PROMOTING VERTICAL FARMING IN VACANT BUILDINGS

 PROMOTING VERTICAL FARMING IN VACANT BUILDINGS

Vacant buildings are an eyesore. They stand like ghosts of progress, reminders of unfinished business or failed development. In developed—or should I say overdeveloped—countries, urban blight often leaves behind entire blocks of empty offices, malls, and warehouses. The Philippines is no stranger to this either, though in our case it’s often smaller commercial buildings and old factories that end up idle.

The usual answer to urban blight is “urban renewal.” But let’s be honest: renewal does not always come. Too often, we are left with structures that remain abandoned for years, sometimes decades. So here is a question worth asking: what do we do with these buildings while waiting for some developer to swoop in?

In the United States, communities are experimenting with something bold: converting empty malls into farms. Yes, farms inside buildings. In Cleveland, part of a shopping mall was turned into a greenhouse. In Houston and Kentucky, office buildings were converted into vertical farms. Crops are now being grown under LED lights and hydroponic systems where mannequins once stood. What was once consumer space is now food space.

Why not here?

In the Philippines, we may not have as many empty malls, but we certainly have enough vacant buildings scattered across our cities. Imagine if these were turned into vertical farms—not necessarily permanently, but at least temporarily. There would be no need to completely retrofit these buildings. The beauty of hydroponic and aquaponic systems is that they are modular and reversible. If the owner wants to turn the space back into a mall or an office later on, it can be done. In the meantime, the space earns money, creates jobs, and grows food.

The logic is sound. Urban farms not only provide organic fruits and vegetables, but also reduce costs because the food does not have to travel long distances. Transport is one of the hidden costs of agriculture in this country—just ask farmers from Benguet who have to ship produce to Manila. If lettuce, tomatoes, or pechay could be grown in Quezon City warehouses, why not?

And it doesn’t stop with vegetables. Poultry, fish, and even livestock could be raised in controlled urban farms. Aquaponics, for instance, allows fish and vegetables to grow symbiotically. The waste from fish becomes nutrients for the plants, while the plants filter the water for the fish. This is already being done in many countries, and the technology is neither new nor too expensive.

Think also of the social impact. Many farmers have migrated to cities in search of jobs that don’t always exist. What if they could be farmers again—this time inside the city, working in vertical farms? That is livelihood restoration with dignity.

And here’s the kicker: this is already happening in the Philippines.

Take the Navotas City Vertical Farm, a project by the Delbros Group with the support of the city council and even the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. They built a 12-tower vertical farm, one of the tallest in Metro Manila, producing leafy greens year-round with the help of computer-monitored systems.

Or look at NXTLVL Farms in Manila, which is pioneering climate-resilient vertical farming using hydroponics and LED lighting. Their mission is clear: tackle food insecurity and make the most of scarce urban land.

Even at the policy level, the idea is gaining traction. Senator Francis Pangilinan filed the Urban Agriculture and Vertical Farming Act (SB 257) to convert idle urban lands into vertical farms and gardens. The Department of Agriculture, for its part, has already outlined strategies to scale up urban farming nationwide.

Vertical farming is not just about food security. It is about climate resilience. Farms indoors are protected from typhoons, droughts, and floods—all too familiar realities in our country. Studies show that vertical farms use up to 95% less water and 40% less energy than traditional farms, thanks to recycling systems and efficient lighting.

But here is my challenge: why stop at isolated projects? Why not encourage barangay-level vertical farming hubs in idle buildings or warehouses? Imagine every community having its own local source of vegetables, fish, and maybe poultry. Imagine these being run as cooperatives, where revenues are shared and young people are trained not just in farming but in agritech.

The Philippines cannot rely forever on imported fertilizers, imported seeds, and imported food. We need to take food production closer to where the people are. And if vacant buildings are just sitting there, collecting dust and cobwebs, why not breathe new life into them as food factories?

It would be a win for building owners, a win for LGUs, a win for farmers-turned-urban-workers, and most of all, a win for the consumers who could finally buy fresh, healthy produce without breaking the bank.

We need to think beyond malls, beyond condominiums, beyond shopping districts. The future of food could very well be growing inside the very buildings that symbolize yesterday’s economy. And perhaps, with enough vision and support, the Philippines could lead the way in Asia in turning urban blight into urban bounty.

So I ask again: Why let our vacant buildings rot, when they could feed us instead?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-30-2025

CAN ORGANIC FERTILIZERS WIN OVER CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS?

 CAN ORGANIC FERTILIZERS WIN OVER CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS?

I have often heard it said that organic fertilizers can never be as good as chemical fertilizers. The argument is usually simple: organic is less “potent,” while chemical fertilizers deliver fast, visible results. Another common argument is that organic farming is costlier—that is why organically grown fruits and vegetables usually fetch higher prices in the market.

But I have always wondered about the economics of this comparison. Why should something that could be produced cheaply and locally, like organic fertilizers from farm waste, be measured against imported chemical fertilizers that are not only expensive but also heavily subsidized by the government?

And now comes a farmer from India, Ramesh Khangoudar, who has provided proof of concept that organic farming can actually be more profitable than chemical-dependent farming. Faced with fertilizer bills crossing ₹1 lakh (around ₱67,000) per year, Ramesh shifted to organic farming. But he did not stop there—he trained more than 10,000 other farmers, showing them that they too could farm profitably without being trapped in the cycle of costly chemical inputs.

With the support of the SELCO Foundation and the Karnataka State Agriculture Department, Ramesh even brought AI-powered robots into small farms—machines that monitor soil health, help with precision planting, and reduce labor burdens. Add to that renewable energy, mobile sales units, and closed-loop systems, and you have a self-sustaining ecosystem that links clean energy, dignified livelihoods, and affordable food.

This is not just farming. This is systems thinking in action.

What About the Philippines?

Skeptics might say, “Well, that’s India. Could this happen here?” The truth is: it already has.

In Pangasinan, the Teraoka Family Farm has built a name around indigenous crops and certified organic vegetables. By reviving nearly-forgotten local produce like sineguelas, duhat, kamias, and santol, they have proven that biodiversity and profitability can go hand in hand.

In Davao del Sur, Green Farm, founded by Glenn Ferrer, started as a backyard garden but has since grown into a full ecosystem—fishponds, mushrooms, bees, and poultry—all run on integrated organic farming methods. They even teach others how to make organic soil amendments and concoctions from local materials.

And then there’s MASIPAG, a nationwide farmer-led network that promotes seed sovereignty and agroecology. For decades now, they have empowered farmers to save and exchange their own seeds, breaking free from dependence on corporate seed and chemical suppliers.

These are not isolated stories. They are models of resilience and self-sufficiency, quietly flourishing across the country.

The Real Economics

Now let us return to economics. Chemical fertilizers are energy-intensive to produce, imported, and priced according to global supply shocks. When the Russia-Ukraine war disrupted fertilizer supply chains, Filipino farmers immediately felt the pinch, as urea prices more than doubled. In contrast, organic fertilizers—whether made from compost, animal manure, or crop residues—can be produced locally with minimal cash outlay.

Yes, organic fertilizers may deliver nutrients more slowly than chemicals. But they also improve soil health, water retention, and biodiversity in the long term. Chemicals may give an instant boost, but overuse leads to soil degradation, declining yields, and greater dependence on ever-higher doses. In other words, chemicals mortgage the future; organics invest in it.

As for consumer prices, yes, organic produce is currently more expensive. But as more farms transition to organic, economies of scale will bring costs down. If India can show proof of concept, so can we. The Department of Agriculture and LGUs should seriously invest in farmer training, subsidies for organic inputs, and support for direct-to-consumer sales to make organic more affordable.

Beyond Economics: Health and Longevity

Of course, the greater benefit of organic food is not just its market price—it is our health. By reducing exposure to pesticide residues, synthetic additives, and degraded soils, organic food supports long-term wellness. What good is cheap rice, cheap chicken, or cheap vegetables if they slowly erode our health over time?

Food security, after all, should not just mean that food is available and cheap. It should mean that food is safe, nutritious, and sustainable. That is why organic fertilizers—and the farming systems they support—should be seen not as an alternative curiosity, but as a foundation for national food sovereignty.

Final Thoughts

So, can organic fertilizers win over chemical fertilizers? My answer is yes—not overnight, not without challenges, but steadily and surely. The proof is already out there—in India, in Pangasinan, in Davao, and across MASIPAG communities nationwide.

This is not a passing trend. It is a pathway toward healthier soil, healthier people, and longer lives. If we truly want food security—not just in terms of quantity, but quality—then investing in organic is not optional. It is essential.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-29-2025

PROTESTING AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

 PROTESTING AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

Just when I thought the battle against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was a lost cause, something unexpected happened on an island in the Philippines that could turn the tide.

Why did I think it was lost? Because GMO products and byproducts are practically everywhere now—on grocery shelves, in processed foods, and even in restaurant menus. Many of us have resigned ourselves to the thought that there is no point in fighting anymore. But suddenly, the people of Negros Island Region (NIR) stood up, and what was meant to be a local cry has now become a global rallying point.

What makes this story remarkable is that it is not led by politicians, celebrities, or big corporations. It is led by ordinary people—farmers, advocates, and community leaders like Ramon Uy Jr., who simply cares about livelihood, food security, and long-term health. Their spark has lit a fire, and the world is now watching.

Negros: The GMO-Free Island

For almost two decades, Negros Island has proudly worn the badge of being GMO-free. Through Provincial Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2007—known as The Safeguard Against Living Genetically Modified Organisms—Negros built a global reputation as the “Organic Capital of the Philippines” and even the “Organic Food Bowl of Southeast Asia.”

Now, that identity is under threat. The Provincial Board is considering a new ordinance that could repeal the ban and open the doors to living GMOs. Local groups fear this will undermine years of effort, investments, and trust in organic farming.

And the world agrees. Over 50 international organic organizations have expressed solidarity with the GMO-Free Negros Coalition. At the 8th Organic Asia Congress in Vietnam, leaders like Edgardo Uychiat of IFOAM Organics International and Mathew John, President of IFOAM Organics Asia, warned that Negros risks diluting its hard-earned reputation. As John put it: “After building up such a strong identity and statement to the rest of the world, it’s a pity that GMOs are now weakening the strength of organic agriculture.”

In fact, Negros has been chosen to host the Organic World Congress in 2027—a prestigious event that could highlight the Philippines on the global organic map. Why throw that away for short-term experiments with GMOs?

The Bigger Battle

Supporters of GMOs argue that genetic modification can increase crop yields, resist pests, and help feed a growing global population. But critics point out that GMOs bring long-term risks:

• The loss of biodiversity, as monoculture crops replace native varieties.
  
  

• The dominance of multinational seed companies, which could trap farmers in cycles of dependency.
  
  

• Uncertain health effects, as studies on GMO consumption remain contested.
  
  

• The weakening of organic industries, which rely on GMO-free certification to maintain consumer trust.
  
  

Do we really want to risk all this, when Negros already has a thriving organic economy and global recognition?

David vs. Goliath

This is beginning to look like a modern-day David versus Goliath battle. On one side are small farmers, organic advocates, and local leaders. On the other side are big corporations, lobbyists, and even some policymakers who are eager to “modernize” agriculture.

But let us not forget: in the biblical story, David won. And perhaps Negros could, too. After all, the global tide is not entirely in favor of GMOs. Europe remains cautious, with many countries imposing restrictions. Consumers worldwide are demanding organic, natural, and GMO-free products. This is the market Negros has already positioned itself for.

What Can Be Done

First, the Negros Provincial Board should listen to its people. When farmers, NGOs, and citizens rise in protest—backed by international allies—shouldn’t that weigh more heavily than industry lobbying?

Second, national agencies like the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health must take a clearer stand. It is not enough to allow GMOs in by default while ignoring the concerns of local organic producers.

Third, ordinary citizens should care about this issue, even if they don’t live in Negros. Why? Because food is everyone’s concern. If Negros falls, other provinces may follow. And once GMOs spread, there is no turning back—cross-pollination can erase decades of organic farming in a single season.

Final Thoughts

What began as a “silent cry” in Negros is now echoing across the globe. The lesson here is simple: even when the odds seem overwhelming, people who care can still make a difference. Negros Island has shown that resistance is not futile—it is necessary.

The GMO debate is not just about crops. It is about identity, health, sovereignty, and the future of food. And perhaps, just perhaps, this small island in the Philippines will remind the world that sometimes, it is worth fighting Goliath.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-28-2025

ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

 ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

How can we strictly enforce laws against illicit wildlife trading when the Department of Justice itself, through its spokesman, has admitted that our borders are porous? If people can be smuggled out of the country, how much easier would it be for wildlife—and not just live animals, but also eggs, hides, horns, scales, and even fish brood stock?

Outbound smuggling is one problem, but let us not forget inbound smuggling. What do you call that? Illegal imports. Both flows—outbound and inbound—are happening, and both are serious.

The sad thing is, there are speculations that in some cases, the very officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the ones breaking it. This undermines not only enforcement but also public trust.

The good news is that there is already a mechanism for coordination. The Philippines has a Wildlife Law Enforcement Action Plan (WildLEAP 2018–2028), which brings together agencies like the DENR, PNP, NBI, BFAR, Bureau of Customs, and even LGUs. The bad news? We do not hear much about what they are doing. Silence breeds suspicion. If they are making arrests, why are we not hearing regular reports? Transparency is itself a form of deterrence.

Smuggling Cases Close to Home

Over the years, we have heard about the illegal export of sabalo (mother milkfish), vital for aquaculture seed supply. More recently, there are whispers about ludong (lobed river mullet), one of the rarest and most prized fish in the Philippines, being smuggled out. This is alarming. Ludong is already nearly endangered; smuggling only pushes it closer to extinction.

Wildlife crimes are not victimless crimes. Every pangolin smuggled, every hornbill poached, every ludong exported illegally—these are losses to our biodiversity, our food security, and even our cultural heritage.

Who’s Supposed to Enforce the Law?

The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) under DENR is the lead agency implementing RA 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act). But enforcement requires a whole network:

• PNP – conducts raids and arrests.
  
  

• NBI – investigates organized wildlife trafficking and cybercrime links.
  
  

• BFAR – protects aquatic wildlife, especially endangered fish and marine species.
  
  

• Bureau of Customs – intercepts smuggled wildlife at airports and seaports.
  
  

• LGUs – enforce local ordinances and monitor public markets.
  
  

• DOJ – prosecutes wildlife crimes.
  
  

Internationally, the Philippines also coordinates with CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC, and the World Customs Organization. So the framework is there. The problem is execution and follow-through.

What Needs to Be Done

First, the WildLEAP Task Force should report regularly to the public: How many arrests? How many convictions? How many wildlife rescues? Publishing these numbers will show taxpayers that the law is being enforced.

Second, Congress should review their budget. If the problem is underfunding, then allocate more resources. If the problem is inefficiency, then impose stricter oversight.

Third, we need to strengthen border security. DOJ Assistant Secretary Mico Clavano has publicly acknowledged that our archipelagic geography makes guarding borders difficult. But “difficult” does not mean “impossible.” The Philippine Coast Guard and the Navy should be part of the wildlife enforcement system. If we can guard against pirates and smugglers of cigarettes and oil, why not smugglers of wildlife?

Fourth, LGUs should step up. Illegal wildlife trade is not only international—it also happens locally, right in our markets. If LGUs inspected public markets more often, many cases of illegal selling of turtles, exotic birds, and protected fish could be stopped before they even enter the export chain.

The Bigger Picture

Why is this so urgent? Because the Philippines is a megadiverse country, hosting more species per square kilometer than most nations. Sadly, we are also a hotspot for wildlife trafficking. Pangolins, geckos, ivory, and even corals have all been seized in Philippine ports. The United Nations has warned that the illegal wildlife trade is now the fourth largest transnational crime in the world, after drugs, arms, and human trafficking.

We must remind ourselves: protecting wildlife is not just about saving cute animals. It is about maintaining ecological balance, supporting sustainable fisheries, and even preventing future pandemics. Many diseases—SARS, Ebola, COVID-19—are linked to wildlife trade.

Final Thoughts

The enforcement gaps are glaring, but the solutions are within reach. Coordination already exists on paper; it just needs to be lived out in practice. Transparency and accountability must be non-negotiable. And above all, communities must be part of the solution. Barangay-level monitoring, citizen reporting hotlines, and stronger cooperatives can create a grassroots shield against wildlife crime.

Food security and biodiversity are deeply intertwined. Smuggling out sabalo and ludong is not just theft from nature; it is theft from our people.

So the challenge is clear: enforce the law, close the borders, and protect what is ours. Because once these species are gone, they are gone forever. And no amount of apologies or budgets will bring them back.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-27-2025