Rice sufficiency and food security

BANTAY GOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

Perhaps with the intention of assuring the general public, the Department of Agriculture (DA) announced that we have a sufficient supply of rice, because we have an existing inventory that would last 87 days, three days short of 3 months.

I understand that food security is a matter of national security, but I still have to find a policy statement in writing that would specifically say how much rice inventory we should have, and how long it should last, in order to ensure food security.

It seems however that there is no such written policy pronouncement anywhere, and instead of that, we have the DA unilaterally announcing that we have food security, because we have a few months supply of rice. Without a written pronouncement, I wonder how the DA determines how much inventory is enough to ensure food security.

Of course, food security means more than just rice sufficiency, but never mind that, because for now let us just talk about our rice supplies. Not knowing how the other rice consuming countries would measure their rice sufficiency, I found one other point of comparison, and that is a phrase in the Old Testament specifically saying that there should be a grains storage that should last 7 years.

Some might say that a 7 year inventory is too much, and that it is too long to keep it. Assuming that that is the case, we can perhaps settle for less than that, but I say that our measurement should still be in years, and not in months, just to be safe, so to speak. If you ask me, I will say that it should be about half of 7 years, and that would be about 3 years. To me, 3 years definitely sounds better than 3 months.

Pardon my own line of reasoning, but I personally believe that rice sufficiency should mean self-sufficiency and that means having our own rice production, in other words we should not be relying on rice importation at all. Perhaps for the sake of argument, I would even agree that 3 months inventory would be good enough to have food security, but only if we have our own rice production to rely on, instead of relying on rice importation. But since we are talking about food security in the first place, it would only be proper for the DA to inform the public how much of the 3 months inventory is sourced from our own production, and how much is sourced from rice importation.

While it would be easy for the DA to assume that it would be easy for us to import rice supplies just in case our 3 months inventory would run out, they should be aware of the grand irony that the countries that are exporting rice to us are also rice consuming countries just like us, and that grand irony could lead to probable conflicts of interests, in the sense that these rice exporting countries might be forced not to sell to us, if they themselves would be threatened by their own rice shortages, for whatever reasons that would come up. It is reasonable to assume that these countries are now exporting rice to us because they still have their own inventories for their own food security, but their behavior could change if these inventories would run out.

It is already a known fact that China is building a second giant dam ostensibly for purposes of power generation, but we could reasonably guess that it is also for irrigation purposes. At the outset, we could say that they are doing that for their own energy security and their own food security, and that is none of our business.

That is not the case however, because that second giant dam could potentially block off the water that usually goes to the Mekong River, and that is a possibility that could threaten the water supply for the irrigation needs of the entire Mekong Delta. How I wish that that is the problem of the countries in Indochina and that is none of our business, but the fact is, these are the same countries that are exporting rice to us.

Halfway across the world, a similar problem is already happening in Africa, as Ethiopia is blocking off the water that usually goes to Egypt via the Nile River. Of course, Egypt could always claim that the Nile River is theirs, but it does not take much for Ethiopia to make a counter claim that the water comes from them.

Likewise, the Indochinese countries could claim that the Mekong River is theirs, but on the other hand, China could make a counter claim that the water comes from them. Only a few years ago, many security experts have already predicted that the next world war could be triggered by conflicts over water rights and water supplies. That might just happen, but the war could also be about the food supplies that depend on these water sources.

As it is now, we are not yet experiencing shortages of water for irrigation purposes, even if we are lagging behind in building the infrastructure that would deliver irrigation water to our rice farms.

That is definitely a problem, but aside from that, we are also facing the problem of rising sea levels, a problem that will cause the permanent flooding of many coastal areas. For sure, huge areas of rice lands will be covered by either saline water or brackish water, and this will definitely affect our rice production. This is the reason why I have been promoting the cultivation of saline rice varieties. As a matter of fact, saline rice production has been successfully tried and tested by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Despite having excellent irrigation facilities, Israel has disallowed the cultivation of rice, citing the reason that it is not economically efficient, because it requires too much water. That is a choice that they had to make, because of their scarce water resources. Instead of planting rice, they planted higher value crops and fruits such as oranges. From the money that they earned from these alternative harvests, they simply bought the rice that they need from the other countries.

That is a choice that we could not make, because rice is a political issue for us here. Besides, we do not have problems (not yet) with water scarcity. In our case, we have no choice but to aim for self-sufficiency in rice production, not only for economic reasons, but also for political reasons.

Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639369198429

Read more...

Families and communities as foundation of society

BANTAY GOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

In his speech at the Malacanang Palace, Pope Francis mentioned communities twice. The first time, he said that all sectors must make concerted efforts to ensure the inclusion “of every man and woman and child in the life of the community”. The second time, he said that families and communities must be assisted in their efforts to transmit to the young the values of integrity, truthfulness, fidelity and solidarity which he said are “the moral glue which holds society together”. Earlier in his speech, he also talked about integrity, saying that political leaders must be “outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good”. Apparently, he sees the connection that eventually, the young will become the political leaders later on.

The first time that he mentioned communities, he was actually talking about inclusive societies, starting at the level of the communities. By way of inference, we could actually surmise that families are the foundations of communities, and furthermore, that the communities are the foundations of societies. The second time that he mentioned communities; he was actually talking about the moral foundations of the individuals who make up the families at the first level, and who also make up the communities at the second level. In saying that values are the glue which holds societies together, he was in effect implying that without this glue, societies will break down. Clearly however, he also implied that the breakdown of societies would actually start with the breakup of families.

Later on in his homily at the Mall of Asia (MOA) Arena, Pope Francis warned of the many dangers to Filipino families, including “natural, economic and destructive lifestyles” that threaten their integrity and therefore could break up the family as a basic unit of society. He said that apart from natural disasters, economic difficulties have also caused families to be separated by migration and the search for employment, including the financial problems that affect many households. Looking at it from another angle however, the sequence could be the other way around, meaning that the financial problems are the ones that are causing the family members to search for employment abroad, hence the direction towards migration.

Reading in between the lines, Pope Francis has actually sent us the message that there is a direct correlation between corruption and poverty, and between poverty and the goal of having an inclusive society. Directly or indirectly, he was telling us that corruption could be the cause of poverty and if it is not that, then corruption could be one of the reasons for the worsening of poverty. Directly or indirectly, he was also telling us that poverty is a deterrent towards the goal of having an inclusive society and if it is not that, then poverty is the one that hinders it. Putting two and two together, decreasing corruption could decrease poverty, and decreasing poverty could hasten the goal of having an inclusive society.

Looking at another correlation, corruption also hinders the growth of business and the influx of foreign investments, thus preventing the creation of more jobs. Having high costs of doing business here (including the high cost of electricity) is bad enough, but the difficulty of doing business here because of corruption is apparently the reason why many companies are leaving to relocate to other countries. Conversely, that is also apparently the reason why not so many foreign companies are locating here, a back to back double whammy that is causing a shortage of jobs, the end result of which is for our people to migrate elsewhere in order to look for jobs. The best scenario of course is for more jobs to be created locally, so that those who are now working abroad could come home to work here instead.

By comparison, it may be more realistic to imagine that more jobs could be created here, than to imagine that we could create a new breed of political leaders who will become “outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good”. We should not lose hope however, because Pope Francis has shown us where to start, and that is with the family. It may take a longer time than we would want it, but if we start now, we could build stronger communities if only we could build stronger families, and as a final step, we could eventually build as stronger nation. By the way, the wish to build stronger families should not only be for Catholics, but for every religion that believes in God.

Not that I am singling out the Catholics, but as we claim to be the only Catholic country in Asia, it should not be difficult for us to live out what Pope Francis is encouraging us to do. Hopefully, the excitement about his teachings will not end as the frenzy over his visit subsides. Hopefully as well, we will not miss out on what he said, that we should focus on Jesus Christ, and not on him. Truth to tell, most of what Pope Francis told us were not his own thoughts, but were taken from the Bible, albeit said in his own words. Aside from the Bible, his thoughts were presumably based on the Encyclicals. If you miss the words of Pope Francis after he leaves, just check out the Bible and the Encyclicals.

Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639369198429

Read more...

Prospects of a dead planet

BANTAY GOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

Scientists are now saying that not unless we reverse the destruction of our environment, our planet could become uninhabitable by the end of this century. Most of us would not be around by then, but should we not care enough to save this planet for the sake of our children and the children of our children? For whatever it is worth, the European Union (EU) has already agreed to cut carbon emissions by half on or before 2030, based on today’s emission levels. It seems however that those cutting carbon emissions by half would not be enough, and we still face the prospects of a dead planet not unless the emission levels are fully placed under control as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the other countries that are the heavy producers of carbon emissions are avoiding the issue, citing reasons that it could mean the death of their industries.

This seems to be a no-brainer of a choice, it we have a choice at all. If we are given a choice between dead industries and a dead planet, which one would we choose? Perhaps those other countries are arguing that they could eventually cut their emissions later on but not now, but what if it is too late for the planet before they could do that? On their part, perhaps it would be too late for them to realize that if the planet will die, the market for their goods will disappear, and that means that their industries will also die. All told, what we need now is a good balance between people, planet and profits. Without this balance, the planet and even the people could die, and the companies that are going after the profits could also die.

Depending on whom you are and what you believe in, you could always find a reason to join the war against pollution, and you will not run out of reasons. If it is not your love for your family, it could be the love for your country. If it is not your love for your planet, it could be your love for your God, regardless of what your religion is. The Bible is full of passages exhorting us to protect and preserve God’s creation, and that is more than enough reason for us to join the war. Yes, it is indeed a war, and not unless we wage that war, many people will die, just like in a real war. As far as the Philippines is concerned, we may not face the threat of losing our country to the rising sea levels, but for sure, a big portion of our country will eventually be covered by water, while in some cases, entire countries will disappear, as in these countries will die, even if the planet as a whole will not yet die.

To put it in another way, it is the negative cycle of planetary destruction that could possibly cause the death of the planet. The cure to that negative cycle is none other than the positive cycle of planetary protection and preservation and if it has to be a cycle, it has to be complete. As we know it now, most of the local and the global efforts against planetary destruction are piecemeal, and are often not intertwined like a value chain, as it should be. One reason for this could be the separation of functions between and among government agencies, with no single government agency or council that is on top of all authorities. For example, there is supposed to be a Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), but it is not clear how the PCSD is supposed to be coordinating with the Climate Change Commission (CCC).

In the United States, several well meaning private groups have decided to create their own carbon credits exchange, without waiting for the American government to do it. That is actually a smart move on their part, because the American government has been dragging its feet in the issue of signing the Kyoto Protocol that would have created a global market for climate friendly carbon offsets. That would be a good idea for the local private sector to do, even if the Philippine government is more than ready to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Now that the full implementation of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) is just around the corner, perhaps our country could lead in proposing to cut down emissions in the region by 2030, beyond the targets that the EU has set.

Here is one example of how a positive cycle of planetary protection and preservation could work: if we plant more trees, the soil erosion will slow down, and the capacity of the soil to absorb more water will increase. Aside from that, the trees will absorb the carbon in the air, aside from producing oxygen that will counter the carbon in the air. If we plant more mangroves, the plankton will come back, and with the coming back of plankton, the fish will also come back. With more mangroves in our shores and with more plankton around them, the sea water could become cooler, and more marine life could thrive. It is important to note however that planting trees is not enough, because we need to take care of these trees instead of leaving them alone to die.

Here is another example: if we recover more recyclable materials from our solid wastes, lesser plastics will end up in our rivers, seas and oceans. If there are lesser plastics that will end up in these waters, the warming of the oceans will slow down and not only that, lesser fish will die from the pollution of these waters. The truth is, it is not just the hole in the ozone layer that is causing the global warming. It is also the pollution of the water that is causing the oceans to become warm. Not unless we stop the pollution of the waters, the oceans could die even before the planet itself could die. This could just be a matter of semantics, because it could even be the death of the oceans that could lead to the death of the planet.

This is not to say that one form of pollution is worse than the other, but it is actually the pollution of the air and the atmosphere that could possibly cause the death of the planet. It is the overproduction of carbon that is causing the worsening of the hole in the ozone layer that is in turn causing the global warming. We could say that energy gives us life, but what is ironic is that it is our hunger for energy that could cause the death of our planet. This is not yet a losing battle however, because there are now many alternative sources of energy that could be tapped, instead of just relying on fossil based fuels. Obviously, the only way to cut by half the level of carbon production is to also cut by half the level of fossil fuels consumption. There is no other way to do that, except to increase the production of renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar. Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639369198429

Read more...

Water security

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

I am familiar with the concept of food security, but still I was surprised to find out that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has come up with a National Water Security Index (NWSI). The ADB has given the Philippines a score of 2, out of a scale of 5.

The good news is, no single country has gotten a score of 5. The bad news is, the Philippines is too far away from the highest score of 4 so far.

The Philippines got a score of 2 because the ADB noted that we have the basic policy framework to lay the groundwork for good water security, but apparently that is all we have so far, because we are still too far away from the actual implementation of the policy framework, and that is why we did not get a high score.

Years ago, I wrote a paper about the need to integrate water policy in the Philippines, noting that our overall policy framework at that time was too compartmentalized, or too Balkanized, as I like to call it in political science terms. Apparently, nothing much has changed since then. On the upside, the government has already seen the need for a “super body” for water, but that still remains as a plan right now.

The first thing that the government should realize is that water is a commodity that involves a complete supply chain, and the only way to integrate water policy is to include all the components of that supply chain. Of course, the government also needs to realize that since water is a commodity, it is subject to the law of supply and demand.

According to the practice in many countries, the producer of the water should clean it first, before returning it to the natural environment. This practice might work for those countries, because their waterworks and sewerage authorities are functionally combined. That is how it is supposed to be here in the Philippines also, but somewhere along the way, something went wrong with this system.

In theory, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) is supposed to include sewerage services as part of their functions, as its name implies.

As it happened however, very few sewerage systems were built in Metro Manila and that is why most of our sewage either goes directly into the ground, or are flushed into septic tanks.

The two water concessionaires in Metro Manila are also supposed to include sewerage as part of their services, but they are not doing that either. To add insult to injury, they are collecting sewerage fees, even if they are not providing these services either. The money side is actually a separate issue because the main issue here is that the sewerage function is not being done, and because of that, one major component of the water supply chain is broken.

In the organizational chart of the government, the MWSS has jurisdiction over Metro Manila, while the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) has jurisdiction over the rest of the country. Just like in Metro Manila however, the LWUA is also not performing the sewerage function in the rest of the country, although some local water districts have apparently built their own systems.

In many other countries, the delivery of sewerage services is not a problem, because it is actually an opportunity for local governments to earn revenues. In those countries, sewerage fees are billed along with garbage fees, the latter also a source of revenues for local governments. For some reason, our local governments here in the Philippines are not billing for either of these services.

LWUA Administrator Rene Villa says that some septic tank service providers in the Philippines may be breaking the law and are actually destroying the environment by illegally dumping septic waste into the natural environment when no one is looking. According to him, the solution to this is to build local sewage treatment plants where septic waste could be delivered to and are cleaned before these are released back to nature.

Although the jurisdiction of LWUA is limited only to the provision of water, Mr. Villa is concerned about sanitation issues in the provincial areas, noting that many people do not even have toilets, and even if they do, their septic wastes are not properly disposed of.

He is aware that the NWSI rating of the Philippines is very low, and apparently he attributes that also to the fragmented structure of our water policy framework. If and when the President decides to appoint a water czar who will preside over the planned “super body” for water, Villa could be a good candidate for that.

Meanwhile, the threat about a looming water crisis in the near future is about as real as the possibility that floods will happen again as the rains would fall again. We do not need a rocket scientist to predict that this would happen again, and neither do we need a rocket scientist to figure out that water is the same commodity that comes with the floods, as it is also the same commodity that we need to tap in order to solve the water crisis.

First things first however, that “super body” for water has to be created, and the water czar has to be appointed as soon as possible. What is important is that the said “super body” has to address the overall water crisis from the top, and it should look into the complete supply chain of water, not just its individual components. Needless to say, it should also address climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR).

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text +639083159262

Read more...

River siltation and reclamation

PUNCHLINE

Ike Señeres

I was on board a radio program once and got a big kick when a supposedly qualified subject matter expert told me live on the air that the streets were flooded because it rained. His reasoning appeared to be acceptable based on ordinary logic, but he was obviously not aware that even if it rains, the streets would not be flooded if only there was a proper drainage system, and if only the rainwater that would flow into the drainage system would have some outlets to go to, such as canals, creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and bays. That is of course subject to the condition that these outlets should be deep enough to take in the water flows, and that is where the problem of siltation comes in.

Before going any further, I would like to make it clear that a drainage system is not the same as a canal system. Drainage systems are those that should collect the rainwater as it falls, and canal systems are those that should collect the water from the drainage system as it flows. The problem is, most localities do not seem to understand the difference between these two, and that is why drainage systems are rarely found, and proper canal systems are not found at all.

What I mean by proper is canal systems that are interconnected to each other, not isolated canals that are found here and there without going anywhere. I admit however that my definition is somewhat, liberal, because strictly speaking, there might be no need for a canal system if there is a proper drainage system.

Siltation is a problem because it builds up solid deposits in the beds of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and bays. As the siltation builds up, these deposits would pile up to create bigger solid masses, sometimes forming virtual islands in the middle and on its sides. Siltation is caused either by the natural soil or sand movements, or the artificial movements of soils and sands due to mining activities. Further complicating the problem of siltation is the problem of garbage accumulation in the waterways that is now happening not only in the cities but also in the countryside. Just like soils and sands, garbage such as plastic bags and aluminium cans pile up and add to the mounds of the virtual islands.

The flooding problem is not as simple as rain falling on the ground, but it is as simple as subtraction and addition. Since siltation has reduced the available space in the waterways, the answer to the problem is to reduce the siltation in order to add available space for the rainwater coming in. Removing the silt and the garbage deposits in the waterways is the only available option, but then again these deposits have to go somewhere, and if these would have nowhere to go, there would be another problem created. It seems therefore that planning a land reclamation project nearby would be a logical option, because it would provide a win-win solution. Looking at the practical side, the value of the land created by reclamation would be more than enough to pay for the cost of removing the silt and garbage deposits.

Solving the problem of flooding actually achieves the twin objectives of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). These two concerns are actually two sides of the same coin, and these should be addressed simultaneously, preferably by the same government agency. As it is now however, the DRR function is under the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), while the CCA function is under the Climate Change Commission (CCC). Even if there could be some problems in coordinating these two concerns at the national level, there are some opportunities in coordinating these at the regional level, specifically at the Regional Development Councils (RDCs).

Common sense would tell us that our regions are actually broader ecosystems that should be planned together and managed as one, at least from an environment perspective. I say broader, because the ecosystems of the provinces are too small to be managed as one, not to mention that these smaller ecosystems could not, and should not be managed apart from the broader ecosystems that they are part of. One advantage of planning and managing environmental concerns at the RDC level is the attendance of national agencies that are also involved in the environment, such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

To give credit where credit is due, the DPWH has already removed the silt in the bigger waterways of some regions, and the only remaining challenge now is how the provinces and municipalities in these regions could maintain the cleaner status of these waterways. This is indeed a challenge, because without clearer environment programs and without stricter law enforcement, it is difficult to see how the new build-up of silt and garbage deposits could be prevented. Thanks to new technologies, it is now possible to monitor and track the status of clean-up efforts, including those that are done by the local government units (LGUs) in the smaller waterways. I hope that this data could be eventually uploaded online, for everyone concerned to see.

As required by national laws, all LGUs are supposed to produce their own Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) that are supposed to be renewed every ten years. As I understand it, most of these CLUPs are static in nature, and may have not used the newer technologies for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). If only GIS and GPS would be used for CLUPs, it would not only become interactive, it would also become dynamic. Considering the pervasiveness of cell phones in this country, it would also be good if the CLUPs would have some form of mobile integration, so that more users could access the data from more device options.

Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639369198429

Read more...

Redefining human development measures

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

Dr. Gil Santos wrote: “To me it is understandable why the Philippines was not included in the countries listed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) because the Philippines most probably did not submit their official data.  No U.N. agency would gather this on their own because they want the ‘official’ figures for obvious reasons--so they cannot be disowned, therefore ‘accurate’ although in almost all cases due to the government bureaucracy a year or two at least late.  

This is precisely the reason why I do not rely too much on these ‘official’ figures.  I go to the sources and get them.  I cannot care less if they disown the figures they give me as long as I know I do not misquote or wrongly report them out of context.  I want to be accurate and to never, never diminish the journalistic standards that I know and have been practicing for the past six decades”.

When I asked Dr. Santos who should be submitting the Human Development Index (HDI) data to the UNDP, he said that it should be the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). I agreed with him, but as far as I know, the DFA is only the collector and the aggregator of the data. As it is supposed to be, the source data has to come from some other government agency, among which is most probably the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). The other possible sources are the National Statistics Office (NSO) now renamed the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). As I understand it, the NSCB is under the NEDA, which is the reason why I believe that between the two of them, they could have easily collected and aggregated the HDI data that was supposed to be submitted to the UNDP.

Ramon Ignacio also wrote: “We have been discussing the HDI years back in our group before it was published by the Pakistani economist (Mahbub-ulHaq). This was in line with our intense disagreement with GDP/GNP measures. Our concept of human development covers economic development, personal development, political development (increased political participation and rationalization of authority) and social justice. Human development is relative to current stage of development and societal culture - thus comparison should be among similar categories”. He added that “Human development should take the significant roles of physical environment, social environment, political environment, economic environment and now technological environment on how they could affect human lives. The outcomes must always be related to human lives”. Furthermore, he said that “We cannot compare human development between Japan and the Philippines or human development between North Korea and South Korea”.

Among the three dimensions that are included in the HDI statistic (life expectancy, literacy and income), income levels or the quality of life is probably the most complicated and contentious. Although not expressly stated, the data about income or the quality of life is directly related to the data about the poverty rate in every country. Looking at it another way, the three dimensions of the HDI statistic could simply be reported as the longevity rate, the literacy rate and the poverty rate. Even if income levels could be a good basis for computing the poverty rate, it is not necessarily accurate. This is perhaps the reason why some economists are questioning the old approach of using the “imaginary basket of goods” approach. This is also probably the reason why the United Nations eventually adopted the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), apparently a supplement to the HDI statistic.

In theory, it is not possible for a country to have a high HDI rank if it has a high poverty rate. That is simply because if it has a high poverty rate, its income levels would probably be low, and its quality of life would probably be low also. In reality however, is it possible for a country to have a high poverty rate, and yet it would also have a high quality of life? If we base it on the “imaginary basket of goods” approach”, it would be possible for many people to have “access” to many of the “goods” inside the basket, if these are available to everyone in the form of public services or subsidies. However, if we base it on the MPI approach, many people would still be considered poor if they would have no access to a dwelling with a decent Floor, some necessary appliances that could be counted as Assets, Cooking fuels, Electricity, Toilets and Safe water or FACETS (my own acronym).

Censuses are not the same as surveys, because the data in the former is supposed to be empirical, whereas the data in the latter is only supposed to be indicative. The problem is, censuses in the Philippines are done only every five years, the last one being in 2010 and the next one is scheduled for 2015. That is a problem, because the submission of HDI data to the UNDP is supposed to be done every year. Besides, the data gathered in the census appears to be focused more on counting the population, rather than measuring the status of human development. Is it possible therefore to gather the data about the status of human development on a yearly basis without waiting for the census that is done every five years? I think that it is possible, if we gather the data from below, from the provincial level, being the only practical and credible source as I see it.

Since the Local Government Code (LGC) has already provided for the creation of the Provincial Development Councils (PDCs), I think that it is possible to mandate these councils to gather and submit the data to the NEDA, being supposedly the apex of the entire PDC structure. Objectively, these PDCs should gather the data in the manner of censuses, and not by way of surveys. Following the principle that the data should be coming from below, these PDCs could easily collect the data from the Municipal Development Councils (MDCs), yet another layer created by the LGC. This approach is also in line with the principle of subsidiarity; that tasks could be done better at the lowest units rather than at the very top. In terms of software programming, this is just like subdividing a problem into many manageable parts.

How could we redefine human development measurement so that it will encompass economic development, personal development, political development and social justice, at the same time considering the significant roles of the physical environment, the social environment, the political environment, the economic environment and the technological environment? It seems that we are a long way from doing that, but the questions concerning these data sets could easily be incorporated in the annual censuses that will be conducted by the PDCs. On the practical side, the data gathered from these censuses would give us a better understanding of how and where our taxes are being spent, by way of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and the Internal Revenue Allocations (IRAs).

Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639083159262

Read more...

Local rehabilitation and development

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

Rehabilitation and redevelopment are two twin objectives that should never be separated from each other. The first requirement of course is to recognize that these are distinct from each other, even if it would seem that they are one and the same.

This requirement is very important, because the lack of recognition could potentially cause the failure of applicable implementation programs. This is what is happening in the anti-poverty program, because until now, many of our government officials do not seem to recognize the difference between poverty alleviation and poverty reduction.

This is also what is happening in the barangay development program, because many of our government officials do not recognize the difference between a barangay “Chairman” and a barangay “Captain”. Perhaps they do not know that a barangay Chairman is a democratic leader of an elected council who does not have dictatorial power.

A barangay Captain as it implies is a mental residue from the Spanish times, wherein the said “Kapitan” is actually an officer of the “Guardia Civil”, no wonder the position had dictatorial and military powers at that time.

Perhaps it is also the same case in the solid waste management program, because it seems that many of our government officials also do not recognize the difference between a dumpsite and a landfill. For those who would also want to know, dumpsites are already banned and only landfills are allowed now. But not just any landfill is allowed, because these have to comply with strict engineering and safety standards in order to ensure that no harmful substances would leak into the soil and the aquifer.

Long before the strong earthquakes and typhoons hit the Visayan regions, our laws had already required the building of easements from the waterways, and the building of materials recovery facilities (MRFs). It seems however that many of our Local Government Units (LGUs) do not recognize these laws. It is good to plan for, and dream about what is good for the future, but we need to have a reality check, to be reminded that if we could not follow our present laws, how could we even achieve our future plans?

Let us also not forget that for many decades now, we have been talking about building “farm to market” roads, aside from building “post harvest facilities”. These are of course good plans, but let us have the reality check that up to now, these are just dreams for the most part. For the record, I am not dousing cold water on our wishes to rebuild and rehabilitate our damaged regions. On the other hand, I am suggesting that we should temper our wishes, meaning that we should only start what we could finish, and let us not even think of anything that we could not realize.

Just like building a house, a good rehabilitation and redevelopment project would need a good plan. In the case of rebuilding and redeveloping entire communities however, this type of project would need more than just good architectural and engineering plans.

In line with this, I would like to propose a “Triple E” strategy, an approach that would combine Energy, Ecology and Efficiency. Just to put this strategy in the right perspective, I will tell you right away that I have seen some of the “state of the art” real estate development projects in the Philippines, and to my disappointment, most of them do not have renewable energy, do not have solid waste management (no MRFs) and do not have efficient systems (no automation).

Of course it is easy to say that we want to build “green” communities, but what is the use of being a “green” community if it is not also “smart” (efficient)? Besides, how could a community be “smart” if it is not even “green”? On top of it all, how could a community be “smart” and “green” if it does not have renewable energy? First things first, it is important for our local government officials to recognize that “green architecture” is already inseparable from renewable energy. What this means is that architecture could not be “green” if its energy supply is not renewable and sustainable.

Looking at this another way, modern agriculture is now capable of not only producing food, but also raw materials for energy generation. As I understand it, “efficiency” should mean not just the automation of services and processes, but also the availability of essential necessities such as food and water. Speaking of water, our local government officials should also recognize that with cheap energy, they could now tap water sources and process these to become drinkable. And conversely, if they have flowing water nearby, they could also produce energy using hydro technologies. The cycle goes on, because if they have water, they could also produce food.

Redevelopment means the restoration of damaged structures from the previously developed infrastructure. It could also mean the building of new infrastructure that was not part of what was there before.

Either way, the starting point should always be a good Integrated Area Development (IAD) plan that should always start with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). All of these could be implemented using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Computer Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided Modelling (CAM) and Operations Research (OR).

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text +639083159262

Read more...

Redefining food security

PUNCHLINE  

Ike Señeres

Recent reports about the supply of onions and garlic should teach us a lesson that food security should not only mean quantity, but should also mean quality and affordability. These three conditions should always be present as if it is a holy trinity, otherwise we could not achieve food security at all. The second lesson we should learn is that food security could not be achieved by the actions of a single government agency working alone. In other words, food security could only be achieved by many government agencies working together towards a common goal. Finally, we should learn the third lesson that food security involves a supply chain that starts with production and ends in consumption, and with many other chain components in between.

By comparison, quantity is probably the most important requirement in the supply chain, based on the argument that it does not matter how food would taste and how much it would cost, provided that there is enough for everyone to eat. However, this argument should be tempered with moderation, because it is self-defeating. If food would cost too much, we may not have enough money to buy it, therefore we may not be able to produce or buy enough quantities for everyone. Additionally, if the food does not taste good enough, there is no point in having enough of it, no matter how cheap it is.

As it is actually happening now, food quality no longer means simply taste at all, but also the safety and the nutrition content. It has already been proven time and again that we are what we eat, and that food could either make us healthy or make us sick, depending on which way we would want to go. It has also been proven that we could eat until we have a full stomach, but that does not necessarily mean that what we eat is full of nutritious ingredients. The bottom line is that we have to know what we are eating; otherwise we would not know what makes us healthy or what makes us sick. The problem with this is that food and nutrition information is not always available to the general public, aside from the fact that our food inspection and research services may not always be at par with what is needed.

There was a time when common sense would tell us what is good to eat, and what is not good to eat. That time is long gone, because what we used to know as good to eat may no longer be good to eat, because of the way the food supply chain has been complicated and corrupted by the greed of food producers and the apparent lapses in government supervision. In this case, the biggest culprits would appear to be the pollution of food production sources, and the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have entered the food chain even in popular packaged goods that would even appear to be trustworthy in the grocery shelves. Beware, because what you see may no longer be what you get!

Numerous studies have already shown that GMOs enter the food chain through the feeds that are consumed by farm animals, and in turn these would enter our bodies as we consume them. We would of course not know that what we are eating contains GMOs, because there are no food labels that would tell us so. And as if the problem is not enough, GMOs now also enter the food chain through the feeds that are consumed by farmed fish, both in fish ponds and in fish cages. Because of this, the old wisdom that all fish is good to eat and that it is good for the body is no longer true. Whether it is animal or fish, the problem is the use of GMOs in the feeds. That is the root of the problem, and that is where we should start with finding a solution.

Speaking of fish, there is a new global problem now that could only be blamed on people everywhere who throw plastic bags and sachets without segregating them. The problem came up when scientists discovered that at least 90% of the plastics that end up in the oceans disintegrate into very fine micro plastic granules that are ingested by all marine life, including fish of course. Needless to say, these granules enter the food chain and as a consequence, these would also enter our bodies and make us sick as we eat the polluted fish. You could say that this is a case of pollution going full cycle and going back to us, in a way punishing us for causing the pollution in the first place.

This new discovery appears to be the second problem that is caused by the throwing of plastic bags and sachets into the oceans. The first problem is the warming of the oceans that is killing the planktons in the waters. As the planktons are killed, the supply of food for marine life decreases, because this is what they eat. There is actually another problem also, and that is the problem of marine life dying as they ingest the solid plastics into their bodies. With these multiple problems that are now known to be affecting our food supply from the oceans, it is about time that we strike at the root of the problem by working on a direct solution, and that is the collection of plastics bags and sachets at the household level, so that these will no longer end up as garbage that will end up in the oceans. It is already very clear that the holy trinity of our food supply chain is already threatened by commercial greed and our collective “sins” against nature. This has become a matter of life and death for us and for our future generations. If we choose life, then we must now act in order to stop the destruction.Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639083159262

Read more...

Food security

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

We will never achieve food security not unless we become a net exporter of rice. That is my own personal view, and I am open to discussion about it. No matter how many months of rice stocks we will set aside as our reserves, that will never be enough to ensure food security, because that could run out in the event of a prolonged emergency, and there will never be enough time to import the supplies that we need quickly enough. As I know it, many countries measure their food security in terms of years of reserves, and not just in months.

Too many experts have already said that at least two regions in our country are capable of supplying our rice requirements nationwide, if only they could fully get the three critically needed resources namely irrigation, post harvest facilities and farm to market roads. With the exposure of the pork barrel scam, it would not be too difficult to imagine that corruption is the probable cause why these three resources have not been put in place, more than a hundred years after our Republic was born. It would also not be too difficult to imagine that corruption is also the probable cause why some officials would rather import rice instead of producing it locally.

Irrigation does not require rocket science. I am sure that we could irrigate 100% of our arable lands if there is no corruption and if we could have the political will to do it. It is easier than sending a man to the moon, and we do not even have to build space ships anymore because other countries have done that already. Of course, irrigation requires electricity, but it also does not need a rocket scientist to figure out that the flow of irrigation water could also produce electricity. Obviously, there are already too many alternative sustainable sources of electricity now, so much so that there is no more excuse not to irrigate, because the power is already available.

If electric power is already available for irrigation purposes, the only other component that is needed are the water lines, nowadays generally understood to mean the blue PVC pipes that are already so commonly used. Having said that, I could not understand why our irrigation engineers would still prefer to build irrigation canals, a technology that is about as old as the Roman aqueducts. Is it because irrigation canals would cost more and therefore there could be more public funds that could be stolen? Or are these engineers in bed with the canal builders who are not too keen of blue pipes?

Borrowing somewhat from information and communications technology, it is actually possible to make water distribution “programmable and addressable”, meaning that the flow of water could be “programmed” where it is supposed to go, and the “address” is the location of where it should go. This is no rocket science either, because the Israelis have been using this technology in their farmlands for so many years now. The secret is in the solenoid valves, and this too is also not rocket science because any engineering student knows what it is.

Post harvest technologies would generally mean those technologies that are used in reaping, baling, collecting, drying, sorting, bagging and storing rice grains. All of these technologies could be automated by using programmable logic controllers (PLCs), devices that could be categorized as high grade, heavy duty industrial computers, as opposed to personal computers (PCs). Although it is more complex than home and office computers because it is already used in farm and factory automation, it is still not rocket science, and there are many Filipino engineers who are good at it now.

For so many generations now, we Filipinos have gotten used to using sacks and bags to pack and transport rice. It seems that there is no other way of doing it, and we are not looking for other ways of doing it. For obvious reasons, bags are still needed for retail sales, but it is about time that we start replacing sacks with the vacuum method for storage and transport purposes. One advantage of the vacuum method is the reduction in wastage brought about by spillage and by the infestation of rats and insects.

I do understand the need for farm to market roads, but I also understand that in a demand driven market economy, roads could easily be built if the business is good. This could be a chicken and the egg situation, but assuming that the rice farmers will be making money from the sales of their produce, they themselves will be able to afford the building of roads, which need not be cemented right away. For whatever it is worth, there is a technology now for building roads with the use of soil stabilizers, a method that costs a lot lesser than using cement.

Perhaps our government officials do not realize it yet, but there is actually a direct connection between rice production and water. Not just irrigation water in particular, but water in general and for all purposes. Imagine if we have enough supplies of rice, but we do not have enough water to cook it with. Just to complete the equation, we also have to plan for the energy that is needed to cook the rice. Hopefully it will never happen, but we should plan ahead to avoid the triple whammy of not having enough rice to cook, and not having enough water and energy to cook it.

The upper class might not notice it yet, but the middle class is already feeling the pains of buying LPG at continuously increasing prices. The time will come when the middle class will not be able to afford the price of LPG, as it is happening now among the lower class. It is about time that we look at food security not only in terms of the food that we eat, but also in terms of the energy that we need to cook it.

Email bantaygobyerno- subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639083159262

Read more...

Moving forward with science and technology

PUNCHLINE

Ike Señeres

Former Technology Resource Center (TRC) Director General Ms. Chitang Nakpil has defined “technology” in a way that everybody could easily understand. She said that “technology is a better way of doing things”. Mr. Ito Carlos, Chairman of the Philippine Foundation for Science and Technology (PFST) defines “technology” by way of comparison, saying that “technology is the application of science”. In a manner of speaking, the definitions of Ms. Nakpil and Mr. Carlos actually compliments each other, if we could all agree that “technology is the application of science, to do things in a better way”.

It is a long story how I ended up in the science and technology (S&T) advocacy. I became familiar with TRC way back in my days with the Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS), when I was a Group Product Manager and Assistant Vice President of Bliss Marketing Corporation (BLISSMARK) which was also a subsidiary of the Human Settlements Development Corporation (HSDC), in the same way that TRC was also an HSDC subsidiary at that time. As a matter of fact, BLISSMARK and TRC were next door neighbors in our Makati offices.

After my stint with MHS, I became a Senior Partner of Technology Ventures, Inc. (TVI), a company founded by Mr. Arthur Alvendia who was also a former Director General of TRC, just like Ms. Nakpil. It was in TVI that I learned hands on how to apply science in the form of technology, in the manner that Mr. Carlos has described. Looking back, Mr. Alvendia showed me how to turn technologies into businesses, how to bring technology based products into the mass markets.

During my stint with the Philippine Consulate General in New York City, I became an officer of the Science and Technology Advisory Council (STAC), an organization of expatriate Filipino scientists and technologists that was attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). STAC was also closely associated with the Brain Gain Network (BGN), an association of Filipino students in America who were working for the transfer of foreign technologies to the Philippines.

Upon my return to the DFA Home Office in Manila, I was assigned as Director of the Science & Technology Unit (STU) under the Office for Economic Cooperation (OEC) headed by DFA Undersecretary Federico M. Macaranas. In that capacity, I also supervised several offices that were under Dr. Macaranas, namely STAC, BGN, Technological Information Promotion System (TIPS), Return of Knowledge and Technology (RKT) and the Transfer of Knowledge thru Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN).

Also in that capacity, I was designated as the DFA representative to the Science & Technology Coordinating Council (STCC), the National Information Technology Council (NITC) and the Steering Committee for the Balik-Scientist Program in coordination with the Department of Science & Technology (DOST). Sad to say, both STCC and NITC are now defunct. STCC is as good as dead, but some functions of NITC have been absorbed by the existing Information & Communications Technology Office (ICTO), and agency under DOST.

During those days, the popular notion was that ICT was a derivative of S&T, a legal fiction that should still be accepted up to now. That is consistent with the view of Mr. Carlos that “technology is the application of science”. This is perhaps the logic behind the decision of the government to place ICTO under the DOST. On a broader scale however, we are still facing the bigger challenge of how to make use of science so that it could already be applied or deployed in the form of technology, and I do not mean ICT only.

I thought I knew everything about TRC, until I heard from Mr. Dennis Cunanan, the incumbent TRC Director General that it is supposed to be the repository of S&T for the good of the people. On a higher scale, it is supposed to be the repository of all S&T for the long term survival of our nation. In this sense, it is good to know that TRC is now under DOST. Looking back however, I think it was a bad decision to inject the livelihood function into TRC before, because it actually marginalized its noble role as the repository of S&T.

I also found out that under its charter, TRC is tasked with the official role of bringing out inventions to market. Until now, I did not know that another government agency has this function. I thought that the Technology Application and Promotion Institute (TAPI) under the DOST was the only agency that was tasked with this function. I do not mind the fact that there would be a duplication of functions if these two agencies would work together, because what is important is to bring out Filipino inventions to market. As a matter of fact, that should not be a problem at all, because TRC and TAPI are both under DOST.

I think that it would be a good idea to revive both STCC and NITC, but this time under one council, following the legal fiction that ICT is actually a derivative of S&T. This time however, I think that the jointly revived council should be led by the private sector, in the spirit of Public and Private Cooperation (PPP). Since the idea is to bring out Filipino inventions to market, it should have the active participation of the DOST and the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI).

Bringing out Filipino inventions to market is just one way, the outbound way. Bringing in foreign technologies is the other way, the inbound way. The problem now is that there is a technology gap in the inbound way, because it takes many years before foreign technologies are applied or deployed locally. Something has to be done in order to shorten this technology gap, so that in would only take months, and not years. One way or the other, the government should make it easy for foreign technologies to be quickly applied or deployed locally.

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text +639083159262

Read more...