Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala, at the recent Food Strategies Forum, remarked that government-to-government (GG) rice importation may be an option to ensure stability of the country’s buffer stock during the lean months. We are in conformity with the secretary’s position that “If the government will find that it will favor us to import from them (Vietnam), then we can source our rice from there.” Guest speaker Dr. Peter Timmer, Harvard University professor, reiterated the same principle, that negotiated procurement be pursued only to guarantee buffer supply adequacy.
Unfortunately, it was not the forum’s agenda to tackle if GG procurement benefited our country price-wise. Published records during the National Food Authority’s buying spree point to exorbitantly priced imports—
to the prejudice of Filipino consumers.
In the country’s first ever GG procurement in June 2008, the NFA concluded rice imports for 600,000 metric tons (MT) at a negotiated CNF (cost and freight) price of $940/MT against the benchmark FOB (free on board) price quotes of $780/MT also in June 2008. (“RP to buy 600,000 tons of Vietnam rice,” Inquirer, 6/19/08) For the same period, Asean neighbors were billed $516-$639/MT. Why was this so?
In the second GG purchase in December 2008, the contract for 1.5 million MT was concluded at CNF $550/MT. But published materials of the Food and Agriculture Organization show Vietnam rice at the benchmark price of $323 in December 2008 against agriculture officials’ claim that “the price of rice imports from Vietnam in December ranged from $456-$459/MT.” (“No rice overprice, say agri officials,” Inquirer, 7/7/09) What were our negotiators up to when the quoted range clearly applied to Thailand rice, not Vietnam rice? And for the same period, our Asean neighbors’ rice imports averaged between $410/MT and $439/MT (CNF)!
Corollary to GG imports priced at $940/MT and $550/MT respectively is the consistent variance against public records of the National Statistics Office for the same importation—$1,000/MT vs $940/MT, and $600/MT vs $550/MT. These glaring inconsistencies need to be satisfactorily resolved by the government.
—MANUEL Q. BONDAD,
manuelbondad@yahoo.com