A long-term policy for food security should be based on a policy thrust those leans towards market-enhancing measures and regulations. Where markets fail, government should intervene without creating more distortions in the market. As regards the political institutions that determine food security, it must be recognized that different agents (e.g. national government, local governments, private sector, and local communities) play specific roles in achieving the country’s food security objective. These roles are not linear but are interactive. In fact, economic agents should collaborate and cooperate as they work toward food security, especially for those who are at the fringes of society. It is imperative that these institutions act consistently and collaboratively toward food security because political institutions are a significant influence on the type of economic institutions pursued by a country.

            The conventional wisdom is that the food security objective is a mandate of national and local governments. The experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, showed that it took a whole-of-society , not just a whole-of-government approach, to effectively meet the challenges posed by the pandemic. Addressing in the long term the food security problem also needs the whole-of-society approach. The private sector, especially the agribusiness industry, and the corporates, local governments, and local communities have to play a critical role in attaining food security. The challenge is how to orchestrate, combine and direct the synergistic efforts towards the food security objective. There must be a way of combining public and private sector energies to address food security goals.

            It is obvious that more productive agriculture and fisheries will be the strong foundation of food security for the country. Increasing the productivity of agriculture and aquaculture can make food apply available to the population at lower prices. Another significant requirement is the availability of financing, especially to the smallholders. Anent to this is the fundamental role of land, water and irrigation policies in improving agricultural productivity. All these, however, will depend on the quality of the institutions involved in food security, which in turn will depend on the professional competence and responsible leadership shown by the officials heading these institutions. As recommended by Llanto and Basilio, “It is high time to stop the practice of appointing mere political allies, financiers, or political supporters to important government posts. Instead, the first step to strengthen those agencies is to appoint or hire government managers based on merit, professional experience, and integrity of character.”

            Here, let me express my personal opinion on how the BBM Administration has contributed to building stronger institutions in the entire agribusiness sector. It was a good sign from the very beginning of his term that the President decided to occupy the position of Secretary of Agriculture himself during the first fourteen months of his Presidency, demonstrating thereby the highest priority he was assigning to agriculture. During this period, he regularly met with the top agribusiness entrepreneurs to get a deep understanding of their sector and to ask for advice on how to address the short-term issues (e.g. tariff policies, obstacles faced as a result of farm fragmentation that resulted from the agrarian reform program, lack of financing from the private banking sector who preferred to pay hundreds of millions in penalty for not lending to agri-agra projects, etc.) as well as the longer-term strategies to improve agricultural productivity ( reconsolidation of small farms, diversification of agribusiness exports beyond banana, coconut, and pineapple exports).

            After fourteen months of leading the Department of Agriculture, he appointed Francis Tiu Laurel, a very successful aquaculture entrepreneur who proved to be one of the most competent and street-smart Secretaries of Agriculture I have known since at least the time of President Diosdado Macapagal. I personally witnessed his responding to the challenge posed by Llanto and Basilio in their book on long-term policy toward food security. Let me quote extensively what was the advice Secretary Tiu Laurel responded to: “The country’s food systems need a better institutional structure for achieving food security. The bureaucracy has for the longest time functioned as independent silos of policies, programs, and interventions. Policy makers, however, now have a more pronounced appreciation of the importance of policy coordination and coherence. Under the frame of a systems approach, a better institutional structure will require (a) vertical coordination between the national government and local governments; (b) horizontal synergy among national government agencies (NGAs) tasked with agriculture and food-related activities; (c) public-private cooperation in agriculture and agribusiness; and (d) collaboration of local communities and corporates with local government units (LGUs) in achieving food security.”

            This present Administration has made a significant contribution to putting in place a long-term strategy for food security. It will be incumbent on future Administrations to continue the structural transformation and modernization that will maximize the food production capability of the agriculture and fisheries sector (it was providential that Secretary Tiu Laurel came from the aquaculture and has a deep grasp of the problems and opportunities facing this very vital sector in addressing food security in the Philippines). For the longest time, agriculture policies and budgets have focused on land-based productive activities, mostly concentrated on rice. There was benign neglect of fisheries and marine culture, despite the fact that the Philippine Archipelago has one of the longest coast lines in the world.

            Under the present Administration, there is an evident effort to reverse the long-time disproportionate allocation of resources to rice farming which distorted the agricultural sector and marginalized other agricultural activities and commodities that could have led to more inclusive growth and higher incomes for small farmers and fisherfolks. Republic 7900, or the High Value Crops Development Act has not been effectively implemented. In light of the food security agenda, diversification into high-value-added products should be promoted. I celebrate that fact that under the present Administration, we are witnessing some of the leading Philippine entrepreneurs and corporations investing billions of pesos in such new products as bamboos, palm oil, high-value coconut products, dairy, and poultry. I would like to see them diversify even more into large-scale growing of mangoes, avocados, cashew nuts, pili nuts, durian, coffee, and cacao, following the outstanding example of Vietnam whose total annual exports of agribusiness products have reached some $60 billion, compared to our measly $8 billion.

            It is also highly commendable that this present Administration has committed itself to fully implement Republic Act No. 11230 (Rice Tariffication Law) which replaced the quantitative restrictions on imported rice with tariffs of 35 to 40 percent and established the Rice Competitive Enhancement Fund (RCEF) to be funded by the tariff revenues. This is an important step toward the diversification of the agricultural sector that is necessary for the growth and development of the sector. Independent-minded economists, both foreign and Filipinos, have observed that protectionism has led not to competitiveness of the Philippine rice industry but to complacency.

            At the beginning of the present Administration, I challenged the leadership to aim for a 7 to 8 % GDP growth annually to bring down the poverty incidence to single-digit level. The three conditions I enumerated for this growth to be attained were: an annual growth of agriculture of at least 3 %; an FDI annual flow of at least $15 billion; and a significant improvement in governance to minimize the leakages from corruption. It is obvious that none of these goals will be accomplished for one reason or another. Of these three, however, the BBM Administration can be credited with having laid a strong foundation for the next Administration to realistically aim for the 3 percent annual growth in the AFF sector. For comments my email address is bernardo.villegas@uap.asia.