Have rice scientists failed us?

Educators Speak

By EUFEMIO T. RASCO JR. (Academician, National Academy of Science and Technology and Executive Director, Philippine Rice Research Institute)

October 29, 2011, 7:44pm

MANILA, Philippines — Local scientists have often been blamed for their failure to contribute to the growth of rice production in the Philippines. A typical comment written by a well-known columnist is: “Once upon a time, many Thai agriculturists learned their stuff from UP Los Baños, likely benefiting Thailand’s export-oriented rice industry. It had always been a mystery why we have failed to benefit from the scientific knowledge of our scientists in growing rice. We seem doomed to be a rice importer year after year.”

This statement is only half true. Yes, Thai agriculturists studied in UP Los Baños. But no, our country did not fail to benefit from scientific knowledge. In fact, the growth in rice yield in the Philippines in the last 10 years (2.19% per year) is faster than the growth rate in Thailand during the same period (1.68% per year). Our average rice yield in 2009 (3.59 t/ha) is higher than that of Thailand (2.87 t/ha).

The most important reasons why Thailand exports rice to the Philippines, have nothing to do with the ability of our rice scientists. They are: 1) Thailand’s area planted to rice (10.96 million hectares) is higher than that of the Philippines’ (4.53 million hectares), and 2) Thailand’s population (70 million) is smaller than that of the Philippines (101 million). Simply stated, the Philippines has more mouths to feed (20 per hectare of rice land) compared to Thailand (6 per hectare of rice land).

Our palay output has been on a steady increasing trend in the last 40 years. Our annual growth in palay production in the last decade, when the Philippine Rice Research Institute’s work started to bear fruit, far exceeded our annual growth during the Green Revolution years, from 1970 to 1984 before the creation of PhilRice. During these Green Revolution years, the main sources of rice technologies were UP Los Baños, the Bureau of Plant Industry, and the International Rice Research Institute. Our annual growth in palay production in the last decade was also higher than the period 1985 to 1999, when PhilRice activity was just beginning.

We reached our peak in palay production at 16.82 million tons in 2008. In fact, we ranked 8th as the world’s top palay producer during this year. Aside from increased irrigated areas, which effectively increased the area planted to rice, one factor that contributed to the increase in palay production was the growth in yield or production per unit area. From 2000 to 2010, the growth in yield contributed 62% to the overall growth in palay production, which was about 63 kg/ha annual growth in yield. During 1985 to 1989, the annual growth in rice yield was only 18 kg/ha.

In terms of average yield in all ecosystems, the highest yield attained was 3.80 tons/ha in 2007. In 2010, the national average yield was 3.62 tons/ha in all ecosystems, 3.99 tons/ha in irrigated ecosystem, and 2.81 tons/ha in non-irrigated ecosystem. This is almost 3x increase in rice yield compared to what we were getting in the ’70s when we had an average yield of only a little over 1.5t/ha in all ecosystems.

All these were achieved with the help of better rice varieties and farming technologies developed by our scientists.

In 2010, our total rice production was reduced to 15.77 million tons because of the drought brought by the El Niño phenomenon in the first semester and typhoon Juan in the 4th quarter. Without these calamities, our palay production could have been somewhere between 17 to 18 million tons in 2010, very close to a level of self-sufficiency.

Overall, despite the calamities, we had a relatively good performance in the production side. However, the Philippines still experiences a declining level of self-sufficiency and increasing dependence on imports. From 91% in 1990, our level of self-sufficiency decreased to 80% in 2010. This is because of the fast-increasing population and rising per-capita rice consumption (PCRC). The population is steadily growing at a rate of 2.13% per year and there was a tremendous increase in PCRC from 95kg per year in 1995 to about 120 kg per year in 2010.

A second common criticism aimed indirectly at the rice scientists but more directly at the government, is that we have not been utilizing the best of rice technologies. For example, much criticism has been directed at the recent government policy of shifting subsidy from hybrid seed to irrigation and machinery.

The truth is that the government has been very supportive of Hybrid Rice Technology since its launching in 1998. In fact, the increased Hybrid Rice cultivation area from merely a few hectares during its launching in 1998 to more than 360,000 hectares in 2005 was due to government intervention through the Hybrid Rice Commercialization Program (HRCP). HRCP was aimed at promoting the widespread adoption of hybrid rice seed technology to enhance farm productivity and income. The government provided training to organized seed growers, production support in the form of free seed parentals, sprayers, GA3, and technical and credit assistance. The government also initially procured the hybrid seed produced by the seed growers at a guaranteed price and distributed to master-listed farmer-beneficiaries as seed subsidy.

HRCP also encouraged private companies to engage in the hybrid rice seed business. The government allowed these companies to set market price and sell their own hybrid rice. At the same time, they are allowed to collect from the government the amount of seed subsidy given to farmers.

But subsidies or policies that involve subsidies usually do not work over the medium or long term, a fact that is probably not disputed by the HRCP or even the private seed companies. The government recognizes that at an early stage of a new technology such as hybrid rice, government support is often required, provided that an exit strategy is clearly charted out.

Policy recommendations focused, therefore, on gradual deregulation of the hybrid sector towards building a full commercial hybrid rice seed sector. This included measures such as gradually reducing subsidies, more self-regulation (truthful labeling) of the seed sector, public-private sector models for R&D, and private as well as cooperative models for seed production. This process may not be easy and may take time to become fully operational, but it is the general direction in which hybrid rice should develop.

The government’s new administration also, to some extent, supports hybrid rice technology. In fact, the Food Self-Sufficiency Plan encourages the use of hybrid rice varieties where suitable and the government will allow a market-oriented distribution of hybrid seeds, which will be led by the private sector.

Lastly, the usual criticism that we are doomed to be a rice importer reveals more of the defeatist attitude of Filipinos than the potentials of our technology in rice production. The truth is we only need to increase our average yield to about 4.5 t/ha from around 3.8 t/ha last year to achieve self sufficiency in two years. While this calls for an annual increase which is far beyond that which we have demonstrated historically, it is very low compared to the potential of our rice technology. Nationwide yield trials consistently show that 6-7 t/ha is the yield norm, while some farmers get more than 15 t/ha.