|
The
Philippines is not the only country in the world that
has had to endure rising food prices. Even in the
cornucopia called America, consumers have been
complaining how much harder it has become for them to
stretch their household budgets. More than perhaps the
subprime fiasco, the growing pessimism of consumers over
their ability to satisfy their basic needs has become a
major reason for the economic malaise now afflicting the
United States.
In
other, less naturally endowed areas of the world,
conditions are worse—much worse. While Americans are
having nightmares about the Big R, i.e. recession, what
haunts the rest of mankind is no less than looming
famine. Food riots have reportedly erupted in such
places as Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal,
Uzbekistan and Yemen.
In our
country, the cost of foodstuffs, too, has been rising to
levels that are increasingly beyond the reach of many
Filipinos. Pollsters will no doubt soon bare survey
results on the growing incidence of hunger, especially
among the poorest of the poor.
How,
then, should we respond to this increasingly perilous
situation?
Of
course, we have heard the opposition—as well as
estranged ex-allies of President Arroyo—dumping all the
blame on her and her administration, as if the country’s
perennial failure to produce enough food for itself were
a recent development. The problem with this sort of
finger-pointing is that it only encourages panic-buying
by consumers and hoarding by producers and traders.
Moreover, it takes the food crisis out of its global
context and turns it into a purely parochial matter,
which it certainly is not.
The
anti-GMA blinders that the President’s detractors would
have the rest of us don to analyze, say, the rice-price
shock, could lead us to a false solution: get rid of
Mrs. Arroyo, and we would soon have enough food on our
table. Simplistic and downright deceptive.
That
rice and other foodstuffs are still available in the
market, albeit at much higher prices than ever before,
has somehow helped steady the nerve of most Filipino
consumers. But while we have managed to avoid long rice
queues and food riots, the authorities would be
foolhardy to lull themselves into thinking that they
have—as Malacañang mouthpieces are so fond of saying—the
situation under control. That may be so for the moment,
but only barely.
More
reassuring are the measures that the line agencies of
the government have lately taken in response to rising
cereal prices.
The
other day officials announced the government has lifted
the quotas previously imposed on private rice and corn
importers, but stopped short of removing the hefty
duties on such cereals from overseas—which some quarters
had strongly proposed. We can only hope the decision to
remove import quotas would ease worries over the thin
inventories of the country’s basic staples. Whether this
measure would meet with positive response from private
importers, we should find out soon enough.
Meanwhile, the announcement to engage Catholic parishes
in the rice-distribution network of the National Food
Authority in Metro Manila may, at first blush, seem like
a capital idea. After all, in many communities in this
predominantly Catholic nation, priests are still highly
regarded—and may be expected to help sanitize the
less-than-immaculate image of the rice business.
Still,
thoughtful observers cannot help but suspect that even
in the midst of a crisis, the administration is trying
to grab a political opportunity.
By
involving parishes in the distribution of government
rice in the capital region, could it be that Malacañang
is trying to pull the proverbial rug from under the more
outspoken members of the clergy—and isolate them from
their colleagues who would be mustered into the
rice-distribution program? Does the administration truly
believe that those parish priests are so deficient in
discernment that they would not be able to realize they
are being suckered into a political ploy?
The
gimmick looks downright cheap, especially in contrast to
the more rational approaches to the food problem lately
adopted by the authorities.
Last
week Mrs. Arroyo unveiled a P43.7-billion package of
“fresh intervention programs” designed to sustain high
growth in the country’s farms and fisheries. Directed
at six major areas, the so-called FIELDS program will
focus on fertilizer, irrigation, education and training
of farmers and fishermen, loans, dryers and other
postharvest facilities and seeds of high-yielding,
hybrid varieties. The multibillion-peso infusion is the
biggest so far that Philippine agriculture is slated to
receive in terms of funding under any administration.
Soon
after last week’s Food Summit at Clark, Pampanga,
officials gushed that FIELDS has won the endorsement of
major stakeholders in the farm and fisheries sectors,
including the Philippine Food Processors and Exporters
Organization Inc., Philippine Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Philmaize, Philippine Association of Broiler
Integrators, Philippine Fishing Federation and the
Philippine Vegetable Council.
If true,
those are certainly remarkable achievements. The
responsible officials, notably Agriculture Secretary
Arthur Yap, should be commended for taking the first
steps in the right direction—although some quarters are
dismayed that the government has all but ignored, again,
innovative production methods, such as the system of
rice intensification (SRI).
FIELDS
proponents explained they have covered all the bases as
far as boosting farm productivity and untangling
food-supply foul-ups are concerned.
Which
makes us wonder: Why does the administration still feel
that it needs to engage in political gimmickry—such as
involving Catholic parishes in rice distribution—in
solving our food problems? |
