What’s rice got to do with it? By Jose Ma. Lorenzo Tan Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 04:44:00 04/27/2008
MANILA, Philippines - Do we have enough rice?
Probably not, considering the steady increase in rice prices over the past few weeks, the long queues for the government’s cheaper rice variety, and its consequent rationing among consumers. Some have blamed the prohibitive costs of fertilizers and fuel for what has been described as a rice crisis. Others point to hoarders for supply shortfalls. The lack of irrigation systems has also been cited.
To a certain extent, all this may be so. But the bottom line is that rice production remains a challenge.
Ideally, a well-managed rice program should meet local demand and still provide a modest surplus for contingencies. Over the last 30 years, the Philippines has rarely achieved this, and has instead been importing rice.
Data from the Agriculture department confirms that although our rice production levels have generally kept pace with population growth and demand, we have not reached a point where we have an annual surplus to cover contingencies. Is it merely a production or management challenge? Or, do the roots of this problem run deeper?
Water
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) estimates that it takes over 4,000 liters of water to produce one kilo of rice. No forests? No water. No water? No rice. Most of our freshwater comes from watersheds, which are found in forests.
A hundred years ago, we had close to 22 million hectares of old growth forest. A study by the Environmental Scientists for Social Change (ESSC) reveals that we have systematically cut this forest down and that we have not stopped its destruction and that of its core biodiversity. At the start of the millennium, we had less than 600,000 hectares of old-growth forest left. This means that in one century, we had cut down close to 97 percent of our original forest.
This may sound alarmist, but only because a national mapping of forests done after the millennium has changed the definition of “forest.” Following a globally-applied Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) formula, a hectare of land with trees over 10 percent of its area is now classified as “cover.” In other words, 10 percent now equals 100 percent. As a result of this dubious shift in definition, the government can claim that we have over seven million hectares of cover left. This may be possible but in truth, we do not have a lot of forests left. Unfortunately, bad data leads to bad decisions.
Forests perform critical functions. They are watersheds. They also retain soil and manage erosion. Most importantly, they are storehouses of biodiversity that provide the natural mechanism for forests to restore themselves. The use of the FAO definition means that our capacity to restore forests, recharge aquifers, retain soil and manage erosion may actually be only 10 percent of what we think. Our water supply is at risk. We may not have that much water left.
Forests are also the base of an agricultural value chain that contributes to our national rice output. Unfortunately, all administrations since martial law have regarded forests as a source of timber and as potential mining sites. Although we have an estimated 240 watersheds throughout the archipelago, barely 10 percent of these watersheds have been properly mapped, much less properly managed. Without viable watersheds, of what use are irrigation systems? Let us put first things first.
Land
The Philippines has 30 million hectares of land. The Philippine Forest Corporation says that roughly 50 percent of that is government land.
Do the math: Some 2.3 million hectares of this land is classified as protected areas. Another 4 to 6 million hectares have been titled or are due for titling by the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) as ancestral domain. On top of that, more than 12 million hectares have been allocated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for mineral production sharing agreements. And just recently, the government announced that mining activity is expected to increase five-fold. With sugar and cassava now being considered for bio-fuel production, further land conversion is expected.
We may have already allocated more land than we actually have. At a recent food conference, an IRRI expert confirmed that there just isn’t enough land devoted to rice. We are a nation of overlaps, fighting over how to divide a very limited natural resource among a booming population. National legislation has not solved this problem. In fact, it has made it worse.
All provinces, cities and municipalities are required by law to have a comprehensive land use plan (CLUP). The plan is supposed to temper the impact of conflicting national laws on land use and provide a reduced, locally-relevant template for regulation. As long as a CLUP is not fully implemented, an area remains exposed to unregulated, unreported and possibly illegal land use. This only increases the potential for conflict. The greater majority of Philippine municipalities still do not have a properly implemented land use plan. Clearly, our rice lands are at risk.
Population
Population growth only adds to the pressure. There are over two million Filipinos born each year. Almost all of them will want access to land. They all need to be fed. When production capacity and supply are shrinking the way they have been, is it responsible, or ethical, to close our eyes to this reality, and allow demand to boom the way it does? Is this responsible stewardship?
Between 30 and 40 million Filipinos live on less than $2 a day. They cannot buy their food; they must find it, or catch it, or grow it. They are ecologically dependent. With no money to buy rice, and no land to grow it, what choice do they have?
Put simplistically, four decades of decisions by the Legislative and Executive branches of government have sacrificed rice production capacity by creating platforms for mismanagement of our natural resource base, i.e., forests, water and land. Our national policies do not defend rice lands, nor directly boost productivity. By allowing a slew of overlapping uses for limited land, they have become breeding grounds for conflict. When the growth of supply is unable to overtake the growth of demand, we have a seller’s market. In such a situation, it should come as no surprise that prices continue to rise.
Climate change
To top it all, we now have to deal with climate change. Ultimately, shifts in weather translate to unpredictability. The climate challenge is not merely an environmental issue because its impacts are, by and large, economic. They are also social and political. Climate change changes everything.
When the Chinese rice crop failed in 2007 due to heavy flooding, they decided to import rice--a lot of it. Not only did this create new competitors for the buffer stocks of Vietnam and Thailand, it also increased the price of this commodity. The same situation affected milk prices last year due to a severe Australian drought. The situation is not unique to the Philippines. Food shortages and spiraling food prices, across a range of commodities, are seen in many countries today. This will continue.
In spite of this, some people still feel that importation is a viable option. Haven’t we learned our lesson from oil and coal dependence?
The impact of unpredictability will be most felt in countries with limited resources. Having less options at their disposal, these nations will be the most vulnerable. All government programs, all private businesses, all homes, in all regions will face many more economic, social and political disruptions than a mere rice shortage. The signs are everywhere.
There are solutions. To work, however, they must, be systematic, sustained and broad-based. The key is to build resilience in critical sectors―ecological, social and economic. Some economists have said that preparing for climate change will be very much like preparing for war―involving country above self, an increased focus on some activities, and a heavy dose of sacrifice. And the government cannot do this alone. The challenges of the evolving low-carbon future will require collective solutions.
Some nations can afford to maintain a standing army and fund grand military campaigns. Others cannot, and must resort to guerilla warfare and protracted local actions. Whichever path we choose, it is clear that we must learn how to work together.
Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
![Zoom Image](javascript:popwin("http://images.inquirer.net/media/showbizandstyle/sim/sim/images/pic-04270648200623.jpg", 640, 480))
Zoom
