Saturday, October 13, 2007 Ledesma: Social responsibility By Jun Ledesma Sunbursts
THERE'S a recent and perceptible emphasis on "corporate social responsibility" that is aimed at the conscience of the enterprise. I pick this topic as the meat of this piece today against the backdrop of the court battle between the City Government of Davao and the Philippine Banana Growers and Exporters Association over the controversial issue of the aerial spraying of chemicals on agricultural crops.
PBGEA lost in this one, although the group is not about to give up as it is elevating the issue before the Court of Appeals.
But this piece is not about the case. This is about the pineapple and banana corporations and their social responsibility to the community where they operate.
It dawned on me that the perceived utter lack of corporate social accountability, if not nonchalance of companies on the plight of the communities in areas where they operate might actually be the reason why PBGEA, for example, lost their case and even their cause for being.
There is more to just providing employment to the local folks. There is more to just providing scholarships to a few high school kids around. Medical and dental clinic now and then are appreciated. Donating computers and books to local schools is great. These look like mere palliatives, their significance dies shortly after the turnover ritual is over.
Having been raised in the farm myself I am no stranger to the toxicity of chemicals. There are regimens that have to be strictly observed but anyone can throw caution into the air and this is where the problem starts. In our small farming town in Midsayap, Cotabato chemical application is commonplace.
I distinctly remember the town agriculturist, Mr. Zalde, saw to it that he came around in our barrio at least twice a month to touch base with farmers and lecture on how to handle chemicals. In turn my father would set cardinal rules that have to be strictly followed. Knowing how farmers handle pesticides I can say that many of our farmers in Davao today violate similar rules. I will not even be surprised if there are more farmers stricken with effects of chemicals they manually spray than those affected by aerial spray of fungicide.
So where does corporate social responsibility enter then? Why blame the lack of CSR of plantations on the issue of some people getting ill? I have been around from the time they planted the first cavendish plantlet in Davao del Norte.
Initially, corporations set up infirmaries to look after the health of the community. Through the decades, however, plantation owners and agricultural chemical distributors failed to conduct organized seminars on the proper handling, application and disposition of chemicals.
To compound this irresponsibility, even the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), which is the government's mandated agency to supervise and monitor the application of agricultural inputs, was hardly visible. As I pointed out, in the recent dispute between the city government and PBGEA, FPA was nowhere in sight.
In fact until today, it has not issued any statement that would assuage the apprehension of some sectors in the community about the impact of chemical spray on the health of the public. The silence of FPA gives an aura of truth to the position of those opposed to aerial spraying.
Will the ban of aerial spraying put an end to chemical hazards? My view is that it will not because there are far more toxic pesticides being used by rice and corn farmers and vegetable and fruit tree growers in a much wider sphere than corporate plantations. Whether you believe my thesis on this or not it is imperative that FPA look closely at the classification of chemicals being used by farmers and check whether these are correctly used, misused or abused.
Even as they lost their case, plantation owners will be here to stay. After all, wherever they go now sooner or later the pertinence of the Davao City ordnance that banned aerial spray of chemicals will still hound them. Even assuming that if PBGEA wins its case in the appellate court, they will still be watched with an eagle eye. Meaning they cannot escape the responsibility of seeing to it that the health of the community is safeguarded all the time.
In this aspect, corporate farms ought to give impetus to their social responsibility. There are ways to do it along the line set by the ordinance.
Establish the required buffer zones between plantations and populated areas, waterways and highways.
Engage local folks or member of families of plantation laborers to plant the buffer zones with bamboos, maintain these to maturity and enter into supply contract with them to purchase the bamboo poles that are to be used as props for bananas. This should increase the family income of laborers.
Obliged chemical companies to conduct lectures on proper use of farm chemicals.
Places of worships where people converge regularly to meditate and retreat and sanctuaries for animals must be totally spared from any form of intrusive chemical application.
I am not a great fan of Pastor Apollo Quiboloy but I understand his stand against aerial chemical spraying in his prayer mountain in Tamayong, Calinan. The good pastor's righteous indignation must be respected not so much for himself but for the hundreds of interdenominational faithful who seek solace in the prayer mountain. The hallowed ground must be sheltered from mists of spray. The prayer mountain is so far away from distant plains and from the commerce of men. To disturb its serenity is to be unfair and unjust.
