Food: Self-sufficiency vs supply efficiency

By Marvin A. Tort / Sway

ONLY few can still remember “Japanese time,” the war years, when the Philippines, as a United States commonwealth territory, was invaded and occupied by Japanese forces until “liberation” of the islands in 1945. “Independence” from the US was later granted, in 1946, with the late Manuel Roxas as President of the second republic. The first was established in 1898.

Back then, the old folks tell, many residents in war-torn Manila, particularly in 1943-1944, were without food, shelter, medicine, provisions and other basic goods. A small box of matches, for instance, was made to last for a year, where one household strikes a match to light a cooking fire, and neighbors all borrow embers, and vice-versa.

So was planting—vegetables, fruits, root crops, herbs, etc.—whatever could be eaten quickly and easily even without much processing, or be used as remedy for common ailments, such as fever and colds and a bum stomach, or as balm for burns. Raising livestock was not much of an option for lack of feeds.

With potable water supply cut off, Manila residents likewise resorted to boiling water from the Pasig—despite dead soldiers floating—for drinking. Large and heavy glass bottles or decanters were used for storage, since plastic containers were not available at the time. Grains like rice were hard to come by, and people usually fought over limited supplies available.

Thus, many born in the 1930s and ’40s—now grandfathers with plenty of tales to share with children and grandchildren—tend to be sturdier, made of stronger stuff. This is the same “carne norte” generation who in childhood was showered with “state-side” goodies shortly after the war, and the same generation that tend to keep, when possible, backyard vegetable gardens and fruit trees while growing up.

It was all about food self-sufficiency, the old folks claim, insisting that as long as one could plant then one would not grow hungry. Banana trees, for instance, can be harvested for fruit and vegetable (heart and stem), and the same goes for coconut trees with its nut and root. Coconut trees also provide lumber.

Nowadays, it seems, people tend to take for granted the abundance of food, but perhaps fail to appreciate that many people worldwide actually till the soil and toil under the sun to make food available. Global trade, to an extent, appears to have “spoiled” populations into thinking that what one cannot grow or raise can always be bought from someone else beyond one’s shores.

But what if, for one reason or the other, perhaps as a result of war, embargo, drought, or some form of misfortune, that farm goods such as imported frozen meat and rice cannot be brought into the Philippines? What happens then? Is local agriculture receiving enough support and encouragement to ensure food self-sufficiency? Is government policy geared toward allowing the country to sufficiently provide for its own food needs first, and in abundance, and then perhaps export excess for additional income?

Or, do current state regulations provide instead only for supply efficiencies in the sense that it promotes and encourages the distribution and supply of food at the lowest cost, regardless of whether rice is imported from Thailand and Vietnam; or frozen beef, pork and chicken meat imported from the United States; or milk and dairy from Australia, New Zealand or Europe?

Free trade, particularly of agricultural goods, provides significant advantage particularly for countries with limited land or natural resources, or do not enjoy weather conducive to farming and raising livestock. It likewise helps countries in need to source food from places that abundantly produce it. However, free trade can also impact on the sustainability of local farms, especially if it results in smuggling, dumping and unfair trade competition, among other things.

One cannot help but worry over the current state of Philippine agriculture, with poultry and livestock raisers complaining of “uncontrolled flooding” of imported meat products, particularly the “unchecked oversupply” of imported chicken and pork meat, and tobacco farmers fretting over a government plan to raise the excise taxes on cigarettes and others tobacco products.

Meantime, the promise of agrarian reform still hangs in places like Tarlac, where sugar workers are pressing the Supreme Court to make final its ruling to award Hacienda Luisita, the nearly 5,000-hectare sugar plantation owned by the family of President Aquino, to its more than 6,000 farmer-beneficiaries in line with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

And now the US, a major agricultural exporter, comes to caution the Philippines over a government regulation on frozen meats. US Deputy Trade Representative Demetrios J. Marantis reportedly met with Agriculture Secretary Proceso J. Alcala to discuss, among other matters, Administrative Order (AO) 22, which requires retailers to set up cold-chain systems in wet markets to ensure the safety of frozen-meat products.

The US and Canada have reportedly asked the Department of Agriculture to defer the implementation of AO 22, citing the need to prepare the retailers of frozen meat as the order “discriminates against certain types of meat which happen to be imported. We talked about how we can try to work together to resolve this issue in a way that is good for international commerce and public health,” Marantis was quoted as telling reporters.

The US official was also quoted as saying that he hoped the issue could be resolved in a “cooperative and constructive manner” without having to resort to bringing the dispute before the World Trade Organization, of which both the Philippines and the US are members. Whether this should be seen as a veiled threat that can jeopardize the country’s international trade relations with major powers perhaps depends on one’s appreciation of the situation.

But the bottom line is this: if the country was self-sufficient in producing grains such as rice and livestock meat, will international trading partners still have the will and power to caution it on domestic policies? Or will they instead woo the country to open its borders, even if only slightly, to their farm goods?

Comments to matort@yahoo.com