"RA 1998: Displacing Farmers, Benefiting Traders"
(Notes on the recent passage of the Rice Tarrification Bill)
As part of its neoliberal-globalist venture by entrenched entities, the present administration has made another scheme affecting agriculture, with the recent signing of the House Bill 1998 or the Rice Tarrification Act.
This act, promoted by its apologists as a measure to the recent crisis on foodstuffs, hath rather created mostly negative reactions from the populace. Driven by the recent events surrounding rice shortage and failure to support farmers in the countryside, the Duterte administration, whom earlier promised to promote self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, hath resorted to neoliberal-oriented measures, as it assures that the lifting of importation restrictions will moderate prices and to curb the high inflation that plagued consumers, especially the poor, as it thoroughly reform and revolutionize the system of rice imports, as well as relaxing them to allow free flow of such imports, regardless of its effects to domestic production of rice and by extension, other foodstuffs.
But despite its intent to resolve the issue on food supply, people, particularly farmers criticised the measure if not exposing the government's general neglect of the agricultural sector favouring those of the traders and in respect to the existing neoliberal-oriented agreements. That, with little allocation to agricultural development in the countryside, the focus on increasing rice imports without bolstering domestic agriculture hath rather retained the supposed self-reliant country being a mere reliant on import, all regardless of higher world market prices and volatile rice production of its neighbouring countries.
Is it really sufficiency, just competition,
or just killing the farming sector in the name of free trade?
Using the alibi that "consumers must be freed of food supply apprehension" and "provided with price stability at an affordable level." This measure assumes that it will address those concerns through free and open competition.
But obviously, this act does also meant that the Philippines, whilst feigning that its government "continues to help farmers" can now bluntly import unlimited quantities of rice all at low prices from its neighbours be it Vietnam, Thailand, or even China. In Vietnam for example, the kilo of long grain, white rice is $550.00 per metric ton or P 28.10 per kilo. Yet with these "cheap" prices, no local farmer, regardless of its hard work can able compete with rice prices coming from its own neighbours, making the government or rather entrenched entities simply depend on imports instead of supporting its very own farmers in planting rice and various foodstuffs all for agricultural self-sufficiency.
Furthermore, there are provisions in that said law in which reduces the functions of the National Food Authority all from being a state distributor of subsidised rice for the masses to those of being buffer stocking of palay bought from local farmers, aside from that, there were even attempts to "just" disband the foodstuff trading institution be it by simply reducing its functions to direct rice importation, making the latter task all primarily in the hands of importers.
Amusing isn't it? Ironically, the countries that the Philippines bought rice for its domestic stock, hath seriously promoted self-sufficiency and its government even adheres to its support for farmers in their need for agricultural development such as those of rice production- that as according to IBON Foundation made last 2018, Vietnam allocated US$400 million, Thailand allocated US$2.2-4.4 billion, and China allocated US$12-37 billion in supporting the rice industry. For sure the goal of supporting their farmers caters to feeding its population through their much-needed produce, while its surpluses served as the sources of what Juan de la Cruz is eating, so why on earth Juan, who takes pride in his farm and romanticises it through Amorsolo's planting rice paintings end depending on its neighbours?
.
Amusing isn't it? Ironically, the countries that the Philippines bought rice for its domestic stock, hath seriously promoted self-sufficiency and its government even adheres to its support for farmers in their need for agricultural development such as those of rice production- that as according to IBON Foundation made last 2018, Vietnam allocated US$400 million, Thailand allocated US$2.2-4.4 billion, and China allocated US$12-37 billion in supporting the rice industry. For sure the goal of supporting their farmers caters to feeding its population through their much-needed produce, while its surpluses served as the sources of what Juan de la Cruz is eating, so why on earth Juan, who takes pride in his farm and romanticises it through Amorsolo's planting rice paintings end depending on its neighbours?
.
Yet still, there are those who favour in it for chrissakes
But despite critcising, there are those who stood up to defend that law thinking as if a panacea for the crisis if not can be amended or as one may say say "balance" or "side by side" with "agricultural modernisation" as if easier to be taken through.
By insisting that the law will benefit farmers, if not telling that "rice farmers will be accorded protection from unfair competition through the imposition of import tariff duty of thirty-five (35) percent on imported rice". It tries to make the law appear as can able to cushion the effects despite the fact that the law really promoted competition against continuous rice importation. If not delusionally speaking that it will "provide" additional resources to support their production; if not that the state will assume itself as a buyer both from other countries and from farmers and by telling everyone that the law itself as a win-win solution for both farmer and consumer.
Amusing isn't it? Of course, for an apologist of that law will say that the bill as necessary to resolve the crisis on rice and by extension, food supply of the country regardless of its negative effects. And sometimes delusions appear in each statement posted in social media thinking the government will still able to help the farmers back such as the proceeds from the tariffs imposed on foreign rice imports under the act will be used in "modernizing agriculture" further be it by "providing mechanized equipment to local farmers", and "in introducing modern 21st century concepts of farming", assuming that this will make farmers productive and competitive via lower rice wastage and cheaper farmer inputs; or urging the authorities to disband the National Food Authority altogether which they think impedes the free flow of cheap produce and to promote free market/trade further.
How ironic then if not adding salt to a gaping wound in a form of this peasant/agricultural question meant to be addressed this kind of neoliberal idea which benefited self-interest oriented traders and corrupt officials alike in making that law happen.
Well, since there are those did recognise both sides of the issue, its benefits and risks, then did they also think about resolving the peasant question first prior to this issue on rice shortage? 'Land reform' under a landlord/compradore-led order isn't done efficiently what more of their so-called 'agricultural support' which the Department of Agriculture as well as its affiliated agencies ought to brag much throughout the term. There are even those who rather subjectively blame protectionist policies on agricultural products that caused it to be sold in series of expensive prices for years, yet they failed to address issues on smuggling, cartels, moneylenders, and exploiters of various personages that caused this issue on shortages.
What more of developers willing to reduce agricultural lands through conversion into non-agricultural ones such as those of subdivisions and commercial complexes. As according to Omi Royandoyan:
"...If a liberalized rice trade regime will serve as main policy track sans state support, this will result in a substantial reduction in rice production where a sizable number of rice lands will be freed up, ready or prime for land conversion. This scenario is most favorable to the real property developers especially since these rice lands are in lowlands and strategically located near the town centers. The further we liberalize our rice industry, the bigger the risk to food insecurity."
From this, perhaps no matter how the order and its apologists tried its best to justify their acts, then frankly speaking that the law itself, both in essence and existence, hath obviously taketh the side of the trader rather than the farmer, of those who liveth through interest seeking than by the soil, being the promoter of food security.