MEDIA has reported that we will be importing around 5 million metric tons of rice this year — a record-high figure. It also reported that our meat imports will skyrocket. The same is true for other commodities such as vegetables, sugar and even fish.
But we have not heard the so-called agricultural stakeholders, from the farmers and fishers’ groups to the private business sector, bellyache that the Department of Agriculture (DA) has transformed itself into the “Department of Agricultural Importation.” They used to do that during the time of former agriculture secretary William Dar, when importation of agricultural commodities never reached unprecedented levels.
What happened? Have they become more enlightened? Perhaps this array of vested interest groups realized that we were struck by natural disasters that adversely affected our agricultural outputs.
However, there were also natural and man-made disasters during the time of Dar, such as severe typhoons, an outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) and the Covid-19 pandemic, followed by the Taal Volcano eruption, Russia-Ukraine conflict, and with a bird flu outbreak threatening. It was practically a perfect storm situation.
Why is there no maligning of the agency now? The reason reveals the nature of the political economy of Philippine agriculture. Each so-called stakeholder merely represents and pushes for its own parochial or sectoral interest regardless of the overall impact on the economy and welfare of the hundred million Filipino consumers.
One can detect this parochial thinking by just reviewing the agricultural commodity plans, the formulation of which included the involvement of these stakeholders. It will be revealed to the cursory reviewer that they all demanded that government resources be devoted to their respective commodities without consideration of budgetary constraints and, more importantly, the implication on the development of other commodities.
A prime example is rice. About 60 percent of the DA’s annual budget goes to supporting rice productivity programs. Unfortunately, despite massive resources being poured in, productivity gains have been minimal and thus massive importation had to be made. Despite this, rice stakeholders continue to insist on greater budgets and subsidies for the sector.
As a result, little is allocated to commodities where the country has a comparative advantage, such as high-value crops and coconut (planted on more than 3 million hectares of our land). Consequently, overall agriculture growth is stymied, and the result is a backward sector.
Obviously, we cannot leave the fate of agriculture to this array of vested interests, and this is where the role of the state or government is so critical. The government must be able to balance various interests while yielding the maximum benefit for the greatest number of Filipinos. The state cannot just cave in to the demands of sugar lobby groups or rice farmers’ groups despite the overwhelming politico-economic influence of the former and the populist appeal of the latter. Doing so will burden Filipino consumers with poor quality and expensive products sold by producers and traders of these commodities.
The state must prioritize the interest of consumers to ensure that any decision will foremost benefit most of our people. If this is undertaken by a reformist state actor, expect a vilification drive by vested interest groups using the media and their allies in Congress.
The alternative is to resort to transactional politics wherein deals are forged to secure support from these groups and mute any criticism about bad agricultural performance. Import allocations, the awarding of procurement contracts and the provision of assistance or subsidies are the usual rewards dangled.
While this may silence criticisms from vested interest groups, the sad consequence of continually declining agricultural performance cannot be prevented. The history of Philippine agriculture shows that if we are to truly pursue a transformation, the state must be able to withstand the overbearing influence of these vested interest groups. In the words of former president Fidel Ramos, the government must ensure a “level playing field.”
On another important issue, a strong lobby is being made to the DA for it to allow more importation of Indian water buffalo or carabao meat. The Philippine imports around 32 to 48 million kilos annually from India for processing into corned beef, hot dogs and other meat products.
However, the problem is that the lobby group wants to include areas in India, Maharashtra and Telangana in particular, that are known to be infested with hoof-and-mouth disease. The entry of meat products from these places might expose our livestock industry, already reeling from ASF, to another disease.
The Philippines was declared foot-and-mouth-disease-free in 2011, thanks to the timely and effective intervention of our veterinary and animal specialists at the Bureau of Animal Industry. The same agency has raised the red flag regarding importation of carabeef from the two Indian states. If hoof-and-mouth disease enters the country, and with the ASF still raging in various municipalities, there is little chance for an early recovery of our livestock industry.
The choice is quite clear. Should the DA cave in to lobby pressure from an interest group because of transactional gains or protect the interest of the vast majority who constitute industry players and millions of Filipino consumers?
Be the first to comment