PHL's revitalization programs: Pointless?

Insurgencies and criminalities, more often than not, are closely associated with poverty. Thus, we couldn’t blame our leaders if they put premium on poverty alleviation programs instead of guns in solving these debilitating concerns. 

What is sad, however, is the fact that while poverty is a problem every Filipino tongue speaks and is, therefore, of public knowledge, some supposedly pointed solutions to it are cloaked with utmost secrecy. First and foremost, one of the most unpopular dole-outs was the PhP5 million extended to the Moro Islamic Libration Front (MILF) for the purported establishment of the Bangsamoro Management and Leadership Institute (BMLI) “to train future Bangsamoro (Philippine Muslim homeland) leaders”. Not only that, the Philippine government is also set to spend PhP31 million in livelihood projects in communities occupied by the communist breakaway group Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa Pilipinas-Revolutionary Proletarian Army-Alex Boncayao Brigade (RPMP-RPA-ABB). Allegedly, this is part of President Aquino’s Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan (Pamana) program “that helps improve conflict-affected barangays in the country”.

Whether these dole-outs elicit positive results in the rural areas (most affected by insurgencies) only the future can tell. What we certainly know is the fact that we already have multitudes of poverty alleviation measures and rural revitalization programs, yet, the same poverty problems persist.

To recall, the government implemented a handful of rural revitalization programs. This include, among others, the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs), One Town One Product (OTOP) and the most abused and graft-ridden Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Unknown to us, this BMBE act’s purpose is so noble. This is supposedly a better version of the ineffective “Kalakalan 20”. It is passed to hasten the country’s economic development by encouraging the establishment and growth of BMBEs. As the barangays are considered the source of entrepreneurial talents, it envisioned an integration of those in the informal sector or in the underground economy with the mainstream.   By granting incentives and benefits to these BMBEs, they are supposed to sprout all over the country. Consequently, they will be able to generate employment and alleviate poverty.

As adequate capital is necessary, credit facilities were made available too. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), the Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation (SBGFC), and the People's Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC) are mandated to set up a special credit window that will service the financing needs of BMBEs registered under this Act consistent with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) policies, rules and regulations. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Social Security System (SSS) are likewise mandated to set up a special credit window that will serve the financing needs of their respective members who wish to establish a BMBE.

Unfortunately, however, this law has remained seemingly dormant because of the local government executives’ indifference. 

On the other hand, just like the BMBE, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), together with the LGUs, is also spearheading the implementation of OTOP. Hopefully, with the DTI at the helm, we may not just be able to promote our products but develop as well a town that could be like Yufuin (in the Oita Prefecture of Japan-where OVOP originated). A town that plays host to more than 3.8 million visitors a year despite having only less than ten thousand population.

Like Japan’s Oita Prefecture’s One Village One Product (OVOP) movement, the ultimate objective is rural revitalization. Therefore, a model is imperative and necessary. There is an apparent need to establish a trail from conceptualization to realization. Certainly, DTI can play a major role (as they have always been) in developing them.

The key is making use of the facilities that we already have. Facilities could be in the form financial support or enabling laws that may encourage would-be entrepreneurs in harnessing available resources. Or, could be in the kind of incentives that can push them to put to good use their inborn talents or developed skills in actualizing wild ideas and build organizations to help ensure commercial viability.

Raw materials and labor, prerequisites of OTOP, are abundant in the rural areas. Therefore, the ingredients to this program’s success are just waiting to be tapped. Like any undertaking, however, financial support is crucial and necessary. Whether this OTOP has enough development funds, we aren’t privy to that. Certainly, however, a law was passed in 2002 that might be able to help ensure success of OTOP, the “Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002” or RA No. 9178.

Since both programs (OTOP & BMBE) are under DTI’s guardianship, then complementing efforts can be easily initiated. Dangling the OTOP program before would-be BMBE registrants could be a good start. Simply put, OTOP-for product development and BMBE-for incentives and financial assistance. Potentially, this inseparable pair of honest to goodness rural revitalization programs can liberate the majority from this age-old oppression called poverty. These could be the best duo for success, a perfect combination.

Moreover, recently, PNoy’s government vibrantly announced the increase in its budget for the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program. Dubbed as 4Ps or “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program”, it is a five-year-long conditional cash transfer program that is envisioned to break the country’s cycle of poverty.

Allegedly, “these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children’s human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care”. The ultimate objective of which “is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by explicitly targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments”.

Reportedly, in other countries that first implemented a similar program, increases in school enrollment and attendance were noted and a significant improvement in health and nutrition were felt. Notably, however, it was only felt in the short term as household income was increased by the dole-out and, consequently, consumption in poor families raised as well. True enough, this fact was recently confirmed by the latest survey which revealed that the country’s hunger incidences have again increased.

Indeed, poverty is the most overused, if not, the most abused word in the country today. In more instances, when crushed and mangled, all accusing fingers are pointed to one direction – poverty. Making matters worst is our propensity to focus on poverty at face value not its roots. Naturally, whatever initiatives we try to implement could not even put a tiny dent in its surface. 

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].