By Johnny F. Goloyugo | Special to the BusinessMirror
WHAT is needed is a laser-like focus on science and innovation—coupled with adequate public investment in science education and research and development—to make agricultural productivity sustainable, as the Philippines faces insurmountable odds due to climate change and worsening resource scarcity, such as land, labor and water.
On the other hand, there is also a need to streamline the effectiveness of the “convoluted” Department of Agriculture (DA) bureaucracy to have an impact in the agricultural industry, decentralize agricultural programs, provide local governments with viable options for development, move away from the top-to-bottom approach and effectively educate the “malleable staff” within the agency.
Two experts, Dr. Eliseo Ponce, former director of the DA-Bureau of Agricultural Research and now consultant of the DA-Climate Change Office, and Dr. V. Bruce Tolentino, deputy director general for communication and partnerships of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), expressed these views on agriculture and climate change, two interrelated processes that are taking place on a global scale that affect food security and sustainability.
A look at the wide range of the government’s food programs from 1972 to 2010 convey much promises in agricultural productivity, as it aggressively embraced the concept of food security and sustainability: Masagana 99, 1972-1986; Rice Productivity Enhancement Program, 1987-1987; Rice Action Program, 1990-1992; Grain Production Enhancement Program, 1993-1995; Gintong Ani Programs, 1996-1998; MakaMASA Programs, 1996-2000; GMA Cares, 2001-2010; F.I.E.L.D.S. (Fertilizer, micronutrients, Leaf Color Chart, Minus One Element Technique; Irrigation facilities rehabilitation and restoration; Extension, education and training; Loans for inputs, shallow-tube wells, surface water pumps; Dryers and other postharvest facilities provision; Seed subsidy on quality genetic materials), 2008-2010; and now Food Staples Sufficiency Program, 2010-2016.
And the failings? The signals are clear. They are all the same programs with different labels, Ponce said.
“The DA must change!” exclaimed the Economic Policy Research and Advocacy, a group of government experts organized during the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration to rationalize the DA program. Dr. Cielito Habito, former director general of the National Economic and Development Authority, headed the group, with Ponce as the leader of the DA team.
“Our team provided expert’s advice to then-Secretary Domingo Panganiban. Under his leadership, the DA Rationalization Team, in close partnership with the Department of Budget and Management and its key stakeholders, developed a rationalization plan that would transform the DA as a modern organization, one that is able to function effectively to fulfill its mission and mandate,” Ponce said.
The team proposed eight key principles for reform that included, among others, a simplified national agriculture bureaucracy, a well-streamlined and reorganized DA structure to increase system’s efficiency and eliminate graft and corruption through increased transparency, predictability, accountability and public participation.
To improve the quality of governance, the group also called for agency specialization to achieve efficiency and avoid conflict of interest and a decentralized organizational structure by assigning administrative responsibilities to the lowest level of governance capable of carrying out responsibilities competently.
The team also recommended the transformation of the DA into a “knowledge-centered organization” by optimizing the use of information technology to improve individual and system’s efficiency.
“Unfortunately, Secretary Panganiban was replaced before he could submit the plan to the president for approval. The subsequent rationalization plan, which was developed under the present secretary, is vastly different from the Panganiban plan,” Ponce said.
And the failings? Ponce observes:
“Among the three Asean countries, the Philippines’s agriculture growth is slowest from the Arroyo administration to the Aquino administration. In fact, growth was better in the previous administration, despite the fact that the DA gets a lower budget under the Arroyo administration as a study from the World Bank shows.”
At the same time, “it costs seven times more under the Aquino administration to achieve 1-percent growth in agriculture compared to the previous administration (see table).Since toward the mid-part of the Aquino administration, the so-called ghost projects have been eliminated in the DA, but the anemic agriculture growth shows the lack of organizational effectiveness and impact. The same could be attributed to ineffectual programs and increasing seriousness of climate change.
“Therefore, if the new secretary [Manny Piñol, Duterte administration] wants to succeed, he must examine the current organizational setup, programs and budget of the DA. The results of a scientific analysis should be the basis for making much-needed reforms,” Ponce said.
Meanwhile, rice is the most vulnerable among agricultural products because of climate change, as temperature increases, rainfall changes and sea level rises.
As interrelated processes, experts point out that climate change also affects agriculture through “changes in pests and diseases, atmospheric carbon dioxide and ground-level ozone concentrations, and changes in the nutritional quality of some foods.”
According to Irri’s Tolentino, rising water level submerges about 20 million hectares of rice lands in Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, the Philippines and Thailand, while drought affects 23 million hectares in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
On the other hand, countries such as Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand incur a 12-percent average loss per year because of salinity, or the saltiness of water that affects 10 percent of their rice areas.
The Philippines has a lot more to feed, as population soars to 104 million next year, up from this year’s 102.4 million, compared to Thailand’s current population of 98.1 million and Vietnam’s 94.3 million.
With the country’s current population and highly diversified land intended for agricultural production, how can the 2.4 million Filipino farmers with an average farm size of 1.14 hectares cope with producing more rice?
Rice is a “product of science that has reached the farthest corner of this country. There are not many products of science that have touched the common man as much as rice and vaccines,” according to National Scientist Gelia Castillo, author of All in a Grain of Rice, Beyond Manila, How Participatory is Participatory Development and Rice in our Life.
Filipinos (per person) consume 120 kilograms (kg) annually compared to their counterparts in Thailand, 140 kg; Myanmar, 228 kg; and Vietnam, 215 kg.
Philippine population continues to tick from 36.7 million in 1970 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] statistics) to 102.4 million this year (Commission on Population statistics) compared to Vietnam’s 44.9 million in 1970 to 92.5 million in 2014 and Thailand’s 36.9 million to 67.2 million during the same period (FAO statistics).
As agricultural productivity takes time, Tolentino advanced interventions in three key areas: irrigation, which takes at least seven years from project inception to operation; improving rice variety, which takes an average eight to 12 years to develop from laboratory to farmers’ fields; and learning how the bureaucracy works (or doesn’t) for at least one to two years.
Sen. Loren Legarda, chairman of the Senate Committees on Finance, Climate Change, and Cultural Communities, has recommended to the Irri the creation of more Climate-Smart Villages, a community-based approach to minimize the impact of climate change through interventions that fit the local context and engagement with stakeholders, such as those being done in Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Vietnam and other countries.