I HAVE witnessed in the past months the emergence of challenges that will test the country’s agriculture sector against a global food shock.
Four factors are coming into play: higher energy costs; elevated fertilizer prices and supply shortage; increasing cost of logistics; and the impending “Super” El Niño.
Three weeks ago, The Guardian published a story warning of the upcoming “Super” El Niño causing a global food price shock lasting until 2028.
Titled “‘Super’ El Niño could cause global food price shock lasting into 2028,” the report cited the projections of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as saying that the 2026-2027 cycle could be more severe. The report said this can impact food supply globally.
However, what was very clear in the report, as I expected, was the global food price shock will not be caused solely by the “Super" El Niño but by a myriad of factors, including the Middle East conflict that has affected global fertilizer supply and prices.
The World Bank, in its Food and Nutrition Security Update on June this year, said that global fertilizer markets have not yet stabilized, and the effects of higher prices can be felt at harvest time.
“Global fertilizer markets have faced pressure since early 2026 and in the first five months of 2026, fertilizer prices increased by 35 percent compared to the same period last year,” it said.
The report said that the cost of diammonium phosphate, a major input for phosphorus fertilizer, increased by around 257 percent from January to June.
The World Bank’s update also said that rice prices closed 9 percent higher year-on-year. This is definitely not good news.
Also, at the early part of this year, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) under the United Nations said that acute food insecurity has tripled since 2016 and now affects 300 million people globally.
The FAO added that funding for the humanitarian food sector internationally has retreated to levels of 2016.
Food production systems globally have also been affected by higher energy prices caused by the Middle East conflict. Brent crude oil price is still above $80 per barrel, while local fuel prices remain elevated.
Higher fuel prices translate to higher logistics or transport costs for food, and it is the consumers and households who suffer the most.
So, one big question should come into our minds: Can the Philippines survive a global food shock?
My answer is — the Philippines is vulnerable to a global food shock.
The World Bank report specifically cited certain factors that makes our country vulnerable to a global food shock. It also called the Philippines as being “import-dependent” and one of the “shock-exposed economies.”
Specifically, the report said that the Philippines expects to import nearly 4.8 million tonnes of rice this year, citing a 0.3-percent contraction in local palay (unmilled rice) output in the first quarter.
On the other hand, the report said that countries such as Cambodia, China, and Indonesia are relatively well positioned compared to the Philippines, as they have robust domestic rice production, reserves, and policy measures in place.
Indonesia’s case should be studied closely by the Philippines, as that country is projected by the World Bank to have 5.3 million tonnes in rice reserves, and has set aside $3.8 billion for food security measures.
What is very worrying now is the “Super” El Niño can cause a massive drop in rice production, which is bad news for countries like the Philippines. Specifically, the World Bank said rice output could fall by 20 to 50 percent in affected regions, including East Asia.
Need we say more?
The consequences
So, what will be the possible effects if a global food shock hits the Philippines?
The mildest effect would be higher food prices, with tolerable shortages for certain food groups, including rice. And if we have an assured source for rice outside the country, there won’t be panic among consumers.
At the extreme, there will be a shortage primarily of rice, which can result in consumers, especially from lower-income groups, lining up at the wet markets to purchase the commodity even if these have much higher prices.
I hope we never see “rice pila” in the next months as that will not only mean a failure in agricultural policy — it will also show a failure in overall governance.
So, the question now is — how can we prevent a global food shock from hitting the Philippines very badly?
Over the medium to long term, a shift to regenerative agriculture is the key, and I have discussed this subject in many of my past columns.
Over the short term, we need to ensure the efficient and timely release of public funds, timely interventions, and a proactive approach in addressing issues.
Let us also deliver the basics, such as extension services for food producers, and training farmers on increasing production and attaining resiliency.
This view is echoed by a discussion paper from the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) titled “Food Security Sectoral Analysis: Strengthening Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for Every Filipino” released on June 30 and authored by PIDS senior research fellow Roehlano Briones and supervising research specialist Agnes Kristine Quilinguing.
“The failure to utilize funds (has) been traced to poor project selection, inadequate prioritization, improper choice of project location, and inability of LGUs (local government units) to provide its cost share,” the authors said.
The FAO also states that every dollar (or peso) properly invested in improving the yields of farmers can have a 300-percent return in value.
“Agriculture offers the strongest return: on average, each dollar invested in a farmer’s field produces $3 in local food value,” the UN agency said.
This statement from FAO statement also echoes the need for increased funding for food production. I have been saying this for more than a decade, and I urgently reiterate this as global food shocks can become events that are no longer rare in the future.
“Yet while up to 80 percent of acutely food-insecure people live in rural areas, only 5 percent of relevant funding supports food production,” the FAO said.
Appropriate, targeted, and judicious utilization of funds also means wiping out corruption. So please, no more repeat of the flood control project scam.
The next months can see the country’s agriculture sector “tested” by the Super El Niño and the global food shock. And the best
response the government can do is to ensure the timely release and proper utilization of public funds, put in place timely interventions, and take a proactive approach in addressing issues.
The next months should also make the bureaucracy — and I mean the whole government — take a whole of nation approach to making the country’s food production system both resilient and productive.
If the worse happens, let us learn valuable lessons and put in place the policy framework to what I just mentioned. Let me reiterate: timely release and proper utilization of public funds, efficient and timely use of public funds; timely interventions; and a proactive approach to addressing challenges.
Let me state it again — global food shocks can become events that are no longer rare in the future. And we should not lose time preparing, and admit that the Philippines is in a vulnerable position.
This is no time for denial.
