 billion out of an estimated collectible of PhP 14.5 billion.

Take for example the farmers of Negros Occidental. According to reports, roughly 41% of agrarian reform beneficiaries of this province had given up farming the land that had been awarded them.

Professor Winston Conrad B. Padojinog, a celebrated economist of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) sums it more clearly. The CARP Law has proven that ownership of land does not necessarily translate to the socio-economic enrichment of teh farmer-beneficiary.

Atty. Alba stress that his one major concern is that the Philippines may go the way of Zimbabwe if we do not seriously consider changing CARP by instilling provisions in the law that is geared towards the program’s success. What CARP is not, he stresses, is that it is not a land-dole-out program.

“By insisting merely on Compulsary Land Acquisition, the CARP extension with reforms advocates pay lip service to uplift the tiller of the soil from poverty, and bring about full employment and economic progress to the countryside. Mere land distribution is much too shallow a principle to be incorporated into the Philippine Constitution. We must insist on a comprehensive audit of CARP to that we, as a nation, could safeguard our resources,” Atty. Alba concludes. –Cherilyn S. Herrera, Philippine Star