1

AGRICULTURE DURING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO: The Challenges Under Pnoy Administration 1 Teodoro C. Mendoza, PhD, Professor of Crop Science, College of Agriculture, University of the PhilippinesLos Banos,tedmendoza2o1o@yahoo.com webdb.stii.dost.gov.ph/scidetails.jsp? sci_id=000971http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=Teodoro+C.+Mendoza&ie=utf-8&oe=utf8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Brief Introduction Assessing agricultural development of any given year (or any government era) is a huge, difficult and complex endeavor. The definition of agriculture the art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of livestock may appear simple. But it becomes complex when we examine the 2 words agri and culture where agra , a Latin word - means field and culture (Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation") , a term that has many different inter-related meanings. In 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. The World English Dictionary defines "culture" as the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action. Furthermore, the field encompass both the biological and non-biological (soils, climate factors) and the field is influenced by the edaphic and non-edaphic elements or factors which include the social, political, economic and the accompanying technological milieu of any given country or location. Given all these factors, and discussing them one-by-one shall lead to a lengthy discourse which is not the intention.

Paper discussed during the series lecture series Re: UP Assessment of the Presidency and Administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-2010). Held at Center for Leadership, Citizenship, and Democracy, NCPAG, UP Diliman Quezon City, on 18th November 2011.
1

2 Summarizing or briefly discussing them may lead to unnecessary avoidance or exclusion of significant factors influencing agricultural development. It is this context that establishing the boundaries or assessment indicators is important. In this paper, commonly accepted agriculture performance indicators were utilized to guide the assessment and they are as follows: Share of agriculture to Gross Domestic Product, Growth rate of agriculture GDP, Major components of agriculture, and budget for agriculture as singular measure performance indicators. After analyzing these pre-selected performance indicators, a general situation of agriculture during the period under assessment (2001-2011) was described. Explanations were provided why those situations or challenges arose. The last part is equally difficult if not most challenging because it dwells on the critical areas/activities that require priority attention and action by the incumbent administration (PNoy) and areas of success which could be continued/strengthened. For purposes of brevity, agriculture, as used here includes fishery and forestry. General situation of agriculture during the period under assessment (2001-2011)

During the PGMA period (2001 2011), the share of agriculture to the gross domestic product decreased from 20% (2001) to 18% by 2008 and 16.8 % by 2010 or a drop of 3.2 percentage points (Table1). Specifically, in 2009, the share of agriculture was 18%, 50% for the service sector and 32% for the industry sector. It appears that agriculture has low share to GDP and it is decreasing over time. It was pointed out that this was true because only the primary agriculture products were considered . If the value of products in the post production chain would be added to the total, agriculture would contribute about 40% to GDP (Habito and Briones, 2005). For the year 1990-2000 growth in agriculture GDP was lower (1.9%) compared with the overall GDP (3.1%).

Table 1. GDP by sector, in Million PhP (at constant 1985 prices) Philipines, 1990-2009.

Year

Agriculture

Industry

Service

Gross Domestic % Share to GDP Product Agriculture 22.30 22.74 21.55 19.78 20.16 20.06 Industry 35.46 34.71 35.38 35.46 33.99 33.80 Service 42.24 42.55 43.07 44.76 45.85 46.14

1990 1991 1995 2000 2001 2002

160,734 162,937 172,848 192,457 199,589 207,480

255,548 248,713 283,853 345,041 336,471 349,503

364,408 304,867 345,518 435,462 453,982 477,106

720,690 716,522 802,224 972,960 990,042 1,034,094

3
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 215,273 226,417 230,954 239,777 251,311 259,406 259,573 258,081 363,436 382,419 396,882 414,815 443,067 465,017 455,784 506,313 545,458 383,616 621,564 672,115 694,529 716,621 1,085,072 1,154,294 1,211,452 1,276,156 1,366,493 1,418,952 1,431,978 19.84 19.62 19.06 18.79 18.39 18.25 18.13 16.80 33.50 33.13 32.76 32.51 32.42 32.77 31.83 31.20 46.66 47.25 48.17 48.71 49.19 48.95 50.04 52.00

Average Growth Rate (%) 1990-2000 2001-2009 1.87 3.39 3.12 3.19 3.66 5.71 3.08 4.40

Average Percent Share 21.43 19.15 35.06 32.97 43.51 47.89

Source of basic data: 1990-2001 data from National Economic Development Authority (www.neda.gov.ph);2002-2009 data from Bangko Sentral Pilipinas (www.bsp.gov.ph).As cited by Catelo and Pabuayon (2011)

Why the decreasing share of agriculture (agriculture includes fishery and forestry) to the countrys gross domestic product? Some of the major reasons are as follows: 1) The growth of the industry and service sector was larger or faster than agriculture. The service sector which includes the call center industry had phenomenal growth during the last decade. The industry sector includes the manufacturing and the electronic industry (Table 2). Growth in agriculture gross value added (GVA) is small although GVA in constant term is increasing from PhP200B in 2001 to about PhP258.08B in 2010 (29% increase). The growth rates of agriculture by sub-sectors were higher 2001- 2009(PGMA years) at 3.39 % compared to years 1990- 2000 when growth rates of agriculture of all sectors averaged only 1.87.

Table 2 .

Gross Value Added in agriculture(GVA), by component, Philippines, 1990-2009. in million PhP (at 1990 constant prices)* Livestock & Poultry 29,069 Ag. Activities & services

Year

All Crops

Fishery

Forestry

Total

1990

85,870

30,783

7,320

7,692

160,734

4
1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Percent Share 1990-2000 2001-2009 53.25 50.24 21.94 22.72 19.38 22.12 1.72 0.52 4.62 4.4 92,937 100,608 103,274 105,716 108,484 113,696 114,736 119,227 126,178 129,846 127,451 35,895 45,382 47,701 20,190 51,445 52,185 52,849 43,713 54,152 55,025 55,860 33,853 37,089 39,248 41,790 44,891 48,878 51,782 54,825 58,854 61,792 63,260 1,527 1,372 960 696 865 1,325 1,381 1,736 1,322 1,344 1,329 8,632 8,006 8,406 9,087 9,586 10,058 10,204 10,575 11,075 11,399 11,672 172,844 192,457 199,589 177,479 215,271 226,142 230,952 230,076 251,581 259,406 259,572

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) (www.info@nscb.gov.ph) * As cited by Catelo and Pabuayon, (2011)

Relative to Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar, the Philippines is a climatically- challenged country. Agriculture growth is affected by harsh weather .Our location, longitudinally (118 oW- 128o E) and latitudinally (4o-24o N above the equator) (ITCZ), made the Philippines a typhoon path (18-22 typhoons per year; 33 typhoon was the highest so far). With the advent of climate change, it made our country more vulnerable . The Philippines ranked 3rd among the most vulnerable country (Hamerling,2011) . La Nina flood and El Nino drought increased their frequency ; once per 3 years (1/3 years) in the recent decade but only 1/7 years in the 80s (Rapera et al.;2011). Table 3 shows the estimated economic losses from some of the tropical cyclones that landed on the Philippines from 1990 to 2009 (Rapera et al. 2011) .
Table 3.. Estimated economic losses from some of the tropical cyclones that landed on the Philippines, 1990 to 2009 Tropical Cyclone Pepeng Ondoy Ruping Rosing Year 2009 2009 1990 1995 Cost (billion PhP) 16.55 11.16 10.85 10.83

5
Kadiang Loleng Milenyo Unsang Iliang Reming 1993 1998 2006 1998 1998 2006 8.75 6.78 6.61 5.64 5.38 5.09

Sources: blogphilippines (2009); Virola RA (2008) ; as cited by Rapera et al; 2011

There was positive growth during favorable weather but the increment could not offset the negative outcome during the years when there were disasters ( As shown in the figure below). The five most devastating typhoons ever recorded in the history of the Philippines occurred from 1990 and onwards, with combined damages costing around USD 1.13 billion.(Illa and Dabajan,2011 ).But our agriculture is cropcentered.GVA from crops accounted for more than 50%(Table 2).This explains why it is very sensitive to harsh weather. Much affected was rice as its growth rate per year was minimal at 1.3 % from year 19902009 although Indonesia had the lowest growth rate/year at 0.8%(Table3a). We grow almost 60% of our rice during the rainy but flood and typhoon prone months.

Figure 1. Growth rates of agriculture GDP, 1981 to 2009 Source of data: PSY, various years (as shown in Rapera et at.,2011)

The Philippines is not endowed with the big rivers like Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar which explains why these countries have cheaply irrigated their large rice areas. While potentially irrigated areas in our country are still large (1.6M ha), irrigating them is so expensive (@PhP 0.55M/ha). The water flow during El Nio months is insufficient due to the badly deforested watershed areas (Table 4). Per Ateneo de Manila land sat data, our forest cover is only 6%( 1.8Mha). This makes our irrigation systems in efficient because the 135 watersheds lack sufficient cover (PDP 2011-2016). Since most of our irrigation systems merely divert water from the river, they become rainfall dependent.
Table 5 . Forest Area in the Philippines and the rate of deforestation/year Area(Mha) Deforestation Year /yr % Forest cover

6
1521 1940 1950 1969 1976 1989 1998 2010 *per Ateneo forecast Ideal forest cover: 54% (DENR estimate 27.0 22.5 16.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 5.1 1.8* 10,400 650,000 210,000 428,000 230,000 90,000 275,000 90.0 75.0 53.3 40.0 30.0 20.0 17.0 6.0*

Deforestation rate:1940-1950=6.5Mha=650,000ha/yr;1950-69=4Mha=210,000ha/yr 1969-1976=3Mha =428,000 ha/yr ; 1976- 89 =3Mha= 230,000ha/yr 1989- 1998 =0.9 Mha =90,000ha/yr ;1998-2010=3.3Mha= 275,000/yr Lumber exports/yr = $150 million, >>$750/ha revenue=PhP33,000/ ha Amount needed to reforest 1.0ha = PhP 100,000/ha= $2272/ha>>> 3x the revenue /ha

The Philippines ; a classic example of an Environmental Catastrophe : >RPs forest was 90% in 1521 , < 6% by 2010. Following the Ideal forest cover @54% (DENR estimate;15Mha-2Mha0, the needed are a to reforest = 13Mha to
reforest . The amount needed to reforest 13Mha = PhP1.3trillion. The amount needed to reforest 1.0 ha = PhP 100,000/ha= $2272/ha>>> 3x the revenue /ha . Lumber exports = $750/ha revenue=PhP33,000/ ha= =$30BExport revenue from 13Mha =PhP430B =$9.75B. (Estimated from Table5).

>135 watersheds lack sufficient cover , > Loss of biodiversity approx.30 % >Air and water polluted (MMla and major cities) ; >Eroded/Degraded soil > 5decades of chemical farming left the soil acidic & low SOM , >Marine/coastal degradation (corral reefs, seagrass ,mangroves only1/10th remaining >Badly sited rivers & creeks(2/3 are dry during during ElNino, clogged drainage systems )

2) The Asian Financial crisis and the slowdown in the economy of the countrys major markets (Japan, US) altogether contributed to the slump in agriculture. On the surface , PGMA had nothing to do with this economic fluke. In a way, this is true . This will be discussed in detail below. 3) The slow growth and decreasing share of agriculture to GDP is also a consequence of the debilitating and negative impacts of the influx in the local market of agricultural products due to free trading, liberalization

7 and globalization (FLG). The Philippines could not compete with the heavily subsidized food produced in the more developed and money-rich countries. The Philippines was a signatory of GATT-UR and eventually became a member of the WTO. The Philippines acceded to the Agreements on Agriculture (AoA) of the Marakesh Document .In the region, we have ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). Add to this is the smuggling of agricultural products since it is so difficult and expensive to guard the long coastal stretch of our archipelagic country . Furthermore, technical smuggling for sweeteners which come in the form of laboratory grade products like HFCS (high fructose corn syrup, and aspartame ) occur at bigger scale . Free trading/import liberalization is favorable for the consumers as food prices were maintained at low/affordable levels, which in turn led to peaceful industrial relations as wages were stable. It was boon for the consumers but it was bane for the producers-the farmers. 4) The Food Security principle that dominated before was produce what can be produced and import the rest or the dominant thinking that prevailed was Why produce locally if it is cheaper to import?. While this sounds practical, but it led to lower investment and support to agriculture. While it was not yet corrected for inflation, still the budget for agriculture did not increase from year 2001 to 2006 (Table 5 ) ,and AFMA was not adequately funded as explained below. As a result , the Philippines became a net food importer. As cited in Mendoza ( 2001), the Philippines had a food security index which was more than 100 (103.7 up to 1999). This included crops, livestock and cereals from 1990s to to 1999 . Started way ahead, this food security principle, was carried over during the PGMA period. (This will be discussed in more details in the section, Philippines, a major importer of agricultural products and inputs during PGMA era).

Table 5 .

Department of Agriculture Budget, 1999 to 2012

DA Year Budget (PhP '000) 1999 14,956,523

Relative Increase (Nominal) 100

8
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 * submitted to Senate FY 2012 budget consists of:P 3.3 B or 5.3 percent for Personnel Services; P 21.2 B or 34.4 percent for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures; and P 37.2 B or 60.3 percent for Capital Outlay. DA budget Includes subsidy to corporations and automatic appropriations . 20,800,251 16,106,343 20,039,071 16,823,640 13,725,298 14,534,783 15,383,427 19,764,742 27,775,247 48,860,000 48,910,000 38,050,000 61,180,000 139 108 134 112 92 97 103 132 186 327 327 254 409

5) The decline in agriculture share to GDP is a consequence of the insufficient investment in rural infrastructure like roads and bridges and irrigation (which are oftentimes destroyed or badly damaged by landslides and flash floods in the recent decades), low research and development funds , insufficient credit delivery and marketing support (price support) to farmers. The Philippines actions and budget plan for GATT/UR adjustments measure (safety nets) were provided with the enactment of the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA, RA 8835) . As shown in Table 6, the average AFMA budget for 20012010 was only 74.5% which was 25.5% lower than AFMA provision. Only 1 (irrigation item ) of the 13 major components of AFMA was within the AFMA budget provision (ave. 37 % for year 2001=2010, budget provision under was AFMA=30%). The second was post harvest facilities (AFM provision =20%). The rests were way below the AFMA budget provision. Irrigation got the lion share of budget allocation ranging from 31% to as high as 52 % in 2007, exceeding the mandated budgeted share of 30% under AFMA. However, difficulties plagued the implementation of irrigation projects. As Habito and Briones (2005) pointed out, it is not purely budget allocation. The final release of funds is more important. Many ODA projects lack counterpart GOP funds which explain why many projects have low implementation or completion rate. NIA, the agency mandated to implement irrigation projects is plagued with several billions (PhP 50B+, 3rd Rice Forum participant revelation, 2011) of unliquidated funds. R & D which give long term yielding results for agricultural productivity was allocated only 4.3% which is 5.7% below the 10% AFMA provision. Rice is a well studied crop. Return on investment (ROI) for R & D = 77.1%, extension = 80%, irrigation = 18% (Balisacan, 2006).

9 Another way of looking at the low investment in agriculture is to examine how DA budget is allocated (Table 7). Rice average share for 2007, 2008, 2009 was 65% of the total budget . A keen observer had remarked agriculture is not equal to rice. How will the other sectors of agriculture developed if funding is minimal? Examining further the 65%budget for rice would show that 45.77% is for irrigation project. Ironically, despite the fact that irrigation was given a huge share of the budget (45.77% for 3 consecutive years), there was still insufficient irrigated areas (49% of the 3.126 M ha irrigable areas) to grow rice during typhoon-free dry season months.

Table 7 .

AFMA budget and allocation, by commodity/ sector, 2007-2009. 2007 2008 % Share 2009 % Share

Commodity Sector % Share Rice GMA Rice Irrigation (loc.fund) PhilRice Foreign-assisted projects(Irrigation etc.) Total for Rice GMA Corn Phil Coc0 Authority GMA HVCC Livestock: Fisheries and Aquaculture 5.7 5.1 4.9 0.3 2.9 3.4 0.8 4.8 2.3 41.3 69.4 34.4 65.3 7.9 60.4 3.6 0.9 7.0 4.4 15.2 11.9 1.0 14.3 15.8 0.8 25.7 26.0 0.8

1 0
Farm to Market Roads Allocation to LGUs All Others Total Grand Total AFMA budget less Rice 1.3 10.5 6.5 30.6 100.0 19.76 5.7 5.8 10.3 34.8 100.0 27.78 9.7 1.8 7.4 39.7 100.0 56.81

Source of basic data: Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

6) Farmers low morale to produce more and their negative outlook in farming. Farmers may be a dying breed(http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/visayas/view/20110118-315111/Unseenfood-crisisFarmers-may-be-adying-breed ) .The decline in the contribution of agriculture can also be attributed to the low morale of farmers and their negative outlook in farming which in turn is due mainly to the following reasons : One, The interaction of extreme weather events and in-adequate support to our farmers (crop insurance or direct compensation) dis-able them to quickly get back or recover after each disaster. Heavily indebted farmers make do on what they have. Lack of funds prevent them from adopting high cash capital requiring technologies but high yielding and disallow them to invest on farm productivity improvements that yield high return in the long term. This could also be attributed to the fact that many of our farmers do not own the lands they till . Two, The low support and lack of safety nets for our farmers due to the influx to the domestic market of highly subsidized and low tariff + non-QR products (smuggling to some commodities- garlic , onions , sugar, rice ) precipitated to the stagnating if not decreasing real prices of our major agricultural products (Fig.2 ). Meanwhile, prices of agricultural inputs particularly fertilizer, pesticides and machinery and their replacement for worn out parts increased . This decreased considerably farm profitability and household income. The low farm profitability is compounded by increasing rural wage(@PhP250/day) due to increase prices of retail prices of food and food products and the wide options for rural labor (migration in urban areas and working OFW) which decreased the supply and availability of rural labor when needed most (planting and harvesting). This explains why the increase in rural wage, although it is still low in so far as the farm workers are concerned, is disproportionate to the farm gate prices of agricultural products from the point of view of the farmers. Three, The increasing prices of agricultural inputs and equipment is due mainly to rising prices of oil (Fig.2). Our agricultural production-to-post production is heavily dependent on oil. The energy consumed for rice and sugarcane were accounted. For rice, it ranged from 790-830 liter diesel oil equivalent ( LDOE/ha) and for sugarcane , it averaged 1, 120 LDOE/ha (Mendoza et al., 2008). Of the critical production inputs which cause 50-60% increase in yield is fertilizer and it accounted for 30-60% of the total energy bill. Fertilizer LDOE x retail price of oil is 70% of the cash costs of energy for fertilizer. This explains the sensitivity of fertilizer prices on the oil price increases. Note: 1 kg nitrogen consume 2.15 LDOE (1.8 LDOE to manufacture (McLaughlin) and an additional of about 0.35 LDOE is spent to haul, store, transport and apply in the field (Mendoza, 2008). The increasing prices of agricultural inputs and equipment is not accompanied by a parallel increase in prices of agricultural products (Fig.2, as cited in Mendoza, 2008). Consider the price ratio between fertilizer and rice as shown in Table 8 . The price ratio between N-Urea and palay was 3.48 in 1970 and 4.18 in

1 0

1 1

Fig1. 2005)

Historical price of oil and consumer price index (FAO Stat

1980 . By 2011, it is 5.16. Moreover, the fertilizer use efficiency decreased from 33 , 29 ,17 for years , 1970, 1980, 2010 ; respectively . The interaction of the 2 (price ratio between N-Urea and palay x decrease in fertilizer use efficiency ) , led to a considerable increase in the costs of fertilizer to produce a kilo of palay. The N-Urea/ Palay is 10.22 in 2010, only 4.69 in 1980 and 3.45 in 1970 ( Table8) .
Table 10 . Price ratios between Urea-N and the Farm gate price of rice Price Ratio Year N-Urea/ Palay 1970 1980 3.48 4.18 *Kg Palay/Kg Urea 33 29 17 *Relative Urea N-Fert. Efficiency 1.0 1.12 1.98 *Adjusted N-Urea/ Palay 3.45 4.69 10.22

2010 5.16 * Estimated by the author 1970 -

1986 data Source: Balisacan, A.M. 1990. Fertilizers and Fertilizers Policies in the Phil. Agric. Dev't UPLB,APRP Monograph 90-02. p. 15. 2010 - Computed from the present price of palay and fertilizer (May 2011)

It costs P13/kg to produce rice in 2010. (The industry figure on costs of rice production). But it is being bought only at P10-12/kg. This wet season crop (2011), the estimated cost to produce rice at Bay,Laguna was P15/kg. The rice traders were buying rice at P13-P14.50/kg only. Unknown to many, there is decreasing rural labor as the youths of today do not see any future in farming. Expectedly, younger people are more aggressive and ambitious. If applied in farming this is positive. But with the negative outlook in farming, younger generations are leaving the farm to seek greener pasture outside the farm . This is reflected in the declining contribution of agriculture in poverty alleviation. It is now recognized that non-agricultural option (OFW) is the main pathway out of poverty both in rural and urban areas (Balisacan,2001 ).This negative outlook in farming is also one of the reasons why many farmers

1 1

1 2 are selling/mortgaging their lands to finance their sons/daughters seeking work abroad. A decrease in rural labor especially at peak labor demand (crop establishment and harvesting ) generally occur. The other concern is the aging population of farmers (>57 years old) or Farmers may be a dying breed as pointed earlier. Philippines , a major importer of agricultural products and inputs during PGMA era The glaring consequence of the decreasing share of agriculture to the countrys gross domestic product which happened during the time of PGMA is that the Philippines became a major importer of agricultural products and inputs. For years 1994-2008, the Philippines imported 61.5% more than exports (Table9 ). Agricultural imports totaled about US$4.28 B while exports was only about US$ 2.655 B, a difference of US$1.634 B. Our agricultural imports and exports consisted of the following : Food and live materials, tobacco and tobacco manufacturers , crude materials animals and vegetable oils and fats , fertilizer manufactured , agricultural chemicals, and agricultural machinery Evident in the grouping of the agricultural imports and exports is that the greater bulk of imports were under the food and live materials at US$3.182 billion at 1.686 billion US$ for exports and imports , respectively. Food and live animals constitute 74.2% of all imports. It was only the animals and vegetable oils and fats where export was positive (127,875,000 US$) due to coconut oil export(raw oil or virgin coconut oil).
Table 9 . Agriculture exports & imports('000 US$) by major grouping, Philippines. 1994-2008. Item 2008 Value of exports Value of imports Export less import % Import 2001-2008 Annual Ave (Export) Annual Ave (Import) Export less import % Import Annual Import Growth (%) 1994 Value of exports Value of imports Export less import 1,332,672 1,513,586 32,626 183,000 109,316 251,467 490,689 40,687 101,250 199,762 (98,512) 3,510 74,156 (70,646) 1,970 96,801 (94,831) 2,072,033 2,359,459 (287,426) 1,686,791 3,182,360 (1,495,569) (88.66) 106,717 191,423 146,738 246,925 638,231 127,875 510,356 79.96 91,655 280,360 8,420 197,359 6,887 62,316 2,655,439 4,288,618 3,340,666 5,874,213 (2,533,547) (75.84) 187,818 217,636 210,545 1,073,581 347,130 250,956 822,625 55,815 625,460 10,526 284,346 10,348 84,995 3,889,299 7,684,736 A B C D E F G TOTAL

(29,818) (136,585) (15.88) (64.87)

(569,645) (273,820)

(74,647) (3,795,437) (721.37) (97.59)

76.62 (1,020.59) (2,601.37)

(84,706) (100,187) (79.37) (68.28)

(188,705) (188,939) (205.89) (2,243.93)

(55,429) (1,633,179) (804.84) (61.50) 13.20

(180,914) (150,374) (142,151) 450,002

1 2

1 3
% Import Groupings: (13.58) (460.90) (130.04) 91.71 (97.30) (2,012.71) (4,813.76) (13.87)

A - Food and live animals C - Crude materials E - Fertilizer manufactured G - Agricultural machinery

B - Tobacco and tobacco manufactures D - Animal and vegetable oils and fats F - Agricultural chemicals

Source of basic data: BAS as cited by CATELO. and PABUAYON ( 2011)

It is important also to point out the inputs( chemical fertilizer & pesticides) , machinery and oil that are used in production etc. are all imported. Earlier, these were quantified (Mendoza ,1990 )as shown in Table 11a. Rice is 40-55 %, corn 66% and sugarcane is 50-60 % imported. Following these estimates, the imported value in the production of these 3 major crops in the country is US$ 3.6 billion using the 2010 yields. That GMA was not yet the president from 1994 to 2000 (6 years) as she assumed presidency in the middle of 2001 is correct. But the value of 2008 exports and imports is more instructive. In 2008, the agricultural imports amounted to US$ 7.685 billion while agricultural exports amounted only to about US$ 3.889 billion or a difference of US$ 3.795 billion (or 97.6% more imports). Food imports amounted to US$ 5.874 billion of the US$ 7.685 billion or 75.26% but if the vegetable oils and fats will be included, then, the total food imports will increase to US$ 6.124 billion or 79.69%. The value of imports (US$ 7.684 B) was 80% higher than the 7 years average (2001-2008) and it was almost 2 times (1.98x) higher than the value of agricultural exports. The 2008 agricultural import was 26% of the total imports for the 7 years (2001-2008) at US$ 30.2 billion. What is clear in these agri-stats cited is that we became a major agri-products importer during the 9 years of PGMA. Agricultural imports had an average annual growth of 13.2% while agricultural exports was only 9.27% or a difference of 4.13%. Why did we import the most in 2008 or why our agricultural imports increased by 80%. The total imports (2005-2009) for the top 4 crops(Lantican,2011) was already PhP 105.7 billion (USD 2.46 billion @1 USD = PhP 43 ) as shown below: Rice Wheat Maize Soybeans 1.994 million tons 2.076 million tons 1.745 million tons 1.329 million tons TOTAL PhP 39.9 billion PhP 22.5 billion PhP 25.3 billion PhP 18.0 billion PhP 105.7 billion

It showed that more than 75 % (USD 2.46 billion 4.288 billion USD = 75.32%) were accounted for only 4 crops. Rice imports topped them all. It accounted for 37.8% of the 4 crops imports. Again, if year 2008 will be revisited, it was the year when the Philippines became the highest rice importer in the world when 2.4 million metric tons valued at US$ 1.9B were imported (NEDA,2011). In the review paper (Mendoza 2001), the reasons why the Philippines became the biggest rice importing country was discussed.
Table 10. YEAR 2009 Rice per capita consumption using supply utilization accounting (SUA) method Per Capita (kg/year) 119.92

1 3

1 4
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 128.10 126.24 118.70 118.80 116.09 107.02 108.03 103.77 103.16 99.68 91.91 97.05 98.73 92.55 86.49 88.52 87.30 83.71 92.53

Ana M. Eusebio, Agric Acct & Stat. Indicator Div.BAS, Ben-Lor Bldg. 1184 Quezon City 6323723823 aasid@bas.gov.phhttp://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/index.asp? cont=selection&pageid=pxweb/dialog/varval.asp&ma=H80FCSUA&path=pxweb/database/main/MEGA/&lang=1 ).

In brief, 3 major reasons led to over importation and they are as follows : One, the per capita consumption increase beyond what we can consume.. from 103 kg 128.1 kg (24% increase)in 2008 (Table 10) . In 2000-2001, our per capita consumption was only 103 kg. It increased to 116.01 kg in 2004, jumped to 126.24 kg in 2007 and 128.1 kg in 2008.

1 4

1 5 Two, the total rice requirement was estimated by including Filipinos who are not staying in the Philippines (the overseas Filipino workers who numbered 11 million) and the corn and root crops eaters (from 25%, they are down to 10% ). In US alone, there are more than 3.4 million documented Filipinos. Three , the buffer stock was excessively estimated at 131kg/day per person (45days/365day=12.3%).About 10 million metric tons of rice were over imported during the 9 years of PGMA administration ( Mendoza,2011). The current DA leaderships find difficulties in telling the public that we are self-sufficient in rice. Hard believers will simply say that we become self-sufficient in rice because they reduced the per capita consumption from 28.1 kg to 103 .( DA is still using 120 kg/cap ).The other more important reason is that the government does not have full control on the rice stocks in the country .The rice cartel almost buy , mill, store, and distribute for retail to the consumers almost 95% of the rice supply. NFA could only buy 5% of rice produced by the farmers. Impacts of over rice importation : its adverse and carry over effects The high rice requirements estimates which led to over importation in turn, led to the current huge indebtedness of NFA. From 1972 to 2000, NFA was indebted only at PhP12.9B. After 1 year of PGMA, the debt increased to PhP18B. In 2010, the debt ballooned to 177B (Garriga 2011).Furthermore, as reported by NFA Dir. Banayo, rice import was overpriced from 2008 to 2010 at $125/ton which represent 86% of the total overpriced import during the 10 year period (Cabacungan & Bordadora, 2011).Yap disputed the claim of Banayo. He said that Banayo was misguided in claiming that NFA had overstocked its warehouse beyond the 30 day inventory level (buffer stock).But he did not explain if the imported rice was overpriced. Rice over importation has many adverse and carry over effects in the rice industry and rice sufficiency goal of the country. These are as follows:1)NFA warehouse are filled-up with stored rice (25M cavans, Dir.Dante Delima reported) and they are being treated to avoid spoilage. The issue is raised whether they are still fit for human consumption; 2) NFA does not have sufficient money to buy palay to the farmers. The burden of servicing their debt is enormous . NFA has to borrow money again to service their debt estimated at PhP23B/year minimum for the next 10 years. This is the amount needed by NFA in buying rice from the farmers which will negate the rice cartel strong grip in palay buying. Interactive effects of Food demand, land, water or irrigation and the overall production environment Altogether, the interactive effects of food demand (population), land, water or irrigation and the overall production environment contribute to the current food landscape .To start with, PGMA is not the only president who is accountable on this issue. Firstly, lets examine some related data. The Philippines ideal bio capacity capacity at 0.40 0.43 ha (CIA, 2008, Mendoza 2008) could ideally support 30 million Filipinos. This is our population in 1960s(Fig.3). We have exceeded our population 3 times (Mendoza 2008). Many will argue against this figure on ideal bio capacity of 0.40-0.43 ha/Filipinos. Majority of Filipinos are no big eaters. The reality is that the Filipinos could not afford the ideal meal that was used in the estimate. Indicative of scarcity, are there Filipinos dying due to starvation ?None, but hunger is prevalent .In the latest SWS survey, 21.5 % of Filipinos suffer involuntary hunger. Self-rated poverty was 52 % (Mangahas, 2011). On the other hand, even if the bio capacity estimate is only 50% correct, then, the Philippines could affordably support 60 million (our population in the 1990s). NSO estimates places our population at 96.1 million (2011) but the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) placed it at 101 million, or a difference of 5 million. We have exceeded our bio capacity by 50%

1 5

Land area of the Philippines: 30 M ha Land area of the M Population: 90 M Population: 90 M Approximately 3 persons/ha of land Approximately persons/ha of land Approximately 9 persons/ha of farm Approximately persons/ha of farm land land Ideal farm land/person: 0.43 ha Ideal land/person: 0.43 ha 1 6

Ideal carrying capacity: 27 M people Ideal carrying capacity: 27 people 3x exceeded carrying 3x exceeded carrying capacity: 90 M people capacity: people

Fig 3. Fig 3.

Population data and projections for the Philippines from 1903 to 2015 Population data and projections for the Philippines from 1903 to 2015 (Mendoza 2008) (Mendoza 2008)

Population impinges on resource use and availability (qualitatively and quantitatively). This is evident on land and water resources, energy (power), basic services (health, housing, education, peace and order). Resource (wealth) distribution is now severely under question (Wall Street Camp spreading into major cities of the world. Our version is the 99 movement). The strong pro-life policy of PGMA setback any funded campaign on population planning or regulation. China had 1 child policy in the 1970, Vietnam 2 child policy in the 80s. Although Thailand did not have explicit law on birth control, support to reproductive control and population education were evidently successful. Besides, their economic take-off (significant poverty reduction) made population control effective. At present, the Thais are only 67 million while Philippines is way ahead (96.1 million). The world's population still growing at the rate of 1.14% and the Philippines at 1.931% annually. About 17 million Filipinos were added during the 9 years of PGMA. These young Filipinos are now eating about 1.4 million tons of rice grown in about 0.6 million ha of newly irrigated areas .Since our physical land area is finite, any additional rice should come on irrigated areas or through yield increases per unit area. No additional 0.6Mha of irrigated lands was built during the 9 years of PGMA. Also, rice yield per hectare did not increase to give an additional of 1.4 Mt (2.4 Mt palay equivalent at 58% milling recovery). Briefly, lets scan our land resources. In 1970s, our rice area per capita was 730 sq.m, 341 sq.m in 2001 , down to 285 sq.m by 2010 (Table 11 ). Rice farms tilled by our farmers are also decreasing in sizes. It was 2.71ha/ farmer in 1970, 1.95h in 1990 and only0.85ha /farmer last year (2010) .Shown in Table 12 is the decreasing farm size, specifically, rice land per person (physical rice area = 2.68 M ha, BAS 2011). It was 730 sq. m. in 1970. When PGMA ended her term, there was 16% less land relative year 2001, and 61% less relative to 1970 rice area per person . If population growth continues, relative to 1990 rice land per person when we are almost self-sufficient in rice (@ 443 sq m), by 2016 (end of PNOY) our rice land per person will only be 253 sq.m. Lets unite and support the passage of Reproductive Health Bill.

Y ear

Table 11. YEAR

Population , arable lands , person/ha and rice land per person Population *Person per ha *Person/ha

P opulatio (M illion) 1903 7.60 1918 10.30 1939 16.00

Arable land *Sq.m of Rice land

1 6

1 7
per person 1970 1975 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 36.7 42.1 48.1 60.5 75.2 78.6 82.2 81.9 83.6 85.3 86.9 88.7 90.5 92.2 94.1 95.9 97.9 99.9 101.9 104.0 106.1 1.22 1.40 1.60 2.02 2.51 2.62 2.74 2.73 2.79 2.84 2.90 2.96 3.02 3.07 3.14 3.20 3.26 3.33 3.40 3.47 3.54 2.82 3.24 3.70 4.65 5.78 6.05 6.32 6.30 6.43 6.56 6.68 6.82 6.96 7.09 7.24 7.38 7.53 7.68 7.84 8.00 8.16 730 637 557 443 356 341 326 327 321 314 308 302 296 291 285 279 274 268 263 258 253

Source of Basic Data: Phil. Stat. Year Book and Census in Agric.* Calculated by the author

Table 12 .

Average Farm size from 1970 to 2010

1 7

1 8

Year 1960 1971 1980 1990 2010 * For all crops ** For rice only

Average Farm Size (ha)* 3.59 3.57 2.84 2.50 1.40 * **Estimated by the author

Rice: Average Farm Size (ha)** 2.99 2.71 2.33 1.95 0.85

Agriculture .. Quo Vadis? The challenges from here on. This section of the paper is equally difficult if the not most challenging. Why ? Because it deals with the critical areas/activities that require priority attention and action by the incumbent administration (PNoy) and areas of success which should be continued/strengthened . It is Agriculture .. Quo Vadis?. Of the several concerns, the following are covered : Fast track Food Self-Sufficiency Program Ensuring Food Sufficiency at Provincial-Municipal Level Ensuring enough agricultural lands for the present and future generation. Make farming technologies responsive to small scale farms AFMA wanting to be fully implemented GATT/UR and our membership to WTO and AFTA must be reviewed. Agricultural Development under Energy and climate change and the looming food crisis Designing offsetting coefficients to motivate our farmers to continue The need to amend the Local Government Code that devolved DA personnel The equity and productivity interrelationships of agriculture Group farming or corporative farming must be promoted More R/D for the future Industrial Policy to complement agri-development and not otherwise. Fast track Food Self-Sufficiency Program The food security principle that governed the PGMA (produce + import) was changed during the last 3 years of her administration into food self-sufficiency. This is contained in The Philippine Rice Master Plan (2009-2013): Enhancing Provincial Rice Self-Sufficiency. Why the sudden change of heart? (Note: 2008, 2009, we imported a lot of rice (2.4 Mmt) , 2010 was the National Election?) Although there are misgivings from the 2013 self-sufficiency target as reviewed by Mendoza (2011), the program is a move in the right direction. The global and regional food stocks had been decreasing and there is a looming food crisis. There is a drop in land-based food production due to less fertile soil, lack of freshwater ,decreasing fossil-fuel resources ,using food crops as feedstock for biofuel production , increasing

1 8

1 9 affluence is also leading to increase meat consumption which are fed with grain crops, the negative impacts of climate change on food production , land use conversion for industries, housing and others ( as cited by Mendoza,2008) . Best farm lands are situated in valleys and flatlands or along waterways. These are also locations best suited for housing , industries due to available water, and due to easier transport . Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have given up a total of 40% of their cultivable grain lands to build thousands of factories, housing estate and highways. In the Philippines, about 1 M ha prime lands were converted to non-agricultural purposes. The total cultivated land area since the 1990s has remained almost 1.4 B ha (44% of the available land area = 5.19 B ha) .Constructing irrigation infrastructure to make the potentially arable lands will be very expensive. As cited earlier, the Philippine has still 1.6M ha irrigable areas. Irrigating the remaining areas is so expensive (@ PhP0.55M/ha). The United Nation had just announced that food prices may rise by up to 20% . This is its gloomiest forecast since the 2007/08 food crisis, where food riots happened in more than 25 countries and 100 million extra hungry people(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/17/un-warns-on-food-prices). A similar forecast had earlier been made (http://dailyreckoning.com/the-40-year-food-outlook/). The looming food crisis is changing the food securing landscape into financialization of food or commodity speculative buying, storing and marketing of food products. Furthermore , money-rich, food deficit countries are now engaged into virtual land grabbing by buying or long term leasing lands in the money-poor developing countries . During the PGMA time, about 1.2 million ha of lands were about to be leased to the Chinese Co. Joint efforts made by the CBCP, civil society and the academe had stopped the deal (Mendoza 2011). More recently, global agribusiness companies and speculators, and rich but land-poor countries have embarked on landgrabbingsprees in the developing world. The Philippines has become a willing partner in these land ventures. State and private investors from China have been negotiating for land deals with the nationaland/or local governments. The Gulf countries have also reportedly shown interest in investing in various agricultural ventures in the Philippines. The new and emerging deals involve as much as 3.0 million hectares but right now, about 1.345Ma is in the record of the Dept. of Agriculture ((Ravanera and Gorra as cited by Illo and Dalabajan, 2011 ). From 1.2 Mha (PGMA) to 3.0Mha during Pnoy time ? This clouds the efforts of Pnoy on its flagship food self-sufficiency program .One critical observer asked Is the Philippines still for the Pilipinoy ? Setting aside meanwhile , the discussions whether the Philippines is becoming a willing partner in these land ventures , the PNoy administration is correct in its thrusts of Food Self-Sufficiency in Food Staples. At this point, an important consideration in our quest for food sufficiency is the increasing population in the urban areas (Table 13). In 2000, only 48.3% were in the urban areas and 55% in 2005. Year 2010, about 67.4% of our population are in the urban areas.
Table 13 . Population of the Philippines(Urban & Rural) 1970-2011. POPULATION YEAR Total 1970 1975 1980 1990 2000 36.7 42.1 48.1 60.5 75.2 Urban 11.7 14.0 17.9 26.0 36.3 Rural 25.0 28.0 30.1 35.0 38.9 % Urban/Rural 31.9 33.3 37.2 54.0 48.3 Relative Incr. of people in Urban 1 1 2 2 3

1 9

2 0
2005 2011 85.3 96.1 46.9 64.8 38.4 31.3 55.0 67.4 4 6

What are the food related concerns of urbanization ? 1) With urbanization, fewer people are involved in food production (less than 3 percent in developed or industrial economies, about 20 percent in the Philippines now (2011) while more than 60 percent of our population grow their own food 50 years ago).By 2020, more than 70% of Philippine population will be living in urban areas .This means food shall be packaged, stored, transported and put into retail stores. A growing number of people eat in fast food stores or simply buy cooked foods. Making food available in urban areas present tremendous logistic requirements as one food analyst notes.. Railways are obviously cost effective for long distance transport. Yet, what are in place are expressways (SLEX & NLEX) that charge expensive toll fees. This will unavoidably increase food prices on top of the oil price increases. Urban dwellers buy most of their food (>90 percent). Most of the urban poor spend most (>60%) of their limited income for food. Any increase in food prices will hit them most. 2) Urbanization is linked to land use conversion for infrastructures (roads, building), residential and recreational areas (We have lost 1.0 million has). Land use conversion pushed agricultural production to less productive or marginal areas. More people in the cities means more water needs. The use of water by the urbanites will reduce water availability for agricultural production. With lesser quantity and quality of lands and less water for agriculture means lower aggregate production. Food sufficiency is when food is available, affordable and accessible in every rural and urban household to keep the human body nutritionally adequate and healthy. The move to achieve self-sufficiency in food staple should not end there. Nutrition, health and wellness of Filipinos are equally important. Diversification of food caloric sources of every Filipinos by consuming corn, root crops (camote, cassava, gabi), banana not only reduce our rice intake .All these caloric extenders have complex carbohydrates and they are high in fiber, hence , they are good to human health. The 2.0 million tons of corn grits of the 7.0 tons we produced could be mixed to our rice staple (2 tons of the 11.0 million tons rice or 18% mixture, we do not need to import rice). There are many benefits in eating corn. They are as follows :a) Corn grits has low glycemic index and its has high fiber. It is good for those who have high sugar in the blood ;b) UPLB IPB corn breeders has bred high lysine corn (IPV Var 5), one of the essential amino acids.; c) It is lot easier to grow corn than rice. It does not require much irrigation water relative to rice. Producing additional 1.0 million rice requires an additional 200,000 ha irrigated lands over above the existing ones. At PhP 0.55M to irrigate 1 ha land, about PhP110 billion is needed. Besides, when will these irrigation facilities be operational? While there are still many areas that could be irrigated (3.126 Mha), but just like the saying a house is not built in one day. A case in point is Balog-balog dam at Brgy. Maamot, San Jose Tarlac. It was started during Pres. Cory. It is hoped that it will be finished this PNoy time to fully irrigate 30,000 ha, if the geologic studies and concerns of families for resettlement site will be addressed

2 0

2 1 soon. It was suggested that small irrigable areas be given more priority since they can be made operational faster. During the last 3 years of PGMA, lots of catching up on irrigation infrastructure was done. But the budget were mostly utilized in rehabilitating existing irrigation infrastructure destroyed by typhoon Peping and Ondoy. The PNoy administration, through Sec. Alcala, who by profession is a license civil engineer knows by heart that building irrigation infrastructure is a concrete step to rice self-sufficiency program. In 2012 DA budget, 39 % is for irrigation. There is a sure way to rice sufficiency and at the same promoting the health and wellness among Filipinos. This could be done by shifting rice preference from well milled rice to brown rice. ( Brown rice , the grain left when the outermost layer, rice hull, is removed keeping the bran and the nutrient-rich embryo intact ). Eating brown rice could achieve 2 objectives: 1. Brown rice milling leads to 8-10% more rice. The national average milling recovery is 58% (Mendoza 2011), thus, shifting to brown rice will lead to about 68% national recovery. The optimum recovery is 73% . As it promotes sense of fullness after a meal, brown rice could help decrease rice intake by 20 to 40%. .Calculations: White rice provides 55% of dietary energy for average man = 2050 Cal/day Brown rice @ 80% of white rice =.55x.8 x 2050 Cal = 902Cal / 3,7000 Cal/kg rice =0.244 gram/day x 365 days=89 kg/year rice consumption Dietary energy for lady= 1,800 Cal/2050 Cal= .88 x89kg = 78 kg brown rice per year Average: 83.5 kg brown rice/year instead of the 103 to 110 kg per capita consumption for white rice .At 84 kg/cap, 100 million Filipinos will only need 8.4 million tons of brown rice. This translates to 12.35 million tons of paddy rice ( @68% milling recovery ). Rice self-sufficiency is achieved. The earlier estimate is that even at 50% brown rice intake, we are already self sufficient in rice (Mendoza,2008). What more if we mix 10-20% corn grits in our brown rice. 2. Brown rice has many health benefits . As a whole grain , brown rice contains complex carbohydrate with all the essential nutrients nature provided, including B-vitamins, niacin and potassium, selenium, manganese and magnesium . Brown rice has antioxidants and phytonutrients that boosts the immune system, lowers cholesterol, reduces risk of heart disease, stroke and colon cancer, and reduces severity of asthma. It contains less soluble fiber which slows down the rate of digestion , stays longer in the stomach ,thus , a sense of fullness after a meal. This helps prevent overeating and weight gain. Hence ,brown rice is preferred by people dieting to lose weight. Brown rice is a good source of calcium and potassium; and silica, an important mineral for bone health and slowing the aging process. Eating brown rice also increases energy and mental stability as it is a good source of B-complex vitamins. Brown rice may prevent Alzheimer's disease (as summarized in Mendoza,2011). It is believed that brown rice is the key to food sufficiency and healthier people as it can prevent several illness associated with the consumption of well milled white rice. Equally important is the campaign that Filipinos should eat more vegetables and fruits and less meat. On the average, Filipinos consume only 30 kg while the optimum is 140-180 kg. The Chinese consume up to 210 kg per year while the Japanese eat about 120 kg. The unknown threat to Human Food sufficiency Over the years, the Filipinos are fast becoming meat eaters (Fig 4 ). Our meat consumption is increasing by 3.5% per year. This explains why we are importing more feeds (corn, soybean) and animal

2 1

2 2 (live and processed products). Unknown to many, we are importing a lot of soybean, if only to feed our livestock and poultry. Wheat and corn is also being done to beef up the caloric energy component of livestock feed. There are many reasons why eating less meat is more appropriate. First, There is very low conversion rate in the feed conversion from plant to animal protein. 6 kg plant protein is needed to produce 1 kg animal protein 3 kg mixed feeds/ kg live weight of broiler 4 kg feeds/ kg live weight of pork 1 kg grain consume 3-4,000 li of water 1 kg broiler uses 12-16,000 li of water 1 kg pork uses 12-16,000 li of water Second, animal production use so much lands. And our arable lands is just limited (Table 15 ). Globally, 70% of all agricultural lands (1.4 billion ha) are used in the production of feeds and for pasture lands and forage production and 60% of all grains are fed to animals. It is wasting resources or a food in-efficient use of factor endowment (land , water, capital, labor etc.). Rapera et al.,(2011) summarized the negative aspects of meat consumption on human health, food security and environment .

Figure 3. Per capita meat consumption, Philippines, 1961 to 2007 Source of Data: FAOSTAT, From 1995 to 2009, production of cattle, hogs and chicken
in the Philippines had average annual growth rates of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively (BAS COUNTRYSTAT, 2010).

Third, and perhaps the most important , meat consumption is posing many health problems. Animal tissues bioconcentrate pesticides used in grain production. Meat contains 13x more pesticides residues than grains. Animals reared in confinement has more fats. With antibiotics in feeds or water, and injected in the animal tissues, antibiotic residues led to antibiotic resistance in humans which in turn led to new antibiotic resistant bacteria (Methicillin - Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ,MRSA). MRSA had been identified among Filipino patients (Ongtengo et al., 2001) . It is like saying Filipinos should not eat meat for health and wellness. But many loves meat. The compromise is to reduce meat intake. Veering away from meat requires eating more fish. The Filipinos are culturally on a rice-fish vegetable diet. Hence, the Bahay kubo veggies being promoted by LGUs in their food is always in the home (FAIH) projects is timely and it must be expanded. This was not given much emphasis in the PGMA administration. We Filipinos are still lucky despite our latitudinal and longitudinal location(a typhoon path) and our being archipelagic country. The Philippines has a total of 220 million ha of coastal and marine areas and 1.0 million ha of fresh water. If developed and protected could more than provide the fish PROTEIN

2 2

2 3 requirements in our diet and we can continue to export the surplus. Fish are good sources of protein (20 25%)and omega-3 fatty acids or poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Fish+proteins), calcium, B vitamins and iodine, and the fatty fish livers are good sources of A and D vitamins. Fishes are excellent for anti-aging. Fish is leaner than meat, lower in fat, and contains amino acids and minerals that are vital to the body.Fish is a brilliant nutritional source for building muscles. It contains all the amino acids that the body needs for growth and repair of the muscle tissues(http://www.howmuchprotein.com/fish-high-in-protein.php)(Annex E). The revival and protection of the declining fish catch of 2/3 of the fishing bays should be given priority under PNoy administration. Magna carta for small fisher folk should be the initial guidepost. Establishing and protecting fish sanctuaries, rehabilitating mangrove areas to serve a breeding grounds for fish, Bantay dagat project to stop illegal fishing activities (muroami, dynamite fishing) are but some. The declining fish catch is compounded by the unregulated fish export whose transaction occur in the middle of seas as narrated by a fisherfolk. This should be investigated, stopped and the culprits apprehended to avoid fish scarcity in the local market and losing tax revenues for the government. Ensuring Food Sufficiency at Provincial-Municipal Level Food security before and food sufficiency goals now are always considered at the national level. But PGMA 2009-2013 Philippine rice master plan placed emphasis on enhancing provincial rice self-sufficiency. While the timing cast doubt to its real intention (May 2010 election), still the design matches the composition of our archipelagic/ island divided country. A case in point is the Palawan island which is 30% rice surplus producing province. But during the mid 90s rice shortage, 1 kg of rice in Palawan was priced 40-50% more than Metro Manila that does not grow any rice. The main reason is that 70% of all rice are immediately shifted elsewhere because Palawan does not have sufficient rice grain storage facility. How many provinces are like Palawan? Different but analogous case is Laguna which was originally a surplus rice producer. Land use conversion that included prime irrigated rice lands made Laguna a rice shortage province. PNoy administration should initiate food self sufficiency audit at the provincial and more importantly at the municipal level. One, transport (making food available) is critical concern due to our archipelagic country. RoRo is not effective when there are typhoons and transport through Roll-on Roll-off ( RoRo) is very energy expensive. In our energy audit, the energy use for transport could be as high as 15% of the total energy bill of food depending on the distance traveled. Prices will increase as the oil price increases due to transport mainly. Our train or mass transport systems are not yet in place. Transporting rice from Isabela at Manila consumed almost 1 li oil per 50 kg cavan of rice. An improvement to PGMA Enhancing rice self-sufficiency requires that rice sufficiency should not only be pursued at the provincial but also at the municipal level. Ensuring enough agricultural lands for the present and future generation Known to everybody is the rampant land use conversion of prime agricultural lands to non agricultural uses. As cited earlier, we have irretrievably lost about 1.0 M ha of good to prime lands . Population to arable land area is decreasing. Both in MTDP (2004-2010), and the PDP (2011-2016) , the passage of the land use act was included. Land use act was first put into the legislative process during the President Cory Aquino time. It was not tackled during the Ramos administration since NIChood was the emphasis . The Erap administration resurrected the land use bill but the term of Erap was shortlived. PGMA assumed but her administration did not see the importance of the bill. For the future generation of this

2 3

2 4 country, it is hoped that PNoy administration will finally see the legislative urgency of enacting the land use bill into a law. Make farming technologies responsive to small scale farms We have limited arable lands. With increasing population, our per capita land available to produce our food requirements is also getting n smaller. In field, farms sizes by majority of our farmers are getting smaller and if the trend continues (unabated increase in population and land use conversion for housing, commercial & industrial sites ), our average farm sizes will only be 1.0ha by 2020, 0.6ha by 2030, and only 0.20 ha by 2050 (the current farm size in Java, Indonesia). As a consequence, our per capita agricultural land shall be decreasing to less than 1000 square meters starting 2010 (940 sq.m in 2011, 850 sq.m by 2020; and only 700 sq.m by 2030 ). The ideal per capita farm size is about 0.40- 0.43 ha (Mendoza 2011). Scale neutral R & D and farming the high external input and commodity oriented ways should be a tinge of the past. Equally important is the new millennium challenges that farming should address the multifunctions(IAASTD 2008) of farm while simultaneously achieving the economic , environmental, and sociocultural needs of farming as follows (Fig. 5).

A small-scale biodiverse, integrated and organic farm to address the food sufficiency concerns at the house hold level must be popularized and implemented to provide the following functions : produce healthy foods available in the home (FAITH) at the least costs (energy and cash) , make the soil as carbon sink and achieve many other benefits . Growing diverse crops to provide vegetables, herbs, spices, medicinal plants and fruits(guava, citrus) .The alternating wet and dry side conditions popularly known now as climate change which led to variable soil moisture (excessively wet to flash flooding) and dry soil during El Nio phenomenon, demand adjustments in conditioning the soil (on site crop/weed residues composting), crop establishment techniques(raised beds ,use of biodynamic calendar), pest management(indigenous microbes, fermented plant juice, crop rotations, seasonal planting, use of refuge crops, selective weeding), and. Planting perennial vegetables, use of pre-germinated seedlings(SRI technique as applied to vegetables), mulching,

2 4

2 5 carbonized rice hulls, use of nature farming preparations , permaculture techniques maximizing edge effect, mulched soils) jointly contributed to successful harvests (Mendoza 2011). AFMA wanting to be fully implemented It is not a question of inadequate laws as one legal mind opined since we have more than 30,000 laws. What is needed is implementation? As pointed out, if AFMA was implemented soon after its enactment, Philippine agriculture could have been much developed and competitive after the Philippine signed GATT/UR and joined the WTO. Others argued that it was not implemented not simply because of budget but because it was the thinking of the previous administration. The current DA leadership is putting a lot of efforts to fast tract building irrigation infrastructure. During the last 3 years of PGMA, huge expenditure on irrigation infrastructure were incurred to repair flash-flood damaged dams and service canals.

GATT/UR and our membership to WTO and AFTA must be reviewed PGMA was one of the signatories of GATT/UR when she was still a senator. Her promised then was to provide safety nets to farmers. Free-trading and imports liberation except for rice, including sugar was given impetus during PGMA. Still, the import liberation affected various commodities. Livestock integrators import more wheat for feed mixing which affect corn price. Flour millers imported more wheat flour to cheapen bread affecting the price of rice. The case of importing more rice was discussed earlier. The main point is to review the preparedness of Philippine Agriculture even in the ASEAN region under a tariff-free regime. The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) enumerated by Habito et al (2010)for some crops(banana, pineapple, abaca, desiccated coconut, dried tropical fruits) is widely known. Expanding banana is saddled by disease problem and it is being criticized that its expansion is causing reduction in rice production areas. Pineapple is dominated by Dole and Del Monte . In recent decades, flood/typhoon and drought occurrence happen in every three years as cited earlier. It takes about 3-5 years before farmers could get back after a major disaster. The reality is that before they could recover another disaster set-in. Designing offsetting mechanisms to motivate our farmers to continue farming In view of the lack of comprehensive crop insurance extended to our farmers or direct compensation to farmers , the effect of the disaster proneness of the production environment are many: a)It made farmers averse to adopt high cash capital requiring but high yielding technologies leading to lower yields; b)They became heavily indebted both for formal and informal lenders; c) Their inability to pay their previous loans, disabled them to access low interest bearing loans to formal credit institutions like Land Bank of Philippines ;d) Only 3 out of 100 farmers are able to store enough rice harvest before their next harvest. Lastly, if only to eat, they sell rice which they have not planted mostly to traders that charge usurious interest rate and dictate the price at harvest. In the PDP 2011-2016, a weather-based crop insurance is being proposed. This is articulated by a number of researchers (Rapera et al. 2001). Over and above the weather based crop insurance,our economic planners and legislators through the help of technical people should design offsetting mechanisms for our farmers to continue farming in view of our climate-related vulnerabilities and locational disadvantage of the country as discussed earlier. This was not done yet by any administration. The tuwid na daan campaign of PNoy should straighten out this misconceptions. Just last year, we have 15% increase in rice yield and 20 % for sugar due to favorable weather. This year , large areas of about to be harvested rice were hit by two typhoons Pedring and Quiel

2 5

2 6 who came in succession which severely flooded Central Luzon, Isabela and Cagayan. This decreased rice output in these major rice producing areas. Agricultural productivity is not simply dictated by technology, capital or skills of farmers. It is recognized that the Philippine ranks 3rd among the most vulnerable countries in the advent of climate-induced disasters (floods, super typhoons, El Nio drought). Our geographical location dictated our vulnerability. This affects crop production especially rice. We grow rice in flood-prone areas. It is so expensive to irrigate rice since we do not have big rivers unlike Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar. Hence, we have less irrigated areas besides our country is hilly to mountainous. Except for Central Luzon, Isabela, Iloilo, Cotabato, we have less big clustered areas for rice. More than anything else, typhoons and flooding and El Nio drought affects rice production . Adapting Agricultural Development under Energy and climate change and the looming food crisis Climate change act(R.A 9729), Renewable energy act (R.A 9513)and Organic agriculture act (R.A 10068) were all passed during the PGMA. These are but some of the legal measures enacted during the PGMA presidency .As an adaptation to climate change and the increasing prices of oil based inputs, a diversified, low external input (LEISA), to chemical free-organic agriculture is appropriate. IAASTD 2008 report emphasized this. The current DA Secretary was the chief sponsor of the OA act in the lower house. OA has now a budget @ PhP 0.9 billion, a good start ! Hope more funds will be allotted soon. Organic agriculture satisfies the IAASTD (2008) agriculture multifunctionality. It simultaneously addresses the rising energy bill, the need to restore soil fertility (more OM-C stored), the health and wellness of the consumers. R.A. 10068 main weakest section is the conversion process. The IRR did not also address this weak point. Hopefully, the road map to OA being prepared by the National Organic Board (NOAB) could address this weak point in OA implementation. Some specific suggestions: 1) Crop residue burning must be prohibited. Many municipalities had passed ordinance to stop rice straw burning. The league of towns/cities (1000 of them ) if they will and implement pass similar ordinances, the impact is enormous. At 1.0 ton biomass = 1 bag urea, and at 3 tons rice straw being burned, on the average , for rice, the fertilizer equivalent is equal to PhP16.2 billion ,and energy savings of 270 M LDOE . 2) Household in urban/peri-urban areas and market biodegradable wastes must be separated for composting to be sold to farmers on a costs recovery basis (costs include transport and composting only). 3) Award to outstanding famers per farming village must be launched per municipality then to the province region national. The need to amend the Local Government Code that devolved DA personnel Some major decisive acts pre-PGMA like devolution of DA personnel to LGUs by virtue of the Local Government Code had debilitating effects on agricultural projects implementation including extension activities. Sec. Yap, a good lawyer by profession, likened himself to a general without platoon soldiers. The spirit of LGC maybe favorable in some respects but the adjustments necessary to make it effective for agriculture remains to be done. LGC must be amended to incorporate provisions (additional IRA allocation for low income municipalities for agricultural extension). PNoy administration should be able to see this necessity and act on it urgently. While agriculture personnel placed under the direct supervision of LGU officials work well for resources-endowed and pro-farmer, pro-rural development governors and mayors, their numbers should increase. The equity and productivity interrelationships of agriculture The asset redistributive rationale of agrarian reform is necessary. CARP was extended for another 5 years with CARPer (RA 9700). Why was there a CARPer? It is simply because during PGMA time , CARP

2 6

2 7 was not finished. CARP was started during Pres. Cory. Hope under PNoy administration what was left by PGMA will be finished. Why AR is important? Increasing productivity and farm profitability must benefit the real tillers of the land the farmers. All of the farmers we have interviewed doing organic farming or those adapting productivity enhancing practices that will yield return in the long term (trees, fruit trees, applying manure, compost) own their lands or hold long term security (the land owner is a relative)(Damo and Mendoza, 2001). Agrarian reform had a positive impact on farmer beneficiaries.It led to higher real per capita incomes and reduced poverty incidence .Real per capita incomes of ARBs increased by 12.2% between 1990 and 2000. Moreover, poverty incidence among ARBs declined from 47.6% in 1990 to 45.2% in 2000. Poverty incidence among ARB households is lower than among non-ARB households in bothyears (55.1% in 1990 and 56.4% in 2000 for non-ARBs) .Agrarian reform program be completed as soon as possible.. Infrastructure support should be extended to farming communities. Credit and extension services by government agencies should also be made accessible to farmers (Reyes,2002). Group farming or corporative farming must be promoted But redistributing lands destroy the scale economies especially when machines are required in the production, and volume of production is required for processing. Thus, group farming or corporative farming (based on cooperative) must also be implemented. This is a weak spot in the PGMA incumbency. PNoy should consider this in the anti-poverty strategies for the agriculture sector who comprised the most poor sector. Poverty is a rural phenomenon (Balisacan 2001 ) . Since the poverty alleviation measures are integrative in nature, the national convergence initiative should consider strengthening cooperative (multi-purpose cooperative) movement in the country. There are many success stories of farmers rising out of poverty due to cooperativism. There are also many sad stories about cooperative failures. But it should not be used as reason why it should not be done in the new millennium or under PNoy administration. Reasons for failure or mistakes are known. Hence, they should not be repeated. More R/D for the future For so many years, the R/D status of the country is a dismal state. This was not addressed also during the PGMA. Austerity measures in the guise of cost efficiency led to rationalization (re-engineering) of the bureaucracy. This streamlined the government bureaucracy including the S/T personnel. A wrong move for the right reason on cost efficiency. One, it demoralizes many when their posts were declared redundant. Managers adjusted and many new personnel were recruited but hired on a contractual basis to replace previously declared redundant posts. Today, we have the lowest S/T personnel in the region. DOST had done remedial measures by offering scholarship slots to replace aging S/T staff and those who left for greener pastures elsewhere(brain drain ). But many young scientist who finished their graduate degrees are still on contractual status waiting to have plantilla post, at the very least. PGMA claimed that the Philippine economy was not much affected by the financial crisis during her term. Two reasons could be cited 1) big inflow from OFW remittances, 2) high expenditure in construction amounting to PhP2 trillion in the last 4 years .OFW remittances stabilizes the peso dollar exchange rate and keep a float many Filipino families. OFW money sustain the life of the sagging real estate and many shopping malls and fast food stalls. The construction boom during PGMA were financed through loans and public private partnership arrangement (PPPA). We now have the road infra but they have exponential burden 1) debt service increased 2) public-private partnership unduly increased the prices, which boomeranged on the public . High tool fees are collected and it increased further due to VAT charges on SLEX and NLEX/ SCTEX road network. This increased transport costs will be passed on the consumers.

2 7

2 8 Paying the interest and principals of loans (domestic and foreign) takes higher priority over the most pressing needs : education, R/D funds, health among others. The PNoy administration has to contain or manage (live with) all these proclaimed accomplishments of PGMA. Belt tightening is now being implemented. SCUs suffer from budget cuts, leading to low teaching personnel, who make do by offering large classes to accommodate the increasing number of students. Industrial Policy to complement agri-Adevelopment and not otherwise Finally, the last concrete move to complement agriculture is industry. Industry led development was pursued during the late Garcia Presidency. Starting from Pres. Diosdado Macapagal, the debt for development model on a purely agri-based economy was adopted. Agriculture in a modern, highly urbanizing society needs tools, equipment, machine, processing, efficient storage, and hauling systems. The Don Bosco type machine-tool fabrication in the early 50s 60s must be revived. Basic to all is steel manufacturing. The Iligan steel mill should be revived !Why allow mining all those metals and iron ores to be simply exported raw (at cheap prices). In turn, import finished equipment, tools or spare parts? Massive Log export in the past left badly deforested watershed causing flash floods, landslides, soil erosion and we are now importing furniture. PGMA Medium Term Development Plan (2004-2010) and PNoy Philippine Development Plan (20112016) is silent on industrial policy. There was no chapter or section devoted for this. In short, the hardware part of agri-economic development is sorely missed. Should we wait for another President? A review of Philippine Development Plan (2011-2016) is necessary to include important action plans that were not included. References
Balisacan, A. 2001. Pathways of Poverty Reduction Rural Development and Transmission Mechanism in the Philippines. Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies and Institutions for Poverty Reduction held at ADB, Manila, 5-9 February 2001 Balisacan, A, M., Sebastian, L. S., et al. 2006. Securing rice, reducing poverty: Challenges and policy directions. Philippines: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, Philippine Rice Research Institute, and the Department of Agriculture- Bureau of Agricultural Research. Bernabe, R. (2009) Analyzing the Potential Impact of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA)on Philippine Trade Policy and on Industry and Agriculture. Researchwas commissioned by TradeAdvocates Group (unpublished). Bonifacio S. Labiano. 2011. NIA Support Program to the Food Staple Sufficiency Roadmap (FSSR). Power point presentation discussed during the 3rd Forum, held at PRRM Bldg., on Sept. 9. Division Manager A Irrigation Engineering Center, NIA, Diliman, Quezon City BP. 2007. Global Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2007. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview

Broad R and J Cavanagh .2011. Why billions eat unhealthy riceand shouldnt . Philippine Daily Inquirer.http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110309324466/Why_billions_eat_unhealthy_riceand_shouldnt

2 8

2 9
BFAR. (2009) PhilippineFisheries Profile, 2009, Accessed in: http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/styles/Publications03/fprofile_ Bureau of Agricultural Statistics(2010) Selected Statistics onAgriculture 2010. Accessed in:http://www.bas.gov.ph/ Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources (2010) PhilippineFisheries Profile, 2009. Accessed in: http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/styles/Publications03/fprofile_pdf/2009FisheriesProfile(final%20print).pdf. Bureau ofAgricultural Statistics, see: www.bas.gov.ph/SFD_Vol_1_May2010.pdf. Buringh P. 1989. Availability of agricultural land for crop and livestock production. In Food and Natural Resources, D Pimentel and CW Hall (ed). 69-83. San Diego: Academic Press Carating,R.2009. The State of Land Degradation in the Philippines,A PowerPoint presentation.Accessed in: www.searca.org/web/adss/2009/handout/ADSS_Carating_16June2009.pdf. Catelo, S.P. and Pabuayon I.M. 2011. Overview of Philippine Agriuclture, 1990-2009. UPLB-CEM CEM Policy Paper Series 1. Policy Paper 12. Chakrabortty CIA. 2006. Aditya. 2008. Secret World Report: Biofuel Caused 11 July Food Crisis. World Bank 27 unpublished September report. 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy Philippines. Factbook. 2006, Accessed http://sportsforum.ws/sd/factbook/geos/rp.html#Econ

Damo CB and Mendoza TC, 2006. Sustainability of Rice-Cotton Cropping Systems in the Ilocos Region, Northern Philippines. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 31(2):23-40. Elepao, A. R., Resurreccion, A. N., Suministrado, D. C., Rodulfo, V. A. Jr. , & Larona M. V. L. (2009) Agricultural mechanization development in the Philippines. Laguna: University of the PhilippinesLos Baos. Reyes, C. M., Sobrevinas, A. B., Bancolita, J., & de Jesus, J. (2009). Analysis of the impact of changes in the prices of rice and fuel on poverty in the Philippines (Philippine Institute for Development Studies [PIDS] Discussion Paper Series No. 2009-07). Makati: PIDS. decreases-to-p154-billion.html
Garriga M N.2011.President vows self-sufficiency in rice by 2013. .http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/opinion/columnist/764-aquino-cites-rule-hits-gma Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. Norman Bordadora Rice overprice probe on; Yap disputes data http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/riceproblem/view.php?db=1&article=20110115-314531 January 15, 2011 03:01:00 Gideon M Gapayao.Inherited NFA debt decreases to P154 billion.http://www.leyte-news.com/inherited-nfa-debtdecreases-to-p154-billion.html Green,S, et. al 2003.PhilippineFisheries in Crisis: A Framework forManagement, Coastal ResourcesManagement Project of theDepartment of the Environment andNatural Resource Habito, C. and R. Briones, .2005.Philippine Agriculture Over theYears: Performance, Policiesand Pitfalls Paper presented at the conference entitled Policiesto Strengthen Productivity in thePhilippines sponsored by theAsiaEurope Meeting (ASEM)Trust Fund, Asian Institute ofManagement Policy Center, ForeignInvestment Advisory Service,Philippine Institute of DevelopmentStudies, and the World Bank, heldin Makati City, 27 June.

2 9

3 0
Habito, C. F., Clarete R., Pena, B. D. L, Israel, D., & Ponce, E. (2010) Final comprehensive report (Technical assistance for the formulation of the successor agriculture and fisheries modernization plan). Harmeling s.2011 Global ClimateRisk Index : Who suffersfrom extreme weather events?Weather related loss in 2009 and 1990-2009, German Watch,2010. Accessed in: http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/cri2011.pdf HIPAGAN, C.T., SALAZAR, A.M., QUILLOY, A.A., CARNAJE, G.P. 2011. Policy Issues and Directories for increasing Agricultural Productivity in the Philippines. UPLB-CEM Policy Paper Series 1. Policy Paper 2. http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/styles/Publications03/fprofile_ http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/seasia/en/press/reports/the-state-of-waterin-the-phil.p http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/riceproblem/view.php?db=1&article=20110115-314531 January 15, http://www.mb.com.ph/node/314249/bolante-lorenzo-charged-with-plunder-over-fertilizer-.Accessed :16 Oct, IAASTD. 2008. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. http://www.agassessment.org

Illo JF and D.Dalabajan, 2011.Weathering the crises, feeding the future. Phil Food Justice Report.Oxfam.www.oxfam.org/grow)
IPCC.200.IPCCFourth Assessment Report: ClimateChange 2007. Accessed in: http:// www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-2.html. Lantican RM. 2011.NEED FOR DECISIVE ACTION TO ENHANCE FOOD SECURITY AND REVITALIZE PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURE. National Academy of Science and Technology Professor Emeritus, UPLB Paper discussed in aRTD of the UPLB FOOD SECURITY /FOOD SAFETY COM. Mangahas, M.2011. Terraces of Poverty. Phil. Daily Inquirer.Nov.21,2011.Email:mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph Mendoza ,TC.2001.PURSUING THE DEBATES ON SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM. SEARCA Professorial Chair Inaugural Lecture Department of Agriculture, U.P. Los Baos 03 July 2001 Mendoza, T.C. 2008 . Why Food Prices Increase & What Can Be Done. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 2008:33(1): 87-101. Mendoza TC. 2011. SMALL- SCALE BIODIVERSE, INTEGRATED & ORGANIC(BIO) METHOD OF FARMING: The Key to Food Self-Sufficiency in the 21st Century . Gaia.In Press Mendoza, T.C. 2009 . Food Security Implications of Biofuel Production . Annals of Tropical Researc. 31(1): 1-33.

Mendoza, T. C. 2010. Organic Agriculture : the Logical Sequence to Modern Chemical Agriculture in the Philippine Context . Annals of Tropical Research Annals of Tropical Research 32 (2): 1-22. Mendoza, T. C. 2011. A Review on the Estimates of Rice Per Capita Consumption and its Implications to the Rice SelfSufficiency Program of the Government. Paper discussed during the Rice Policy Forum Series , 03 June 2011, Friday, PRRM Building, 56 Mother Ignacia Avenue corner Dr. Lazcano St., Quezon City. Integritas Bulletin .June to Sept. 2011 issue Mendoza, T. C. 2011. Ensuring Food Sovereignty : A crucial challenge. Integritas Bulletin No.2 March 2011. p37- 64.

3 0

3 1
Mendoza, T. C. 2011. Brown Rice: The Key to Food Sufficiency and Healthier Filipinos. . Integritas Bulletin. Review/editing in progress NEDA. 2009. Updated Medium Term Development Plan 2004-2010. 314 p. NEDA. 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. 403 p. Accessed in: http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/20112016/default.asp Obien, S. 2011. DA Food Sufficiency Program. Power point presentation discussed during the 2nd Rice Policy Forum held at PRRM Bldg. July 29, 2011. Ontengco,DC , FPAM,1 Leilani A. Baltazar, MS,2 Roberta S. Santiago, ,2 Ronald R. Matias, ,2 Cecilia A. Isaac,2 and Alexander O. Tuazon,.2 Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Filipino Patients (1999-2003).(1 Biological Sciences Department, United Laboratories, Inc., 66 United St., Mandaluyong City 1501, email:dcontengco@unilab.com.ph; Tel. No. (02) 6318501 loc 8847; Fax No. (02) 6337767;2Medical Affairs Division, United Laboratories, Inc., Mandaluyong City) http://www.psmid.org.ph/vol33/vol33num3topic4.pdf. Accessed. Nov.21, 2011 Pedro M., R. Benavides, and C.arba (2006) Dietary changes andhealth implications: an emergingdouble burden of under and overnutrition. Accessed in: http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/files/fnri %20files/abstracts32nd/posters/doubleburden.pdf Peng, S et. al. (2004) Riceyields decline with higher nighttemperature from global warming,PNAS, Vol. 101, No. 27, 26 July2004. Accessed in: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1703/pnas.0403720101. Pfeiffer, DA. 2003. Eating Fossil Fuels. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html/or http://www.mountainsentinel.com/content/eatingfossilfuels.pdf Philippine Daily Inquirer, Unseenfood crisis: Farmers may be a dying breed, 18 January 2011.Accessed in: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/visayas/view/20110118-315111/Unseenfood-crisis-Farmersmay-be-adying-breed. PIADOZO, M.E.S., PARIS, T.B., Jr, RAMIREZ, P.I.B. 2011. Philippine Agriculture Trade Policies Policy Paper II. Policy Paper Series 1. Policy Paper 1 Ramirez ,Jun. 2011.Bolante, Lorenzo charged with plunder over fertilizer scam. http://www.mb.com.ph/node/314249/bolante-lorenzo-charged-with-plunder-over-fertilizer-.Accessed :16 Oct, 2011

Reyes, C. M., 2002. Impacts of Agrarian ReformonPoverty.DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 200202.Philippine Institute for Development Studies3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, PhilippinesTel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705; Fax No: 8939589; E-mail: publications@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph./ http://www.pids.gov.ph
RAPERA, CL., MENDOZA, T.C. and SUMALDE, Z.M. 2011. Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture Development in the Philippines: Policy Issues and Strategic Directory. UPLB-CEM Policy Paper Series 1. Policy Paper 3 Science 33(2): 87-101 Stads GJ, et. al (2007) Keybtrends in agricultural R&D investments in the Philippines, Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators. Accessed in: http://www. asti.cgiar.org/pdf/PhilippinesCRBr.pdf. The Philippine Rice Master Plan. 2009-2013. Enhancing Provincial Rice Self-Sufficiency.DA-PHILRICE

3 1

3 2

3 2