Various government agencies and departments claim they know best.

The coconut farmers, however, have their own ideas on how to help themselves: “It’s the Foundation, stupid.”

Of birds and fishes 

Way back in the nineteen sixties, some urbanite cultural workers were simply fascinated with the peasants’ explanation of class society.[1]

“One of the first things you must realize,” Mang Juan, a peasant leader said, “is that we live in two different worlds. It is as if you live in the world of the birds of the air, and we in that of the fishes of the sea. 

“When birds move,” Mang Juan continued, “they, of course, move fast because they fly. On the other hand, when we fishes move, we move relatively slower because we have to swim in an ocean. 

“And so it sometimes happens that some birds wish to do good to us from the height in which they fly. Condescendingly they’d say, ‘Mr. Fish, progress. Move like I do – this way and that way – so you could move faster.’ 

“We fishes, of course, cannot follow because we have to move in this ocean of usury, and no-access, and other unjust forces. 

“But the birds continue with their instructions from above: a pilot project here, and another one there – crash programs that always crash till suddenly the birds, too, lose their patience and they start shouting at us.

“ ‘You fishes, you don’t progress at all; you are still poor and destitute, because you are lazy, you are superstitious and resistant to change.’ 

“Very few of the powerful and the educated (so-called) will come into our world and see the reality of our problems and aspirations from our point of view. They say that the fish’s point of view is a narrow view. We feel, of course, that the fish’s viewpoint may yet be the broadest inasmuch as it is the view of the broad masses of people. 

“Furthermore, with few exceptions like you, the birds always tend to fly so high that they cannot see the fish at all. All they can see are the big shadows of their wings and the comforts of the atmosphere. 

“Some of us are amused over this situation because it often strikes us as a case of trying to be wiser than God. He did not consider his divinity or superior status as something to cling to. Rather, as the Bible says, He emptied himself and became one of us, took our viewpoints, and our language and only then tried to transform us.” 

A Presidential Task Force (PTF)

No, not by law (neither an R.A. nor an E.O. nor even by the humbler A.O.)[2] but by a mere staffer’s initiative, namely, a Memorandum dated 19 May 2011, issued by Julia Abad of the Presidential Management Staff, a task force was created to come up with a concrete policy plan for the coco levy funds “to avoid a policy lacuna” before the Supreme Court decision became final and before San Miguel Corporation  (SMC) exercised its buy-back option. The coco levy funded shares in that profitable company had been converted from common to preferred and would be bought back for some seventy billion pesos, all told.

Well, the SC decision is now final, and SMC has bought back the concerned shares. The Bureau of the Treasury took the cheque. Doing nothing, it should be earning now a minimum of three million pesos daily. All these billions, said the Court, are not private but public funds – owned by the government for the exclusive benefit of all the coconut farmers and the development of the coconut industry. Thus, public as these funds are, the court clearly viewed government ownership in this case as not absolute and general but special and in the nature of trust or stewardship – for the true beneficial owners, namely, all the coconut farmers, and for the purpose of developing the coconut industry. The government is trustee owner while all the coconut farmers are deemed beneficial owners.

The task force, one immediately noticed, included all the birds of the air and none of the fishes of the sea. From their high perch, the former could not see the latter. Well, they did have a feeling that the farmers were there somewhere – poor, pitiful, deprived and oppressed.

Didn’t the PTF acknowledge “70% of poor Filipinos are located in the rural countryside? Among the rural poor 60% reside in coconut-producing areas… Of the country’s 3.5 million coconut farmers, 1.9 million are farm workers, subsisting on roughly PhP41.00 per day.”[3]

So, then, the PTF wants to make it their “overall objective to uplift the quality of life of coconut farmers on a sustainable basis based on key indicators like (1) increased incomes, (2) good health, and (3) well-trained and capacitated coconut farmers, and economies of scale.” Undoubtedly, the bird’s eye point of view is very sharp, indeed.

And as they contemplated the shadow of their wings, they asked: Why don’t we introduce “(1) agro enterprise development for small coconut farmers, (2) land tenurial security through CARPer, (3) social protection programs such as expanding the DSWD SEA K and cash for work programs in coco areas through planting and replanting and (4) institutional reforms…from the barangay to the provincial level?” 

Again, it was very clear that the PTF merely reflected the bird’s eye point of view. The different agencies and departments in the “team” were not bashful about merely reiterating their pet peeve projects so as to augment them some more with coco levy funds whether it was legally and morally right or wrong to do so or not.

They are hell-bent to use these funds “to fast track land reform in coco lands” by focusing on “CARPer’s biggest Land Acquisition and Distribution Balance at 355, 730 hectares.” They found the bucks. Billions of pesos are no longer a problem. They would not hesitate to transmute trust funds to the purposes of the General Appropriations Act for DAR and DSWD and DA and NAPC and what have you. This after all, if they have their say, should now be considered the road map toward reducing poverty in the 609 poorest municipalities of which 493 are coconut-producing townships. The PTF was quite explicit:  “Funding from the road map shall be derived from coco levy funds.” 

And how much money are we talking about?  In the PTF’s Option A of Poverty Reduction Roadmap of Coconut Industry, Minimum for Agro-Enterprise, Agrarian Reform, Social Protection, Institutional Reform and Monitoring and Evaluation is a Minimum Grand Total of Php 10.6 billion up to 2016  is requested,  or  Option B a Medium Grand Total of Php15.2 billion up to 2016 is requested, or alternatively Option C a  Maximum Grand Total of Php 45.8 billion up to 2016 is requested.

Most interesting of all is the request of 10% of total program costs for monitoring and evaluation.  Yes, indeed, for monitoring and evaluation they want to have 4 billion pesos max, 1.3 billion pesos medium and 970.20 million pesos minimum. What great opportunity here for politically rewarding and economically unproductive activities – hereinafter dubbed monitoring and evaluation! Oh how high our birds aim to fly. 

The Fish’s Point of View

On October 23, 2012, a letter was sent to Philippine Coconut Authority Administrator Euclides Forbes from Ka Charlie Avila of the Philippine Coconut Farmers’ Congress 

In the name of the three largest national Coconut Farmers’ Organizations, namely, the Philippine Association of Small Coconut Farmers Organizations (PASCFO), the Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawa sa Niyugan (PKSMMN), and the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) that recently held the First Philippine Coconut Farmers’ Congress, thank you so very much for honoring our gathering with your active presence, and encouraging all of us with your very positive remarks and commitment.

As you well know, the main thrust of that congress was the passage of a unanimously agreed-on resolution calling on the government for the passage of a law that would establish a Philippine Coconut Farmers’ Foundation as the administrative mechanism for the management of a proposed Philippine Coconut Development Trust Fund out of the coconut levy funds and assets. In that proposed foundation, only the PCA was endorsed by our congress expressly for the government side.

In the afternoon session of that congress Malacanang sent PCGG Chairman Andres Bautista to engage us in dialogue and clarification of our demands. It was agreed that while the farmers would not settle for anything less than a new law (a Republic Act) on the subject, as outlined in their Manifesto, the time element for immediate passage could be problematic. Speaking for Malacanang, Chairman Bautista asked us if we were amenable to the PCA being in charge of levy funds prior to the passage of our desired law? We were loud and clear that in fact only the PCA currently had the legal mandate in that regard and we expressed our confidence and trust in the present leadership of the PCA.

So, then, Chairman Bautista reiterated that we had therefore reached an agreement – the farmers and Malacanang: the latter would certify our proposed bill as urgent, and we would in the interim warmly welcome the leadership of PCA in the matter of the levy funds utilization – the PCA, yes, and not just any other government agency or department. But the farmers’ congress also passed a resolution that urged government, as per legal provisions, to appoint three representatives of the farmers’ organizations to membership in the PCA Governing Board.

This brief letter, kind Administrator, has its larger and deeper context in the manifestations and discussions the farmers’ congress signed in form of a Manifesto: “The Farmers’ Manifesto for Justice and Prosperity in the Coconut Industry” – a copy of which we are greatly honored to furnish you for the perusal of the Philippine Coconut Authority and as the farmers’ own contribution to the road map you have drawn for the total development of the Philippine coconut industry – with the admirable and express open-mindedness on your part to hear our side.

Lastly, please allow us to hope and pray that, for the sake of the farmer and the industry, President Aquino will not tire of putting his trust and confidence in you, and that you continue to take our offer of cooperation as sincere and true.

Farmers and PTF are in agreement

The Farmers said in their Manifesto: “Clear as the Supreme Court decision is on the dual ownership of the levy funds (who is the trustee, for whose benefit, and to what purpose), it does not provide for an administrative mechanism to ensure that the funds are managed prudently and properly as intended by law.

“The decision does not provide guidelines for the management and use of the coco levy funds for the benefit of the coconut industry and the coconut farmers.

“This is a dangerous situation for the coconut farmers who bore the burden of the coconut levy.”

For its part the PTF said: “There is a need for the government to en sure a sound mechanism for the custody, utilization and management of the coco levy funds.”

The Farmers said in their Manifesto: “In fact other sectors have started posturing to get their hands on the coconut levy funds. Worse, these ‘other sectors’ and agencies are not even connected in fact or by law to the coconut industry, and their proposed use of the funds is not necessarily for the benefit of the coconut industry and the coconut farmers.

“So, from the Supreme Court the action must now go to the legislature of the government via a strong and urgent certification by the executive branch for the passage of a remedy, using if need be the instrumentality of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).”

For its part the PTF said: “The PTF is in agreement that a Republic Act is the most prudent course of action to create a permanent trust fund for the coco levy funds.” And it also talked about getting a “Bridge Executive Order” while the law has not yet been passed but to cover only the earnings that were in escrow till the finality of the SC decision – which the farmers could easily agree to. 

Farmers Insist

That there is a great need to constitute by law the coconut levy funds and assets into a Coconut Industry Development Trust Fund (CIDTF) and provide the administrative structure, also by law, that will manage the trust funds and ensure that its use will benefit all the coconut farmers and the coconut industry.

That structure unanimously proposed by this Farmers’ Congress is a Foundation to be called the Philippine Coconut Farmers’ Foundation (PCFF).

The Foundation will have 51% government and 49% farmers’ voting rights expressed in a governing Board that has fifteen (15) trustees, eight (8) of whom shall represent the government sector provided that the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Administrator shall be a Trustee, and seven (7) of whom shall come from the coconut industry sector provided that the three largest nationwide coconut farmers organizations, namely, the Philippine Association of Small Coconut Farmers Organizations (PASCFO), the Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawa sa Niyugan (PKSMMN), and the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation,Inc (COCOFED),  shall have one nominee each.

The 8-7, 51%-49%, government-farmer ratio is consistent in applying the dual ownership of the funds: public, yes, but with sure farmer participation as guarantee for the proper stewardship of these trust funds.

The corporate powers of the PCFF shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of the Foundation controlled and held by this Board of Trustees whose term of office will be for six years, receive no salary but board meeting per diems only, and hire officers and professional management to assist them in the stewardship of these public trust funds.

For its part the PTF said:  “The constitution of the body designated to manage and utilize the funds should be as follows –

“(a) Four representatives from government, viz. DA/PCA, the Sec of Finance, the Sec of NAPC, and the Sec of DAR;

“(b) One rep from the finance and banking sector, expert in banking and trust management;

“(c) Five representatives from coconut farmers’ organizations

“(d) Two representatives from the CIIF group.”

The farmers in riposte say: “The constitution of the body is fine and negotiable so long as the dual character of the ownership of the coco levy funds per SC doctrine is upheld, namely, the funds are owned by both government (trustee) and farmers (beneficial owners) not just in a transitory committee but through a permanent Foundation precisely to guarantee that these public trust funds will never again be diverted to purposes other than originally intended when the coconut farmers were being bled dry by this taxation in those years.”

Road Map to the Self-Empowerment of the Coconut Farmer and the Development of the Coconut Industry

In general the fund should be used for the following ten purposes:

1) Promote the steady, accelerated and orderly development and vertical integration of the coconut industry; right now it often looks like we do not have a coconut industry so much as coconut anarchy;

2) Develop and establish coconut based farming systems including but not limited to the establishment of model coconut farms; each hectare of coconut land has normally about 0.8 hectare more to spare for high value synergistic intercrops which must be utilized;

3) Hasten rural industrialization in the coconut industry and the diversification and proper utilization of coconut products and by products; we should no longer be hang up on copra, an intermediate non-product, but we should rather have centers for both food and nonfood uses of the coconut’s numerous high demand products and byproducts;

4) Promote the effective utilization and marketing of coconut products and byproducts in the domestic and foreign markets and preserve the competitiveness and reliability of the country as a major producer and supplier of these products;

5) Increase production by expanding the planting and replanting program of coconut trees in strategic areas identified as having the most potential;

6) Conduct scientific researches and investigations in all areas pertaining to agricultural, industrial, marketing and socio-economic aspect of the coconut industry and encourage the participation of small farm holders in research and technology;

7) Encourage and promote the organization of coconut farmers cooperatives, associations, and organizations and provide them grants, credit and financing schemes;

8) Generate and disseminate information and communication to farmers, producers and other sectors to ensure the appreciation and adoption of appropriate technology and practices, inventions, as well as the proper awareness and correct understanding of issues and development in the coconut industry;

9) Finance the developmental/operating expenses of legitimate/recognized coconut farmer organizations including projects such as scholarships for the benefit of deserving children of the coconut fanners and the establishment of coconut seedling nurseries and the farmers planting/replanting program;

10) Finance social services for the coconut farmers for their mutual assistance, protection and relief in the form of social benefits, such as life, medical, and accident insurance coverage of the coconut farmers. FINIS