Love your feet

(Published in Enrich magazine)

LOVE YOUR FEET, please.  And prove that love by treating your feet with a lot more respect.

Think about it. How far can you go without your feet? The answer: nowhere. And how far can you get with an injured foot? Not very far.

Feet are the underdogs of our anatomy. They’re so far down south, however, that we sometimes even forget they’re even there. We take them for granted.

We wear tight or ill-fitting footwear that injure our feet. Few of us even bother to soap in between our toes when we bathe. We let calluses go untreated. And any foot pain we experience we hope will go away the next morning.

About the only time we remember how vital our feet are to our daily functioning as human beings is when something goes wrong with them.

Like when you lose them in an accident. Or an injury prevents you from walking.

Next to losing your eyesight, losing your feet is probably the worst thing that can happen to you.

Our feet will have traveled tens of thousands of kilometers in our lifetime. One estimate said the average adult will have walked the equivalent of four times around the world before he dies.

Since the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000 kilometers at the Equator, that means you’ll have walked some 160,000 kilometers! And your feet will still be there when you take that last step before exiting this life.

Home feet and business feet

You can start on the road to treating your feet better by remembering your feet have two “homes.”  Your feet’s first and most important home is your home or the place where you live.  Call this your “home feet.” Its second home is the place where you work or study. Call this your “business feet.”

Why the distinction? That’s because you have to treat your home feet and business feet differently.

Home is the best place to prove your love for your feet. That’s because you can walk barefoot at home and podiatrists, or foot doctors, agree that walking barefoot is the best way to treat your feet.

Walking barefoot is the natural gait for human beings. A study made five years ago in South Africa that compared feet from three different population groups concluded that “. . . prior to the invention of shoes, people had healthier feet.”

The study said the shoe shod Europeans had the unhealthiest feet while the Zulus, one of South Africa’s largest indigenous tribes, had the healthiest because they walked barefoot most of the time.

An American podiatrist wrote that “Natural gait is biomechanically impossible for any shoe-wearing person.” He’s right and you’ve got the painful experience to prove it.

Mind you, I’m not encouraging you to walk barefooted outside your home or to your office. The reason I made the distinction between home feet and business feet is to encourage you to walk barefooted inside your own home.

Walking barefoot is natural and healthy. You should walk barefoot at home to remind your body that it should rely on the natural architecture of the feet. Walking barefoot allows freedom of movement in your feet ankles, legs and helps improve posture.

Start walking barefoot at home. Ditch the injury-prone flip flops and slippery slippers. Give your home feet a chance to be comfortable.

Having your feet touch the floor gives you a marvelous feeling of control and a natural ease of movement. Most important, it feels and it is natural.

There’s an added bonus to deciding to walk barefoot at home. You’ll be forced to clean your floors regularly and that’s good for your family.

Keep those dirty shoes and muddy slippers outside your home. Inside, make your home a clean haven for your home feet.

Business feet

Your home feet enters an alien world every time you take them outside your home. This more stressful environment requires your feet be protected.  Shoes are the logical “armor” that protect your home feet from the dangers of the outside world.

Trouble is that a lot of shoes on the market, especially formal footwear such as business shoes, seem as hard or as heavy as steel armor. That’s a problem for your business feet, which can be choked inside shoes up to 12 hours a day.

Although really useful, shoes are the enemy of healthy posture and movement. Shoes stunt the free movement of the feet and the entire leg. They change the way we walk, and lead to physical stress and strain throughout the body. Your business feet suffer if you wear the wrong shoes.

Shoes also impede the graceful form of walking and the effortless ease of movement of the body that comes with walking barefoot. To put it bluntly, feet are good and shoes, bad.

But we can’t live without shoes, especially in this country that’s either too hot or too wet. We need shoes once we exit our home and go to work or school or to travel.

We can compromise, however. Here are a few tips on how to be kinder to your business feet.

Always, always buy a pair of shoes for comfort and not fashion. That means preferring low heeled shoes to high heels and shoes with a large toe box to pointed shoes that will kill your feet. Foot health experts prefer shoes with shoelaces instead of slip-ons since you can adjust the laces to improve foot comfort.

It’s a tough choice, especially for the ladies, but would you rather walk in pain and look good or walk in comfort and look so-so?

When buying a new pair of shoes it would be wise to consider buying a pair with

“breathable uppers.” Uppers are the part of a shoe that covers the top of the foot, the toes, the sides of the foot and the back of the heel

Breathable uppers can be different types of leathers or synthetic mesh. The key thing to pay attention to is whether or not the upper's material allows moisture to escape and air to enter to keep feet dry.

Look for an “arch support” inside your pair of shoes. A proper arch support minimizes pain while walking by correctly realigning the lower limbs. It helps distribute weight and removes pressure from the heel and forefoot.

Badly made shoes with no arch support can strain your feet and put unnecessary pressure on joints and muscles in the lower limbs.

Shoes with padded collars are to be preferred. A padded collar helps minimize ankle pain.

A cushioned or soft “tongue” can prevent discomfort caused by pressure of tied shoelaces. It also pushes the heel back to provide a better fit.

A wide “toe box” or the front part of the shoe gives toes more wiggle room. It also adds comfort and reduces some foot problems such as corns and calluses.

Shoes that fit properly and support your feet can prevent sore feet and alleviate many common foot problems. They’re the only healthy alternative to walking barefoot.

You’ve got to be kinder to your feet because you won’t get anywhere in life without them.

Only the ‘Man Without Fear’ can get PLDT and Globe to provide faster and cheaper internet

By Art Villasanta and Peter Galace

THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY to cut the cost of Internet access and improve Internet speeds and service is for the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte to strictly enforce the 2014 Philippine Competition Law that penalizes uncompetitive behavior.

The government must also build a separate Internet infrastructure in which up to three Philippine satellites will ensure the cheap and fast Internet service we now crave. The Philippines doesn’t have a single satellite in orbit and this disadvantage is one reason why the satellite internet access that can help drop internet access prices isn’t viable here.

PLDT and Globe Telecom, which are not Filipino-owned companies, have consistently proven their ability to stall or stifle moves by past administrations to get them to improve the quality of their internet service. Filipinos know the Philippines has the worst internet service in Asia and we have PLDT and Globe to thank for this humiliating epithet.

Turn the screws on PLDT and Globe

The duopoly of PLDT and Globe will only be goaded into improving their internet services by a competitor it fears. That competition was to have been San Miguel Corporation, which last year made loud noises its joint venture with Australian telecom giant Telstra Corporation would deliver faster internet speeds at lower prices. Telstra said it was prepared to invest up to $1 billion in the business.

San Miguel’s braggadocio failed in the face of opposition by PLDT and Globe -- and government indifference and ineptitude.  The result: SMC last March called-off its partnership with Telstra, ending the promise that Filipinos might soon be delivered from the hellish internet service of PLDT and Globe.

SMC then sold its broadband frequency assets (including its 700 megahertz spectrum) to PLDT and Globe Telecom. With the sale, both Globe and PLDT promised to provide faster Internet within three to six months. Really?

More ominously, San Miguel’s defeat virtually eliminates the possibility a third private player might soon compete in the Philippine internet market. To begin with, any new player won’t have the spectrum needed to provide fast and cheap internet service. PLDT and Globe now have a stronger lock on this spectra with their purchase of San Miguel’s broadband assets.

Real competition is the key

This means the only competitor PLDT and Globe really has to fear is the national government.

The Duterte administration should, on its own, develop a separate government-run internet infrastructure by investing heavily in it and by strictly enforcing the Philippine Competition Law that penalizes the uncompetitive behaviors of PLDT and Globe such as predatory pricing and collusive behavior.

The Philippine Competition Commission, the country’s anti-trust body, should reject the sale of SMC’s frequency assets to the duopolists since it will only cement the Globe and PLDT duopoly in the telecoms industry.

The sale of the frequency assets of SMC to PLDT and Globe is detrimental to the future growth of the internet. It will also impede the future growth of the broadband sector.

PLDT and Globe are a true duopoly, which is defined as a market form where only two companies have dominant control over a market. In a duopoly, the two dominant players collude to reduce competition and charge consumers higher prices. This type of uncompetitive behavior is penalized under the 2014 Philippine Competition Law.

The administration’s goals in providing cheap and fast internet via its own infrastructure are simple: provide 70 percent broadband Internet penetration with speeds of at least 5 megabits (Mbps) per second covering around 85 percent of the whole country. This will hit PLDT and Globe where it hurts the most.

Delivering 5 Mbps or up to 10 Mbps of Internet to Philippine subscribers will kill the goose (the mobile business) that lays the golden eggs for PLDT and Globe. Philippine satellites will play a key role in realizing the aim but we have to make plans to build and launch these satellites plus the infrastructure they require.

It’s obvious PLDT and Globe protect each other’s mobile business by keeping the Internet slow and unreliable. The Philippines’ overall telecom infrastructure remains inefficient, unreliable and poor despite both firms making billions of pesos each year.

Should the government compete against the duopolists, subscriptions to PLDT’s Smart/Talk-N-Txt/Sun and Globe Telecom’s mobile services -- their gold mines -- will be drastically reduced. Further eroding this revenue stream is the ever expanding popularity of apps such as Viber, WhatsApp, WeChat and all other Internet apps that allow you to call and text worldwide using your mobile phone for free!

The government should come in as the third player and initiate policy changes that will chart the future internet growth of this country. This option has been taken by a number of countries.

Congress and the new Department of Information and Communications Technology should actively initiate policy directions and enact new laws that foster competition. Both Globe and PLDT should be made to follow and participate in government plans.

 They should not be made to stymie government moves to foster competition similar to what they did to SMC and Telstra.

South Korea: world’s fastest internet

South Korea is the world’s internet speed leader and boasts the world’s swiftest average broadband speed at 22 Mbps. Last May, the government said it will upgrade the country's wireless network to 5G by 2020, making downloads about a thousand times speedier than they are now.

Backed by strong government support, South Korea has one of the world’s most advanced telecommunications and information technology infrastructures. It’s a global leader in broadband penetration (97 percent), and a world leader in average peak connection speed (20.5 Mbps) in the third quarter of 2015, according to Akamai Technologies.

In addition, 97 percent of South Korean households have an internet connection while 81 percent of its population of 54 million are regular internet users. South Korea recently launched commercial “Giga internet” supporting speeds of 1 Gbps and 500 Mbps.

How did Korea do it?

South Korea began by dismantling the government monopoly in its telecommunications sector in 1981. This led to liberalization and encouraged a competitive telecommunications environment. In 1994, the government realized that “information superhighways,” or fiber optics networks operating on a national level, were crucial to its growth.

The Korean government funded the Korean Information Infrastructure that built a backbone to connect government and public facilities. By being the first customer, the government eliminated the start-up risk private industry would not have been able to fund.

The pattern of government support continued with the Broadband Convergence Network and the IT839 through which the Korean government provided $70 billion in low-cost loans to broadband service providers to build high-speed broadband networks. Broadband providers invested an equal amount.

The South Korea government also enacted regulations and provided incentives to private companies to build networks. It also launched a number of successful efforts to spur broadband demand.

Along with South Korea’s superfast Internet came substantial reductions in internet prices. South Korea charges only $22.13 for 10 Mbps (Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL Monthly), said the website www.numbeo.com.

In contrast, we in the Philippines pay $44.77 (if it’s available). For Singapore, that’s $31.14; China, $16.74; Thailand, $17.31; Vietnam, $11.13; United States, $50.89; Bermuda, $136.83 and the UAE, $86.25.

Other countries are boosting broadband internet

In 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama created the Broadband Opportunity Council to produce specific recommendations to increase broadband deployment. The 28-member country European Union considers the development and extension of broadband coverage a major priority project.

The EU now aims to provide broadband above 30 Mbps by 2020 while 50 percent of the EU should be subscribing to broadband above 100 Mbps by 2020.

Similar recommendations are being encouraged by the 34 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) countries that spans the globe. OECD said its “Policy makers should aim to create a favorable environment for investment and innovation and ensure a predictable legal and regulatory environment for market participants.”

So, what must the Philippines do?

It’s obvious countries with fast, cheap Internet connections tend to have more competition. The duopoly of PLDT and Globe hardly shows any semblance of competition.

There is a formula for the Philippines to vastly improve its internet service: build a government-run internet infrastructure (including internet satellites); get the private sector involved in a competitive environment; enforce the Philippine Competition Law and enact new laws and policies that will chart the internet direction of this country.

Pres. Duterte -- the Man without Fear -- can show his toughness by facing down PLDT and Globe.  And the Philippines will applaud him.

How do you solve a problem like malaria?

(Published in Enrich magazine, 2013)

THEY SAY THAT NO NEWS is good news, and when it comes to that dreaded disease called malaria, this adage is spot on.

Once one of the most feared killer diseases in the Philippines, malaria no longer makes news the way it did during the latter half of the 20^th century. Its incidence has been steadily reduced to a point where the Department of Health is confident enough to predict the Philippines will be malaria-free by 2020.

The impending “death” of malaria as a killer of Filipinos is really good news. And it will be a historic success the government and its local and international partners involved in malaria’s eradication can be proud of.

For the generations born in the 21^st century, however, malaria is an unknown danger. The mosquito-borne menace that frightens them is dengue fever or “H-fever” (Hemorrhagic fever) as it was known in the 1950s.

History’s greatest mass murderer

But malaria is a far more fearsome terror—by far the deadliest killer of humans since modern humans surfaced on this planet 200,000 years ago. Scientists estimate malaria has caused 50% of all human deaths in the 2,000 centuries of human existence. That makes the female anopheles mosquito—the sole carrier of this deadly disease—the greatest mass murderer in history.

Exactly how many deaths has malaria caused? Scientists estimate that the total number of human beings that have ever populated the Earth (including today’s population) at some 107 billion persons. Malaria killed over 53 billion of these persons. These are far, far more deaths than all the wars in recorded history.

Malaria was the scourge of pre-Hispanic Filipinos whose chronicles note malaria-type symptoms among victims. It continued to remain one of the deadliest diseases during the Spanish colonial occupation. At the start of the American occupation in1903, malaria caused some 118,500 Filipino deaths in a total population of only seven million. Preventive measures such as the introduction of quinine caused the death toll to plunge to some 20,000 persons in 1935 out of a population that had risen to 13 million Filipinos.

Health authorities at the time noted that over 70% of “malarious” areas were located near mountains or hills, and that malaria was almost always associated with streams, which are the favored breeding grounds of the female anopheles mosquito.

A national anti-malaria campaign by the Philippine and U.S. governments in 1948 introduced DDT in an effort to stamp out malaria. It was called off in 1954 after studies showed no significant decreases in the malaria infection rate.

A commitment by the World Health Organization in the 1950s to eradicate malaria worldwide helped the Philippines in its fight against this deadly menace. New malaria eradication and control programs were initiated and implemented by successive Philippine administrations.

The importance this Administration attaches to eliminating malaria can be seen in its strong support for the sixth most important goal of the Philippines’ Millennium Development Plan: halting and reversing the incidence of malaria by 2015.

Secretary of Health Enrique Ona said this goal is definitely within reach. He cited data that shows an 80% drop in malaria cases in 2011 as compared to 2003.

“This decrease is the lowest malaria level on record for the country in 42 years, with only 9,642 cases in 2011 as compared to 43,441 in 2003,” Ona said.

That malaria does not continue inflicting massive losses on Filipinos today is one of the greatest triumphs of collective action and modern medical science. But the 9,642 malaria cases in 2011 show that a lot has to be done before the Philippines can claim total victory over the female anopheles mosquito.

Paroxysms

You have a role to play in this ongoing war against malaria. But first you have to learn more about your deadly adversary. Human malaria is a disease caused by a parasite called Plasmodium that is mostly transmitted via the bites of infected female Anopheles mosquitoes. Gorillas and some apes are also known to have been victims of malaria.

The word malaria, by the way, comes from the medieval Italian word “mal aria,” meaning “evil air.” The ancient Romans believed malaria was caused by vapors emitted by swamps, leading to malaria’s nickname, “swamp fever.”

Human malaria symptoms include high fever, shaking chills, flu-like symptoms, bloody stools, nausea and vomiting. The alternating episodes of high fever and severe shaking are the best known symptoms of malaria.

This “paroxysm” is a cyclical occurrence of sudden coldness followed by fever and sweating. How often this paroxysm occurs depends on the type of mosquito that caused the malaria. An infection by the parasite called P. falciparum can cause a recurrent fever every 36 to 48 hours.

Malaria parasites belong to the genus Plasmodium. In humans, malaria is commonly caused by P. falciparum, P. vivax,  P. malariae, P. ovale and P. knowlesi. Among those infected, P. falciparum is the most common predator. It accounted for three-fourths of cases while P. vivax infected some 20%. P. falciparum also causes the majority of deaths.

Severe human malaria is usually caused by P. falciparum, and is often called falciparum malaria. Symptoms of falciparum malaria are manifest from nine to 30 days after infection. Along with P. vivax, P. falciparum is the most common form of malaria in the Philippines. Infection with P. falciparum might also result in cerebral malaria, a form of severe malaria.

A. flavirostris: the usual suspect

The chief “vector” or carrier of malaria in the Philippines is “Anopheles minimus flavirostris” or “A. flavirostris.”  The female of this mosquito bites only at night. It breeds in shaded areas of rapidly flowing rivers, streams and irrigation ditches. A. flavirostris prefers shady places and clear, fresh water.

This mosquito does not normally breed in salt water, rice paddies or in water above 2,000 feet altitude. In many malaria hit areas in the Philippines, malaria is contracted in the foothills, mostly between flat coastal plains and higher ground below 2,000 feet altitude.

Today, only two provinces—Palawan and Tawi-Tawi—report more than 1,000 malaria cases a year. Four more (Sulu, Maguindanao, Mindoro Occidental and Zambales) have more than 100 cases but less than 500 cases annually. Most of those infected by malaria are boys between the ages of one and 10 years old.

Palawan accounts for over 80% of malaria cases. It stands to reason that reducing malaria in Palawan will greatly reduce the total incidence of malaria in the Philippines. The government and allied organizations are doing just that and in mid-2012 reported the incidence of malaria Palawan hit its lowest level.

Palawan reported some 5,000 cases in 2011 compared to 20,000 cases in 1991, a drop of 300%. Malaria in Palawan is confined mostly to the southern part of the island, specifically the municipalities of Quezon, Rizal and Narra. Palawan accounted for 55% of all malaria cases in 2011. Total malaria cases nationwide for the first ten months of 2012 fell to 5,000 compared to 9,124 cases of 2011.

Worldwide, malaria affects 216 million people and kills about 655,000 each year, according to WHO. Most of these deaths are among children in Africa, which is home to over 90% of all malaria cases in the world.

Malaria transmission can be reduced by preventing mosquito bites. This can be achieved by using mosquito nets and insect repellent, or by implementing mosquito-control measures such as spraying insecticides.

Sadly, no effective vaccine against malaria has been developed A variety of anti-malarial medications are available, however. Severe malaria is treated with intravenous or intramuscular quinine or with the artemisinin derivative, artesunate. This drug is superior to quinine in both children and adults and is given in combination with a second anti-malarial such as mefloquine.

Artemisinin became the treatment of choice for malaria in 2006. Thereafter, WHO called for an immediate halt to single-drug artemisinin preparations in favor of combinations of artemisinin with another malaria drug to reduce the risk of malarial parasites developing resistance.

A lot of kids these days are going on eco-tours, adventure tours, nature tours and heritage tours to the provinces. This boost to local tourism is great, but the smart traveler always plans his trips and always prepares for emergencies.

So be prepared if your sojourns take you to those six provinces where malaria is still a problem. Insect repellent should be a must bring necessity on all your trips. And if you decide to sleep outdoors, do so underneath that quaint piece of cloth called the mosquito net or “kulambo.” WHO estimates that the use of “insecticide-treated mosquito nets” can reduce malaria cases by half.

Moderate beer drinking can be healthy

(Published in Enrich magazine 2010)

IT'S ALMOST WIDELY ACCEPTED that drinking a glass of red wine daily might be good for your health. That’s because research has shown the abundant antioxidants in red wine seem to protect the body from heart attacks while also raising the levels of HDL (the good cholesterol) in the blood. What’s not that well known, however, is that beer has half the concentration of antioxidants in red wine and drinking beer in moderation could be as healthy an activity as a glass of red wine.

To claim a "healthy beer" exists would quickly be derided as pure tripe by teetotalers, health gurus and the intensely pious, however. Others would describe the phrase "healthy beer" as an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms) similar to other oxymora such as “dry beer,” “hard liquor” and “dry Martini.” But then, a “healthy beer” would be a totally ludicrous concept to those who still consider beer as “The Devil’s Brew”.

On the other hand, there’s a growing body of medical data that seems to point to the unsettling conclusion beer might indeed have some health benefits. And that the key to unlocking these benefits is drinking beer in moderation, moderation, moderation.

The world held its “1^st Beer & Health Symposium” a decade ago. This and subsequent symposia—while raising cynics’ eyebrows—sought to drive home the audacious conclusion “. . . beer is a well-balanced, low-alcohol beverage with significant levels of vitamins (in particular folates), minerals and silicon. Regular, moderate beer drinking may be a part of a healthy lifestyle together with wholesome food, exercise, keeping your weight down and not smoking”.

These claims aren’t all that surprising if one recalls previous studies that show all alcoholic drinks are linked to a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) or heart attack. The groundbreaking Framingham Heart Study conducted from 1949 to 1966 in the USA showed moderate drinkers had 50 percent fewer deaths from CHD than non-drinkers. CHD is the leading cause of premature death in the Philippines and the developed world. It’s also the seventh leading cause of sickness in our country, according to the Department of Health.

This stunning benefit from moderate alcohol consumption, also called “The French Paradox,” can be assumed to be due to a drink’s alcohol content, whether the drink be red wine or beer. But also to moderate drinking. The concept of a “healthy beer” might not be so farfetched, after all.

Drink in Moderation

The sea change that now recognizes health benefits can be had from moderate alcohol consumption is best illustrated by modifications in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The official recommendation in 1990 was that “wine has no net health benefit.” In 1995, that recommendation was changed to “. . . if you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation, with meals, and when consumption does not put you or others at risk.”

Quantified, “moderate drinking” means downing one to three drinks a day for most men, and one to two drinks for most women. A “drink” is this case is defined as a one-fourth liter glass (250 ml or some 12 grams by weight) with a strength of four to five percent alcohol by volume. This is the equivalent of half a pint of beer in the United Kingdom.

The American Heart Association (AHA) noted that if you drink alcohol, do so in moderation. AHA said men can down one to two drinks per day while women can take one drink per day. It defines a drink of beer as one weighing 12 fluid ounces or 355 ml. It cautions people who don’t drink alcohol not to begin drinking if they don’t already drink.

This data on moderate drinking, however, refers to healthy adults (mostly Caucasians who have larger physical builds than Filipinos). It’s also prudent to remember that the effect of one drink on a woman is almost equal to the effect two drinks have on a man.

This is because factors such as gender, body size, experience and food intake influence one's capacity to resist drunkenness. On average, a healthy person can metabolize or remove alcohol from his body at the rate of one-half ounce of alcohol per hour. Because of this snail’s pace, drinking in moderation remains the only sure way to ward of drunkenness.

The famous San Miguel Pale Pilsen (a pale lager) has an alcohol content that is five percent by volume or four percent by weight. The familiar San Mig bottle holds 320 ml of beer. In contrast, San Miguel's Red Horse Extra Strong beer has an alcohol content of seven percent in a larger 500 ml bottle.

Should it be called a Beer Belly?

Beer, the world's most popular alcoholic beverage, is made from malted barley (also called a starch source that will be converted to alcohol), cereals, hops (for flavor) yeast and water. These ingredients are organic substances that also help maintain a healthy, balanced diet, according to healthy beer advocates. The grains used to make beer also contain silicon that helps boost bone density.

To make beer or brewing beer, barley is sprouted (or malted), a process that increases the nutritional value of the cereals used. Sprouting also increases the vitamin content of beer. Despite this fermentation process, beer remains about 90 to 95 percent water with a relatively low alcohol content. Beer ranges from less than three percent alcohol by volume (abv) to around 14 percent abv.

Dr. Erik Skovenborg from Denmark, regarded as an expert on the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on health, said in 2001 that moderate drinking means drinking within the limits of your own health, always taking into account your family and friends. It’s a definition almost similar to that in the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. He noted most men and women tend to drink moderately, and argued a distinction should be made between the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages and alcohol abuse or alcoholism.

He also said there isn’t a definite answer as to whether beer is fattening. The “amber nectar,” however, must be drunk in moderation and at meal times to head off weight problems. According to some studies, the infamous “beer belly” linked to obesity in beer drinkers might not be due to the beer at all but to other factors such as the consumption of food high in calories and rich in fat.

In addition, alcohol should never be imbibed along with potentially addictive medicines such as tranquillizers, sleeping pills and barbiturates. Persons with stomach, liver or pancreas problems shouldn’t drink alcoholic beverages. Taking either aspirin or paracetamol before or after alcohol consumption can seriously damage the stomach lining and should be avoided.

HDL and Antioxidant Benefits

Data was presented to members of the European Parliament and Europeans at the 2^nd Beer & Health Symposium in Belgium in October 2001 to support the case for the benefits of a moderate consumption of beer. Among these contentious pieces of scientific evidence is the alcohol in beer could increase serum levels of HDL; that alcohol’s an antioxidant; that drinking moderately may protect the heart from future heart attacks and that beer contains vitamins vital to the body.

Proponents of moderate beer and alcohol drinking say the amount of HDL in the blood increases when alcohol is consumed. Higher levels of HDL have been shown to be associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease. One glass of beer a day can significantly increase HDL levels, according to some research.

The antioxidant benefit derived from beer is due to cereal grains such as malted barley. Cereal grains are a good source of antioxidants. One study showed that beer (both light and dark varieties) high in antioxidants generally have a high content of “polyphenols” that may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer by still undefined mechanisms. Beer contains half the amount of antioxidants in red wine but more than twice that in white wine per drink of equivalent alcohol content. One bottle of wine is equivalent to six glasses of beer.

It’s not that well known but beer also contains vitamins. Beer is rich in most of the B- vitamins such as riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), panthothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine (B6), biotin (B7), folate or folic acid (B9) and Cobalamin (B12). Research has shown that taking more Vitamin B9 or folates may provide protection against cardiovascular disease and cancer. An adequate folate levels is vital for the normal functioning of the enzymes responsible for healthy DNA.

To derive the most out of the health benefits accruing moderate beer drinking, one must also make healthy lifestyle changes such as having a healthy diet and regular exercise. No, it doesn’t mean drinking more beer. That would be alcohol abuse, which is dangerous both to the drinker’s health and to the safety of those around him. And remember there’s strong scientific evidence heavy drinkers don’t benefit from the significantly reduced CHD risk that comes only with moderate drinking.

Drinking too much or too fast causes headaches, nausea and a loss of control and judgment, all of which are dangerous and must be avoided. Sadly, drunk driving remains a leading cause of road accidents worldwide. Data from the Philippine National Police show drunk driving incidents rose by over six percent, or from 692 cases in 2008 to 735 cases in 2009. In the USA, some 11,800 persons died as a result of drunk driving accidents in 2008.

“Everything in moderation. Nothing in excess,” is a laudable aphorism to remember when drinking beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage.

Reducing our carbon footprint and all the stuff that will make this country a healthier place to live in

(Published in Enrich magazine, 2010)

THE WORLD CLIMATE conference at Copenhagen, Denmark last December fell short of a new binding pact to combat global warming by setting binding caps to slow carbon emissions. Viewed as a success by some nations and a failure by others, the conference did underscore a powerful commitment by 194 countries towards battling global warming —and protecting the health of people in the process.

It did set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but did not specify the all important global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 to achieve this aim.

The Philippines sees itself as one of the winners at Copenhagen. It will receive $380 million in financial aid pledges to help it cope with the impact of climate change, a recognition of its lead role as an Asian leader in the fight to save the planet. The money will be used for programs in renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean urban transport, forestry investment and local water utilities.

The Philippines has been doing its bit to further reduce the adverse impact of climate change and pollution on both the economy and the health of Filipinos despite being a low emitter of greenhouse gases (GhGs). Scientists say GhGs contribute to global warming, which has worsened since the “Kyoto Protocol” on combating climate change was signed in 1997. The faster pace of warming has caused the world's oceans to rise by about 1-1/2 inches in the past 12 years due to the melting of 2.5 trillion tons of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

The Philippines has become Southeast Asia’s leading wind energy producer partly because of its desire to fight climate change. That goal has also led to the Philippines generating more electricity from solar energy and to the increasing use of methane gas generated by garbage to produce electric power. Then there’s the growing use of biofuels as a replacement for carbon-based fuels such as diesel.

The Kyoto Protocol defines legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the GhG emissions of industrialized countries that ratified the protocol. The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons— averaged over the period from 2008 to 2012.

On the other hand, developing countries like the Philippines benefit from capital investments in “carbon offsetting” projects by industrialized countries, the introduction of clean technologies such as wind power and the implementation of sustainable development projects such as electricity from biogas.

Carbon footprint

The Philippines’ eco-friendly or sustainable activities give it a small “carbon footprint.” Which brings us to the question, what is a carbon footprint and why is a low carbon footprint important for the health of Filipinos?

A carbon footprint can be defined as the total GhG emissions produced by a country, an organization, event or a product. It is often measured by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, or its equivalent in other GhGs.

A country's carbon footprint can be measured by undertaking a GhG emissions assessment. Once the size of a carbon footprint is known, a strategy can be devised to reduce it, either through technological developments, better process, carbon capture, consumption strategies and others.

Reducing carbon footprint can be achieved by implementing sustainable processes such as solar energy and wind energy and through reforestation. This is called carbon offsetting. A Philippines success in carbon offsetting can be seen in a report last November that said the country’s trees absorbed 107 million tons of CO2. This led to an 80% reduction in its GhG emissions, giving the Philippines some 19 million tons of emissions consisting mainly of methane and nitrous oxide gases, according to data from the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources.

Further proof of the Philippines’ commitment to fighting climate change is the current growth in the wind industry sector that will soon make the Philippines Southeast Asia’s top producer of wind energy.

A competition among five companies to build the 86 megawatt (MW) combined power output facility at Burgos, Ilocos Norte heralds an assured future for wind energy. The Burgos facility will produce wind energy to sell to the Luzon power grid.

Sources in the wind sector said the Burgos facility will validate wind energy as both a sustainable and profitable resource. Once online, the facility will make the Philippines the top producer of wind energy in Southeast Asia. Experts say wind energy will contribute some 400MW to the country’s electricity grid within the next three years compared to 33MW today.

The wind farm in Bangui, which is adjacent to the Burgos wind farm, has proven wind energy can provide reliable and cheaper electric power. Twenty gigantic, three-bladed wind turbines are operational at the Bangui wind farm, the first large-scale wind power plant in Southeast Asia. This wind farm, which became operational in 2005, produces 25MW of clean electric power for local cooperatives.

The Burgos wind farm is the next logical step in the evolution of wind energy in the Philippines. It will be quite large, close to three times the size of Bangui, and should also accelerate the growth of wind energy in missionary areas or areas outside the main electricity grid.

This marked growth in wind energy use is being driven by the Renewable Energy Law passed in 2007. The law is drawing investments into the wind energy sector and is telling investors there is a good return on investment to be made by harnessing the wind to produce clean and renewable electricity.

The numbers supporting the case for making renewable energy this country's primary power sources are substantial. The World Wildlife Fund, one of the members of the Renewable Energy Coalition, estimates the Philippines has more than enough renewable energy potential: 7,404 MW for wind, 1,200 MW for geothermal, 2,308 MW for hydro and 235 MW for biomass. Less than one percent of the Philippines' entire energy needs comes from renewable sources today.

Renewable energy does work, and is an excellent way of reducing the country’s carbon footprint. The example of Europe in wind energy is good example. In 2006, the world's total installed wind energy capacity rose to over 74,000 MW from 59,000 MW in 2005.

Europe led the world in the number of countries with the highest total installed wind energy capacity. On the other hand, Asia is experiencing the strongest increase in installed capacity outside of Europe, with an addition of 3,679 MW, taking the continent to over 10,600 MW.

Electricity from garbage

Generating electricity from garbage also reduces the Philippines’ carbon footprint by reducing the amount of methane gas (a GhG) emitted by decomposing garbage. The largest such project today is the “Quezon City Controlled Disposal Facility Biogas Emission Reduction Project” at the Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City. It’s also the biggest biogas emissions reduction facility registered with the United Nations and is the first biogas emission reduction project in Southeast Asia.

The facility became operational in May 2008 and is removing over 116,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the country’s atmosphere every year. This P200 million joint project between the Quezon City government and the Italian firm, Pangea Green Energy S.r.l. is now extracting, collecting, flaring and converting biogas into electricity.

Biogas is produced during the fermentation of organic matter such as solid or biodegradable waste. Consisting mainly of methane and CO2, biogas can be used for heating, cooking and generating electricity. Methane from the collected biogas can produce some one million kilowatts of electricity annually, enough to supply 1,000 households with clean, carbon free power.

Doing our bit

The threat to health posed by a high carbon footprint goes beyond the dangers posed by pollution. A study published in the prestigious U.S. medical journal, The Lancet, in 2000 noted an increase of eight percent in hospital admissions per one degree Centigrade rise in temperature. This suggests global warming is likely having a strong effect on diarrheal diseases, and increases cases by millions worldwide per degree of temperature rise. Scientists note the world’s temperature has risen 0.4 of a degree since 1997.

Probably the most effective way the ordinary Filipino can help reduce his individual carbon footprint is by cutting down on electricity use. Most of this country’s electric power is generated by power plants that burn coal—the largest source of industrial atmospheric pollution and GhGs—so that more electricity use means more coal has to be burned.

We can also produce less garbage by reducing the amount of paper we use in our work or in school and cutting down on the use of plastic bags, for example. Recycling garbage also helps cut the carbon footprint. We should always remember that carbon footprint is not just some fancy scientific phrase meant to impress us. It’s at the center of a worldwide fight to ensure this planet remains liveable for generations to come. 

Zero sum or Win-win? The Philippines and the ASEAN Economic Community

(Published in the ECCP Business Review, 2013)

WILL THE PHILIPPINES be a winner or a loser with the advent of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015?

Clues that might yield a final answer to this key question can be found in two Scorecards published over the last three years by the ASEAN Secretariat based in Jakarta, Indonesia. The scorecards track the Philippines' readiness for the AEC, and those of the nine other Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states. There will be four scorecards until 2015.

So far, the Philippines did its part to ensure the free trade that underpins the AEC. It performed quite well by ASEAN integration standards in the second scorecard, this for the period 2010 to 2011.

Of the 19 categories that grade progress in this monitoring mechanism, the Philippines implemented all its targeted measures in nine categories and implemented half of the targeted measures in a further nine.

The Philippines, however, “failed” in one category—food, agriculture and forestry—where it implemented less than half of all targeted measures. Ominously, this sector has been identified by Filipino experts as one of two key problem areas (the other being manufacturing) that might suffer gravely because of ASEAN integration.

Food, agriculture and forestry includes food security; the free flow of safe and qualified products; improving competitiveness in international markets and the development of national good agriculture practices.

The Philippines’ scorecard saw it “pass” in the free flows of capital, skilled labor, and priority integration sectors; competition policy; intellectual property rights; minerals; ICT; taxation and e-commerce.

She did half of what was expected in the free flow of goods, investment and capital; consumer protection; transport; energy; SME development; initiative for ASEAN integration and external economic relations.

But these achievements fell short of those from 2008 to 2009 when the Philippines implemented all but two of the 19 targeted measures.  The laggards were the free flow of services and transport.

For 2008 to 2009, which is also described as Phase 1, the Philippines’s implementation rate stood at 94.55% as against the regional implementation rate of 86.7%. The Philippines met 91 of the 105 measures it set out to accomplish.

For 2010 to 2011 or Phase 2, the Philippines, implementation rate was 65.92% versus the ASEAN implementation rate of 56.4%.

The checkered performance for 2010 to 2011 reflects the increasingly difficult nature of the remaining integration challenges faced by the Philippines as it approaches December 2015.

ASEAN has announced an AEC Blueprint achievement rate of 80% for this period and admitted difficulty implementing the remaining 20%.

This April, President Benigno Aquino III said ASEAN’s efforts to create the single market are now in their hardest phase owing to protectionist muscle-flexing by sensitive sectors such as agriculture.

"They have finished with the easy parts but the accomplishments will not be as fast as in discussing the hard parts. When you reach that point, there can be some protectionist measures taken by each economy," Aquino said.

Among the key challenges within ASEAN identified by Aquino were creating a framework to open up the services sector, which includes banking, telecommunications, retail and insurance.

To do list

Unimplemented measures for both the Philippines and ASEAN are in trade facilitation and customs regulations; standards and conformance; services and investment liberalization; agriculture and forestry cooperation and consumer protection and transport.

The Philippines also needs to implement six measures that affect increased foreign equity and improve market-access in services and transport. A South Korean study submitted to the ASEAN Secretariat showed that the Philippines’ restrictive cabotage rule remains a major stumbling block to achieving ASEAN integration of shipping services.

The Cabotage Law of the Philippines prohibits foreign carriers from engaging in domestic coastwise trade and reserves coastwise trade for national flag carriers.

Also known as the Jones Act of 1920, the law was enacted to protect the interests of local ship owners against foreign ships. Almost a century of protection, however, has resulted in a domestic shipping industry that is effectively a cartel consisting of five shipping companies that control 90% of domestic shipping.

Critics blame the law for stunting interisland trade; contributing to the dearth of safe and well-maintained vessels; impeding the growth of local economies by fueling expensive consumer prices, undermining inclusive growth and discouraging investments that could make domestic shipping more efficient.

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) believes a cartel consisting of domestic shipping companies is contributing to the exorbitant cargo fees pummeling domestic shippers. NEDA also noted that domestic shipping lines have not been very efficient.

The deleterious effects of the Cabotage Law on trade can be seen in the irony that it is cheaper to ship to Hong Kong from Davao than to ship from Davao to Manila.

Arangkada, a project of the Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines, also noted it is cheaper to transship a container from Manila to Cagayan de Oro via Hong Kong or Kaohsiung than to ship directly from Manila to Cagayan de Oro.

It pointed out that the Philippines’ domestic shipping industry is not competitive due to the predominant use of small ships (200-300 TEU container ships compared to the more efficient 5,000 TEU foreign container ships).

The government does, however, recognize the law’s ill-effect and in 2008 formed an Anti-Cabotage Task Force (ACTF). ACTF said a massive reform or overhaul of the cabotage system will definitely benefit consumers, farmers, traders, buyers, investors, tourism operators and exporters. It noted the domestic shipping industry will also benefit since reforms will encourage more trade and business, resulting in more volume shipments.

Sen. Edgardo Angara said allowing foreign shipping firms to compete with domestic shipping can reduce the cost of transporting goods by 30%.

“This has been a long-standing issue. If we allow the foreign shipping firms to ship to different (local) ports, it will bring down or lower shipping costs by 30%.”

Angara’s views are not shared by Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) that claims local shipping is not strong enough to compete with international rivals. Administrator Vicente Suazo, Jr. said lifting the cabotage law may kill small- and medium-scale shipping operators.

"Instead, the country should continue to look for additional incentives to be given to local operators to acquire new vessels for them to be at par with their foreign counterparts," he said.

This, of course, does not make sense as it protects a few families that own shipping lines at the expense of inclusive growth, job generation and making the country more competitive. “Juan de la Cruz” continues to suffer because of the protection of a few rich families enjoying quasi monopolies. Given the Aquino Administration’s majority in both Houses of Congress, these reforms should be possible.

But there are other options: the Customs Commissioner has the power to declare more harbors as “international harbors’” that will allow international competition or international cooperation to lower shipping costs.

New and more modern vessels will be needed to facilitate the free flow of goods and investments that ASEAN has said is necessary to lower transportation and logistics costs between and within member countries.

The Philippines’ ranked 59^th in the World Bank’s 2012 Logistics Performance Index. In comparison, Singapore placed 1^st; Malaysia, 29^th, Thailand, 38^th and Indonesia 52^nd.

The index reflects assessments of a country's logistics based on efficiency of the customs clearance process, quality of trade- and transport-related infrastructure, ease of arranging competitively priced shipments and quality of logistics services, among others.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) laments the constraints that lead to the high cost of logistics. Among the leading constraints is the Philippines’ inadequate infrastructure.

Opposition to ending cabotage, however, is fading. A report showing that Philippine cabotage is blocking ASEAN shipping integration could be the nail that finally shuts the coffin containing cabotage.

The report, “Formulating an ASEAN Single Shipping Market Implementing Strategy,” has identified cabotage as one of the major barriers to the Philippines’ accession to the ASEAN Single Shipping Market. It was transmitted to the ASEAN Transport Ministers meeting this June.

ASEAN this year targets the liberalization in logistics services such as maritime cargo handling services, storage and warehousing services, freight transport agency services, courier services, packaging services and customs clearance services.

The report said foreign ships calling in Philippine ports are needed in order for the Philippines to achieve sustainable growth and, more important, achieve a single ASEAN market bolstered by regional shipping integration. It also cited the lack of direct shipping services to Europe and the United States.

 “The insufficient cargo base and insufficient berth depth are some of the underlying factors for this lack of direct shipment between the Philippines and US or Europe,” it said.

Instead, shipping lines use Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan as transshipment hubs. This reliance on transshipments has led to unnecessarily longer shipping times and higher costs than under direct shipments.

Henry Schumacher, Vice President of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, noted that the European Union’s logistics industry urges ASEAN member states to liberalize the maritime transport sector by allowing international shipping companies to carry out international relays and transport international cargo.

“The industry encourages ASEAN to relax cabotage laws and allow international shipping companies to operate within domestic maritime to the benefit of local and ASEAN business,” he pointed out.

“Member countries should exercise non-discriminatory procedures in maritime trade and services with ASEAN countries.”

Schumacher said the EU’s logistic industry urges ASEAN to implement a common de minimis baseline of US$100, moving towards US$200 and the EU to implement a commercially viable de minimis baseline exempting shipments from import duties and taxes such as VAT, and any customs declarations.

“European business strongly supports the objectives of the ASEAN Logistics Roadmap and the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity in contributing to the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 through liberalization and facilitation measures in logistics services and the creation of the integrated ASEAN logistics environment that includes maritime services.”

The bottom line is that to facilitate the free flow of goods and investments, AEC needs to lower transportation and logistics costs between and within member countries. Cabotage has no place in this.

The upcoming Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo) ferry service between Davao City and Bitung, Indonesia has the potential to cut transportation costs between both ports by 5% to 10% compared to regular shipments, said the Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc. The service is expected to begin in the third quarter of this year.

The Davao-Bitung RoRo will promote easier trade between Mindanao’s producers and markets in Indonesia. Bitung or Kota Bitung is a city on the northern coast of the island of Sulawesi. It lies some 350 nautical miles to the south of Davao City.

The direct route to Indonesia will correct absurd shipping situations such as that faced by one major food company that transports its cereals produced in Mindanao to Indonesia by first shipping these cereals to Manila, and from Manila to Singapore and from Singapore to Indonesia.

Ready or not

Cabotage is part of a larger, ongoing conversation about the Philippines’ preparedness for the AEC.  Judging from published comments by pundits, the Philippines will not be ready for the AEC by 2015.

There is near unanimous opinion that agribusiness and manufacturing—because of their uncompetitiveness—will suffer the most from the AEC’s more liberalized markets.  

The Philippines’ inability to develop or articulate a “strategic positioning goal” for itself has also come under scrutiny. Malaysia has said it wants to dominate “green technology” in the AEC; Indonesia wants more investments. And the Philippines?

But what causes the most anxiety among those fearful the Philippines will let slip the advantages offered by the AEC is a nagging perception the country remains unprepared for integration despite laudable progress to the contrary.

Rafael Alunan, former Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, believes “. . . the prevailing sense is that the country somehow seems unprepared to meet the competitive challenges when trade barriers are lifted to allow for the free flow of goods and services in the region.”

He noted that the business sector needs a carefully constructed environment to steel itself for the onslaught of liberalization while giving foreign competition a serious run for their money.

“Whenever ASEAN integration is taken up, the lack of preparedness and synchronicity of the government and private sector and weak state of competitiveness dominate the conversation,” he said.

Alunan sees agricultural and manufacturing sectors as the most vulnerable to ASEAN integration’s risks while BPO and tourism stand to benefit.

“Exploiting opportunities arising from ASEAN integration requires that we lessen our vulnerabilities to foreign competition and exposure to market risks.

“I’m not aware of contingency plans that aim to mitigate the risks posed by cheap products and services, and to strengthen our competitive advantage where we shine or could eventually shine.”

Romulo Virola, Secretary-General of the National Statistical Coordination Board until his retirement in 2012, said the Philippines is not yet ready to benefit from economic integration in 2015 given that we still have to focus on economic problems.

The PCCI’s leadership feels that policies need to be in place before the Philippines can truly integrate with ASEAN. Donald Dee, Vice-Chairman for Multilateral Trade, said these policies include a national single window and customs certification; mutual reciprocity agreements on export standards and a dispute settlement agency. The Philippines has to do this immediately “. . . or we will be left behind.”

The government, however, says the AEC is nothing to be scared of. Secretary of Trade Gregory Domingo told local business leaders to develop the confidence to seize opportunities.

“There are only two and half years before AEC. Do we have to panic? No,” he told PCCI members.

He reminded businessmen that integration will no longer have a significant impact on trade in commodities. Tariffs on over 99% of products traded within ASEAN were removed on January 1, 2010.

“If you’re thinking of lower tariffs because of the AEC, don’t worry. You’re already competing with other ASEAN countries.”

The downside facing the Philippine business community as regards the AEC, however, is that Filipinos have not been aggressive in taking advantage of the opportunities presented by lower tariffs, a failure Domingo said was caused by the absence of a local AEC information campaign.

The problems with agribusiness

The worst case scenario for the Philippines’ agriculture sector is a slow and painful decline at the hands of the AEC. This vulnerable sector accounts for over 10% of the Philippines’ GDP and 35% of the country’s workforce.

It’s also the chief source of the poverty bedeviling the Philippines, which has a poverty incidence of 40%. The World Bank estimates that about half of the rural population in the Philippines is poor.

A report by the University of Asia and the Pacific in 2010 identified agriculture as the main source of livelihood and income among the poor. It pointed out that developing agriculture by increasing incomes from land and non-farm jobs will have a tremendous impact on reducing poverty.

It recommended crafting a blueprint for the agriculture sector and pushed for increasing non-farm and off-farm jobs by increasing investments in food processing.

Arsenio Balisacan, NEDA Director General, said solving the huge underemployment problem in agriculture is crucial to reducing poverty and achieving “inclusive growth.”

He urged the private sector to help farmers and other agriculture workers increase demand for their products.

“Linking agricultural workers to the supply chain will increase effective demand for agricultural output and, hopefully, increase returns to their labor. However, we are aware that the agriculture sector will need to improve the quality and increase the quantity of its output,” he said.

Balisacan “. . . hopes the business sector can take on a huge role in this, perhaps through technology, additional training, equipment or others.”

Hence, the need to develop agribusiness, both as a means of making Philippine agricultural produce more competitive in the AEC and in mitigating poverty among farmers.

A turnover of PhP 123 quadrillion

ASEAN agribusiness carries massive potential economic power and the EU is proof of this. Businesses in the EU agri-food chain generate a turnover of PhP123 quadrillion (Euro 2.2 trillion) and provide direct employment to over 33 million Europeans. Taken together, the European food and drink industry is the largest manufacturing sector in the EU in terms of turnover, value added and employment.

Schumacher noted that Philippine agribusiness has a great future if built on successful models like Nestle Philippines and La Frutera, Inc.

Nestle has a long-running program that develops rural areas and communities by aiding coffee farmers and facilitates indirect and direct employment. Its 20-year old agronomy program provides access to farming technological advances; trains farmers and promotes sustainable practices.

Based in Maguindanao province, La Frutera is the Philippines' largest banana exporter. Its employees are practically all Muslim Filipinos, many of whom formerly fought against the government. La Frutera is proving that providing jobs, especially in rural areas, is the direct and sustainable way of alleviating poverty.

In ASEAN, outstanding regulatory issues are hindering development and growth. Further ASEAN agribusiness growth can be nurtured by solving issues in the regulatory arena that constrain development.

Schumacher identified some of the regulatory issues affecting ASEAN and the Philippines as tariff, taxes and non-tariff barriers; sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards and technical standards and product classification rules.

Among vital recommendations for solving these market access issues include phasing out import tariffs and non-tariff barriers over time; ensuring that ASEAN member states develop taxes and regulations that are simple, transparent and fully compliant with rules of the World Trade Organization and basing technical standards and product definitions on internationally recognized standards.

In the Philippines, agribusiness is being held in check by a dearth of locally made mechanized implements to speed-up production; limited irrigation; expensive fertilizer and the inability to combine small farms into larger farms to attain economies of scale through mechanized farming.

Manufacturing needs to resurrect

The debilitated state of Philippine manufacturing can be traced to a skewed “industrialization” over the past century that favored import substitution and exports of agricultural and forestry products having limited value-added. Coupled with high tariffs protecting factories that sold mostly to the domestic market, this “industrialization” rendered Philippine manufacturing unfit to compete in today’s globalized world.

The Philippines also didn’t develop its potential to be a major exporter and instead became dependent on remittances for much of its economic growth. Robust exports usually generate quality jobs in manufacturing and increase direct revenue for the government that overseas jobs cannot.

Arangkada gave this sober assessment on the state of manufacturing in a recent report:

“Domestic manufacturing has never faced more challenges to survival than today, such as high business costs, low import duties and extensive technical smuggling. As long as smuggling provides better profits than manufacturers, the economy will be one of traders and smugglers.”

Compounding these drawbacks is the absence of a national policy identifying manufacturing as a key component of economic development. There is also no national industrial master plan while funding for overseas trade and investment promotions remains puny.

More than a year ago, the Department of Trade and Industry asked industry sectors to prepare roadmaps to growth. Almost 40 were submitted, according to sources. These roadmaps, however, have not been made public and the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS), the government think tank, is said to be still drafting a strategy on the basis of these roadmaps.

The “Arangkada” team recently held focus group discussions on manufacturing, trying to zero in on five industries with the potential of employing a large number of people and five issues per industry that need to be addressed to make the selected industries grow.

The identified industries are garments/footwear; food/ agriculture; shipbuilding; electronics and automotive/aviation. Some of the issues hindering the growth of these industries are the inflexible Labor Code; unrealistic minimum wages; the need for domestic-market oriented industrial zones (managed by the Philippine Export Zone Authority); inadequate infrastructure and the excessively high cost of power and domestic transportation.

Despite manufacturing’s weakness, Balisacan said that the country must continue planting the seeds of a structural transformation of the economy to make it more industry and investment-led.

Infrastructure is the key

Former Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno is pushing for more spending in public infrastructure to revive the manufacturing sector, which plays a key role in job creation.

"The message is clear. The best way to prepare for ASEAN integration is by making the Philippines stronger domestically. We have to ramp-up public infrastructure spending," Diokno said.

Diokno emphasized that the cost of financing is at historic lows. If projects are rolled out now, the Philippines can build more for cheaper.

"We will be stronger and ready to march forward with the rest of the world. That’s when we will benefit fully from ASEAN integration.”

To the Philippines’ advantage, public spending on infrastructure by the Aquino Administration is now robust, overturning a contraction in 2011. Spending surged in the first four months of this year to P75.2 billion, up a huge 45% from P52 billion year-on-year.

Infrastructure spending from January to April went mostly to covered road projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways; the construction of irrigation systems, classrooms and other educational facilities and hospitals and health centers.

“Through our budget reforms and, consequently, the improved quality of public spending, we were able to fill out crucial resource-and-supply gaps that may have affected the country’s fast-growing industries,” said Budget Secretary Florencio Abad.

The higher spending is closing the Philippines’ gap with other AEC member states. The Philippines last year invested 3% of its gross domestic product in infrastructure compared to the previous 2%. Average government spending on infrastructure in Southeast Asia, however, stands at 5%.

The aggressive infrastructure investments could help eliminate the poor infrastructure that remains one of the major causes of the Philippines’ inability to draw more foreign direct investments of FDIs.

The Philippines received a trickle of FDIs from 2001 to 2011. In these 11 years, only US$16.7 billion in FDIs flowed into the Philippines. In contrast, Thailand took in US$77.8 billion; Indonesia, US$64.7 billion; Malaysia, US$58.2 billion and Vietnam, US$49.4 billion.

In 2011 alone, the first full year of the Aquino administration, total FDI inflows were a miniscule US$1.3 billion. In this same year, Indonesia attracted US$18.2 billion; Malaysia, US$16.6 billion; Thailand, US$9.6 billion and Vietnam, US$7.4 billion.

The Asian Development Bank said the Philippines needs to target infrastructure spending equivalent to 7% or 8% of GDP to compete head-to-head against its neighbors in cornering FDIs. The World Bank suggested the Philippines increase its public infrastructure spending gradually, to reach 5% of GDP by 2016.

Like the European Economic Community on which it’s modeled, the ASEAN Economic Community is facing a win-win game—and so is the Philippines. It’s now a matter of the Aquino administration seeing through the remaining tough economic and political reforms that will ensure the Philippines win-wins in the face of entrenched monopolies; misguided nationalism and political meddling.

The only other alternative to the Win-win game now being played is the more lethal Zero sum game—and this is a game the Philippines can’t win, and shouldn’t be playing.