EDITORIAL — Fertilizer scam 2?

As Russia shows no indication of ending its invasion of Ukraine, fertilizer prices remain high. The Philippines, being 100 percent dependent on imported chemical fertilizer that farmers say produces the highest crop yield, is among the most vulnerable to the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on agricultural production.

Last April 27, the Department of Agriculture issued Memorandum Order No. 32, setting guidelines for the distribution of biofertilizer to rice farmers in lieu of urea. Farmers, however, have since warned that the premise of MO 32 is “flawed” and could lead to another fertilizer scam similar to the one that rocked the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

MO 32, issued by Leocadio Sebastian, the agriculture undersecretary for rice industry development, said shifting to biofertilizer would mean savings of P2,000 per hectare of riceland. But farmers’ group Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura pointed out that the current cost of urea is only P1,100 per bag compared to the P2,000 per bag of biofertilizer. At two bags per hectare, the cost of urea comes to only P2,200 per hectare instead of the P4,000 cited under MO 32, according to SINAG.

The group’s chairman Rosendo So also said it has yet to be proven that biofertilizers can provide a higher rice yield on a commercial scale than urea or be more cost-efficient. So said a viable biofertilizer alternative is compost chicken waste, which is priced at P170 per kilo.

In February 2009, the Senate Blue Ribbon committee had concluded after a probe that the procurement and distribution of fertilizers had been tainted by “massive corruption” in which up to P728 million in funds meant for farm support went to Arroyo’s campaign for the presidency in 2004.

Several former government officials and private individuals have been convicted while multiple cases remain pending in connection with the fertilizer scam, wherein funds were released even to local government units where there are no farms.

The Department of Agriculture reportedly intends to allocate P1 billion for biofertilizer procurement. SINAG’s So has written President Marcos, who is concurrently DA secretary, urging him to revoke MO 32. “Industry sources have informed us that a former secretary and an incumbent high official of the DA have business interests in biofertilizers,” So said in his letter to the President. He has written a similar letter to Sen. Cynthia Villar who heads the Senate committee on agriculture and food.

SINAG had earlier sounded the alarm on the mismanagement of last year’s agriculture importations notably of sugar and onions. Whether the group’s concerns on biofertilizers are valid, the program deserves closer scrutiny.