FARMERS’ VIEWPOINT ON FOOD SECURITY

Farmers, food processors, traders and consumers continue to face many problems related to
food security. Hence, a summit to achieve a common food security framework has become
necessary. A consensus may not be achieved immediately, but a summit can bring various
stakeholders to a better understanding of the situation from different perspectives.

We must engage in a dialogue in action, one that will require the participation of many
stakeholders and the honest examination of outcomes of policy choices. This effort may not
end with one administration but may have to be continued by the next. We should advance the
conversation as far as we can but realize that there may be points that will need to be resolved
in the future.

This brief paper will cover four points:

 The present food insecure situation,

 Toward a common understanding of food security,
 Questions about the food security framework, and
 Some immediate steps to shore up food security

The Present Food Insecure Situation

People are hungry. Lack of access to food among poor Filipinos is starkly displayed every day
by the long lines to the community pantries. The situation confirms the Social Weather Stations
(SWS) survey report that hunger incidence during the fourth quarter of 2020 doubled to 21.1%
from 9.3% in 2019, with the incidence of severe hunger rising more sharply from 1.4% to 5%
over the same period.

In actual numbers, some 4 million households went hungry, twice the number in 2019. The
Food and Nutrition Research Institute survey conducted November 3 to December 20 last year
revealed more distressing results: 62.1%, or 6 in 10, households experienced hunger in 2020.
FNRI warns of worsening malnutrition that was already, in its 2015 survey, affecting nearly a
third of all Filipino children under age 5, who were stunted mainly due to food insecurity.

Low-priced National Food Authority rice (P27/kg and P32/kg) has disappeared from the market.
The price of the most inexpensive commercial rice has risen. Consumers now pay more for the
principal food staple.

While the hunger situation is undeniable, the responses have ranged from a genuine bayanihan
giving to that of condemnation. However, a number of commendable initiatives from
government and the public have been taken, such as:

 Farm produce purchased directly from farmers and distributed through the community
pantries benefited producers and consumers alike,
 Backyard and community food production has been enhanced, and
 Middle-income consumers have been more open to paying a premium for buying local
produce.

Palay farmers are suffering due to low prices. Prices at some points in the last two years have

1
dipped to below the average cost of production of P12/kg.

Some rice millers have become importers, as trading margins have become more attractive
than processing palay into rice. Not all traders have benefitted from the present system as
some complain that they, too, have seen their profits dwindle.

Toward a Common Understanding of Food Security

In his initial draft framework paper, entitled Towards a Common Understanding of Food
Security, Dr. Cielito F. Habito, former Director-General of the National Economic and
Development Authority, mentions the formal definition of food security adopted by the World
Food Summit and the assessment tool developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The globally accepted formal definition was adopted in 1996 at the World Food Summit
spearheaded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO): “Food
security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life.”

In elaborating this definition, the FAO identifies four dimensions (FAO 2006):

 Food availability refers to the availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate

quality, sourced from either domestic production or importation (including food aid).
 Food access refers to individuals’ ability to acquire appropriate foods for a nutritious
diet. Thus, critical here is the price of food, along with individual and family incomes.
Access is conditioned by the legal, political, economic and social arrangements of the
community in which they live.
 Utilization pertains to adequate diets, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach
a state of nutritional wellbeing where all physiological needs are met. This points to
the importance of non-food elements in food security.
 Stability implies that a population, household or individual must have access to
adequate food at all times to be food secure. They should not risk losing access to
food as a consequence of sudden shocks (e.g., an economic or climate crisis) or
cyclical events (e.g., seasonal food insecurity).

To provide an assessment tool, the Economist Intelligence Unit has been publishing the
Global Food Security Index covering 113 countries since 2012. Countries are rated
annually based on 59 unique indicators measuring the drivers of food security across both
developing and developed countries (EIU 2021). The index was defined in the three
categories of Affordability, Availability and Quality & Safety, with a fourth category on
Natural Resources and Resilience added in the 2020 edition. Broadly similar to the FAO
characterization, these dimensions are elaborated as follows:

 Affordability – Measures the ability of consumers to purchase food, their vulnerability

to price shocks, and the presence of programs and policies to support customers
when shocks occur
 Availability – Measures the sufficiency of the national food supply, the risk of supply
disruption, national capacity to disseminate food and research efforts to expand
agricultural output
 Quality and Safety – Measures the variety and nutritional quality of average diets, as

2
 well as the safety of food
 Natural Resources and Resilience – Assesses a country's exposure to the impacts of
climate change; its susceptibility to natural resource risks; and how the country is
adapting to these risks.

Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands now occupy the top three slots, while the bottom
three are Zambia, Sudan and Yemen. The Philippines ranks 73rd, just above Botswana,
Sri Lanka and Nicaragua, and trailing Myanmar, Guatemala and India.

Two Philippine laws include provisions on food security and sufficiency. These are official
definitions and declarations that cannot be ignored.

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435, 1997) defines food security thus:

“’Food Security’ refers to the policy objective, plan and strategy of meeting the
food requirements of the present and future generations of Filipinos in
substantial quantity, ensuring the availability and affordability of food to all,
either through local production, or importation, or both based on the country’s
existing and potential resources endowment and related production advantages
and consistent with the overall national development objectives and policies.
However, sufficiency in rice and white corn should be pursued.” (Section 4)

Equally significant is the AFMA’s Declaration of Policy:

“The State shall promote food security, including sufficiency in our staple food
namely rice and white corn. The production of rice and white corn shall be
optimized to meet our local consumption and shall be given adequate support
by the State.” (Section 2)

More recently, the Sagip Saka Act (RA 11321, 2019) stresses the importance of fair
returns and a decent living for farmers and fishers as the way food security will be
achieved sustainably. The Declaration of Policy states:

“It is the declared policy of the State to achieve sustainable modern agriculture and food
security by helping the agricultural and fishing communities to reach their full potential,
increasing farmers’ and fishermen’s incomes, and bridging gaps through public-private
partnerships, thereby improving their quality of life.

“In pursuance of this policy, the State shall strengthen the farmers and fisherfolk
enterprise development program by establishing a comprehensive and holistic approach
in the formulation, coordination and implementation of enterprise development
initiatives, consolidating the roles of different agencies involved in farmers and fisherfolk
enterprise development, and intensifying the building of entrepreneurship cultures
among farmer and fisherfolk.” (Section 2)

It is clear from these provisions that it is important that both food security and food sufficiency
be accepted as guiding principles not to be pitted against each other. Food security is the larger
objective; but in regard to food staples, sufficiency is to be sought. No timetable is given. It is

3
up to the Executive Branch to work this out.

It is practical, however, to accept three caveats:

 Imports should not be banned, as these may be needed when there are shortfalls,
and some competition can be helpful; but not excessive imports that serve to
depress prices unduly, causing farmer impoverishment and discouraging local
production. Section 4 of the AFMA indicates openness to food imports even as
sufficiency is pursued, while the Sagip Saka Act underlines the importance of
increasing farmers’ and fishers’ incomes.
 Sufficiency should not be pursued at all costs, as food security and agricultural
development have many other needs that require budget support.
 Food security necessitates working on poverty reduction for all sectors, not only
those directly involved in food production and distribution. This implies that food
security is not the sole responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.

Questions about the Food Security Framework

Competitiveness is achieved incrementally and needs to cover other food items. Achieving
competitiveness in food items is more contentious and has been at the root of the food security
and food sufficiency debate. Food accessibility by individuals and families is determined by
food prices and food purchasing power (individual and family incomes), while food availability
depends on the capacity of food producers to provide staples and common food items, including
vegetables, fruits, fish, eggs, meat, etc.

The debate between food security and food sufficiency has unnecessarily narrowed the
understanding and strategy towards availability of and access to food. For example, analysts
have tended to trace all the food inadequacies to the unresolved debate and to protectionist
tendencies. Likewise, while food inflation is a closely watched indicator, it is inadequate in
terms of measuring how well a country is ensuring food for its people.

Raul Montemayor wrote the following:

“The fact that imports are cheaper is not a sufficient reason for relying on
them instead of local production. Local production may be more expensive
because it is not provided adequate support from government. But it could
have the potential to be competitive, given sufficient support. Relying on
imports just because they are cheaper will deprive local producers the
opportunity to reach that potential. Also, price should not be the only
consideration. Imports may be cheaper at present but could become more
expensive or unavailable later (as happened to corn and rice). These risks,
and not only comparative prices, should be taken into account in determining
the safe and proper level of domestic food sufficiency.

He also addressed protectionism directly:

Protectionism, such as through the QR, was never meant to be an import ban
but rather a means to manage and calibrate imports so that local supply
deficits could be addressed while preventing excessive surpluses that would
unduly depress prices for producers. Local prices do not necessarily have to
rise significantly when the domestic market is protected. If the entry of

4
 imports is managed well, and a way is found so that importers and traders
actually pass on the benefits of cheaper imports to consumers, consumer
prices will remain stable and could even go down without significantly
depressing producer prices.

Gerry Bulatao submitted the following comments:

Food encompasses much more than rice.

 The food security framework must include other food staples: white corn, camote,
cassava, bananas, Adlai. Overconsumption of rice may lead to diabetes.
Depressing the demand for rice increases its sufficiency level.
 Focus should not be restricted to basic production. Millers, traders and consumers
deserve attention, too.
 Should include vegetables: Should we not aim for a higher level of sufficiency in
monggo, onions and garlic, among others?
 Should include fruits: Is it because fruits are excluded from the food security
framework that the budget for research and development of fruits is hardly
discussed?
 Should include sugarcane.
 Should include poultry, livestock and dairy.
 Should include fisheries.
 Should include food manufacturing.
 Should include coconuts.

While copra is not considered food, coconuts are not limited to copra and should be
included in a food security framework for three reasons:

 One of the four considerations in assessing food security is affordability, and one
element of affordability is the “ability of consumers to purchase food.” So the
framework should take into account the situation of coconut farmers, who are
among the poorest farmers. They may be better off now with copra prices about
P40/kg, but just a few years ago, the price was P6/kg and coconut farmers stopped
harvesting.
 Land between the coconut trees can be used for food production: vegetables,
fruits, poultry, livestock, napier grass and other feedstock.
 There are coconut-based products that should be considered food or raw materials
for food: buko, buko chips, coconut water, vinegar, coco sugar, cooking oil, etc.

To understand rice competitiveness better, the long proposed benchmarking study was finally
funded by the Department of Agriculture and conducted by PhilRice and IRRI with the results
contained in the report, entitled Competitiveness of Philippine Rice in Asia (2016). One finding
of the study was that the country’s expense on labor in rice production was considerably higher
than the other countries surveyed. This reinforced the belief that higher levels of mechanization
can bring down the cost of production. It is good that the DA now sets the target for
mechanization in terms of horsepower per hectare. Marketing costs also ranked highly.
Addressing them would involve reducing postharvest losses, improving milling efficiency,

5
modernizing marketing infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports) for agricultural products, and
ensuring free competition in markets. Another insight concerned hidden subsidies deployed by
other countries, resulting in a lower price of their rice; so comparisons based solely on prices
tend to be unfair to Filipino rice farmers.

Making comparisons with other countries based on final figures – in regard to food security,
production, price, inflation and so on – is useful. But even more helpful would be to dig deeper
and to look at the realities underlying final figures to determine where exactly the country or the
sector is lagging behind, what can be done better, or where progress can be attained faster.

Regular updating of the rice comparative study will help track progress and ensure that
compared costs across countries take subsidies and natural endowments into account.

Targeting levels of yield and cost of production for various crops has been recognized as critical
in taking steps towards competitiveness. For rice, the proposed target was Sais-Otso (yield of 6
metric tons per hectare and P8/kg as cost of production). This has been achieved in Nueva
Ecija. Can it be made the national standard, even as the goal for Nueva Ecija is raised?

The DA has published commodity digests that documented standard yields and costs of various
food crops including onions, cassava, cacao, coffee, rice, seaweed. These need to be updated
and expanded to cover other crops. Something similar should be done for poultry and livestock
products. Each commodity or product should be subjected to a value chain analysis (VCA),
which will serve as a basis for setting production, cost of production, price and income targets.
The DA already has a number of these VCAs as part of the implementation of the Philippine
Rural Development Project (PRDP).

There is a widening acceptance that food security policies and programs cannot be limited to
one administration but must be carried forward by the next. Rather than the subsequent
administration ignoring or denying gains achieved by its predecessor, it is important to build
upon the previous leadership’s achievements. What is important is to ensure an effective
feedback mechanism so that all stakeholders – be they farmers, fishers, bureaucrats, scientists,
NGO workers, entrepreneurs large and small, bankers and financiers, traders, logistics
providers and workers, or general consumers (as the draft framework paper lists them, except
for the insertion of fishers) -- can help identify interventions and approaches that work and don’t
work.

The impact of the Rice Tariffication Law needs to be monitored closely to include prevailing
palay and rice prices in various parts of the country and not simply accept the aggregate figures
reported by the Philippine Statistics Authority. This tracking is also being done. Anecdotal
evidence can reinforce the findings of studies or be used to raise questions for clarification.

Some Immediate Steps To Shore Up Food Security

Approaches to support services delivery have to include all stakeholders from design to
implementation and provide for quick response. There is no perfect delivery system for support
services in the agri-fishery sector. Perfection can be approximated but never attained. The
most an agency can do is move toward it. Every administration tries to do its best, but there will
always be gaps, areas that need improvement.

For example: FIELDS (Fertilizer, Irrigation, Extension, Loans, Dryers and Seeds) represented a
comprehensive and integrated package of services under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani

6
program of the Arroyo Administration. Until today, these are still among the components of
support services. But they have been enhanced over time.

 Fertilizers were subject to centralized procurement. This was decentralized to reduce

corruption. A “buy-one, take-two” voucher system involving Irrigators’ Associations
and farm supply stores has been proposed as a more efficient way to distribute
fertilizers to farmers. (A refinement of this method, which can also be applied to
seeds, is to distribute vouchers – similar to SM gift checks – and allow the farmer to
purchase his choice of types, brands or varieties and add his own cash if needed.)
 Irrigation has been the domain of the National Irrigation Administration, which is still
under the Office of the President, but the Bureau of Soils and Water Management is
responsible for small water impounding systems and shallow tube wells.
 Extension is still the responsibility of the Agriculture Training Institute (ATI), which has
further developed its course offerings. Initiatives of TESDA (Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority) in regard to courses granting national certificates for
agriculture crop production, fish capture and wharf operations are welcome.
 Loans are delivered in various forms to suit target groups and commodities with terms
redesigned to include a loyalty scheme that ensures cheaper loans, as farmers
establish their reliability as conscientious borrowers. Loan programs build in risk
mitigation mechanisms like crop insurance for farmers and guarantee funds for banks.
 Dryers stood for mechanization and led to the subsequent introduction of combine
harvesters, reapers, tram lines and other farm machinery. PhilMech has been
challenged to increase further its involvement in mechanizing agricultural production to
reduce costs.
 Seed development has been the responsibility of PhilRice but under the RTL, the
agency has been asked to ensure proper distribution of seeds and has been promoting
seed growing in new areas for faster response in the event of a calamity.

Cutting across the various support services is the Registry System of Basic Sectors in
Agriculture (RSBSA) that helps identify and track farmer-beneficiaries. The system needs to be
maintained and updated, for it to continue to be useful. It must also involve the barangay so
farmers can check whether they are properly listed and initiate inclusion or exclusion processes
as needed.

No component of support services is foolproof. Safeguarding against unwanted results requires

a steady stream of feedback from the final recipients of the services. Some organizations
continue to feel that the DA does not provide sufficient support, while some budget allocations
have been found to be underspent.

Encouraging farmers to group themselves into clusters, associations or cooperatives is vital for
enhancing participation and improving feedback.

“Rowers” can be “Steerers,” too, within their scope of responsibility for a particular sector or
LGU, and when they give feedback to policymakers and propose solutions to problems they
understand best. “Steerers” should be “Rowers” themselves in feeling the pulse of the
grassroots and in being grounded, not remaining in the clouds and issuing policies like lightning
bolts that may be irrelevant.

The Food Security Summit may also try to prioritize some major interventions beyond direct
support services that include:

7
  Food security requires appropriate infrastructure. The backlog of over 10,000
kilometers of farm-to-market roads (FMRs) should receive support. LGUs and
barangays can be encouraged to supply the road network maps for these FMR
projects. DA can supply geotagging support.
 Mechanization should encompass the food value chain. It should include
promoting and training of service providers to maintain the machines and systematize
servicing of individual farms. It should include basic food processing of farm produce
and support for food development. The cold chain system and the installation of
powdering facilities can be added to existing community fish ports and other
production sites.
 Research and Development that delivers ground-level results need support. This
can refer to applied research and the training of scientists who are oriented to
providing crop and product support. Lagundi, VCO, coco water, blast-frozen fish, bio-
diesel are a few examples of products that can be developed further, but how farmers
and fishers may benefit beyond being suppliers of raw materials needs to be
considered.
 Consolidation of certain activities can enhance productivity and profitability. These
may include block farms, shared processing facilities, service provider groups to
maintain farm machinery and operate leasing services, consolidated marketing efforts,
farm planning and crop scheduling, and more.
 Organic agriculture deserves space in the food security framework. It need not be
embraced as a religion, but its positive impact on the creation of healthful foods and
reduction of production costs for certain commodities should be recognized and
supported. There is a niche market for these products, and it is growing. Likewise,
organic fertilizers and non-synthetic-chemical concoctions used as growth stimulants
and natural pesticides should be acknowledged as helpful.
 Setting targets need not mean agreeing on a particular point or number. The target
may be a range of numbers, especially when an agency is not the only entity
responsible for creating an outcome. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas sets a target
range for inflation. The Department may likewise set a target range for palay
production, cost of production, rice price and farmers’ and fishers’ incomes.
 Linkage to markets is very important. This includes shortening the value chain,
allowing farmers to value-add, and connecting them to stable markets.
 Integrated and sustained location-specific interventions. Current initiatives have
little impact because they are piecemeal, compartmentalized, and not sustained.
Thus, the benefits from one intervention get offset by losses due to the absence of
other equally important interventions. Plus, many of the interventions are not
specifically designed for the problems and priorities of specific areas.

Partnership Needed

It is hoped that the viewpoints of farmer organizations, as expressed in this paper and related
submissions, will be seriously considered and will inform future actions, policies and programs.
Active collaboration towards the achievement of Food for All is our desired outcome.

8
References and Sources:

1. “Food Security during the Pandemic and Beyond” by Gerry Bulatao (Center for Liberalism and
Democracy), 3 July 2020 Published by Plaza Miranda, Q3 issue, 2020, online edition
<https://plazamiranda.cld.ph/3q2020/?fbclid =IwAR0-6Qb6le2iv9MhKWdxbYEiBDHOC8k8p-
gIslqMQzDr6nAF5p3h44Y-Lck>. Plaza Miranda is the quarterly magazine of the Center for
Liberalism & Democracy, the liberal institute that provides policy recommendations and advocates
freedom and democracy in the Philippines.

2. Marginal comments by Raul Q. Montemayor (FFF) on the framework paper, Towards a Common
Understanding of Food Security by Dr. Cielito F. Habito.

3. “The Real Story of Rice Production in 2020” by Raul Q. Montemayor,@inquirerdotnet, 26 Jan 2021

4. “Rice Traders Liberated (RTL): Winners and Losers from the Rice Tarifficaton Law” by Raul Q.
Montemayor, National Manager, Federation of Free Farmers (FFF), with comments and contributions
from Dr. Rene Ofreneo, Dr. Ted Mendoza, and Ms. Hazel Tanchuling and endorsed by Nagkakaisang
Grupo Laban sa RTL

5. “Lecture of Charlie Avila at the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition for All” by Charles R.
Avila (CONFED)

6. Comments by Joey Faustino (KILUS Magniniyog)

7. Comments by Roger Navarro (PhilMaize)

FN: SMB-DA’s Food Security Framework-Comments-210509