Last update:
2023-03-18

The ban on pesticides aerial spraying in banana plantations in Davao, Phillipines

EJOs are seeking a response from the government by expanding the conflict on aerial banana spraying from Davao City to the entire country.



Description:

This case is an environmental conflict with Mamamayan Ayaw sa Aerial Spraying (MAAS), based in Davao City, to ban aerial spraying of pesticides/fungicides in banana plantations. The conflict area is Davao City in southern Mindanao. MAAS is conducting a countrywide environmental campaign to enforce an ordinance banning the aerial spraying of pesticides that the Davao City government passed in 2007 [1]. Philippines is the second largest exporter of banana plantations in the world, followed by India and China [2]. The banana industry is essential in Davao City and the Mindanao region [2]. In 2000, a report by Dr Quijano and his daughter on health hazards due to aerial spraying of pesticides in rural areas of Davao de Sul was published [3]. The report mentions the use of pesticides in banana plantations as the cause of the enormous impact on plants, livestock, and the human body [3]. In 2001, LADECO banana plantation filed a lawsuit against the reporter and publisher for criminal libel charges. This lawsuit was the first case of anti-pesticide spraying [4, p. 9]. Department of Health investigation in 2006 found that pesticide aerial spraying was the cause of health hazards to the residents of Kamukhaan, Davao del Sur [5]. In 2007, the Davao City government passed a ban ordinance on pesticide aerial spraying [4, p.9]. However, in 2009, the Court of Appeals ruled the ordinance unconstitutional [4, p10]. The Davao City Council and MAAS elevated the case to the Supreme Court [4, p10]; in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the relevant ordinance was unconstitutional. In 2019, Interface for Development Interventions for Sustainability (IDIS) confirmed the continuation and resumption of aerial spraying in banana plantation plantations in Davao City [6]. This case is an environmental justice dispute in which MAAS is seeking a response from the government by expanding the conflict from Davao City to the entire country [4, p.3]. There are also echos abroad- Japan is one main importer of bananas from the Philippines [16].  While the government of the Philippines was forced to choose between its drive for export dollars and its responsibility to protect public health as opposition to aerial spraying of pesticides continued to mount, the environmental campaigners wanted to enlist Japanese consumers in their fight to permanently ban the practice because 45 percent of the nation’s bananas were exported to Japan.[16].

See more
Basic Data
Name of conflict:The ban on pesticides aerial spraying in banana plantations in Davao, Phillipines
Country:Philippines
State or province:Mindanao
Location of conflict:Davao city
Accuracy of locationMEDIUM (Regional level)
Source of Conflict
Type of conflict. 1st level:Biomass and Land Conflicts (Forests, Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock Management)
Type of conflict. 2nd level:Intensive food production (monoculture and livestock)
Other
Agro-toxics
Specific commodities:Banana
Fruits and Vegetables
Project Details and Actors
Project details

2020 saw 3,534,970 metric tonnes (MT) of fruit crops produced in the Davao Area. Over 3,349,576.24 MT, or 94.8 per cent, of the fruit crops in 2020 were made up of bananas [2020]. Today, over 68,000 hectares of banana land using lightweight aircraft are sprayed [11]. Combining pesticides has allowed an industry to continue operating that contributed $109 million (56.88 billion pesos) or 17.15% of the nation's total agricultural exports in 2018 to the economy [11]. According to estimates, control costs eventually account for between 15% and 20% of the banana's final retail price in the importing nations [2]. For large plantations, the expense is currently PH Peso 68,600/hectare per year in the Philippines. Due to the additional expenses of ground spraying, which amount to PH Peso 28,700/ha/year, the large plantations favour aerial spraying [2]. The producers also state that, compared to ground spraying, aerial spraying is more effective and uses 85% less water [15]. On the other side, IDIS estimates that switching to ground spraying will raise the potential gross profit by 116,000 Pesos to 138.200 Pesos per hectare per year, or an additional profit of 22,200 Pesos for each small banana farmer [2].

Type of populationRural
Affected Population:several hundreds
Start of the conflict:01/01/2006
Relevant government actors:Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA): https://www.pbgea.org/
Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available:Mamamayan Ayaw sa Aerial Spraying (MAAS).
Interface for Development Interventions for Sustainability (IDIS) : https://idisphil.org/
Conflict & Mobilization
IntensityMEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization)
Reaction stageIn REACTION to the implementation (during construction or operation)
Groups mobilizing:Farmers
Local scientists/professionals
Forms of mobilization:Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism
Public campaigns
Street protest/marches
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsVisible: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Soil contamination, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity
Potential: Air pollution, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Groundwater pollution or depletion
Health ImpactsVisible: Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…), Occupational disease and accidents
Potential: Accidents, Malnutrition, Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Infectious diseases
Socio-economical ImpactsVisible: Loss of livelihood, Specific impacts on women, Violations of human rights
Potential: Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Loss of landscape/sense of place
Outcome
Project StatusIn operation
Conflict outcome / response:Court decision (failure for environmental justice)
New legislation
Proposal and development of alternatives:The conflict between environmental groups and the corporate/government side is not about spraying methods nowadays. They focus on safe and sustainable methods of prevention [1]. Dagohoy, the president of MAAS, reported a concern that the aerial spraying ban ordinance forced in the neighbouring cities of Davao City might be repealed in 2021 [6]. IDIS also plans to focus on calling on local communities in Davao City to propose a transition to non-aerial spraying methods [6]. However, the need to deal with residents who perceive aerial spraying and pesticide exposure as a daily occurrence will also need to be discussed in the future [11].
Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?:Not Sure
Briefly explain:In 2007, the Davao City government passed a ban ordinance on pesticide aerial spraying [4, p.9]. In the Davao City Senate resolution, the opposition of MAAS and IDIS was a civil society strategy [4, p.10].
However, in 2009, the Court of Appeals ruled the ordinance unconstitutional [4, p10]. The Davao City Council and MAAS elevated the case to the Supreme Court [4, p10]; in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the relevant ordinance was unconstitutional.
Sources & Materials
References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries

[3]Quijano, I, I. (2002). “KAMUKHAAN: Report on a poisoned village”, edited by Jennifer Mourin, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific,
[click to view]

[4]Nikol, L, J and Jansen, K. (2018). “The Politics of Counter-Expertise on Aerial Spraying: Timeline of Selected Developments in the Philippine Civil Society Struggles Around Risk Regulation, 1997-2016.”, Rural Sociology. 31
[click to view]

[1]Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2013). “Aerial spray of pesticides resumes as SC ruling hangs”, INQUIRER.NET
[click to view]

[2] Dhang, P. (2017). “A movement to ban aerial spraying in banana plantation across Philippines”, LinkedIn
[click to view]

[3]Quijano, I, I. (2002). “KAMUKHAAN: Report on a poisoned village”, edited by Jennifer Mourin, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific
[click to view]

[6] Llemit, R, G. (2021). “Local environment groups to revive call on aerial spray ban”, SunStar
[click to view]

[7] IDIS, Website.
[click to view]

[9] Salveron, R, J, D. (2018). “Ban of aerial spray in PH pushed”. Davao Today
[click to view]

[10] Minda News. (2013). “Panabo says yes to aerial spraying”, Minda News, Online
[click to view]

[11]Paredes, A. (2021). “” Chemical Cocktails Defy Pathogens and Regulatory Paradigms”, Stanford University Press
[click to view]

[12] Greenpeace Southeast Asia. (2015). “Groups urge Philippine Congress to ban pesticide aerial spraying”, Eco-Business
[click to view]

[13] Padillo, M, M. (2019). “Banana smallholders to start using drones for aerial spraying”, Business World
[click to view]

[14] Philippine Statistics Authority (2020)
[click to view]

[16] The Japan Times, Philippines' aerial banana spraying slammed. By DARIO AGNOTE. KYODO NEWS. 22 June 2010.
[click to view]

[click to view]

Meta information
Contributor:Taiki Asato
Last update18/03/2023
Conflict ID:6285
Comments
Legal notice / Aviso legal
We use cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. By clicking "Accept cookies" you consent to place cookies when visiting the website. For more information, and to find out how to change the configuration of cookies, please read our cookie policy. Utilizamos cookies para realizar el análisis de la navegación de los usuarios y mejorar nuestros servicios. Al pulsar "Accept cookies" consiente dichas cookies. Puede obtener más información, o bien conocer cómo cambiar la configuración, pulsando en más información.