Agrarian Reform Could Work When…

By Salvador H. Feranil
Chairperson, PhilNet – RDI Mindanao Regional Council
Paper presented in RED Forum in Davao City
November 27, 2007

Having been directly involved in the campaign of the landless rural poor in
agrarian reform over the last ten years, I want to share my personal and initial
impressions on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as it has been
implemented in the commercial banana plantations in Davao and Compostela provinces.

As the Chairperson of PhilNet-RDI in Mindanao, I greatly appreciate the

encouragement and support we have received from reform-minded elites in the
bureaucracy, both at the national and local levels, and from various Funding Agencies, in
the struggle for land and livelihoods of landless farmworkers in commercial banana
plantations. Having been exposed to some of the different struggles for land among the
landless rural poor in developing countries, I do recognize that despite some initial gains
achieved in the implementation of agrarian reform in our country, there is a need,
especially at this critical juncture of our history when the mandate for CARP’s
implementation is about to end by 2008, to take a closer look at how such program and its
implementation has been problematic in commercial banana plantations.

This is of course, not to downplay, the fact that some the officials in the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) have exerted considerable efforts to make CARP
meaningful for the countless potential and actual agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) in
commercial plantations. As a critical partner of the DAR in CARP implementation,
PhilNet-RDI has every responsibility and task, however, to view and scrutinize the
program and its implementation from the perspective of the landless rural poor. It is
toward this end that this paper has been prepared for this gathering.

The PhilNet-RDI is one of the many institutions that have been doing critical
engagement with the government in CARP implementation. And after ten long years, it
must continue to view agrarian reform vis-à-vis its intent to break land monopoly and
empower the landless rural poor both in the political and economic sphere of our society.
Our own experiences in working with the landless rural poor have been vital in allowing
us to learn and gather our lessons in the whole dynamics of agrarian reform
implementation. Having been partners with frontline organizations involved in the
struggle for land and livelihoods, we hope that as an institution we could offer more
critical insights as we all strive to turn good intentions and analyses into productive
actions in the near future.
The Workings of Agrarian Reform in Land Acquisition and Distribution

The real face of CARP implementation may be found not only in the mass of
information contained in voluminous reports of the DAR. Perhaps, more than what these
reports tell and claim, the situation of potential and actual ARBs at the grassroots level
could not be more revealing.

When we started organizing farmworkers in commercial banana plantations in

1997, we immediately pushed for the compulsory acquisition (CA) of landholdings that
had been subjected to deferment in land redistribution under CARP. Various violations of
landowners that range from massive eviction and retrenchment of farmworkers that are
potential ARBs to irregularities in the implementation of production and profit sharing
(PPS) have been highlighted to compel the DAR to cancel the deferment order issued in
these plantations and for the agency to subsequently and immediately issue Notices of
Coverage (NOCs) to landowners.

The issues raised however, did not move the DAR to immediately cover these
landholdings, nor to start their immediate documentation in preparation for their eventual
coverage and distribution. With this, coverage procedures in most banana plantations
began only after 1998 when deferment had ended. And since coverage and distribution
procedures take time, not withstanding the resistance and legal contestation filed by
landowners against the coverage of their lands, it comes without surprise that some
landholdings remain in the hands of landowners up to this day. Thus, deferment did not
truly end in 1998, but was in reality extended until such time that the ARBs took actual
possession of CARPed landholdings.

The surfacing of issues in the deferment of commercial farms did not prevent
various landowners from circumventing further the CARP and from having substantial
portions of their lands exempted or excluded from coverage. Most big landowners
appear to have fully utilized the exemption, exclusion and conversion provisions in
CARP to their advantage. Even the 5 hectare-retention limit provided for landowners
appear to have been fully violated through the use of dummies that appear as new and
legitimate landowners of lands previously owned by a big owner. The whole situation is
further complicated and made worse by landowners having preferred beneficiaries that
are close to their families over petitioner individuals or organizations. Add to this the
case of a landholding where a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) had been
issued by the DAR, and yet, the actual ARBs could not even take possession of the land
and has not been installed by the DAR until now.

To date, more than 19 years since the CARL was promulgated, the nexus of
control over some if not most of the big landholdings remain in the hands of powerful
and influential landowners in plantations. In some cases, it is only now or more recently
that the NOC had been issued to landowners or when the screening of potential ARBs
had taken place; and considering the pace at which coverage proceeds, not withstanding
the potential resistance and maneuvering of landowners in CARP, we wonder if these
lands will ever be truly redistributed to the potential ARBs. I guess something is terribly
wrong with the program and how it has been implemented.

In Davao and Compostela provinces where most plantations are situated, we have
the likes of Davao Fruits Corporation, Apokon Farms, Malon Farms and those of Twin
Rivers, where lands have not been redistributed. We have various other plantations where
landowners maintain control over landholdings well-beyond the 5-hectare limit. For one
reason or another, the technicalities surrounding the agrarian reform-related cases in these
areas continue to hamper the transfer of such landholdings to their beneficiaries. What is
more frustrating, however, is that some officials at the local DAR tend to use landowners’
resistance to CARP as a convenient, if not lame excuse, for not implementing the law in
favor of the landless rural poor. This makes us ponder all the more whether the law is
truly above anyone else, or whether the law serves as a convenient instrument only for
the rich and powerful in Philippine society. As it is implemented, I believe that we may
need to come up with a new program that could and would guarantee that “the law gives
more to those who have less in life!”

To further aggravate the problems of ARBs in plantations, land valuation of

landholdings subjected for distribution often reaches sky-rocketing prices. This is due to
the fact that apart from land valuation, crop valuation forms part in the total value of
lands targeted for redistribution. Considering for the purpose of argument that land
amortization is subsidized by the government, ARBs remain burdened by the high land
valuation in commercial plantations. To date, land and crop valuation (combined) in
commercial plantations has reached to more than a million pesos per hectare. With the
current losses experienced in the foreign exchange rates, and the continuing rise in prices
of agricultural inputs, the net profit derived by ARBs in banana production had been
dwindling over time.

Apart from financial considerations, land valuation and problems related to such
continue to cause delays in the acquisition and distribution of some commercial
plantations. Take the case of Davao Fruits in Compostela where access to segregated
production data have continuously hampered the Land Bank of the Philippines to issue
valuation to lands that had been petitioned for acquisition and distribution as early as
1998. Close to ten years after farmworkers and potential ARBs filed their petition in
DAR, not a single landholding has been acquired and distributed to beneficiaries.

Post-distribution Problems in Agrarian Reform

Agrarian reform offers incredible opportunities for ARBs to change their lives
and improve their conditions. Yet many of these beneficiaries appear to have more
problems now that they are the “owners” of these lands. Among plantations already
distributed to ARBs, the real issues surrounding agrarian reform is the real transfer of
control over these lands and the fair engagement with the market. While some
beneficiaries were able to forge production and purchase contracts with more independent
buyers and investors, most if not all of CARPed landholdings have existing contracts
with former landowners or with companies formerly operating in these plantations. To a
large extent, beneficiaries in these areas cannot exercise full control and management of
their lands.

In most cases, these contracts were forged prior to or alongside coverage and
distribution procedures crafted by the local DAR in the implementation of CARP in
commercial plantations. The whole wisdom of the DAR over such procedure was to
ensure that ARBs have a sure market for their produce upon the takeover of such lands.
Linking with market forces is necessary considering the nature of crops planted in these
landholdings. What is perhaps missing in the whole process is the opportunity given to
ARBs to entertain other buyers and companies that could offer better terms and
conditions in their contract. Thus, in the end, long-term agreements that often tie ARBs
with their former landowners prevail, with provisions in the contracts appearing to be
more favorable to the latter. As one of the ARBs in plantations mentioned: “How can we
possibly get out of the landowner’s hold when during the coverage and distribution
processes, the DAR made every move to ensure that they would still be there even after
we have taken over these lands?”

One problem in the implementation of CARP in commercial farms, however, is

that the government tends to assume that ARBs could manage on their own after lands
had been redistributed. Such assumption is dangerous given the current competency
levels of ARBs in managing their plantations. One must take note that most beneficiaries
were farmworkers that were specialized in certain areas of operations in banana
plantations prior to becoming beneficiaries under the CARP.

The increasing indebtedness of ARBs in plantations is a concrete and real

manifestation of such limitations, and the inefficiencies brought about by deficiencies in
management. If the government continues its complacency on these issues and continues
to assume that farmworkers could be turned into managers and entrepreneurs overnight,
these beneficiaries could soon find themselves on the brink of bankruptcy, or worse, they
may find themselves losing these lands to resource-able investors in the agricultural
export industry. The transfer of skills, technologies, information, and applied practical
knowledge remain a real need among ARBs in commercial plantations.

Having mentioned the constraints and problems confronted in the workings of

agrarian reform, is there hope for agrarian reform to propel the necessary changes in the
lives of the landless rural poor? We remain hopeful, and we continue to believe that
some experiences of partners demonstrate that under certain conditions, agrarian reform
could work.

There is hope in agrarian reform

Given the opportunity, people everywhere want to build a better life for
themselves and their children. That impulse, if given a chance under agrarian reform, can
contribute to a healthy and prosperous society. Agrarian reform could in more ways than
one become a vehicle for people empowerment and rural development.

Dominador Atucha is a small farmer that has been working on land for more than
two decades. Coming from a poor family in the countryside, he had to stop schooling in
order to help his family earn a living. He started with various jobs but later decided to
become one of the many “jornaleros” or seasonal farmworkers in banana plantations. In
the 1990s, he was employed as an agricultural worker in TS Arietta Farms in Kapalong,
Davao Province. With a minimum wage, he had difficulty meeting the needs of his
family and could hardly imagine if he could send his kids to college.

In 1997, Dominador decided to join ranks with fellow workers and formed the TS
Arietta Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (TSAFARBAI) in
order to engage the government in its agrarian reform program. Together with the
members of TSAFARBAI, they availed the services offered by PhilNet-RDI among
farmworkers and potential ARBs in plantations. They went through training and
education activities related to agrarian reform and prepared the necessary documents to
file their claims over the land they want to acquire. They had tacticising sessions on how
to approach their struggle and in partnership with PhilNet-RDI, they prepared their
organization for dialogues with the landowner and the DAR. Further, they built their
competencies on organizational leadership and development. These preparations were
instrumental in subsequent engagements with the DAR and the landowner.

The negotiations with the landowner were far from neat and smooth though. No
landowner owning vast tracts of land would definitely want his/her own land to be
covered by CARP, more especially if such landholding provides him/her substantial
income. There was resistance to land reform and TSAFARBAI had to remain strong in
their struggle for land and livelihood. Knowing that the struggle could be a long-drawn
battle with the landowner, TSAFARBAI continued to consolidate their ranks by holding
regular discussions among their members. These activities paid off as not a single
member decided to leave their organization despite some offers from the landowner.
Hence, organizational consolidation could be a key factor that could spell the success or
failure of an ARB organization.

After five long years of struggle, the TSAFARBAI was finally awarded their 15-
hectare land in 2002. But the group had to contend the challenge of not working on their
land for 90 days as the landowner was still given the grace period to harvest the fruits
from standing crops. Hence, the beneficiaries had to find ways to meet their daily needs
while awaiting their actual takeover of the plantation.

Without an income to use as initial capital for their operations, the group decided
to employ “bayanihan” system of work or unpaid labor in their land and survived on
loans from different sources. Their initial harvest allowed them to pay portions of the
loans they used to finance the daily needs of their members. After a few months, the
group was able to settle their obligations and had the resources to regularly provide
wages for their members. As a collective, the TSAFARBAI members also shared some
sort of dividends at the end of each year. Compared to when they were still ordinary
workers in plantations, the income derived from their collective undertaking is relatively
higher and could provide for the families of their members.

Further, TSAFARBAI and its members agreed to automatically deduct from the
earnings a specific amount for their land amortization despite the fact that the land
valuation case filed by the former landowner remains unresolved to this day. To ensure
that the organization would continue to have resources for their activities, portions of
their earnings were likewise deducted from the individual income of members. With a
simple and yet sound management of finances, Dominador’s group were able to create a
reserve fund for various activities and concerns of their members.

In 2006, after a careful scrutiny of their production, the group decided to go into
individual farming. The decision was in line with the desire of members to further raise
incomes by allowing each member to have a defined and specific landholding that they
could individually manage. They perceived this move as another attempt to allow every
ARB to employ his own system of farm management that he sees best for his land. With
their own funds, TSAFARBAI subsequently requested the DAR to individually segregate
their landholdings and issue individual CLOAs for each member.

To date, Dominador and every member of TSAFARBAI continue to employ their

own ‘system’ of management in their respective farms. Further, the Dole-Stanfilco issued
individual contracts to each one of them (thereby treating them as individual growers),
while maintaining payment for their produce to the whole organization. It is
TSAFARBAI that still manages their finances but incomes of members are distributed
based on their productivity. Thus, while individual farming provided the necessary
motivation for members to raise their productivity levels, the members maintain their
organization and observe all previous agreements in the management of their finances.

This arrangement has been instrumental in ensuring that the organization would
continue to function and exist despite changes in their farming system. Proof of this is
the result of renegotiations last year that allowed the group to press for better terms with
Dole-Stanfilco. To date, TSAFARBAI remains among the few ARB organizations with a
short-term and better contract with private companies. Further, TSAFARBAI managed to
bargain for buying price adjustments this year based on the tremendous income losses
resulting from changes in the peso-dollar exchange rates.

Agrarian reform has in more ways than one changed the lives of beneficiaries
belonging to TSAFARBAI. To top it all, there is newfound pride and dignity in the
members of TSAFARBAI. These gains prove that far from just being passive
beneficiaries of land reform, Dominador and his group actively asserted their rights to
land and strives hard to become responsible ARBs with various livelihood options. They
have shown that the rural poor can become active participants and stakeholders in the
whole process of rural democratization and development. They are among those
beneficiaries that provide hope and inspiration to the many landless rural poor that
continue to struggle for land and livelihood.
Agrarian reform could work when…

The story of TSAFARBAI is perhaps an exception rather than a rule in agrarian

reform implementation in commercial banana plantations. But their experiences tend to
point to some of the more critical lessons in policy implementation. Allow me to surface
some of the insights drawn from what could be crucial in agrarian reform.

First, autonomous organizations that are not beholden to landlords nor to the
Department of Agrarian Reform are necessary in any agrarian reform program. There are
cases when those organized through the initiatives of landowner or through those of the
DAR personnel in the field. While this could be perceived as a normal tendency in
reform implementation, it becomes a different story when the ARBs become beholden to
any of them. Compromises that appear more favorable to landowners tend to surface in
the whole process, with ARBs often in the losing end.

Second, a reform-minded bureaucracy that is bent on implementing the program

for the landless rural poor despite all odds remains an important factor in ensuring that
the benefits of reform accrue to its beneficiaries. Recognizing that policy implementers
could be influenced by groups that are often with conflicting and competing interests, a
bureaucracy that takes bias in favor of the rural poor could spell the difference in the
outcomes of agrarian reform implementation.

Third, free and fair engagement with the private sector is crucial in the economic
empowerment of agrarian reform beneficiaries. The whole point, I guess, is that ARBs
and small producers must be provided the opportunity to be exposed to the different
players in the market and not to be simply tied to companies operated by their former
landowners. Further, full access to information during negotiations tends to lead to fairer
and transparent engagement between small producers and private companies.

Fourth, maintaining and strengthening linkages for development cooperation with

various institutions and agencies. Agrarian reform and rural development cannot single-
handedly be pursued any group or institution.

Some Strategic Directions

What, then, should be the strategic direction of agrarian reform in the future?

Today, I will briefly highlight strategic themes in support of the goal of an

inclusive and perhaps a more sustainable engagement in agrarian reform and rural
development. One strategic direction that should be taken into consideration is
reforming or reframing agrarian reform such that it fits its social justice intention
alongside the pursuit of goals in rural development. The intent to break land monopoly
should be the foremost concern of agrarian reform when it intends to combat rural
poverty. I believe that while agrarian reform takes serious consideration of rural
development both at the national and local levels, access to land remains essential in the
pursuit of this economic goal.

In the months to come, the agrarian reform community will have to confront the
end of CARP’s mandate in 2008. Various and different groups have started to surface
their positions in this regard. First, there is a growing campaign among some groups
calling for the extension of CARP in order to consummate the distribution of more or less
one million hectares of agricultural lands to potential beneficiaries. But as its
implementation flaws and irregularities over the last two decades would reveal, this
position may not be too popular among civil society groups that have been directly and
indirectly involved in its implementation.

Some others are seeking amendments to the existing law in order to come up with
more progressive provisions that could somehow remedy the deficiencies in program
implementation. These groups are further divided into those that simply want to revise
the existing law to those that push for framing an entirely new legislation that could
somehow approach a genuine agrarian reform in the country. This could mean the
passing of a proposed bill that is more radical than the existing one. While such would
definitely invite tremendous opposition in the halls of Congress, this group believes that
such could be the only way to approach agrarian reform in the future.

Despite differences in opinion and perspectives, the general direction of the various
and different positions appear geared toward reframing policy revisions that have been
highlighted in discussions at the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ICARRD) in Porto Alegre last March 2006. In this regard, agrarian reform
and rural development must be geared toward policies that:

• Are people-centered and gender sensitive, addressing people’s own priorities and
building on and strengthening their own assets, capabilities and livelihood
strategies;

• Are based on rights, within the context of national laws and customs;

• Recognize the diversity of socio-economic population groups, their different and

sometimes conflicting interests and needs, and their differential access to power,
and explicitly redress power disparities, with particular consideration for the poor,
through good governance and mechanisms for conflict mediation;

• Adopt a coherent approach that integrates across multiple sectors, stakeholder

groups and levels, including urban-rural linkages, through a territorial perspective;

• Promote land policies that provide improved access to land and security of land
rights for the rural poor;

• Support national institutions and programmes of land administration that ensure

fair and secure rights to land;
 • Provide appropriate incentives for public and private services to operate effectively
in rural areas, including adequately staffed and funded decentralized capacities to
implement policies and programmes that offer positive discrimination in favour of
the poor; and,

• Are vigilant to the effects of globalization, to exploit opportunities and mitigate

negative effects, especially on the vulnerable, poor population groups. National
and local policies on agrarian reform and rural development must recognize the
need for explicit measures to ensure food sovereignty, small scale family
agriculture, secure and remunerative employment for the landless rural poor, social
justice, cultural diversity and the right to food;

The landless rural poor cannot simply wait for government to respect, promote and
fulfill their rights to land and livelihood. Far more crucial in these policy directions are
social mobilizations and collective action that could challenge the government’s political
will to provide long-term commitment and adequate resources to design and implement
policies, legislation and programs that consistently promote equity and social justice and
discriminates in favour of the poor. The current government must be pushed to implement
necessary political reforms that could enhance public participation in governance and
provide a more enabling environment that promotes public confidence in investments for
development, public order and peace, in order to ensure that development is economically,
socially and environmentally sustainable.

Another strategic direction that could be taken in the pursuit of agrarian reform and
rural development is fine-tuning development cooperation to allow different investments to
accrue in favour of the rural poor. This must take serious consideration of the various roles
that institutions play in rural democratization and development processes. In the
experience of reform implementation in commercial banana plantations, and perhaps in
areas planted to other crops, the role of government institutions and market forces are
crucial in pursuing the economic empowerment of small producers. The whole intent is to
draw-in the confidence and resources of various institutions and organizations toward
propelling rural development by enhancing productivity among reform beneficiaries.

Toward such end, it is crucial that the convergence among actors and stakeholders
in agrarian reform and rural development take a direction that:

• Increase investment and provision of essential technologies, infrastructure

(including water management), production inputs and markets, services, education
and training to improve land and labour productivity in order to increase incomes
and reduce poverty;

• Are supported through adequate financial resources (both public and development
assistance, as well as progressive land taxation if appropriate) and private sector
investment, at the appropriate national or decentralized levels;
 • Promote awareness of the crucial importance of appropriate public, civil society
and private sector institutions, at different levels, for implementing agrarian reform
and rural development policies, and provide the incentives and capabilities for
establishing/strengthening horizontal and vertical mechanisms for dialogue and
partnership between such institutions;

• Strengthen the capacities of producers’, workers’ and community-based

organizations, cooperatives and other civil society organizations, to be more
inclusive of the poor, know their rights and responsibilities so they can hold public
services accountable, engage in dialogue and negotiations with policy makers on
key policy and legislative issues affecting the welfare of their membership, and
provide their members more effective production, processing, marketing or
financial services to enhance incomes;

• Generate more agricultural and non-farm employment through a variety of policy

and programme measures that stimulate agricultural productivity growth and the
linkages between agriculture and the local rural/urban economy within a territorial
perspective, as well as through direct investment or financial support;

In closing: Voices from the Ground

Today, Dominador lives as one of the few agrarian reform beneficiaries that truly
exercise his right over land. He continues to farm. His wife tends the store, feeds
chickens and pigs, and attends to the household needs of their family. Their eldest child
is a degree holder already; another one is about to graduate from college and the rest all
go to school. Dominador told us:

“Our lives used to be a hand-to-mouth existence. But now that we have access
and control over our land, we are self-reliant, and can educate our children. We now
have the confidence that we can climb out of poverty.”

Dominador’s story and that of TSAFARBAI surfaces our day-to-day efforts to

create new possibilities for the landless rural poor. Their story echoes the compelling
need for a more dynamic intervention and cooperation that could connect the rural poor
to people, institutions, ideas and opportunities. Much has changed, and much more could
change for the rural poor when they take active part in rural democratization and
development.