May tatlong buwan ko nang nire-research at binubuno in my head itong problema natin sa supply at presyo ng bigas. Di ako matuwa sa mga panukala na bawasan na lang natin ang konsumo natin ng kanin — either haluan ng corn grits (70% rice – 30 % corn) or “Let them eat kamote?” na mas healthy daw.

PHILSTAR EDITORIAL. Sweet potato and white corn, however, are more expensive than the most affordable rice. There are varieties of imported sweet potato that retail for P130 to P150 a kilo. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/08/18/2289509/editorial-let-them-eat-kamote

And then there’s the House Bill that seeks to mandate one-half cup rice serving in restaurants and karinderias to minimize wastage. But how much difference will that make for the majority of Filipinos, the self-rated poor and borderline poor Pinoys (some 70 % of the population, acc to surveys) who are now said to be eating less — many going hungry intermittently — because rice and other food are soooo expensive.  Surely they are not the ones who are wasting, or are sick of, rice.

But then I read Boo Chanco‘s Philstar column, “Looming Crisis,” and I changed my mind about half-cup rice, if only to help send the message loud and clear that the situation is dire.

…  PhilRice estimated that we waste P7.2 billion worth of rice yearly. The proposal to require restaurants to serve half the usual cup of rice and no more unli rice is a good way of demonstrating to the public we have a problem, and everyone must help mitigate the bad effects.

Pretty obvious is the reality that contrary to government claims, the current harvest produced much less than expected. Farmers used less fertilizer because they couldn’t afford the higher price following the Ukraine war. Government fertilizer assistance came after the planting started. There were also reported pest attacks. And, of course, the weather. https://www.philstar.com/

It’s a perennial problem, the chronic rice shortage, na since the 1870s pa, according to Prof. Filomeno V. Aguilar Jr. in Rice and Magic | A Cultural History from the Precolonial World to the Present. And the solution, even then, and ever after, has been to import rice from elsewhere in Asia.

… One reason for the rice deficiency was the shift in productive land and labor from rice to export crops, such as sugar and abaca, as specific provinces and regions pursued crop specialization. As [Benito] Legarda … has pointed out, “The loss of one rice-producing region would have meant little in a country where there were other rice-surplus regions and where new lands were being opened and agricultural production was on the increase, provided this increase were in basic food crops” but this condition was not met. Rather, the opening of new land was meant for other crops, and even land that had been devoted to rice was diverted to other crops. With the availability of Saigon rice and the liberalization of the rice trade, there occurred a growing reliance on rice imports, which made the country susceptible to drastic swings in supply and prices in the world market. [Ateneo Univ Philippine Studies Journal  2013]

Amazing that after more than a century, from one occupation to the next, then from republic to republic, hindi pa rin nasosolusyunan ang chronic rice shortage. Madali kasing isisi sa bad weather and mga peste, even, sa land reform and population growth? Easier yet, and sometimes cheaper, to import na lang tuwing nagkukulang? Not that this has ever been articulated as policy. Read “Politics, economics, rice” by Prof. Orlando Roncesvalles of Siliman U. https://foolawecon.wordpress.com/

The official line has been that we aimed for the three goals of self-sufficiency, high incomes for rice farmers, and affordable prices for consumers. What has been unsaid is that these goals are basically incompatible. Without a gigantic leap in domestic productivity, only the last of these goals could be attained, and only if the rice-exporting countries (such as Vietnam and Thailand) were to sell rice on the cheap.

And now that Vietnam and Thailand and India, from where we got 90% of  our rice imports in 2022, are exporting less — inuuna kasi ang growing demands of their own growing populations — it’s obviously time we stop relying on imports. https://www.pna.gov.ph/

Here’s Ricelander, virtual friend from the “golden days” of blogging in GMA’s time, who knows whereof he speaks:

Rice production is dependent on water.  Many of our farm lands to this day still depend on rainwater a lot, so much of rice production is still done during rainy season when it’s also the season of destructive floods and typhoons.  And during dry season, without ample water, where no irrigation exists, rice production is impossible, in fact much of our farms are idle then. If I were the President, my first priority would be irrigation: 100% of all agricultural land should be irrigable land. Give the farmer water and the rest will follow smoothly.  No technology assistance, financial assistance etc. would make any difference otherwise.

The advantage of the top rice producing countries is actually their great rivers flowing with ample water all year round.  Some experts claim that because we are an archipelago, and consequently having no great river systems comparable, we could never be competitive in agriculture.  Economists typically discourage giving priority to economic activity where comparative advantage is not achievable, i think this mindset somehow impaired sustained agricultural development for some time.  Establishing dams and irrigation systems of course is a hugely expensive, so…  We are realizing belatedly that food importation could get restrictive and expensive, so with comparative advantage or not, we should strive to produce our own.

Finally, I think we should start learning to eat lesser rice.  Health experts are claiming it is one major reason of epidemic in diabetes anyway. :-) [Email Sept 2023]

Indeed, importation has gotten restrictive and expensive. And neither quotas (limits) nor tariffs (taxes) have raised, as promised, the earnings of rice farmers.

Roncesvalles: A tariff generates government revenues, which can be collected and then misused. A quota results in “windfall” profits for those given import licenses, and is said to be a major source of corruption. In short, either way, tariffs or quotas, we face the same inevitable temptations for the abuse of public office for private gain.

… Theoretically, the situation of the rice farmer is the same under either tariffs or quotas…. What has happened, and this has been documented by both the proponents and opponents of Rice Tariffication, is that rice farmers earn less under tariffs. The unanswered questions are: Why? Is the 35% tariff too low to make its effect equivalent to that of the quota system? Is it because there is a local cartel that can dictate a lower farm-gate price under tariffs than under the old quota system? If there is such a cartel, is it engaged in a form of retaliation because they lost some lucrative opportunities under the quota system? Can such a cartel continue to operate? What if there were a political will to dismantle such a cartel?

POLITICAL WILL

What if we do it the way our Asian neighbors do, as Inquirer columnst Jake Maderazo suggests in “P20/kilo is ‘doable’ if govt subsidizes farmer input.”

Read also UP Prof. Rene Ofreneo‘s “Through a looking glass darkly”.

India, which roiled the global rice market, has aggressive protectionist policies such as export controls of certain products (e.g., rice, sugar and wheat), fertilizer subsidy and lower excise taxes for fuel used by the farmers. Thailand, a major rice exporter, also has price controls and gives their farmers fertilizer and fuel subsidy. Indonesia and Malaysia have very strong food protectionist policy. And so is China,  which is reported to maintain a buffer stock for cereals good for over half a year or so.  Even the import-dependent Singapore has imposed strict rules on its food importers such as the requirement for importers to source imports from over a hundred countries to minimize dependence on a few sources, the requirement for rice importers to maintain a rice buffer stock in government-designated warehouses, and a call for the citizenry to join the government in building food self-sufficiency (up to 30 percent in a city state with no agricultural land!) through vertical-rooftop agriculture.   https://businessmirror.com.ph

Nakakainggit sila. Samantala, dito sa atin, pinagtatalunan pa rin kung ano ba talaga ang sitwasyon at ano ba talaga ang solusyon. Read Philstar columnist Cito Beltran‘s “Untold stories”.

… there have been almost violent arguments between government officials concerning the actual state of palay and rice stocks.

On one side there are the long-term bureaucrats at the Department of Agriculture who have relied on traditional sources of data, historical observations and statistics collected from unverified, delayed and poorly updated reports. On the other side are farm practitioners, agricultural engineers as well as business owners engaged in the trading of rice and corn who use computers and drone technology.

The older bureaucrats anchor their confidence in a stable supply of palay and rice based on the traditional two to three annual harvests, multiplied by the historical land area or hectares planted to rice plus the usual importations that are done to augment any shortages. The introduction of the RTL or Rice Tariffication Law further added to their confidence, presuming that there would be a flood of rice as traders and importers would fill the void that occurred when RTL took away the authority of the NFA to buy or import rice as needed.

As confident as the older bureaucrats were, their “data” have not accurately studied the effects of climate change, global conflict resulting in inflationary effects on the price of fertilizers, seeds, transport, urbanization and land conversion. To quote a commercial farmer, “My budget for fertilizer used to fill a truck. Now I only need a pick-up because that’s all I can buy.” https://www.philstar.com/

Meron din daw mga LGU officials and other politicians na namimigay ng libreng bigas sa poor, pampapogi kumbaga, at meron ding nagbebenta sa presyong pinangako ni BBM.

Beltran: What President Bongbong Marcos could not achieve, Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia has done, selling rice at P20 per kilo. But here’s the catch: The rice was bought from the NFA at P25 and Cebu province subsidized the P5 difference.

SUBSIDIZE!  Read former Finance Sec. Gary Teves‘s “Combating the rice crisis.” He recommends, among others, that the president and the legislature fund rice farmers via LGUs. Hindi pautang sa farmers, rather, government pays part of the cost of producing rice in order to reduce prices.

At the local government level, promote a cofinancing mechanism that incentivizes local government units (LGUs) to provide more funding to rice programs. Under cofinancing, each peso an LGU invests in irrigation, post-harvest facilities, or other programs to support rice farmers will receive two to three times more matching fund from the national government. https://opinion.inquirer.net/

Sounds good to me. So does Agriculture Sec Francisco Tiu Laurel‘s promise to improve rice production and reduce post harvest losses through science and technology.

I like the “sense of urgency.” There is no time to waste. People need relief ASAP from the high price of rice. Many still remember when rice was cheaper. Todd Sales Lucero in “Rice, Rice, Baby (Em)” traces the price increases over the years.

In 1974 a kilo of rice cost P1.70 – P1.90. It cost P6.10 – P6.40 by the early ’80s, P10 – P11 in ’99, P7.50 – P8.00 in the early 2000s, P25.67 – P39.76 in 2008, P39.49 – P44.02 in 2014, P43.12 – P45.83 in 2018, P30.00 – P42 in 2019. https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/

Sana nakikinig ang gobyerno sa tumitinding daing ng nakararaming Pinoy, lalo na ngayon na nasa P62 ang isang kilo ng bigas sa palengke, yung klase na nakabihasnan na nila, ayon kay Mang Bador, our neighborhood handyman. Meron din daw P55/kilo pero may amoy at “malatâ”.

Clearly, it behooves government to address the problem with as much vigor, science, and funding as it is capable of. Otherwise, think the myth of let-them-eat-cake in a time of hunger that led to revolution. Think the infamous Marie Antoinette as symbol of decadent governance.

And speaking of olden days. In pre-Spanish times, rice was not something we ate everyday because it was [still is] so labor-intensive to produce, relative to root crops.

Aguilar: In the preconquest period, rice was highly valued and perhaps considered the most esteemed cereal, but it was not a daily staple. Rice production was insufficient and did not allow year-round consumption: “even datus with many slaves ate root crops in certain seasons” (Scott 1994, 291)