Tuesday, November 14, 2006 Oledan: Pawns By Radzini Oledan Slice Of Life
ONE would need to listen, and listen very well to the communities around the banana plantations and realize that the current question on the banning of aerial spraying goes beyond the stance of being for or against the proposed measure.
The ongoing public consultation has raised hopes that the voices of those who are in the communities would be taken into account in the decision making and policy process. It is a venue where measures could be discussed to ensure the health and safety of everyone.
However, it also raised the fear of farmers and their families who have no other option but enter into growership contracts and depend on aerial spray for crop protection.
They are after all, those who will be directly affected by the ban. They will be among the first casualty, along with most of these communities economically dependent on the banana companies for their survival.
These are also the same communities where their physical and social infrastructures such as roads, clinics and schools were built only after the banana company started their operation in the area.
But these are also the communities, which do not have proper water system and mostly dependent on rainwater and in some areas, ground water for their everyday needs. Thus, the concern for the safety of their water use.
This is the same issue that goes beyond the area where plantations operate as common sense would tell us that upland operations may inadvertently affect not only their host communities but also impact in the lowland, especially the coastal areas.
The banana industry is the biggest agri-industry in Southern Mindanao, bringing in the much need economic resource for the region to survive. Thus, the threat of their withdrawing operations from the areas where they operate once there is a ban on aerial spraying should be expected.
But such threat should not hinder a sound policy decision. The issue is too complex to be reduced to mere positioning of going for or against the aerial spray ban.
In fact, any threat from any company to withdraw operations in a certain area should be welcomed. It could spark growth and development in other places in Mindanao. Investments, after all should be dispersed to other areas.
Narratives of residents and farmers in the area show that they had no real options from the very start.
Their decisions hinges from their economic need -- a reality that they have to contend everyday of their lives.
During the consultation, I remember one farmer narrating his personal experience and telling the group that if indeed there are health hazards in aerial spraying, then they would rather take the risk than go hungry. "Mas gustuhon pa nako mamatay pagkahuman sa 25 ka tuig kaysa mamatay akong pamilya sa kagutom sa sulod sa 24 oras," he said.
Nobody could discount the tremendous economic benefit of banana plantations in the community but does not also discount the possible health and environmental risks of the use of aerial and even boom spraying.
These personal narratives only show that greater accountability and corporate responsibility should be demanded from banana corporations. After all, they also profit from the land where they operate. It also highlights the efficiency, or the lack of it, of agencies tasked to monitor pesticide use.
On the other hand, it could also reflect the weakness of those who are in social mobilization-of their lack of immersion with the community as to understand their position on the issue and of forcing their views upon them.
Environmentalism, just like human rights cannot be mouthed with slogans. It has to be lived and made understood to the community. Otherwise, it would remain abstract. This is the same situation that alienates many of our local legislators from the people they are supposed to serve.
