Malaya (02.25.10) “If we will not rely on proven science, are we now into voodoo?“ Bananas and Rice by Ducky Paredes Government agencies ought to help and protect industries that give employment and bring in funds for the country. They ought not to cooperate with outsiders who are out to destroy the Philippines. The Department of Health recommend on November 23, 2009 that Agriculture Secretary Arthur C. Yap issue an order banning aerial spraying. The Commission on Human Rights also advised President Gloria Arroyo to do the same thing. Prior to this, there was a pseudo-investigation on the matter by a Dr. Allan Dionisio, who looked into aerial spraying. Many of his findings were outright lies. He reported persons who had died from aerial spraying who showed up at forums held by the local governments to discuss his “findings.” Why would government functionaries stick out their necks to back an unscientific study that would have killed off a 40-year old industry that has succeeded in making a $800 million niche for itself in the fruits export market. It employs thousands of workers and has brought progress to rural areas in Davao and neighboring provinces. Both agencies cited Principle 15 of the Rio declaration issued by the United Nations Conference and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Principle 15 reads: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” It must be pointed out to government that this principle says that “lack of scientific certainty” is no reason for not doing anything drastic. If we will not rely on proven science, are we now into voodoo? No wonder that experts in international law and those in the scientific community believe that the principle takes away the burden of proof from the person who makes the accusation. In pushing for their call, both government agencies relied on the precautionary principle of Rio by claiming that the 2006 study on Camocaan, a village in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur, serves as a foundation for banning aerial spraying. But, wasn’t that the study where Quijano of the Pesticides Action Network claimed that several people were affected with illnesses due to aerial spraying which turned out to be lies? Both the Quijano report and the data in the 2006 DOH study were questioned not just by local experts; even the World Health Organization (WHO), in its peer review, branded the study as inconclusive. In the case of the Health department, it was not clear whether it was able to establish the “threats of serious irreparable damage” as specified in the principle considering that the very study that it commissioned was done to suit its campaign to ban aerial spraying.. Banning aerial spraying based on the precautionary principle without a strong foundation will not only result in an “irreversible damage” to an industry that has been providing livelihood to thousands of ordinary people, it is also a violation of due process. Besides, all over the world, banana plantations use aerial spraying to control fungus in bananas, Why ban aerial spraying in the Philippines, when it is not banned elsewhere in the world? A ban would totally destroy an export industry that been a total winner for this country over the last 40 years. * * * From someone I consider as our resident reader-rice expert comes this note: “The NEDA rice issue must be addressed. NEDA announced some 250,000 MT of rice imports for the private sector on top of the 163,000 MT last week-approved f0r the NFA. “In ten months of monitoring , NEDA has not publicly disclosed its position if any, on rice importation; 1.8 MMT in 2007, 2.4 MMT in 2008, imperative all the more as 2.1MMT were conducted on G to G mode, and the recently concluded 2.3MMT , a combined tonnage of 6.5MMT, estimated at $3.9 Billion or P182.0 Billion. “On the 17th, the NFA confirmed that ‘we have enough rice, imports not needed,” and the following day, this report: ‘During a visit to Davao City yesterday, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told reporters that the country need not significantly hike its importation of rice and other staples amid the dry spell. “[The Agriculture department] said food supply will not be affected [by El Niño]. It is the income of the farmers that might be affected, so we have to look at that,’ she said. “So, the NEDA announcement is surprising, coming on the heels of our President’s message. As the additional tonnage is duty-free, is the NEDA’s role confined to this privilege, and rice imports subject to a 40-percent tax is out of its responsibility? Is there a looming rice shortage? Under what conditions was the NEDA approval made and under what conditions were the rest decided? Is the tonnage in compliance with a Minimum Access Volume (MAV) for rice under an international trade agreement? NEDA must explain! We thirst for the truth! “On the 22nd, it was comforting to hear three optimistic senior officials, DA Undersecretary Joel S Rudinas, DA National Rice Program Director Frisco M Malabanan, and NIA official Antonio S Nangel. “Mr. Malabanan said our rice farmers can produce 17.4M tons still up from 16.2 MMT in 2009. “The actual impact on the ground was not yet big”, validated by a February 16 report by Ms. Marites Bernardo of DA ACAC group that only 1.5% or 57,000 metric tons(palay) of the first semester estimate of 3.79 million tons was so far affected .Pantabangan Dam has enough to sustain standing crops, very significant as Central Luzon accounts for 20-percent of national requirements. “Why did NEDA approve additional importation and make the announcement? The NFA’s 2.3MMT importation will raise our year-end stocks to 100 days, which additional volume will make our farmers cry! The fact is, a disastrous 4.3 million ton drop in palay production will result in an acceptable 30-day buffer stock, even transgressing into our October 2010-January 2011 harvests. Are our rice stocks in the warehouses bloated or overstated?” — Manuel Q Bondad * * * Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com # # # # hvp 12.24.09)
Post a Comment