|
FILIPINOS can still buy rice at the market, although now
they have to fork out more pesos to do so. There is no
shortage, as of yet, but the furor over the high rice
prices could lead the uninitiated observer to believe
that the country is on the brink of famine.
The
Philippines has not sunk to the level of, say, Somalia.
True, a large number of Filipinos are malnourished, but
no mass starvation looms in the horizon. The high rice
prices are cause for serious concern, yes, but the
problem is being exaggerated by certain quarters that
seem less concerned with the people’s caloric intake and
more with blaming President Arroyo for our predicament.
That her
detractors were quick to jump on the issue of high rice
prices in order to politically bludgeon her further is
understandable. Many opposition leaders are old enough
to remember that high rice prices was one of the main
issues that spoiled the reelection bid of her father,
Diosdado Macapagal. DM’s successor, Ferdinand Marcos,
therefore, tried his best to keep rice prices within
easy reach of consumers—even if it meant diverting other
national resources to support such artificially low
prices.
A
knowledge of simple economics would help one understand
why rice is such a sensitive commodity. Most Filipinos
cannot imagine having a meal without rice—in a
disturbing number of cases, a meal consists only of rice
with perhaps a pinch of salt or a dash of fish sauce or
shrimp paste. The demand for rice seems, therefore,
inelastic; Filipinos must have rice on the dinner table.
On the
other hand, the last time the country produced enough
rice for its own consumption was in the 1970s, when the
martial-law administration—with nobody overseeing how it
dispensed state funds—poured billions of pesos into its
rice-production program, Masagana 99. Rice was
plentiful. Rice was cheap, but only because the
government heavily subsidized farmers.
The
problem was, many farmers failed to husband their
windfall wisely. Rather than invest on, say, new farm
machinery, many bought themselves TVs, refrigerators and
other home appliances that only their city cousins used
to enjoy. Worse, they failed to pay back the loans they
had used to buy high-yielding seeds, fertilizers and
other agricultural inputs.
When the
subsidies ran out—as a result of government
mismanagement and plunder by the conjugal dictatorship
and their underlings—farm output quickly dropped, with
most farmers not having been prepared to sustain their
production without subsidies. The
Philippines
once more found that it could not feed itself, and had
to resort again to massive importation of foodstuffs,
notably rice.
Our
agricultural sector has been a consistent underachiever.
It was only recently when farming began to show levels
of growth—even during adverse climatic conditions, which
have helped the country build what economists call
“sound fundamentals.”
Secretary Arthur Yap has been at the helm of Department
of Agriculture (DA) for a little over a year, but not a
few observers note that he has done a good job of
raising rice yields. Last year’s harvest of 16.24
million metric tons (MMT)—despite the dry spell that had
ravaged four of Luzon’s major rice-growing regions
midway through 2007—was a record.
For 2008
the DA is targeting an all-time high of 17.32 MMT, and
it continues to express optimism that it can meet that
objective.
Yap’s
strategy entails not only raising output in all rice
ecosystems, but also what he calls prudent rice
distribution to ensure the steady supply of rice-buffer
stocks in primary markets and poor communities, as well
as rice conservation to cut wastage. According to the
Food and Nutrition Research Institute, Filipinos waste
the equivalent of almost 25,000 bags of rice every day.
In response, the National Food Authority (NFA) has
urged restaurant and fast-food owners to offer half-cup
servings to customers who choose to order smaller rice
portions.
The
problem, however, has attained such proportions that it
can no longer be licked by simply asking diners to cut
their rice orders. A lot of external factors have come
into play.
Experts
point to climate change and how it has led to a sharp
drop in the output of rice, wheat, maize and similar
grains worldwide. Then there is the surging demand for
food, notably in rapidly expanding countries like India
and China. In addition, huge swathes of farmland in the
United States,
Australia and other countries are being converted to
plantations for biofuel crops. As if that were not
enough, rising oil prices have increased the cost of
petroleum-based fertilizers and transport.
The
Philippines traditionally imports its rice from Thailand
and Vietnam, where prices have increased 25 percent in
just a month’s time from $460 to $500 per MT. Meanwhile,
data from the US Department of Agriculture show the
world’s rice inventories now stand at about 72 MMT, a
record low representing just 17 percent of global
demand. Eight years ago stockpiles were equal to 35
percent of annual global consumption.
What is
to be done? Proposals have been coming in fast and
furious, although some have been tabled with suspicious
motives.
On a
more practicable plane, Speaker Prospero Nograles
suggests “corporate farming” to enhance production
efficiency. The government should encourage corporations
with at least 300 employees to set up their own rice
farms, which would ensure supply for employees and their
families.
Sen.
Edgardo Angara meanwhile claims rice is not scarce;
instead, he blames “the rice-supply problem” on
racketeers. “There is no rice shortage, the problem is
due to hoarders, traders and millers who are not
releasing the supply [to the market] to the detriment of
poor consumers,” this paper quoted Angara, chairman of
the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food, as saying
the other day.
A former
DA official proposes the economic equivalent of
preferential option for the poor, insisting that cheaper
NFA rice should be sold only to low-income groups that
are in no position to adjust their dietary intake.
However
else the government ultimately chooses to address the
problem, one thing is for sure: the era of plentiful
rice is over. And that may not be an entirely negative
development.
Nutritionists have long pointed out that excessive
consumption of rice has led to numerous ailments,
including obesity and diabetes. Reducing the amount of
rice we all eat would not only help solve the
rice-supply problem, it would also safeguard our health.
Maybe distrust for the Executive prompted critics to
instinctively shoot down her appeal to diners to have
half-cup servings. Certainly she could, and should, do
so much more to show she’s on top of the situation. But
it’s silly to dismiss her suggestion just because she’s
the wrong messenger. The message stands on its own
merit, and should, besides all the other options on
offer, be taken seriously. |
