The recent outbreak of war in the Middle East has once again exposed
the Philippines’ dangerous dependence on imported oil-and gas-based
fertilizers. As global tensions rise, so do input costs—placing Filipino farmers
at the mercy of forces entirely beyond their control.
Now in the fourth week of the US–Israel–Iran conflict, the price of a 50-
kilo bag of synthetic urea has jumped by at least one-third—from around
PHP1,500 to PHP2,000. For a rice farmer applying four bags per hectare, that’s an
added PHP2,000 per cropping. Layer on rising fuel and logistics costs, and the
outcome is predictable: reduced inputs, smaller cultivated areas, and lower
yields.
Government itself admits the looming crisis. A senior official warned the
Senate last March 24 that production could plunge, food prices could spike,
and farmers’ incomes could shrink in the coming months.
This is not new. The same vulnerabilities were exposed during the
Russia–Ukraine war at the start of the Marcos Jr. administration. Back then,
the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) urged a shift toward locally produced
bio-fertilizers—and the President agreed. The policy direction was clear:
reduce import dependence, support Filipino science, and lower farmers’ costs
through subsidized distribution of organic alternatives.
The science has never been in question. Field data have long shown that
bio-fertilizers developed by Filipino scientists can replace a substantial portion
of imported urea.
Bio-N, for instance, is a proven technology developed by the National
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) – located inside
the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) campus – with public funds
from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Department of Science and
Technology (DOST). It enables crops to draw nitrogen from the air—cutting
fertilizer costs, restoring soil health, and easing pressure on foreign exchange.
So what went wrong?
From 2022 onward, billions were allocated to roll out this policy. Yet year
after year, the funds went largely unused. By 2026, the program was
effectively killed with a zero budget. The official reasons: “controversies” and
“ownership issues.”
But let’s be blunt. The problem is not the technology—it is control.
At the center of the controversy was the decision of UPLB through its
Chancellor in March 2023 granting Agri-Specialist, Inc. (ASI) an exclusive
license over Bio-N. The agreement gifted ASI with the sole authority to
produce, market, and distribute the product nationwide.
It appears that UPLB, which will earn substantial royalties from the
transaction, will be a primary beneficiary. Other stakeholders – particularly
small farmers and their organizations – will lose the opportunity to make their
own Bio-N and will have to buy it from ASI.
This raises a fundamental and troubling question:
If Bio-N is a government-funded, publicly developed technology—
already disseminated for decades through cooperatives, local governments,
and state institutions—why suddenly make it exclusive?
Why concentrate control in the hands of a single private entity when the
entire point of the program was widespread, decentralized access?
Even more puzzling: if Bio-N is now being donated, distributed, and
promoted for nationwide use, what justifies exclusivity at all?
One cannot claim public good on one hand and enforce private monopoly
on the other.
Reports indicate that ASI has already been telling farmers’ groups,
cooperatives, and even government agencies to stop producing or using BioN without its permission. The result? Supply disruptions, reduced access, and
thousands of farmers deprived of a technology that had already been
improving their yields and lowering their costs.
This is not just policy inconsistency—it is a direct blow to farmers’
welfare.
Let’s not forget: Bio-N was developed in 1985 by Dr. Mercedes UmaliGarcia and Teofila S.J. Santos using bacteria from talahib roots. It was funded
by taxpayers and – starting in 2002 – scaled up through a nationwide network
of 83 accredited mixing plants involving government agencies, local
government units, state universities and colleges, and farmers’ organizations
(including FFF and the Philippine Maize Federation). It was never meant to be
locked up.
Yet today, access is being restricted in the name of intellectual property.
And then comes a most telling detail.
ASI recently announced a “donation” of 200,000 kilos of Bio-N valued at
PHP720 million—equivalent to PHP3,600 per kilo or PHP720 per 200-gram pack. But
the same product sells online for as low as PHP138.
At those numbers, one has to ask: is this generosity—or positioning?
Shortly after, ASI reportedly pushed for an executive order mandating
the use of Bio-N in government programs and integrating it into the DA’s
voucher system.
The pattern is hard to ignore.
Control the supply. Limit competitors. Then secure guaranteed demand
through government policy.
This is not how a public good should be managed.
During a national emergency, when farmers need affordable and
accessible inputs, the last thing the country needs is artificial scarcity created
by exclusivity arrangements.
Bio-fertilizer technology was meant to liberate Filipino agriculture from
import dependence—not replace it with a domestic monopoly.
The government must act decisively: review the exclusivity agreement,
restore open access to Bio-N, and ensure that publicly funded technologies
remain exactly that—public.
It is time that bio-fertilizers are treated as modern-day manna,
multiplied by the creativity and industry of our scientists, farmers and
entrepreneurs. Let us ensure that these “free gifts of nature” are shared
equitably with all Filipinos, especially during their current calvary of penury
and want.
*Board Chairman, Federa�on of Free Farmers, and Secretary, Department of Agriculture (2001-2002)
** Chairman, MAGSASAKA Party-List, and MPL Representa�ve, 18th Congress (2016-2019)
