Another contribution from Don Strong of UC Davis.
A fascinating video has appeared on Vimeo, “Filipino Rice Policy.” The topic of agricultural biodiversity is just below the surface of the narrative. The commentators are sophisticated economists and bureaucrats who tell an intriguing story of what amounts to a cult of rice in the Philippines. The crop and the commodity are sacrosanct politically, with secretive and lucrative importation monopolies. The commentary highlights the fact that even with a long history of premier educational and research institutions in tropical agriculture as well as high yields of rice, in few of the last 100 years has Philippine production been sufficient to meet domestic demand. The popular image of rice as the mainstay to the economy and the officially encouraged yearning for rice self-sufficiency are misleading, according to the narrative. First, the country simply lacks the physical land for rice self-sufficiency. It cannot compete in volume with the vast rice-growing areas in mainland Asia (many of which Philippine institutions fostered during the heady days of the early Green Revolution). Also, rice is just one among many crops and commodities in the diverse agricultural economy of the Philippines.
The main theme is that the government importation monopoly for rice is part and parcel of high level corruption that actually threatens food security. It is claimed that some 40% of monies dedicated to importation end up in the pockets of privileged insiders — “cronies” — rather than in the rice bowls of the poor; though the the poor are the prima facie rationale for the importation monopoly. The argument is made that were rice importation opened up, the diversity of agricultural production would increase as farmers made market-based decisions rather than monopoly-based ones; other crops and animals produce more income as well as a richer life for rural agriculturalists. This video is a professional product, well edited, and lively. The dialogue is nuanced and often waxes into advanced political economics. It would be a great supplement to graduate courses in agricultural economics, development, and environmental science. A highlight is disagreement with the theme by one commentator who fears that an end to the monopoly could bring collapse to the rice market, disaster to the country, and the downfall of the politicians who broke the monopoly. While breaking the monopoly would certainly be politically perilous, the Philippines is not among the largest global players in rice. It seems unlikely that their monopoly could be much of a factor in the global rice market.
An important sub theme of the video is how the pro-natalist policies of the Philippines have made food security an increasingly difficult goal. These populations are now much larger, still growing, and a much greater challenge to both poverty reduction and future food security than they were in 1960 when the Green Revolution widely lowered death rates and led to rapid population growth. Persistent poverty of a segment of the agricultural sector is a feature shared by many of the rice economies.
In larger perspective, the Philippines are not alone with such myths. The quixotic propaganda of rice self-sufficiency for the Philippines is analogous to that of oil self sufficiency for the US so prominent in slogans such as “Drill Baby Drill.”