The Department of Agriculture (DA) said only a fraction of farmlands in New Clark City, Tarlac will be affected by the United States-led Pax Silica initiative.
Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. confirmed to the BusinessMirror that some 266 farmers tilling 410 hectares will feel the adverse impact of the project’s planned development, citing the DA’s official assessment.
‘We will request that farmers be given an alternate planting area and support them in the first year with seeds and fertilizer,’ he recently told this newspaper.
He added that assistance would also come from the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and other government agencies.
‘We are hoping that they will be given regular jobs, especially in construction, for those who are not interested in farming.’
Pax Silica is a coalition focused on strengthening cooperation among participating economies in semiconductor and other critical technology supply chains.
Agriculture group Sinag called on the government to place safeguards in the proposed Pax Silica development to ensure that this would not affect the farm sector.
While not opposed to investment or economic diversification, Sinag Executive Director Jayson Cainglet said the planned Pax Silica development should not reduce the country’s capacity to produce its own food.
‘The government should not create a false choice between economic development and food security, (because) we need both,’ he said.
‘Pax Silica and other projects must not be pursued by sacrificing the country’s agricultural production capacity and rural livelihoods.’
He called on the government to put in place several safeguards before projects under Pax Silica or similar large-scale industrial initiatives are approved. This should include an impact assessment, comprehensive mapping of potentially affected farms and agricultural areas, and no displacement of agricultural livelihoods.
For the group, development should complement agriculture rather than compete with it.
While the planned Pax Silica development must proceed, the group noted that it should not be at the expense of agricultural land, irrigation water, farmers’ livelihoods, environmental quality, and food security.