In\na forum on the role of consumers in agroecology, Commission on Human\nRights (CHR) Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) Center\nAssistant Chief Klarise Espinosa stressed that the right to food is\nrecognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and\nCultural Rights (ICESCR). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article\n11 states that \u201ceveryone has a right to an adequate standard of\nliving… including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the\ncontinuous improvement of living conditions.\u201d As duty bearers,\ngovernments are expected to make sure that the right to food and the\nfactors enabling it are realized, clarified Espinosa. The ESCR Center\nis currently reviewing to what extent the Philippine government\nfacilitates and provides sustainable, available, and accessible food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nICESCR underscores that the right to food is linked to having decent\nliving standards and the availability of essential needs, services\nand utilities for an individual and families. For campaigners of\nPeople Economics, asserting the right to food is inextricably\nconnected to the people\u2019s struggle to realize their rights to\nproduce food and other basic needs, to industrialization, to a\nnurtured environment, to the comprehensive range of working people\u2019s\nrights, to progressive fiscal systems, and to economic sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Right\nto food challenged<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe Philippines, the government gives only token attention to the\nright to food, as well to the rights to an adequate standard of\nliving, services such as health and education, and even to utilities\nsuch as water and electricity. Neoliberal policies have also kept the\neconomy backward and underdeveloped, thus leaving the environment in\nbad shape, and affecting the availability of safe and sufficient\nfood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nPhilippine government\u2019s food threshold is very low and set at a\nmeasly Php50 per person per day. But the Philippines should not have\nto be counted among the top countries with moderate to severe food\ninsecurity and high levels of malnutrition as per the food and\nAgriculture Organization (FAO) had the government not abandoned and\nliberalized agriculture, IBON Research Head Rosario Guzman said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ncritical state of our natural food sources, namely Philippine\nagriculture and the environment, is due to government neglect and\nmispriorities. This helps to explain why Filipinos\u2019 access to safe\nand sufficient food is problematic. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nagriculture sector, which produces our food, lost 1.4 million jobs\nfrom 2017 to 2019, or even before the pandemic. The sector\u2019s\nannual growth was only at 2.1% on average in the same period and its\nshare in the economy has reached its smallest in Philippine history\nat 7.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019. Combined agriculture\nand agrarian reform budgets were at their lowest in 21 years being\nonly 3.6% on the average also from 2017-2019. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe middle of the pandemic, government even defunded agriculture\nfurther with a meager 1.5% allocation in the 2021 budget. This pales\nin comparison with the agriculture budgets of rice-exporters Vietnam,\nThailand, and Indonesia, which are at 6.3%, 3.6%, and 3.3% of their\nnational budgets, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Land\ndegradation and land use conversion have also disrupted the\necological balance and affected food systems. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ncountry\u2019s forest cover is now down to only 23.3% of the country\u2019s\nland area which, according to environment scientists, is ecologically\nunhealthy. They say that the country\u2019s geography and terrain should\nsustain a 54% forest cover. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nuse of inorganic chemicals and input-dependent crop varieties\nmeanwhile has caused severe erosion in 70.5% of the country\u2019s land\narea. Moreover, land conversion for corporate agriculture, cash\ncrops, real estate and infrastructure has also added to ecological\ndisruption. The current administration is for instance pushing for\nalmost one million hectares of oil palm plantations in Mindanao. Its\nBuild, Build, Build infrastructure projects, including the Kaliwa,\nKanan, and Laiban Dams, threaten to destroy communities, livelihoods,\nfarms, forests, and water sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hunger\nand government\u2019s unsustainable ways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Philippine\nagriculture is in contradiction as a food system, affirms Dr. Charito\nMedina of the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng\nAgrikultura (MASIPAG). Farmers and fisherfolk producing food, he\nsays, struggle to eat, and are the poorest sectors with 36% and 34%\npoverty incidence, respectively, according to official 2018 poverty\nstatistics. Land planted to food kills instead of extending life\nbecause it is heavily infused with chemicals. Agricultural lands\nproduce not for people but for big business in the case of feeds and\nbiofuels production. Food wastage is high. Ultimately, corporations,\nnot farmers, control and profit from agriculture. Government policies\neven prioritize importation and cash crops for export instead of\nstrengthening local food production. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rural,\nurban, and indigenous folk affirm how government policies have made\nfood more difficult to both produce and avail. Zen Soriano of the\nAmihan National Federation of Peasant Women (Amihan) said that during\nCOVID, farming communities are practically being hamletted during the\nlockdown. This makes it difficult for farmers to transport their\nproduce and for farmworkers to transfer from one planting area to\nanother. There are even cases when peasant missions to deliver food\naid were terrorist-tagged. She also said that the rice liberalization\nlaw has caused palay prices to fall and millers to close down. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mimi\nDoringo of the urban poor group Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap\n(Kadamay) meanwhile said that for families whose breadwinners lost\ntheir jobs or are in precarious work amid the coronavirus crisis,\nmore expensive food and services make it more difficult to cope.\nKakay Tolentino of the BAI Indigenous Women\u2019s Network agreed that\nmany government policies have interfered with indigenous people\u2019s\nfood systems in ancestral lands, from the commercialization of palay<\/em>\nseeds to destructive mining, export crop plantations, ecotourism\nprojects, and militarization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These\nare happening while the pandemic crisis batters especially millions\nof the poorest and informal workers. The widespread distress is\ndriving calls for heightened aid, food security programs benefiting\nall marginalized sectors, junking rice liberalization, and a halt to\ncorporate landgrabbing and the commercialization of land and crops.\nStrategically, the calls are for land reform so that tillers can make\ntheir land productive and benefit from this, and for a healthy and\nrobust environment that is not being maimed in pursuit of so-called\ndevelopment that only benefits a few. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Call\nto consumers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As\nrights holders, consumers can establish solidarity with producers and\nthemselves begin sustainable practices in producing and consuming\nfood. They can demand the production of and access to safe and\nsufficient food. Consumers need to also thwart the corporate\nonslaught on agriculture. Consumers can assert not only the right to\nfood but the right to produce it, and other economic, social and\ncultural rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Solidarity\nwith producers can range from forming relationships to directly\nprocure local farmers\u2019 produce and help raise farmers\u2019 incomes,\nto standing with farmers in their campaigns for land and life. While\nmaintaining this connection with local producers, consumers can also\nengage in urban farming to grow what they eat and eat what they grow.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\ndemanding the production of and access to safe and sufficient food,\nconsumers can call out government neglect of the country\u2019s own\nproduction sectors. They can push for ample budget allocation to\nagriculture and industry, free land distribution and stopping land\nuse conversion, and boosting local production by giving farmers\nfinancial and infrastructure support. They can push government to\nprocure local produce and to ensure local stocks for adequate supply.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consumers\ncan demand that the price of food be reasonable. They can demand\nsubsidies in times of crises and emergencies such as during the\nCOVID-19 pandemic. There are so many households, displaced workers,\nfarms and small businesses in need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ncorporate onslaught on agriculture and on Filipino producers and\nconsumers also has to be thwarted for local production systems to\nbreak free from big business and foreign profit-driven objectives.\nThis means saying no not only to the highly chemical and artificial\nfarm inputs detrimental to the soil and the people\u2019s health, but\nalso to all policies that prevent Philippine agriculture from\nflourishing into the nation\u2019s giver of food and material for\ndevelopment. This means saying yes to Filipinos\u2019 indigenous,\ntraditional ways of farming, while improving food and agricultural\nprograms towards being ecologically sound, scientific and sustainable\nconduits of progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n * \u201cThe Role of Consumers in Agroecology\u201d was co-organized by the Samahan at Ugnayan ng mga Konsyumer para sa Ikauunlad ng Bayan (SUKI), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), IBON, and the AgroecologyX Network<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" FEATURES<\/p>\n The corporate onslaught on agriculture, Filipino producers and consumers has to be thwarted for local production systems to break free from big business and foreign profit-driven objectives. Philippine agriculture can then flourish and contribute to the nation’s needs and development through ecologically sound, scientific and sustainable practices.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":10370,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"single-withbanner.php","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_expiration-date-status":"saved","_expiration-date":0,"_expiration-date-type":"","_expiration-date-categories":[],"_expiration-date-options":[]},"categories":[1,2048,3],"tags":[2370,347,494,223,493,2002,2374],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10369"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10369"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10373,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10369\/revisions\/10373"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}