[asia-apec 1547] Open letter of FGB to 11.11.11 (formerly NCOS)

[BAYAN]

>From the: Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas 
(KMP, Peasant Movement of the Philippines)
kmp at quickweb.com.ph

PHILIPPINE SOLIDARITY GROUPS BELGIUM PROTESTS 11.11.11 SUPPORT FOR BELGIAN
OFFICIAL "DEVELOPMENT AID" TO THE PHILIPPINES
Open letter of FGB to 11.11.11 (formerly NCOS)

Recently, 11.11.11 presented the study “Belgian Direct Bilateral Aid for
Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. A Civil Society Perspective.” to the
public. This research about the Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support
Program (BIARSP) was carried out by 11.11.11 and its partners in the
Philippines.

The Philippine Solidarity Groups Belgium (FGB) wants to register its
disapproval about the design as well as the results of this study. FGB is
particularly indignant about the statement of support to BIARSP that was
issued
as a result of this research.

BIARSP supports the landlords

The support of 11.11.11 to BIARSP and “the initial policy decision of the
Belgian Government to support the Philippine agrarian reform process”(1) is
out
of place and a sign of flawed analysis at best, if not manifest incognizance. 
BIARSP has nothing to do with land reform in the first place, let alone with
land distribution.(2) By the way, the result of BIARSPs precursor, BARSP, was
not the acceleration of land distribution but the reduction of lands that are
targeted for distribution.(3)

This is not surprising as BIARSP is conceived as a support program for the
Philippine government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Our
Philippine partner organization KMP, formerly an NCOS partner, has exposed
CARP
already long ago as a program for land concentration and consolidation of
landlord power. (See attached media release of KMP June 9, 2000) KMP
ascertains
that after 12 years of CARP, the breaking up of feudal relations in the
Philippine countryside hasn’t even started. Seven out of ten Filipino peasants
are still landless.(4) 

Also some of the present 11.11.11 partners acknowledge CARP’s failure.  On the
occasion of CARP’s anniversary, Romeo Royandoyan, executive director of the
Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI), wrote that the farmers find little to
rejoice about. He referred to the government’s promotion of “land reform”
schemes like “joint ventures”(5) and “swap deals”(6) to conclude that the
slogan of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) “Return the Land” is
addressed to the farmers rather than to the landlords.(7)

CARP is therefore not a program for the radical redistribution of agricultural
lands but for the pacification of the Philippine countryside as the Filipino
peasantry has a long tradition of active and even armed resistance against
injustice and exploitation. The promise of “land reform” is the “carrot” that
has to make the landless peasants toe the line. 

At the same time, the Philippine landlords and the government do not hesitate
to use the “stick” instead of the “carrot”. Farmers who are fighting for the
right to land are illegally detained or killed in cold blood.(8)

History shows that thoroughgoing land reform has never been granted by the
ruling class to the poor peasants. Genuine land reform has always been the
result of a struggle that crushed the power of the landed elite. FGB is
therefore supporting the struggle of the Filipino peasants who are effecting
land reform themselves.

BIARSP forces the peasants into the neo-liberal straitjacket

BIARSP fits in with the Agrarian Reform Communities (ARC) strategy of the
Philippine government. On the one hand, the ARCs have to conceal the
failure of
CARP through the establishment of some showcases. On the other hand, the
ARC-strategy has to adjust Philippine agriculture to neo-liberal
globalization.


In the ARCs, the production of export crops is promoted at the expense of food
crops. Agricultural practices that are liberally applying harmful pesticides
and fertilizer are encouraged. For the farmers, the consequence is a
catastrophe. The ecological balance and the health of the farmers and their
families are affected while the poor farmers are sinking into the quagmire of
debt. 

The contribution of BARSP and BIARSP to this scenario is well documented by
the
11.11.11 research. BIARSP encourages the production of cash crops and
introduces new varieties that are dependent on chemical pesticides and
fertilizer. Poor peasants are provided with loans so they can afford these
products. As a result, the farmers incur debts while transnationals are
assured
of their markets. To top it all, BIARSP talks the farmers into contracts with
food giants like Nestlé.(9) Is this supposed to be land reform?

The liberalization of agriculture has already hit Philippine food security and
sovereignty hard. While the country used to be self-sufficient in staple food,
it now has to import huge amounts of rice. Thousands of poor peasants can
testify that their products are priced out of the market by subsidized
imported
products. Transnational corporations and landlords are taking advantage of
this
situation through the introduction of export crops making the peasants ever
more dependent.

In this context, it is out of place to “commend the Belgian government for
locating one major direct bilateral international cooperation effort on the
country’s most crucial and pressing reform and social justice initiatives:
agrarian reform and rural poverty alleviation.”(10) Implicitly, this also
justifies the underlying policy of land concentration and liberalization.
Therefore, FGB is of the opinion that BIARSP should be rejected because it
is a
variation of CARP and ARCs, policies that perpetuate feudal exploitation and
undermine Philippine food sovereignty.

It is the people’s perspective that counts

The research report is subtitled “A Civil Society Perspective” and reads as
one
big plea of the “civil society” to dip into BIARSP’s resources.(11) That is
why
11.11.11 has set itself a new task: the task of “critical engagement” with the
government.(12)

Probably, 11.11.11 was influenced by its Philippine partner organizations who
easily lump together the “civil society” with the government. Many key
personalities from these NGOs have already made the changeover to the
government.(13) Others are combining their jobs in 11.11.11 partner
organizations with positions as DAR consultants.(14) It is also noteworthy
that
Ed Quitoriano, head of the research team, easily changed hats after the study:
he joined a team of the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC, formerly ABOS).

Throughout the whole research, government agencies were treated as privileged
partners. They were kept informed and could give their comments on preliminary
versions of the research report. Before 11.11.11 presented the study to its
member organizations, it held two workshops with DAR, BIARSP and BTC where
they
could give their comments once more.  Francisco Lara of DAR was, as its head
consultant, closely involved in the research and wrote a whole chapter of the
final report. Is this the “civil society perspective”?

In the Philippines, this policy has already lost any credibility. It is only
practiced by a band of NGO bureaucrats who occupy themselves with their career
plans in their cozy offices, far away from the people but close to the sources
of funding. It is deplorable that some of them can do that at the expense of
11.11.11.

Progressive NGOs and people’s organizations resolutely embrace “the people’s
perspective” which is incompatible with subservient collaboration with a
government that only looks after the interests of the elite while trampling on
those of the people.

We agree with 11.11.11 that the official bilateral development cooperation has
to be closely monitored by the NGOs. Some members of FGB have already
developed
initiatives to monitor BIARSP from “the people’s perspective.” On a low budget
and without DAR and BTC breathing down their necks, they consulted the local
population in the BARSP and BIARSP project areas. Their conclusions
demonstrate
the negative impact of these projects on the local peasants.(15)

Building solidarity with the grassroots

Solidarity and empowerment cannot be built in the salons of semi-governmental
organizations and ministries but in the day-to-day struggle of people’s
organizations built by farmers, workers, women and urban poor themselves. A
good example is 11.11.11’s partnership with MST in Brazil. Around their
struggle, 11.11.11 was able to develop a dynamism that resulted in meaningful
solidarity activities. 

There is a world of difference, however, with 11.11.11’s Philippines policy,
demonstrating a striking lack of consistency. While 11.11.11 supports a
partner
in Brazil who firmly criticizes the World Bank’s “market assisted land
reform”,
it throws in its lot with Philippine NGOs who are developing similar models in
cooperation with the World Bank.(16) While the solidarity links with MST where
able to inspire many a local 11.11.11 committee or activist, the partnerships
with Philippine organizations hardly have any impact outside the inner circle.

And yet there is an alternative. MST has a partner in the Philippines: KMP.
Both peasant organizations share the same analysis about the importance of
genuine land reform and are working according to the same principles. By the
way, KMP and MST have developed a firm south-south partnership and are
cooperating in La Via Campesina, the worldwide network of peasant
organizations. However, 11.11.11 has severed all ties with KMP and other
Philippine people’s organizations, skipping the opportunity to be the catalyst
in meaningful south-south solidarity between poor peasants in Asia and South
America. Moreover, it demonstrates that 11.11.11 has chosen to exclude the
development of solidarity and empowerment from its Philippines policies.

A turnabout is necessary

We hope that 11.11.11 will change course after this experience and side with
the poor peasants in order to strengthen solidarity and to inform the Belgian
public about the Belgian official “development aid” from the farmers’
perspective. Considering the nature of the present 11.11.11 partner
organizations in the Philippines, we think that this would require a thorough
revision of its Philippines policies. We hope that FGB and other member
organizations of 11.11.11 will be allowed to have a say this time.

In the short term, a withdrawal of the statement of support to BIARSP would be
a meaningful gesture that would do justice to the different opinions within
the
organization. Moreover, it could be the first step toward Philippines policies
focusing on solidarity and empowerment.

More specifically, we propose that 11.11.11 announces the withdrawal of its
statement of support to BIARSP on October 21 in a statement of solidarity with
the struggle of the Philippine peasantry for land. On this day, the Philippine
peasants will commemorate the proclamation of PD 27, the bogus land reform
program of dictator Marcos. For the landless peasants, this is a yearly day of
protest for genuine land reform. This symbolic date would render the
gesture of
11.11.11 extra meaningful.

We call on all member organizations and individuals to support this proposal
and to bring it up in the respective organs of 11.11.11 and the broader Third
World movement. 


Endnotes:
(1) “Some introductory notes to the study” Jozef De Witte, p. 4
(2) The 11.11.11 study comes to the same conclusion, albeit hesitantly:
“The question therefore is whether BARSP or BIARSP, without LTI, is
really an agrarian reform program? The question is not about labels or
program definition but, more importantly, the issue of what
characterizes an agrarian reform support program.” See “Belgian Direct
Bilateral Aid for Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. A Civil Society
Perspective.” Ed Ll. Quitoriano, MODE Inc., May 2000, p. 66
(3) “Agrarian Reform Communities in the Philippines. Strategy and Praxis.”
Eddie Ll. Quitoriano, NCOS Pilipinas, March 1998, p. 41
(4) 1998 Annual Poverty Indicator Survey
(5) In these joint ventures, a corporation is established under the initiative
of DAR for the management of the land. In practice, the corporation is still
controlled by the landlord while the farmers remain as landless as before the
“land reform”. Last year, president Estrada proclaimed Danding Cojuangco, his
as well as ex-dictator Marcos’ crony, “the godfather of land reform”
because he
was able to maintain his tyranny on a 4,361-hectare estate in Negros.
(6) In “swap deals” the landlord is allowed to keep his land if he can offer
another piece of land for “land reform”. The prototype is Danding Cojuangco’s
11,000 hectares on Bugsuk Island he got from dictator Marcos in exchange for
1,600 hectares he put up for land reform elsewhere. This year DAR Secretary
Morales announced that Cojuangco’s Bugsuk Island will remain exempted from
land
reform.
(7) “An ironic anniversary for CARP” Romeo C. Royandoyan, Philippine
Daily Inquirer, June 6, 2000
(8) Ka Miling Cañete, for example, a peasant leader from a local chapter of
KMP
in Bulacan, who took on ex-dictator Marcos’ son-in-law was arrested on
February
16. Roger Alla and Terry Sevilla of UMALPAS-KA in Hacienda Looc, Batangas,
were
killed last March 4 because of their resistance to the company that wants to
build golf courses on the land they were awarded by CARP. More information
about these cases can be found on the KMP Website:
http://www.geocities.com/kmp_ph
(9) “Belgian Direct Bilateral Aid for Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. A
Civil Society Perspective.” Ed Ll. Quitoriano, MODE Inc.,
May 2000
(10) “Statement of Support for the Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support
Programme and Some Recommendations for a More Effective Program
Implementation” NCOS, May 2, 2000, p. 1
(11) PPI was already one of the bidders for the contract of the NGO-partner in
BARSP.
(12) “Therefore it is important to combine all possible forces, including
those
from the NGO and PO side, that they all can contribute to the creation of the
most favourable conditions to make this program a success. We are of the
opinion that NGO’s and PO’s can and should play an important role in this on
top of their inherent willingness to do so.
(...) We can describe this attitude as one of critical engagement or
co-operation.” See: “Some introductory notes to the study” Jozef De
Witte, p. 4
(13) Leonor Briones, the present National Treasurer and Presidential
Adviser on
Social Development, and Francisco Lara, the Head Executive Assistant and the
right hand of DAR Secretary Morales, came from 11.11.11 partner organizations
Freedom from Debt Coalition en MODE respectively.
(14) PPI executive director, Romeo Royandoyan, is a DAR Consultant. The
executive director of the Project Development Institute (PDI), Ria
Miclat-Teves
is “Policy Adviser” of DAR.
(15) See for instance: “The comprehensive agrarian reform program 1987-1998 of
the Philippines. The viability of agrarian reform communities. Evaluation of
land reform programs in the Philippines” Thesis of Konings Anne, Hogeschool
Gent, Academic year 1998-1999.
(16) To top it all, 11.11.11 partner PDI will sponsor the “International
Conference on Agrarian Reform” from December 5 to 8 in cooperation with DAR
and
the World Bank. In the context of this conference, a summit will take place
between the ministers for agrarian reform of Brazil, Mexico, South Africa,
Zimbabwe and the Philippines, the pilot countries for the World Bank’s
market-assisted land reform. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
	 B A Y A N
	 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance
	 No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village
	 Quezon City, PHILIPPINES							      	
	 Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151       Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211
	 Email:   <bayan at iname.com>
	 Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils 	      	
	 Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils 	      	

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------