Carlo's Think Pieces

Reflections of a Filipino in the Netherlands

Archive for the ‘Pasali’ Category

Poor Farmers Appeal for a Tractor

Posted by butalidnl on 7 December 2015

Palimbang (in Sultan Kudarat province) is a very poor town, with up to 45% of the people living below the poverty line. Its people have become poor because of war, and had lost hope.
The people of Palimbang have suffered a lot as a result of the Moro wars. The fighting made them evacuate repeatedly; harvests failed resulting in debts and eventual loss of the land. Also, a lot of land was left idle.
Since 2005, Pasali has been working with the people of Palimbang. It has undertaken projects in which Christian settlers, Moro, and indigenous Manobos worked together on projects to improve their lives. Pasali has set up water installations in some communities, helped Manobo children go to school, organizing the rice farmers into associations, and trained them on improved agricultural techniques. It also runs a modest pool of farm machinery: two hand tractors and a rice thresher.
Pasali has introduced the technology of SRI (System of Rice Intensification) which uses 50% less water, organic fertilizer and natural pest control; which costs less and has resulted in richer harvests. This would result in higher net incomes for farmers, and potentially could lift many of them from poverty.
In 2011, the Palimbang Tri-people Organic Farmers Association (PTOFA), asked Pasali to help them acquire farm machinery. Specifically, they needed a Tractor and a Rice Harvester, which can work on at least 125 hectares of land. The machines will be managed by PAIS (Pasali Agricultural Innovations and Services), PAIS is a social business, which will reinvest all of its profits in expanding its services. PAIS will train and manage the tractor operators, and ensure that it is maintained properly.
The combination of agricultural machinery and SRI technology will raise the yield per hectare from 40 cavans for traditional methods (which is what many poor farmers use) to 120 cavans (which PAIS has already attained on land it directly manages).
We are appealing to you to help acquire the Tractor for the poor farmers of Palimbang. Every contribution will help, no matter how small (minimum contribution is 5 Euros, but of course it could be more).
The Project’s link is at
https://www.pifworld.com/en/projects/FarmersoutofPovertythruMachinery/2357
Stichting Pasali

Advertisements

Posted in Pasali, Philippines, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Raising Farmer Incomes through Farm Machinery

Posted by butalidnl on 6 August 2014

It sounds simple: provide farmers with machines that will increase their yields, and their incomes will rise, lifting them out of poverty. Unfortunately,  it is a bit more complicated than that. There are several reasons why the Philippine government and most NGOs are reluctant to provide farmers with large-scale farm machinery.

One problem, it seems, is that it is difficult for farmers to properly manage high-capacity machines. High-capacity machines like tractors require a high level of organizational efficiency and discipline. Since a tractor could plow large swaths of land (up to 300 hectares), there would inevitably be a mad scramble for its services; and cooperatives could not service all requests.  Ensuring that qualified people operate the machine at all times is also difficult. Also, if the tractor is given (for free) to a cooperative, the cooperative will tend to charge too low prices for its use; leading to problems in financing repairs and eventual replacement.
In other countries, cooperatives mostly bungled the management of farm machinery.

Alternatively, the government could take direct charge of the machines (as was the case in the Soviet Union). This solution was often quite unsatisfactory; it led to enormous bureaucratic bottlenecks and massive corruption.

Then, there is the reluctance to displace farm workers who would otherwise do the work. On close examination, this is only partly true: machines (e.g. tractors) would mostly replace draft animals like the carabao. Moreover, the logic of ‘providing employment’ is illusory. If agricultural development is held back by the lack of machines, farmer incomes would stagnate and even decrease, resulting in many farms being left idle. And this results in less work for farm workers. On the other hand, farm machinery would need workers to operate and service them; and the increased production as a result of the machines will stimulate farmers to bring more land into production. Increased farmer incomes would lead to other agricultural activities e.g. vegetable growing, poultry raising,  which are quite labor intensive.

International NGOs have another problem with mechanization – machines are seen as polluters, producers of greenhouse gases. Carabaos are seen as more ‘green’. It is true that machines do use diesel or gasoline, and emit carbon dioxide; but the carabao also emits methane when it farts.

These considerations has led to an unsatisfactory compromise: the goverment and NGOs give farmers lower-capacity farm machinery, like hand-tractors and threshers. These machines increase productivity a bit, and result in some additional lands being tilled. This choice does not displace labor; and farmer associations and cooperatives can manage these machines. The main benefit will be that more lands could be tilled and more palay harvested (which is the Philippine government’s main aim); but the productivity per hectare (which more directly affect farmer income) does not improve significantly.
On the environmental angle, though, the policy is not good: a tractor can do the work of 5 hand-tractors; but 5 hand-tractors use more diesel than one tractor.

In contrast, some corporations are directly addressing the need for farm mechanization. Their strategy is is to contract land from farmers, and then use large scale machinery and modern production methods to reap abundant harvests. In terms of increasing productivity, this formula is a big success. In terms of raising farmers incomes, though, it is much less spectacular.
A big advantage is that farmers are assured a steady income independent of the uncertainties of the crop cycle. But on the other hand, the rent that the corporations pay to the farmers will most likely remain the same over the years – not raising in step with the increase in harvest, or with inflation. Also, the control over the land effectively passes on to the corporation.

PAIS (Pasali Agricultural Innovations and Services) is a social business active in Region 12, and in particular the town of Palimbang, in Sultan Kudarat province. It proposes yet another approach: provide the services of large-scale agricultural machines, while it teaches farmers improved techniques of planting rice, and organizes them into clusters/associations/cooperatives.  PAIS calls this its Farm Machinery Pool (FMP) project. As a social business, PAIS does not need to make a profit for private shareholders, and recycles all its profits into expansion and social services. The PAIS FMP will provide services of Tractors, Planters and Harvesters – which, in combination, will significantly increase harvests and lessen production costs. Its rates will be relatively low, and the services will be gradually expanded to service more and more farmers. And, the farmers will retain control over their land; which means that they will benefit directly from the increased harvests.
At present, PAIS installs water systems in highland areas all over Mindanao. It will launch with its Farm Machinery Pool in the last quarter of 2014. PAIS is the social business arm of Pasali; its NGO sister organization is the PPF (Pasali Philippines Foundation).
See also: Pasali: Bringing Peace and Lifting Families out of Poverty

 

 

 

Posted in environment, Pasali, Philippine economics, Philippines | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pasali: Bringing Peace and Lifting Families out of Poverty

Posted by butalidnl on 31 December 2013

This post is about Pasali, an organization which works in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao. It is active in 7 municipalities and 1 city in the southern Mindanao, but is most active in one particular town – Palimbang, in the province of Sultan Kudarat, where it does almost half of its work.

Palimbang is a town that is different from most other Philippine towns. For starters, the majority of its population is Muslim, and that in itself is unique, since only 5% of Filipinos are Muslim (81% of Filipinos are Roman Catholic, and 10% follow other Christian religions). Palimbang lacks roads, electricity, and even mobile phone access – very un-Philippines. To make things worse, about 45% of the people live below the poverty line – making it one of the poorest provinces in the Philippines.

Palimbang is special in another way – it is the cradle of the Muslim rebellion (which started in 1972, and has not quite ended). Major battles raged there between the rebels and the government military till less than a decade ago; hostilities continued till 2011.
Palimbang has a Muslim majority, but it has a substantial Christian minority. They were in a state of armed ceasefire with each other (always at the brink of hostilities) when Pasali started its work there in 2004. And both Christians and Muslims looked down on the Manobo tribespeople living in Palimbang’s hills.

Businesses and government development bodies avoid Palimbang like the plague. And so do NGOs. Except Pasali. In 2004, Pasali moved in (it had been founded in 1994 in Rotterdam, as a group of Filipino seafarers which pooled their financial resources for themselves, and for Philippine projects). Pasali started by forcing the Muslims and Christians to work together to build its Technical Center – and promoted cooperation instead of hostilities. Since there was no school serving the Manobos in the hills, Pasali launched a program of having Muslim and Christian families host Manobo children, who were able to then go to school in the lowlands.

Ten Years Later
Now, after almost ten years of work in Palimbang, many people in Palimbang are still quite poor. However, Pasali has improved the lives of many in various ways:
The Muslims and Christians work together in various ways – they help each other till their fields, are organized into mixed associations and cooperatives, etc.
The Manobos, from being despised by Muslims and Christians, have become valued members of the community. The Manobos now ‘export’ corn and vegetables which is sold all over Palimbang. And many families have close relationships with Manobo children, from many years of serving as host families for them.
Pasali installs water systems (including the revolutionary Hydraulic Ram Pump, which pumps water uphill – up to 200 meters vertically – without using a motor). This has brought water to hilltribes all over Mindanao island. But almost as important is the fact that Pasali’s water technicians started off as boys from the area; and they were child soldiers before becoming water technicians. These water technicians are now role models for the youth of Palimbang – children used to look up to rebels as role models, now their role models are Pasali water technicians, or farm machinery operators.
Pasali has a rudimentary Farm Machinery Pool, which has simple machinery that are used by rice farmers. This not only helps the farmers, but offers employment to local youth.

Reducing Poverty
Now that Pasali has brought peace and cooperation among the ethnic groups in Palimbang,  Pasali is setting its sights on lifting its population out of poverty.  It has some projects in this direction:
Farm Machinery and Improved Farming Methods. Pasali is promoting SRI (System of Rice Intensification) which increases rice yields with lesser inputs (uses organic fertilizer, but no herbicides and very little pesticides, less water, less seeds). This, in combination with farm machinery (Pasali hopes to raise money for these in the coming year), would effectively double their harvests, and lift them out of poverty.  This will be done in batches of 250 families at a time, over a two year period.
Reforestation and the Planting of Rubber Trees. The hills where the Manobo highlanders live are bare – they had been cut clean by successive logging companies in decades past. They want to restore their forest and also plant rubber trees to augment their income.  Pasali has made a start, by planting 20 hectares of rubber trees in the last two years. It plans to plant up to a total of 200 hectares to rubber in the coming years, as well as to restore up to more than 3500 hectares of native forest.

I believe that Pasali does quite good work. It is able to do a lot with modest resources; but could do a lot more if given more support. While helping one town (Palimbang, population of 115,000) in the Philippines (population of 105 million) seems like a drop in the bucket; Palimbang is one of the most difficult places to work in the whole country. If Pasali succeeds in Palimbang, it will mean a lot for lifting other poor communities in the country. After all, if they could succeed in Palimbang, others could succeed everywhere else in the Philippines.

See also: Pasali Philippines Foundation

Posted in Overseas Filipinos, Pasali, Philippine economics, Philippine politics, Philippines, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Remittances, Development and the Way Forward

Posted by butalidnl on 12 June 2013

This paper was prepared for the conference “Building Bridges: Diaspora for Business and Development”, held in The Hague, The Netherlands on 8 June 2013

Never before has ‘Migration and Development’ drawn a lot of attention from Dutch politicians. Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Minister Ploumen recently presented to parliament the policy paper ‘What the World Deserves: A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment’. The minister stated that migrant organizations (MOs) have a useful function in poverty alleviation efforts through remittances, in their networks and knowledge of local conditions. The minister included MOs in the policy dialogue on migration and development, and financed their ‘development-relevant’ projects. Migrants can also, according to the Paper, contribute to the development of their countries of origin by, among others: contributing financially to projects that develop specific regions; establishing enterprises that create employment and economic development; and by being deployed as migrant experts.

The Dutch government’s starting point is that remittances are private, and that governments should not interfere with how these remittances are used. The World Bank has a more nuanced standpoint regarding this.  According to them “Remittances sent home by migrants to developing countries are equivalent to more than three times the size of official development assistance (ODA) and can have profound implications for development and human welfare. Remittances can contribute to lowering poverty and building human and financial capital for the poor.” [1]
There is thus more than enough reason to take a closer look at remittances.

Remittances

Remittances are, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), personal transfers consisting of all current transfers in cash or in kind made, or received, by resident households to or from other non-resident households.

Most remittances are used for food, clothes, school fees and medicines, thus increasing their recipients’ access to basic social services. Remittances are also invested in the private sector, particularly in houses and plots. There are both positive and negative effects of remittances. On the positive side, remittances are known to reduce poverty, increase savings, increase investments in human capital and increase recipient countries’ access to international credit markets. Most importantly, remittances are often counter-cyclical in the sense of increasing when other investments decline (e.g. in times of conflict, economic recession and natural disasters, where immediate assistance is needed).

On the negative side, remittances are known to cause inflation, increase imports and create dependency among their recipients. In some situations remittances may contribute to or prolong state fragility, as their macro- and micro-economic importance gives legitimacy and stability to fragile states that are in need of political and economic reform. Remittances also often increase differences between those with and without access to remittances, and in this sense may cause or increase social tensions and conflicts. Moreover, the flow of remittances is known to lead to more out-migration. [2]

Migrant remittances has emerged as a significant source of finance for many third world countries, surpassing the inflows of ODA, and increasingly also that of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).  At the same time, remittances are more complicated, because these are basically personal transfers of money and are not easily tapped for development projects. In this paper, we will put remittances in the context of the situation in the Netherlands, examine the ways in which remittances have been mobilized for economic development, and outline some future steps.

Table 1. Migrants in the Netherlands, 2012.

 

Number of persons

Percentage of the population

x 1000

%

Total

16,730

100.0

Indigenous Dutch

13,236

  79.1

Migrants from Western countries

  1,557

    9.3

     including: Polish

     101

    0.6

Migrants from Non-western countries

   1,938

  11.6

    Turkish

      393

    2.3

    Moroccans

      363

    2.2

    Surinamers

      347

    2.1

    Antilleans

      144

    0.9

Other migrants from non-western countries

      691

    4.1

Source: Central Bureau for Statistics, Year Report Integration 2012, December 2012

As of 1 January 2012, migrants compose 20.9% of the total population of 16.73 million people in the Netherlands, with 11.6% coming from non-Western countries and 9.3% coming from western countries. Among the biggest groups of migrants are those of German (377 thousand) and Indonesian (378 thousand) origins. Both countries have a long migration history to the Netherlands. The Turkish (393 thousand), Moroccans (363 thousand) and Surinamers (347 thousand) continue to be the biggest number of migrants coming from non-Western countries.

Table 2. Destination of Remittances from the Netherlands, 2011. Amounts are in US$ millions.

Country

Remittance

……..

  Country

Remittance

Belgium

1159

 

Indonesia

500

Germany

447

 

Morocco

431

France

230

 

China

280

Spain

155

 

Nigeria

152

Poland

104

 

India

93

United Kingdom

80

 

Thailand

58

 

 

 

Philippines

53

US

52

 

Turkey

51

The data for this table came from the World Bank, Bilateral Remittance Matrix, 2011.

Total remittances from the Netherlands in 2011 amounted to $4842 million. Of this, roughly one half went to EU and other developed countries, like the US. The remittance totals for Belgium and Germany are, to a large part, due to salaries of people who live there but work in the Netherlands.

The amount remitted to Turkey seems unusually small, given that it has a rather large migrant community (393 thousand).  It has dropped precipitously from 2000, largely due to the reclassification of the expenses of migrants while in Turkey from ‘remittances’ to ‘tourism revenues’, as well the conversion of money from foreign currency accounts to local currency. Other factors include: family reunification has lessened the number of beneficiaries; integration of Turkey with EU banking system; second and third-generation migrants have less inclination to remit.[3]

Remittance Flow Dynamics

The more migrants a country sends out, and the higher their income,  the more they would tend to remit. This is a very general ‘rule’, but there are more factors that affect the amount of remittances. From the IOM:  “Drawing on the existing literature, Spatafora (2005) lists five  broad groups of external variables that could affect remittances:
a. Economic activity in the host country, improved economic conditions in the host country allow existing migrants to send more remittances and may also trigger greater emigration from the home country, increasing future remittances. An economic downturn would have the opposite effect.
b. Economic activity in the home country. Negative economic shocks in the home country may encourage existing migrants to send more remittances and push more people to migrate.
c. Economic policies and institutions in the home country. The presence of exchange rate restrictions and black market premiums or general macro-economic instability may discourage migrants from sending remittances, or shift away from formal channels.
d. General risks in the home country. Political instability, including low levels of law and order and risks of expropriation, may discourage remittance.
e. Investment opportunities. Higher potential returns on host country assets may induce migrants to invest their savings in the host country rather than remitting them home.” [4]

Table 3. Remittances from Selected Countries from 2005 to 2011. Amounts are in US$ millions

 

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Netherlands

5928

6610

12635

14914

10526

9462

10974

Belgium

2754

2699

3202

4048

4238

4152

4574

Germany

13148

13081

14521

15701

16171

15058

16677

Spain

8136

11326

15191

14826

12751

12244

12904

Greece

902

982

1460

1912

1843

1932

1941

UK

3877

4732

4834

4637

3400

3439

3256

US

46293

49656

51654

54399

51639

51597

51592

The data for this graph was taken from the World Bank  Remittance Data Outflows, 2013. [5]

The economic crisis since 2008 has had only a limited effect on remittances from Europe (see Table 3). Remittances decreased in 2009 (for Germany, the decrease was in 2010) in most cases by only a small amount. The decrease in the Netherlands and UK were more significant.  [Since the data is only until 2011, it does not reflect a possible bigger drop in Spain and Greece in 2013.] Across all countries, total remittances as a result of the 2008 crisis decreased by 5.5%, compared to a 40% drop in FDI. This shows that, while economic recessions would negatively affect the level of remittances, they usually do so only slightly and temporarily.
Remittances can generally be classified into two kinds: ‘family support’ remittances which are for regular family expenditures (e.g. consumption, education), and ‘discretionary’ remittances which are driven by investment or altruistic motives.  Migrants who are: irregular workers, earn lower salaries, or have a spouse and family in the home country, tend to have more family support remittances; while those who are: regular, earn higher salaries or do not have a family to support in the home country tend to have more discretionary remittances. But, these are only generalizations; the reality is that most migrants have a certain mix of both types. Family support remittances are quite stable, while discretionary remittances are more sensitive to overall economic conditions.
Discretionary remittances make up 20-30% of total remittances. They are particularly interesting for those who want to maximize the use of remittances for investments or development projects. But migrants who primarily send family support remittances also send discretionary remittances and could also be encouraged to pool their limited resources together with other migrants, in order to make investments.

Government Attempts to Utilize Remittances

The governments of remittance-receiving countries have tried, over the years, to maximize migrant remittances for ‘development’. Among the steps taken were[6]:

Selling ‘development bonds’ to migrants. A number of governments offered migrants bonds (e.g. ‘resurgent India bonds’) with special features e.g. tax-free status, preferential interest rates, preferential exchange rates. While there were enough people availed of these bonds, they mainly catered to the higher-income, higher educated migrants, who already remitted via formal channels. Criminals and corrupt officials also used these bonds to launder their money.

Matching Fund Programs. The shining example of this is the Tres por Uno program for Mexican migrants in the US. Every dollar raised by Mexican Home Town Associations (HTAs) in the US for projects in Mexico, was matched by one dollar each from the federal, state and local governments of Mexico. In 2005, Mexican migrants collected $20 million for development projects, and the Mexican government matched this with $60 million. The collective remittances of Latin American HTAs account for 1% of their total remittances.

Investment Incentives.  The governments of India and Pakistan had programs that provide incentives e.g. preferential access to foreign currency and capital goods  for migrants who invest in backward areas and export processing zones. The drawback of such schemes is that they encouraged capital-intensive production in the midst of high unemployment.

Abolishing Exchange Controls. The most successful ‘scheme’ in terms of increasing remittances is the abolition of foreign exchange controls. In 2002, the Philippines quadrupled its formal remittance receipts by abolishing exchange controls. Other countries have similar experiences.
Reforms that make it easier to set up and run new businesses, as well as a flourishing economy have also increased remittances for investment.

The Way Forward

Even though the sending of remittances is a private matter between a migrant and his/her family, there are measures that could be taken to promote an increase in the proportion that is invested in community projects or businesses in the country of origin.
The role of governments should be more in creating an enabling environment that promotes the growth of remittances and their use for national development, instead of actively trying to channel remittances. Other actors could be more effective in channeling remittances.  Migrants themselves, individually or through their organizations, should be more in the center of efforts to better channel their remittances.

Remittance Fund Diaspora Business Centre (DBC).  The Diaspora Business Centre is an initiative that seeks to raise public and private resources for a Diaspora Remittances Fund (DRF). The DRF gives poor and disadvantaged people in migrants home countries a prospect for economic self-sufficiency; it also offers undocumented migrants and rejected asylum-seekers a chance to voluntarily return to their country and to start their own business.
The DRF concentrates on countries of origin of the diaspora and projects that aim for economic self-sufficiency. The DRF works with projects in the informal and primary sectors, with specific attention to attaining food security. It does two things: provide financial support, as well as technical guidance and support to capacity-building. This is why the DRF is forming a pool of diaspora senior experts that would advise businesses in developing and emerging countries. In this way, the DRF stimulates entrepreneurship, self-reliance and sustainable development of Small and Medium scale Enterprises (SMEs) on location. Through concrete advisory projects in the workplace by these professionals,  businesses could build up their expertise and to prosper in the local economy.

Support for Migrant Organizations’ Community Projects. Migrant organizations often support community projects in their countries of origin. Governments of host countries as well as the home countries could support these initiatives.  France has a Co-Development program which provides technical and financial support to migrant organizations (especially those from Mali, Mauritania, Morocco and Senegal) in their development activities.  The Mexican government provides counterpart funding for projects by Home Town Associations. Non-government organizations could also support MO’s projects. It is also important to have programs to strengthen the capacity of the MOs to pursue such projects.
The Dutch government should expand its program of providing matching funds (directly or indirectly) to migrant organizations’ projects in their countries of origin.

Financial Literacy Trainings[7]. These trainings could be given both to migrants in the host country, and to their spouse and family  in the home country. Giving the training to migrants would put them in a better position to manage their finances, which would hopefully result in them increasing their savings and the capacity to remit. Giving the training to the spouses of migrants would enable them to better manage the remittances that they receive.
Migrant organizations could conduct these trainings in host countries, while migrant-related NGOs could do this in home countries. These trainings have been proven to be effective at the level of the migrant; however, the challenge is to give these to enough migrants in order to make a significant macro effect.

‘Pasali Method’. One problem with remittances is that they tend to exacerbate income differences within the receiving country – within regions, and even within a community. This is because communities and households which have many migrants benefit, while others (which are poorer to begin with) do not. Pasali has set up a Social Business in a backward community in the Philippines (which does not benefit significantly from migrant remittances). It will soon offer to Overseas Filipinos ‘participations’ or discrete investment packages which will yield yearly returns. Migrants who invest in these participations would have their profits deposited with a Philippine bank account, which will then mostly go to their relatives. Thus, they will indirectly be able to help their relatives by first investing in a backward area somewhere else.
A prerequisite for this is that there should be an efficient banking system in the country, especially for inter-regional cash transfers.

SME-Migrant Organization Partnerships. Migrant organizations, either by themselves or in partnership with SMEs in their host or home countries could set up businesses. Individual migrants could participate in these businesses through ownership of shares or through ‘portfolio’ investments with these companies. A necessary condition for this are that laws and regulations do not hinder migrants from starting businesses.

‘Virtual Return’. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has a program called ‘Migration for Development in Africa’ which is a capacity-building program that facilitates the transfer of skills and resources from the African diaspora to their countries of origin. It includes a program for temporary or ‘virtual’ return where migrants contribute their skills without endangering their host-country residency status.

This program recognizes the potential of, and utilizes, migrants’ skills, and not only their of cash remittances.

References

Migrants’ Remittances and Development: Myths, Rhetoric and Realities, by Bimal Ghosh,  International Organization on Migration. 2006.

Migratie en Ontwikkeling: Beleidsevaluatie van het Ne derlandse Migratie en Ontwikkelingsbeleid sinds 2008, by Bram Frouws and Ton Grimmius. for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2012.

Migrant Remittances and Development Cooperation. by Jorgen Carling, Peace Research Institute, Oslo. 2005

World Bank Migration and Remittances Data.
– Remittance Data Outflows, April 2013
– Bilateral Remittance Matrix 2011

Carlo Butalid, for the Dutch Consortium of Migrant Organizations (DCMO)

8 June 2013


[1] World Bank website Migration and Remittances

[2] DIIS Policy Brief Fragile Situations

[3] Microeconomic Determinants of Turkish Workers Remittances: Survey Results for France-Turkey. By Elif Unan, May 2009.

[4] Migrant Remittances and Development Myths, Rhetoric and Realities, IOM

[5] The remittance figures in Tables 2 and 3 both come from the World Bank, but the Bilateral Remittance Matrix table used for Table 2 uses a stricter definition of remittances than the Remittance Data Outflows table which was used for Table 3.

[6] IOM, Migrants Remittances and Development: Myths, Rhetoric and Realities.

[7] A useful reference on this is FReDI ‘Financial Literacy for Remittances and Diaspora Investments’, by GIZ

Posted in migrant, Pasali, politics, The Netherlands, World Affairs | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Planting Trees

Posted by butalidnl on 18 March 2012

President Aquino issued on 4 March 2011 Executive Order 26 – the National Greening Program (NGP), an initiative to plant 1.5 billion trees by the end of his term in 2016. This would serve to absorb carbon dioxide. Many people have declared that this target is unachievable. Perhaps. But I think it would be good to at least try.

Valuable Trees
Previous tree planting schemes have indeed succeeded in planting trees; only to have the trees cut down by the same farmers who planted them. This is because they had been paid only to plant the trees. After planting, the trees themselves meant nothing to them; they were more valuable cut than left standing.

The key to a succesful tree planting, or forest preservation, program will be making sure that the trees are more valuable to the farmers when they are left standing that when they are cut.

Forest Wardens. One method would be to hire the farmers as forest wardens tasked to guard the forest. Better still, the whole community is given money to maintain the forest, as well as the right to exploit its resources (e.g. gathering etc). This does not include cutting the trees, of course.
This method is effective especially in cases where there is an existing forest. The wardens will guard against people who cut the trees there.

Commercial Trees. Planting trees with commercial value to the farmer e.g. rubber and fruit trees, is another way of reforestation. When these trees are planted, the farmer gets a continuous benefit from them. They will not only NOT cut down these trees, they will defend them with their lives (figurately, we hope).

Partnership with NGOs, Social Enterprises
The government could not plant a billion trees all on its own. Despite its resources, there are limits to government’s ability to mobilize grassroots groups and adapt to the local situation in so many places. Government will need to cooperate with civil society organizations. These organizations would be in a better position to relate with and mobilize communities to participate in the program.

Pasali, an NGO in Region 12, cooperates with the government (at all levels) as well as with grassroots cooperatives and IP tribes. It will mobilize all these to participate in a tree planting program. It plans to plant a million or more trees in the coming nine years, or till 2020 (and, if it receives foreign support, it will plant much more than that). Similar organizations in other regions will greatly speed up the implementation of the government’s ‘billion tree planting program’.

Indigenous Peoples
A big proportion of the areas where the trees could be planted are occupied by Indigenous People (IP) tribes. The government should improve the status of IP ownership of this land, specifically in their applications for CADT (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title). If the IPs are ‘sovereign’ over their lands, they will be in a position to take better care of them.

Food security and the use of proper technology are also important. In Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat, Pasali provided a Manobo tribe with a portable corn miller, as well as improved their technology for planting corn (SCI – System for Corn Intensification). As a result, this tribe is now self-reliant in food. They also now have a policy against the commercial cutting of trees.

A million trees is not much compared to a target of 1.5 billion trees, but at least it is a concrete target that helps achieve it.

Posted in environment, Pasali, Philippine economics, Philippines | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »