(Repost from o
While public perception of what the levy really is has remained unclear, a lot of people have been talking loudly about it. There has been a rush of farmers’ groups staking a claim to the sequestered fund – majority of them unheard of before to have had anything to do with the coconut industry.
Surprisingly, these new levy claimants, purportedly “small coconut farmers” who declare themselves “victims of injustice,” have for unknown reasons persuaded other groups, human rights advocates, religious leaders, and a number of politicians (Even the Soriano group has enlisted in the fight) – to join their outcry. Coming out in the national dailies with paid advertisements of their cause, they have made the issue more confusing.
Yet, COCOFED, the national coconut farmers organization recognize – by law when the coconut levy was collected, has not come out with any statement… until now. Having full faith in the justice system, it has kept quiet even as it was being maligned by its detractors for accusations that have never been substantiated. But silence has concealed the truth and has muddled the situation even more. And silence has only given opportunities for mobilization to individuals and groups with selfish motives and whose demands and propositions are disastrous for the industry.
Thus, the need to break the silence. I. SEQUESTRATION OF AND CASES FILED AGAINST COCOFED (1986 ~ PRESENT) In 1986, the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation (COCOFED) and its affiliates were sequestered and court cases were filed against it and its officers by the PCGG. By this act, COCOFED has been stymied, and thus legally prevented from ventilating its position on the accusations raised against it because of the rule on “subjudice.”
Taking advantage of this silence, “new voices” started to speak for the coconut farmers. Small farmers organizations, among them, the Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Samahan ng Magsasaka at Manggagawa sa Niyugan (PKSMMN) and the Coconut Industry Reform Movement (COIR), came into the picture with one simple demand: That they, and only they, be the ones to benefit from the coconut levy. Their only concern is to get the money which they claim to have contributed, even if they do not know how they did and how the money should be used to really benefit the industry.
Also for unknown reasons, these levy claimants have vehemently discriminated COCOFED. They are particularly averse to “coconut landowners” whom they insist are not “coconut farmers” and therefore have no right to the use of the levy. This is a blunder and an evidence that these new claimants have the vaguest understanding of who the coconut farmers are.
As defined by law (PCA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1975, Section 2), a coconut farmer is one: (a) who owns and tills the coconut farm by himself and/or with the assistance of farm laborers and/or by the persons described in (b) and (c);
(b) who harvests and processes the coconut product and is compensated in the form of the produce which he sells as his own; or
(c) who works in the coconut farm and is compensated in kind which he sells as his own.This definition is an indisputable proof that COCOFED is a legitimate organization of coconut farmers, whether big or small. In fact, when the coconut levy was institutionalized as a national program in 1972, COCOFED was recognized by law as the national farmers association with the largest membership that comprised 983 town chapters and 56 provincial chapters throughout the country.
This should likewise set straight the misconception that freelance farm laborers such as sungkiteros, tapaseros, cargadores, and copraseros who are paid in cash for the services they render, and therefore do not sell coconut products as their own are coconut farmers. The services of these farm laborers are available to anybody whose coconut farm is ready for harvesting. They are therefore not dedicated to any particular piece of companies who, though working for their employers, do not necessarily become stockholders or owners unless they buy or acquire shares of stock. II. THE GLOBAL THREAT TO COCONUT OIL (1987~PRESENT) While COCOFED was already under sequestration, the coconut industry slipped into a crisis in the late 1980’s when the American Soybean Association (ASA) launched its vilification campaign against coconut oil as a health hazard. Full-page advertisements run in the New York Times screamed “The Poisoning of America” detailing coconut oil, a saturated fat, as bad for the heart. The attack was funded by American multi-millionaire Phil Sokolof who was president of the National Heart Savers Association.
With the survival of the coconut oil market in the US threatened, COCOFED initiated moves to rally all coconut sectors into a common battleground. Without the government chipping in any money, the industry’s private sector raised the amount of PhP77 million to fund a three-pronged offensive in the United States. a. On the Congressional Front. The smear campaign got even filthier when lobbyists in the US Congress pushed for a food-labeling act which would require manufacturers to specify “coconut oil as saturated fat” on their products. This made COCOFED, in cooperation with the private sector, decide to engage the services of an American law firm, the Washington-based Reichler, Applebaum, and Wippman Law Offices, to represent the Philippine coconut industry in the US Congress, the US Food and Drug Administration, and other anti-coconut oil interests. This industry effort succeeded in preventing the US Congress from subjecting coconut oil to pejorative labeling.
b. On the Scientific Front. COCOFED and the private sector contracted noted medical doctors from New England Deaconess Hospital, a Harvard Medical School affiliate, headed by Dr. George Blackburn, to do a scientific coconut oil study which eventually proved that coconut oil is not a health hazard. A local parallel research group under the lead of Dr. Conrado S. Dayrit, a noted Filipino cardiologist/pharmacologist, was organized to replicate in the Philippines the research conducted at Harvard. The results of these studies also provided technical support to the lawyers in Washington in preparing the Philippine position and at hearings in the US congress and FDA.
c. On the Public Relations Front. A tri-media PR program in the US was drawn to correct misinformation about coconut oil and disseminate facts generated from research studies. An American named Carl Levin, who had the reputation as “Washington’s Dean of Public Relations,” was contracted to head the USCCRI (US Council for Coconut Research and Information), a public relations group put up in Washington. The USCCRI gave out advisories to the US Media and even enlisted reputable spokespersons to vouch for coconut oil at international conferences on fats and oils and nutrition dietetics where it participated. It is attributable to this undertaking that coconut oil has regained the wide consumer acceptance that it now enjoys in the US.While COCOFED has been doing all these, what have the other coconut farmer’s organizations done for the industry? III. THE AFLATOXIN THREAT VERSUS COPRA MEAL (1987~PRESENT) Another blow to the industry that came the late 80’s was the aflatoxin contamination scare that threatened our copra meal market in Europe. With the aflatoxin contents of Philippine copra meal purportedly above the EC requirements, COCOFED, again hand in hand with the private sector, launched a massive media campaign to educate farmers to upgrade the quality of copra through improved drying technique. Seminars were conducted in Mindanao to introduce the used of mold inhibitors to contain mold formation during the sundrying of copra. The Philippine group also held dialogues with European copra meal buyers, among them MR. Herbert Knapstein who represented the Grain and Feeds Trade Association of Germany, to assure them that efforts were being done to lower the aflatoxin level of our copra. Those efforts paid off handsomely and in the end copra meal buyers from Europe decided not to impose parameters that were impossible to meet. Today, aflatoxin is no longer a big problem in the copra meal market. The threat remains, though, in the face of new proposal by the CODEX Alimentarius Commission in Europe to lower aflatoxin M1 content in cow’s milk. This could again affect copra meal which is being used in cattle feed formulation.
While COCOFED has been doing all these, what have the other coconut farmer’s organizations done for the industry? IV. THE US EXCISE TAX ON COCONUT OIL (1994~1998) It was COCOFED who gallantly pursued an information research into a Philippine claim to some US$ 182 million coconut oil excise tax refund. A total of US$ 332 million was collected from the coconut industry from 1934 to 1966 by the US colonial government, of which US$ 150 million was refunded and used for national development to the complete exclusion of the coconut industry. The experience was devastating for the coconut people, as they were deprived of the benefits of funds exacted from them. Also during the time of the refund, the Commonwealth government was prohibited by the US from giving the coconut industry any allocation from the national budget.
This was the beginning of a pattern of neglect the coconut industry has suffered up to this day in the hands of government. While the industry has consistently been a government financial supporter, the government provides zero support in return. On the contrary, the government easily extends its hands to other industries like sugar, rice, corn, and tobacco. When the price of rice is low, a price support mechanism becomes in place. The same thing with sugar, the government easily provides financial assistance when a distress signal is conveyed by the sugar industry to the government. Similar aids are not given to coconut.
The COCOFED effort, which included contracting in 1996 the services of the Reichler, Milton, & Medel Law Firm in Washington to dig up documents in the US under the Freedom of Information Act, brought the matter to public attention, with even President Ramos taking note of the issue. Thus was told the story of how the coconut industry has been unfairly treated by governments, of how it has been “milked,” abandoned, and deprived of the supportive needs to get.
While COCOFED has been doing all these, what have the other coconut farmer’s organizations done for the industry? V. COCONUT OIL VERSUS HIV (ONGOING) One of the promising uses of coconut oil that has caught the attention of bought the public and scientific community is in the treatment of the dreaded HIV and AIDS. Last February, a research arm of COCOFED, in cooperation with United Laboratories (UniLab) and the Department of Health (DOH) began clinical tests using monolaurin, a coconut oil derivative, in the treatment of initially 15 HIV patients at the San Lazaro Hospital. This Philippine study, which in its initial stage has shown promising results, is the first in the world, and was triggered by the previous COCOFED researches that indicated the anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties of coconut oil. COCOFED has engaged as project consultant Dr. Jon Kabara, a recognized scientist in the US who has had 25 years of experience working with monolaurin and who has strongly advocated that “coconut oil is the oil of the next millenium”. It has likewise contracted the services of the Troutsman Sanders Law Firm in the US to look for the possible research partners and funding sources for expanding the study. Relative to this, it has been reported that a laboratory study being done in the University of Iceland using another coconut oil derivative called monocaprin has likewise yielded positive indications.
Recognizing the critical role of R&D in maintaining the niche of coconut oil in the compendium of vegetable oils, especially with tougher trade competition ahead, and continuously striving to improve the income of the coconut farmers, COCOFED has, with its limited resources, pursued other scientific studies geared towards developing higher-value products form coconut. It has put up several satellite laboratories now mass propagating macapuno seedlings through embryo culture.
While COCOFED has been doing all these, what have the other coconut farmer’s organizations done for the industry? VI.CONCLUSION Despite the fact that COCOFED is still subject to legal restraints and financial limitations as a result of the sequestration and the unresolved cases, it has nevertheless continued to undertake programs for the welfare of the industry and the coconut farmers.
Today, the industry is in dire need of a program not only for its rehabilitation but also for its modernization as it enters the next millenium. Yet, a program will remain a program without a funding support. To further delay this efforts mean the irreversible collapse of the industry. This would mean that coconut growing may no longer be financial rewarding in the very near future, as already being shown by the massive cutting of coconut trees.
With the final court resolution of the cases still out of sight, a compromise agreement is the only possible expeditious recourse to unfreeze the coconut levy fund which has long been kept in suspended animation, unutilized for the purpose for which it was collected.
But to liquidate the fund, and even worse, to distribute it to the coconut farmers as advocated by the other groups, is a short sighted proposition that will only lead to its dissipation. It would mean delivering this industry straight into the hands of greedy people whose focus is only on the money.
COCOFED believes that the levy should be kept intact as a trust and perpetual fund to provide the industry the needed resources for its rehabilitation and secure its social and economic significance not only in the Philippines but in the entire world.
COCOFED has proven through time and under the most trying circumstances its genuine concern, dedication, responsibility, and capability to lead the coconut industry.
No other claimant to the levy has such a legacy.
Comments