Is Philippine agriculture really protected by high tariffs?
The decades-old discourse on Philippine agricultural tariffs has been dominated by the former National Economic Development Authority (Neda) and its allied economists in the private sector. The narrative is that the sector is protected by high tariffs, and that lower tariffs with more importation will lead to lower retail prices.
The position paper dated Aug. 3, 2023, filed by the Management Association of the Philippines with the Tariff Commission is a common instance. It argued that tariffs for the sector are high and have provided an “exceptional level of protection” which “has dampened the impetus for government and agricultural producers to achieve higher levels of productivity, hence lower costs and prices, to be comparable to and competitive with that of our neighbors.” Consistently, through the years, the narrative focuses solely on the tariff rates.
The determination of whether a tariff is high or low cannot be based solely on the rate, which is an abstract number. It must be correlated with the transaction values of the goods at the customs border.
Transaction value
By way of example, the transaction value of chicken leg quarters (CLQs) was $1.07 (based on Bureau of Animal Industry data) last July 2025. Assuming an exchange rate of P57 to $1, the transaction value would be P60.99. Add a 40 percent tariff, the total is P85.38 per kilo.
As of September 2025, the total volume of imported CLQs was 106,765,916 kilos. If we include chicken cuts, fats, mechanically deboned meat of chicken, offals, rind/skin and whole chicken, the total volume was 368,079,789 kilos. The projection is that by the end of December 2025, the total will reach about 500 million kilos.
Interestingly, the average retail price has been more or less P200 per kilo. That is a difference of P115. There is clearly more than sufficient space in the importation value chain for profits.
Disconnect
On the matter of imports leading to lower retail prices, let us hear from the importers. During the Tariff Commission hearing dated Oct. 23, 2023, Mr. Jess Cham, president of the Meat Importers and Traders Association (Mita), said: “We have had these discussions. You can buy imported pork, at a very, very cheap price at wholesale. But then as you go along the value chain, you have your wholesalers, your traders, and then you end up with retailers. The complaint of the producers that farm-gate price is this, yet the retail price is that this happens also to the imported product. the wholesale price is this, but the retail price is something different. It’s beyond our control.”
An article in the Philippine Star dated Oct 20, 2024, quoting Cham, stated that the August data had shown arrivals catching up and ample supply was becoming available for the coming season.
Cham cautioned that the sudden arrival of all the imported meat products was squeezing the liquidity of some industry players, forcing them to sell their items below landed costs.
However, the lower wholesale prices may not be passed on to consumers as other players in the value chain could keep the gains, especially since the market is anticipating higher prices in the current quarter, Cham said.
Based on the foregoing pronouncements of Mita, there is a “disconnect” between retail prices and farm-gate prices, and even between import volumes and prices. If that is so, why is it that economists are still insisting on lowering tariffs on imports as the solution to the woes of consumers?
The answer lies in the long-run hero worship of import liberalization by Neda and its allied economists that has victimized the sector. Import liberalization is a key pillar of the “Washington Consensus” idolized by economists, especially those who have held the reins of power in government through several administrations.
It has led to the neglect of the sector. Worse, the victims of that neglect, the farmers and producers, are the ones being blamed by the government for protections that are actually fictitious.
Rice farmers are in the worst situation. The destruction of their livelihood and a chance for a better future for their families is being justified as a choice between 3 million rice farmers and 110 million consumers.
It’s a dangerous numbers game, supposedly for the benefit of the majority. That is eerily akin to how the Nazis justified the killing of 6 million Jews.
(The author is the chair of the United Broiler Raisers Association and the executive vice president of Alyansa Agrikultura.)
