It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the Marcos Jr. (BBM) Administration will not be able to achieve its target of bringing down the Philippine poverty incidence to a single digit by the time it exits in July 2028.

Most probably, this poverty rate will return to close to 16 percent of the population—where it stood in 2022—as a result of the economic crises stemming from the recent flood control corruption scandal and the ongoing United States (US)-Iran War. The Philippines will continue to stick out like a sore thumb in ASEAN, where all of its peers (Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore) have already reduced their poverty incidences either to zero or to single-digit levels.

The worst consequence of a high poverty incidence is the high rate of hunger and malnutrition among the poor, especially children who become stunted if they are undernourished in their early years. This stunting has dire consequences for the quality of our future human resources. The highest priority should therefore be given to a long-term policy for food security.

Here, I would like to summarize some recommendations made in a highly valuable publication of the National College of Public Administration of the University of the Philippines entitled Post-Pandemic Policy for Food Security, edited by Gilberto M. Llanto and Enrico L. Basilio. These two authors recommended a dual-track approach. The first track consists of a package of measures addressing the immediate needs of those who are unable to meet basic food and nutrition requirements. The second track involves medium- and long-term interventions to ensure food security for the country, and for poor households especially. I have already commented on the first track in a series of articles that appeared in one of the Philippine dailies.

In this present series, I would like to focus on the authors’ second track: ensuring food security in the long run. This involves medium- and long-term development policies and approaches (e.g., trade policy, investment in rural infrastructure and innovative technologies, and research and development) that will increase the country’s capacity and resilience to produce, process, and make food accessible to the population. Instead of relying on a generic program to accelerate GDP growth, it is more humane to first focus on the availability of food, especially for the poorest of the poor.

This food security strategy is directly tied to how agriculture and fisheries can be made more productive: how agribusinesses and food processors can enhance value-added processes to turn primary products or raw materials into better foods and nutrition; and how supply chains and logistics systems can more efficiently, safely, and timely facilitate the availability and accessibility of raw materials and inputs for agribusinesses, food manufacturers, and ultimate consumers alike.

I have often advised the younger generation that agribusiness as a whole is a promising profession and industry they should consider joining. It is important to point out to them that the entire agribusiness value chain extends far beyond farming. Although farming as an occupation can incorporate all sorts of modern technology, including drones and AI, at the moment it contributes less than 10 percent of GDP. However, if we cover the whole value chain called “agribusiness”—which encompasses post-harvest facilities, cold storage, logistics, supply chains, processing, and the retailing of food products—the total contribution to GDP can go as high as 30 percent.

It is imperative, though, that we increase agricultural productivity and build resilience in this primary sector of the economy. This will require the increased use of improved crop varieties and post-harvest technologies; better crop management; investments in rural infrastructure and connectivity; responsive food trade policies; innovative agricultural financing; and environmental management. To achieve all this, the authors recommend a systems approach.

Food security, as a complex objective, requires a systems approach that takes into account the different facets of the issue to ensure coherent and consistent policies. There are many interrelated and interdependent factors that impact a country's food security. A coherent food policy must account for these interactions, interdependencies, and feedback mechanisms among the various activities, actors, and institutions that comprise the system.

A food system approach necessarily considers all activities from production to consumption and their respective outcomes. Food security is not simply a matter of meeting a growing population's demand for food; it must also ensure the accessibility and affordability of nutritious foods and diets. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) explains that there are four vital dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability. Addressing one aspect while ignoring the others will not deliver food security.

A holistic approach to food security must encompass changing demographics and a growing global population; climate change and the degradation of the physical environment; the persistence of poverty and income inequality; implementation gaps due to a lack of good governance; and conditions of conflict, war, and political instability. Agricultural productivity must be increased while simultaneously ensuring that the country maintains a sustainable natural resource base.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerability of our food systems to both supply-side and demand-side shocks. Widespread community lockdowns and quarantines implemented by the government impaired access to food due to the loss of jobs and income on the consumer side, and a constricted supply chain on the producer and vendor side. One can never underestimate the adverse impacts of unpredictable ”black swan” shocks that render societies, especially local communities, completely off-kilter. A recent example was the powerful earthquake that hit General Santos City and surrounding areas in Southern Mindanao, leading to the loss of lives and widespread disruption of economic activities.

There is no alternative to using a systems framework if we wish to view the problem of food security from multiple vantage points. It is simplistic to focus only on outcomes—and thus only on what can be measured—rather than the processes by which beneficial change may best occur.

Most important to consider is the role of institutions in attaining food security, both political and economic. Political institutions refer to the public agencies and private organizations tasked with implementing or executing specific tasks, while economic institutions are the policies and regulations that allow markets to work efficiently. Where the market is permitted to play a major role in production and distribution, and where market failures are actively monitored and corrected, food insecurity is more likely to be effectively addressed.

For example, freeing up the agriculture and fisheries sectors from unnecessary and burdensome regulations can significantly boost production and food security. It is now well recognized that public expenditure programs targeting public goods (such as infrastructure) are a superior form of government intervention compared to traditional, market-distorting schemes used to support producers.

To be continued.