Government\u2019s\nlong-time neglect of the country\u2019s agriculture sector has been\ndisastrous to small producers. The recent series of super-typhoons \u2013\nQuinta, Rolly and Ulysses \u2013 has highlighted this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe\ncountry\u2019s geophysical characteristics as well as geographic\nlocation make it exposed to natural hazards. What makes it extremely\nvulnerable to risks is government\u2019s lack of relevant policies to\nstrengthen the agriculture sector and the larger economy, including\npolicies and practice of disaster risk reduction and management\n(DRRM). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fresh\ndamage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According\nto a combined\nbulletin<\/a>\nby the Department of Agriculture-Disaster Risk Reduction Management\nOperations Center (DADRMMOpCen), Quinta left damages to agriculture\namounting to Php2.7 billion, with a volume production loss of 149,475\nmetric tons (MT) in Regions I, II, III, CALABARZON, MIMAROPA, V, VI,\nand VIII. This affected 57,858 farmers and fisherfolk with 96,474\nhectares of agricultural areas. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Still\nreeling from this devastation, the regions again felt Rolly\u2019s wrath\nand sustained Php5.79 billion in damages and losses affecting 48,682\nfarmers and fisherfolk in 127,298 hectares of agricultural areas. The\nvolume of production loss was at 177,091 MT. The National Disaster\nRisk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC) further reported<\/a>\nthat Rolly damaged 170,773 houses and infrastructure worth some\nPhp12.9 billion. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then,\nUlysses happened<\/a>,\nleaving 73 dead, 24 injured, and 19 missing in Regions II,\nCALABARZON, V, and CAR. Damages to agriculture are estimated to be\nworth Php4.2 billion, to infrastructure some Php6.1 billion, with a\ntotal of 67,391 houses partially or totally destroyed. Affected<\/a>\nwere 102,500 farmers and fisherfolk in 99,660 hectares of\nagricultural areas. Production loss in commodities including rice,\ncorn, high value crops, fisheries, livestock and poultry, irrigation\nfacilities, and agricultural infrastructures was estimated by the DA\nto be at 167,385 metric tons (MT). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some\n62,220 hectares planted to rice alone sustained damages and losses\namounting to Php1.98 billion with volume of production lost at\n124,437 MT. Some 14,132 hectares planted to high variety crops (HVC)\nareas sustained Php907.7 million worth of damages with volume of\nproduction lost at 35,487 MT. As for areas planted to corn, up to\n23,308 hectares were affected, with volume of production lost at\n7,461 MT amounting to Php371 million. In the fisheries, some Php712\nmillion was lost in terms of affected fin fish, milkfish, hito,\ntilapia, <\/em>carp, crabs, and\nprawns. Livestock and poultry sustained Php51.69 million in damages\naffecting 72,146 heads. Some Php11.9 million were damaged or lost in\nterms of irrigation and agriculture facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quinta\nand Rolly damages and losses totaled to Php8.46 billion affecting\n106,540 farmers and fisherfolk in 223,772 hectares. Volume of\nproduction lost reached 326,566 MT. Combined\nestimates<\/a> of damages and losses in the Philippine agriculture\nsector due to typhoons Quinta, Rolly and Ulysses are estimated<\/a>\nto have reached some Php12.4 billion to date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ndevastation in agriculture was also grave particularly for\nCatanduanes province, a top producer of abaca in the country, which\nis second biggest world producer of the cash crop. According to the\nPhilippine Fiber Development Authority (PhilFIDA), the province\naccounted for 30% of the country\u2019s annual abaca output. But then\nRolly battered Bicol and other abaca-growing regions \u2013 CALABARZON,\nMIMAROPA, and Eastern Visayas, resulting in Php1.2 billion worth of\nfarm damages. The 30% decline in abaca output due to the typhoon as\nper the estimate of PhilFIDA would land at only 50,000 metric tons\n(MT) of produce, the crop\u2019s lowest in 20\nyears<\/a>.\nUsing PhilFIDA estimates of Php1,000 income for every 10 kilos\nharvested, this decline is equivalent to a Php2.1 billion loss in\nfarmers\u2019 incomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\npreparedness?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Government\u2019s\nDRRM plan, actual implementation, recovery strategy, and even budget\nallocation of calamity funds are all telling – there is little\nacknowledgment of the Philippines being a calamity-prone country. It\nis no basis to say that the country is indeed disaster-prepared. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nPhilippines ranks 9th<\/sup>\namong countries with the highest disaster risk index according to the\nWorld Risk Report of 2019. An average of 20 tropical cyclones enter\nthe Philippine area of responsibility annually. Yet the budget\nallocation for disaster risk reduction in 2020 of Php16 billion\ndeclined from the already meager Php20 billion or 0.5% share in the\n2019 national budget. The NDRRMC is again set to get Php20 billion in\nlump sum calamity funds in the 2021 national budget. But it remains a\nmere 0.4% of the total budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Components\nof the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP)\n2011-2028 are: disaster prevention and mitigation, disaster\npreparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery and\nrehabilitation. This should mean building massive evacuation and\nshelter infrastructure, for instance. This should also mean making\navailable competent education, health, and housing, and providing\nsufficient energy, water, communication and transport mechanisms that\ncan withstand any weather hazard. For a largely agricultural country,\nit should also mean the availability of crop insurance, food stocks,\nproduction support at all times, whether or not during recovery, and\nother measures that ensure farmers, fisherfolk, and farmworkers\u2019\ncontinued sustenance when calamities strike. Neither the NDRRM Plan\nnor the DARRMOpCen explicitly mandate these as part of the mitigation\nand preparedness steps of DRRM. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nNDRRMC reported Php115 million worth of assistance provided to\nUlysses victims. The DA assured Php400 million in Quick Response\nFunds and Php300 million worth of emergency loans with zero interest\nand no collateral, payable in 10 years under the Survival and\nRecovery (SURE) Loan Program of Agricultural Credit Policy Council\n(ACPC) for\nfarmers and fishers affected by Quinta and Rolly<\/a>.\nThe agency has also assigned the Philippine Crop Insurance\nCorporation (PCIC) to provide insurance protection to farmers against\nlosses arising from various calamities. Those insured under the PCIC\nare set to receive Php10,000-15,000 in insurance claims for damaged\nfarm equipment, fishing boats, and gear. But this measure is\npremium-dependent and ties impoverished farm producers to\nindebtedness. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n PCIC\ncoverage is quite limited and leaves millions of agricultural\nproducers behind. PIDS explains that the amount of cover is based on\nthe cost of production inputs specified in the farm plan and budget\nsubmitted by the farmer upon application of insurance. Insurance\npremium rates vary based on the type of insurance cover, risk\nclassification, type of farmer, and type of insurance cover availed.\nPremium for high value crop insurance is solely shouldered by the\nfarmers, ranging from 2-7% of the total sum ensured. Premium rates\nfor fisheries are solely determined by the PCIC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According\nto latest available Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and PCIC\n2018 figures cited by the Philippine\nInstitute for Development Studies<\/a>,\nonly 2.2 million farmers in 1.8 million hectares are insured. This is\na small number compared to the over 10.9 million farmers, farmworkers\nand fisherfolk in the government\u2019s Registry System for Basic\nSectors in Agriculture or RSBSA. It was also noted that while a huge\nchunk or 1.1 million of listed farm parcels reported by the Census of\nAgriculture and Fisheries (CAF) were less than 0.5 hectare in size,\nthe penetration rate of the PCIC in these holdings was quite low\ncompared to parcels of bigger sizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Long-time neglect of agriculture<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even\ngiven the backdrop of being a natural hazard-prone nation, government\naction for the farming and fisheries sectors has long-been either too\nlittle or too detrimental. Weather disturbances have even gotten\nworse over the years due to climate change, increasing further havoc\non the country\u2019s agriculture communities. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Philippine\nagriculture is in crisis<\/a>,\ngrowing at an average 2.1% in 2017-2019, its slowest pace after 70\nyears of growing at 3.5% annually on the average. In the same period\nthe sector lost over one million jobs. In the third quarter of this\nyear, the sector grew only by 1.2%. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\n2018, the country\u2019s agricultural trade deficit was the largest in\nhistory, and in 2019 the Philippines began importing its staple food\nrice. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n However,\ndespite the sector\u2019s decline and disaster vulnerability, the budget\nfor agriculture and agrarian reform averaged just a measly 3.6% of\nthe total national budget annually from 2017-2019. This has been\nreduced further to 1.7% in 2020 and 1.6% for 2021 under the Duterte\nadministration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Calamity-battered\nBicol<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \nAn\nexample of the vulnerability and crisis of the country\u2019s\nagriculture is the Bicol region. The region is prone to natural\ncalamities such as typhoons, volcanic eruptions, drought and\nflooding, almost on a yearly basis. It is among the areas whose\nagriculture sector was hard-hit by the recent consecutive typhoons.\nThe several calamities that have torn through the region in recent\nyears resulted in billions of pesos in agricultural damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These\ninclude, for instance, tropical depression Usman which left Php1.6\nbillion worth<\/a>\nof agricultural damages in Bicol at the end of 2018. Typhoon Tisoy,\nwhich hit the country in early December 2019, resulted in over\nPhp1.7 billion worth<\/a>\nof agricultural\ndamages in the region, affecting its major crops. Bicol\u2019s\nagriculture has also suffered crop losses from the El Ni\u00f1o drought\nlast year and its abaca sector\u2019s battle with the Abaca Bunchy Top\nDisease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nregion\u2019s agriculture sector is now reeling from damages wrought by\nQuinta (Php395.8\nmillion<\/a>),\nRolly (Php3.6\nbillion<\/a>),\nand Ulysses (Php168.5\nmillion<\/a>).\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bicol\u2019s\nabaca and coconut industries have not yet recovered from the havoc\nwreaked by Typhoon Tisoy. In the second quarter of the year, coconut\nproduction and abaca production both registered negative growth rates\nof 8 and 4 percent, respectively, from the same period last year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBuild\nBack Better\u201d vs. inclusive response<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nregion\u2019s disaster risk reduction bodies undertook early warning\nmeasures such as preemptive evacuation and advanced harvesting during\ntyphoons Usman and Tisoy. In a way, mitigation was leveled-up. Yet,\nthe Bicol Region\u2019s agriculture sector, as with the rest of the\ncountry\u2019s, was left vulnerable to destruction. The DADRROpCen\npractices the integration of DRR measures in the plans of government\nagencies. But like the NDRRMC plan, it is weightier on response,\nrelief and recovery rather than building the core capacity of the\nagriculture sector. Making it flourish and able to stand on its own\nis not part of the plan. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nbottomline of the Philippines\u2019 disaster risk reduction plan is the\nglobal-inspired \u201cBuild Back Better\u201d which has been used in\nvarious calamities worldwide but saw big contractors and businesses\ntaking the upper hand in rehabilitation and recovery. This is instead\nof focusing on really strengthening communities per se in terms of\nensured rights to basic needs including food and jobs, adequate\nstandards of living, a balanced ecology, ample services and\ndevelopment. These would be what will forge the capacity to withstand\ndisasters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe case of agriculture, policies destroy rather than hone the\nsector\u2019s own contribution to building this capacity. Decades of\nsubscribing to global market dictates have crippled the agriculture\nsector and reduced it to being a supplier of cash crops, now being\nenhanced by the Plant, Plant Plant program. The National Land Use Act\nwill accelerate the conversion of agricultural lands into commercial\nones. Rice import liberalization meanwhile is destroying farmers\u2019\nincomes with falling palay prices and results in the shutdown of\nmills. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Through\nthese policies, the government pushes Philippine agriculture off the\ncliff and keeps our farmers poor and vulnerable to calamities.\nGovernment lacks the sense of urgency to aid the calamity-stricken\nagricultural producers and only promises some farm inputs and limited\nfinancial assistance, not to mention in the form of burdensome loans.\nThis jives with its non-interest to develop the sector other than for\nwhat the global market needs it to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nonly way the country can really be disaster-prepared would be if risk\nreduction and response followed a comprehensive plan across\npre-calamity and calamity scenarios. This needs to start with\nstrengthening the heart of the economy and that is Philippine\nagriculture and manufacturing. Agriculture\nprograms from the most token to those that destroy the industry and\nFilipino producers\u2019 livelihoods must be stricken out especially\nliberalization and commercialized\nand profit-oriented insurance\nand credit-facilitation. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Land\nshould be free for the tillers and not converted to non-agricultural\nuse; the decision on how to make it productive theirs; give them\nsubstantial farm subsidies and direct farm facilities, machine and\ninputs support; and ensure their social protection. Especially during\na pandemic such as the one that grips the nation and the world now,\nsustained financial assistance and direct support for producers is\nvery much in order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Governance that decides to sovereignly boost agriculture this way will be the same one that will forge policies and infrastructure for domestic industry, a healthy environment, people\u2019s rights, and funding development, which are certain foundations of people-centered disaster preparedness. ###<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Features | Focusing on really strengthening communities: ensuring rights to basic needs including food and jobs, adequate standards of living, a balanced ecology, ample services, and development, would be what will forge the capacity to withstand disasters.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":10532,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","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":[2048,3],"tags":[1588,179,2422,175,347,2419,2421,494,223,2420,2401],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10531"}],"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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10531"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10531\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10550,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10531\/revisions\/10550"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10532"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}