“On a medium to long-term basis, can we not re-introduce other staples into the Filipino diet?”
(Part 2)
Reacting to survey findings about food inflation, the administration has taken proposed initiatives to address the problem, from an administrative order that directs agencies to expedite permits for importation, to an HoR-rushed revision of the 2019 RTA now with the Senate, and now the NEDA-rushed slash on tariffs from 35 percent to 15 percent.
That shows how much of a political commodity rice is.
The administration realized the huge drop in its approval is due to food inflation and higher overall cost of living.
It knows amending the RTL is not going to face easy sailing in the Senate; if at all, that would take time.
With the mid-term elections coming in 2025, all efforts will be rushed to prevent rice from going further up, assuming it cannot be tapered down.
Prior to martial law, presidential elections were largely affected by the price of rice.
In President Carlos Garcia’s time, it was 80 centavos per ganta or “salop” (which is equivalent to 2.8 kilos), but had to be increased to a peso, which contributed to his failure to win re-election.
Under President Diosdado Macapagal, it became P1.20, and his successor Ferdinand Marcos made that an election issue too.
Marcos won, and ruled for the next 20 years, during which time we adopted the metric system, where rice sold at an average 1.50 to 2 pesos per kilo (or an equivalent 4.20 to 5.60 when rice was bought by the ganta or “salop”).
In fine, over the last 40 years, from Marcos Sr. to Marcos Jr., the price of rice per kilo has risen 33.33 times over.
As in the past, measures to deal with rice prices have mostly been reactive.
From the defunct National Rice Corporation (NARIC) to the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) to the National Grains Administration (NGA) to the now castrated National Food Administration (NFA).
After martial law, when Vietnam and Thailand produced bumper crops of rice, the default reaction whenever domestic production was low was to import from these ASEAN countries.
Until RTA took effect, the import monopoly was lodged with the NFA which, due to financial constraints. allowed the private traders to import under a scheme called Private Sector Financing, where they could avail themselves of zero tariffs from ASEAN sources.
With the RTA, which the House wants to reverse, only the private sector imports rice.
Now, slashing the tariff by more than half has raised eyebrows, particularly because the “emergency” being cited will last up to 2028, or when the current government ends its term.
NEDA officials could not answer Senator Imee Marcos in a recent Senate agriculture committee hearing when she asked why the reduction to 15 percent will last until 2028.
In the same hearing, the DA, the agency primarily responsible for food supply, stated they actually recommended a 50 percent tariff on rice.
Aside from virtual admission our domestic production cannot catch up with consumption needs till 2028, what if rice prices in the world market softens;,for instance, if India has a bumper crop next year or thereafter and begins exporting rice again.
First things first: what is the current measure of per capita consumption?
Is it back to 132 kilos per person per annum? Why is the US Department of Agriculture using a higher multiplier, 141 kilos per capita?
And furthermore, can we over the medium and long term reduce that per capita consumption of rice?
Japanese and Taiwanese eat much less rice at 46 to 53 kilos per person per year, because they consume more vegetables and fish, while our poor gorge on imported rice and imported wheat noodles.
We are now more than 115 million, and by 2025, almost 117 million. But how many are residing abroad, being OFWs and seafarers? They still figure in our population data, but they do not consume rice here.
How much do we actually use for seeds and feeds, which we input into total demand?
Having determined a correct per capita consumption, the next step should be an inventory of our palay farmlands, as to what is irrigated, what is rain-fed, and what is very expensive to irrigate.
Also, where does palay grow well because the soil is hospitable and where does it not, which means we perhaps should devote such lands to other higher value crops, where farmers can earn more?
Then again, also on a medium to long-term basis, can we not re-introduce other staples into the Filipino diet?
As in white corn which was the staple in most of the Visayas until Masagana 99?
And camote, cassava, even saba? These are even more nutritious, and in some parts of the country, they grow abundantly well.
This would need a whole of country approach, from DepEd teaching children better nutritional values, to LGUs promoting other staple crops, to the DA and DOST joining efforts. (To be continued)