Emphasis on agriculture is survival call

When putting emphasis on the role of agriculture in the survival of the Philippines in the coming years, this often comes across as a challenge against the principles of free trade, or the free flow of food products among countries.

Proponents of free trade like to think that allowing the entry of cheaper food items is helping Filipinos because it allows households to lower their spending for food and, therefore, leaves more money for other expenses that can uplift their standard of living. The other side of the coin, mainly of those affected by free trade, are farmers, fisher folks, livestock raisers, and even local food manufacturers. They argue that free trade will ultimately kill them even if tariff barriers, mainly taxes on imports, are erected.

But future-proofing the Philippines through agriculture need not mean a blanket vote against free trade. Our objective is always to have adequate and affordable food for this generation and those who will be born in the future, more so in more challenging times, climate-wise.

The present reality is that we have to feed an over100-million-population today, and more people in the future. Local production is sometimes not enough, and may even be more expensive than imports. On the other hand, there are also supply security issues from relying mainly on food imports.

It may seem a simplistic approach, but the context of national need and food security pushes us to adopt a more opportunistic view of free trade, i.e., using its advantages to bolster our ability to be self-reliant in food production. Learning from past mistakes

The issue of rice is a less complicated way of illustrating this. We all know that a vast majority of Filipinos cannot survive without rice, and that the so-called comforts of modern living are useless if there will be no rice during mealtime.

Being discussed in Congress now is the proposed tariffication on rice, a move that basically means we will allow the free importation of rice as long as the right duties are paid by importers. The tariff collected on imported rice, on the other hand, will go to modernizing our rice farming.

We’ve heard this line of reasoning before when our lawmakers decided to set up tariffs on all agricultural imports except rice and sugar in 1995, thus setting up of a mechanism from collected tariffs called the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF).

Unfortunately, the next two decades would see a decline in agricultural productivity despite the billions of pesos collected under ACEF and the Agriculture and Food Modernization Act (AFMA) that created it.

There was good intention with the law, but somehow, things did not work out as intended. We should learn from this, and make sure that the same sad story will not happen, if the proposed law to impose tariffs on rice and set up a rice fund is passed. Revolutionizing food self-sufficiency

We have to be clear that the tariffication on rice, in the same way that tariffs on other agricultural produce were intended, will ensure funds that will be channeled to promoting food self-sufficiency, and making the cost of food production from our farms at equal or even lower prices than other countries.

The risks of food insecurity, especially of rice in a world where total production against demand does not insure sufficient buffer stocks in the global market, is too great, even more so considering the rising risks posed by devastating natural calamities on land.

That said, future-proofing our agriculture does not only involve this long to-do list that will revolutionize rice farming in the Philippines, including increasing rice acreage to lower the cost of harvested palay, and also preparing against super typhoons, tsunamis, and earthquakes.

This also means a firm government resolution to set aside an even larger share of investments in agriculture to ensure the continued stability of future food supplies come hell or high water, and this means even in the very literal sense. Tweaking BBB

The current list of priority projects under the current government’s Build Build Build infrastructure push may need to be tweaked to provide more agricultural support to farm-to-market roads, bridges, and ports that will ease the flow of agricultural products across the archipelago — at least within the next few years.

Irrigation for fields need to be secured and upgraded, just as water sources have to be protected through new and better-fortified dams. Water supply is integral to a healthy agricultural sector, and putting tax money on this should ultimately find its way to lowering food prices.

Just as farm productivity is important after lowering the cost of agricultural implements, so is the food chain infrastructure integral to further bringing down the cost of produce when it reaches the market.

Ice plants, granaries, mills, slaughter houses, cold storages, and an efficient land and sea transportation system for agricultural produce will all play an important role in ensuring that there will be sufficient food at lower prices for Filipinos. All-important first step

Putting emphasis on agriculture is not a backward step that conjures a regression away from manufacturing or other export-generated activities. Rather, it should be seen as a survival call that many other countries — from economic powers like the United States and China, to developing economies like Thailand and India — have adopted, and even continue to support.

Food security and sovereignty is an all-important first step that we need to accept and work on before we can think of doing anything else. Facebook and Twitter

We are actively using two social networking websites to reach out more often and even interact with and engage our readers, friends and colleagues in the various areas of interest that I tackle in my column. Please like us at www. facebook.com and follow us at www.twitter.com/ReyGamboa.