Food security lesson from the Strait of Hormuz

The present Middle East conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz underscore how vulnerable Philippine food security remains to external shocks beyond the country’s control. The Strait is not merely an energy chokepoint; it is a vital artery for global oil flows, and any disruption immediately raises the cost of fuel, shipping, fertilizers, and agricultural inputs. For a country like the Philippines, which depends heavily on imported fuel and significant food imports, these shocks are transmitted rapidly into domestic food systems through higher transport costs, more expensive farm inputs, disruptions in supply chains, and ultimately elevated food prices for consumers.

The implications for Philippine food security are profound. Rising energy costs increase the costs of irrigation, mechanized farming, fishing operations, food processing, cold storage, and transport from farm to market. At the same time, higher fertilizer prices raise production costs for domestic farmers, while disruptions in global shipping affect imported staples, animal feed, and agricultural commodities critical to domestic supply.

All of that reinforces the notion that food security can no longer be viewed narrowly as a matter of increasing agricultural output alone. It must be understood as a broader resilience agenda encompassing domestic production, trade exposure, logistics, energy vulnerability, and social protection. The Philippines needs a comprehensive approach to strengthen food security and reduce dependence on volatile external factors.

Our country must raise domestic productivity and self-reliance in strategic commodities through sustained investments in irrigation, climate-resilient seeds, farm modernization, fisheries development, and postharvest infrastructure. Food losses remain significant, but reducing those losses can improve effective food supply as much as expanding production. This is consistent with recommendations under the Philippine Development Plan 2023–2028, which emphasizes productivity tied to resilience rather than production alone.

There is a need to reduce vulnerability to imported shocks by diversifying import sources, building strategic reserves for essential food commodities and agricultural inputs, and strengthening local capacity in inputs such as fertilizer and feed where possible. A food-secure nation isn’t necessarily insulated from trade, but it mustn’t be dangerously dependent on single supply routes or unstable global conditions.

Food security policy must be integrated with energy security and logistics resilience. The Hormuz crisis demonstrates that food and energy security are inseparable. Furthermore, food security is not only about whether food is available but whether people can afford it. Social protection mechanisms must be institutionalized to protect vulnerable households when shocks occur.

Against this backdrop, the Philippine government’s current food security road map, including the World Food Programme Philippines Country Strategic Plan 2024–2028, appears partly aligned but not fully responsive to a shock of the scale posed by a prolonged Hormuz closure. The plan is built around resilience, emergency preparedness, social protection, and integrated responses to climate and conflict risks.

However, its key limitation is that it is not designed as a Hormuz-specific contingency framework. It does not sufficiently address vulnerabilities linked to imported fuel dependence, fertilizer and feed disruptions, logistics continuity under major supply shocks, or strategic import diversification. While it reflects a sound resilience philosophy, it remains insufficient as a stand-alone answer to severe external shocks transmitted through global energy and commodity markets. That distinction matters. There is a difference between a development-oriented resilience framework and a national food security shield designed to withstand systemic external disruptions. The current road map leans more toward the former than the latter.

The lesson of the Hormuz crisis is clear: Philippine food security can no longer be built solely around domestic production goals or routine development planning. It must be designed to absorb global shocks, adapt under disruption, and continue delivering affordable food under crisis conditions. The current road map provides a foundation, but it is not yet a full national shield. It can support that broader architecture, but it cannot substitute for the more robust, shock-ready food security strategy the country now requires. Hopefully, these lessons are heeded and the necessary adjustments are made so that the road map is fit for purpose and responsive to present and future needs.

—————-

Moira G. Gallaga has served three Philippine presidents as presidential protocol officer and posted to the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, and Philippine Embassy in Washington.

For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net