THE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

 THE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

It is very clear that organic fertilizers are better than chemical fertilizers. The science is already there: organic fertilizers restore the soil, promote microbial life, and help farmers reduce dependence on petroleum-based inputs. But here is the dilemma—organic fertilizers are not always cheaper than chemical fertilizers. That is the wall many organic farmers run into, especially those who would like to grow organic fruits and vegetables but are constrained by economics.

My own dream is that one day, perhaps sooner than later, organic food will become the norm, not the exception. What would that mean? It would mean that organic food prices will be at par with non-organic food prices. At that point, consumers will simply choose according to preference, not by price. Imagine walking into a supermarket and seeing that organic bananas cost the same as ordinary bananas. Wouldn’t that make sense for both health and sustainability?

Price parity, however, is only one objective. The other objective is to tap both the growing domestic and export markets for organic foods. Here in Metro Manila, the demand for organic fruits and vegetables is steadily rising. Community markets like Salcedo in Makati draw health-conscious buyers every weekend, while online platforms like Farm2Metro deliver organic produce—from native ginger to heirloom squash—straight to households. This shows that consumer behavior is shifting in favor of sustainability and health.

Globally, the story is the same. Japan, South Korea, and China are buying more tropical fruits, with growing interest in organic-certified bananas, pineapples, and mangoes. Europe and North America, though stricter in certification, offer premium prices for certified products. This tells us that if we can meet standards, the Philippines could become a serious player in the global organic trade.

But let us be practical: organic fertilizer is just one side of the equation. The other side is the use of natural insecticides. In theory, the cost of natural insecticides should also be at par with chemical insecticides. Otherwise, the costs of organic farming will remain high, and so will the prices of organic food.

This is where government should come in. The Department of Agriculture (DA) should lead a “whole of government” approach, with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and research institutions like the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) developing low-cost technologies for both organic fertilizers and natural insecticides. If we cannot develop these technologies locally, then let us be bold enough to acquire them abroad through technology transfer agreements. Why not, if it means boosting our competitiveness in both local and international markets?

Let us not forget: the Philippines is an agricultural country. We should be producing more natural foods not only for our own health but also for export. Organic agriculture can be a sunrise industry if given the right support. The Philippine Statistics Authority reported that organic farming is still less than 2% of total agricultural land, yet the domestic and export markets are growing steadily. This is a gap waiting to be filled.

Certification costs, logistics, and scale remain challenges, but these are not insurmountable. Imagine if DA, DOST, and even DTI collaborated to create affordable certification programs, improved cold-chain logistics, and encouraged cooperatives of small organic farmers. That would lower costs, improve supply consistency, and make our products more attractive to global buyers.

So here is my suggestion: let us push for a national program that supports organic fertilizer and natural insecticide production. Let us aim for price parity between organic and non-organic food within the decade. And let us position the Philippines as an exporter of world-class organic products.

At the end of the day, the economics of organic fertilizers is not just about costs. It is about health, sustainability, trade competitiveness, and national pride. If we succeed, we would not only feed our people better but also carve a space for ourselves in the global organic movement.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-15-2025 

USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS

 USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS 

It is a classic dilemma that has faced human civilization since electricity was discovered: how do we tap the power of flowing water without building dams? 

Dams have given us abundant electricity, but they also come with risks. If a dam bursts, the consequences are catastrophic. Even without accidents, the very act of building a dam often destroys human settlements, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands. And yet, because of growing demand for electricity, the case for building dams usually wins. 

But now comes an innovation from Germany that might just change the equation: a suitcase-sized portable hydropower device that generates electricity without the need for a dam. This invention can be deployed in rivers or streams and produce enough power for 20 households—including refrigeration and small appliances. Multiple units can even be linked together to power larger communities. 

Can you imagine what this means for our country? Think of our many off-grid barangays, our upland communities in Mindanao, our island towns that remain unconnected to the national grid. Instead of waiting decades for grid extension—or relying on expensive diesel generators—what if they could simply place a portable turbine in a nearby stream and have instant renewable energy? 

The reports say this German device, often referred to as the HydroCase, is already commercially available. NGOs have begun placing orders, and trial runs have been piloted in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. It is not just a concept—it is already being used. 

This raises the next question: what about the Philippines? Could the Department of Energy (DOE) take the lead in conducting pilot projects here? Could we ask the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to engage with the German government or manufacturers for technology transfer or partnership? 

We must not waste this opportunity. God has given us the blessing of many rivers and streams, from the Cagayan River in the north to the Agusan in the south. These waterways could become sources of clean energy—without the cost, disruption, and ecological damage of large dams. 

I also ask: why stop at buying the technology? Could our Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and our local universities develop their own versions, perhaps cheaper, using local materials? If German engineers can do it, surely Filipino engineers can too. Imagine barangay-level cooperatives managing shared turbines, using apps to monitor output, and powering cold storage for fishers or rice mills for farmers. 

The beauty of this device is that it embodies the very principles we say we want for our development path: renewable, decentralized, low-cost, and community driven. It eliminates reliance on kerosene lamps and diesel generators. It avoids ecological disruption. And it empowers even the smallest communities to be energy self-sufficient. 

Of course, there are challenges. Who manages the devices? How do we ensure fair access to the water source? How do we protect the equipment from theft or damage? These are governance questions that LGUs and cooperatives would have to address. But these are manageable issues compared to the enormous problems caused by dam building. 

Let me suggest something bold: the Philippines should create a National Program for Micro-Hydropower without Dams. This could bring together DOE, DOST, DFA, DTI, and LGUs. Its mandate: acquire, adapt, and deploy these technologies nationwide, starting with the poorest, most remote communities. 

Just think--with a few thousand of these units, we could light up every barangay in the archipelago. And if we pair them with solar and wind systems, we will have a truly resilient, renewable energy future. 

This German invention is a game-changer. But it will only change our game if we act on it. Otherwise, we will watch other countries leap ahead while we stay in the dark—literally. 

So let us start the conversation now. Let us pilot these portable hydropower devices in our rivers and streams. Let us make energy sovereignty a reality for our barangays. 

Because at the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want to keep building dams—or do we want to start building the future? 

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-14-2025 

ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS

 ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS 

It seems that very few people paid attention to the issue of temporary burial rights in the Philippines—until the case of Barangka, Marikina exploded in the media. Like many others, I had assumed that burial rights in cemeteries were permanent, meaning that once you were laid to rest, you would stay there forever. 

But the Marikina case shocked us into realizing the truth: in public cemeteries, the use of burial lots is often subject to municipal ordinances. In other words, they are “for rent.” And if the “rental” is not renewed, the remains of the dead can be removed— “evicted,” to use a harsh but accurate word. 

I cannot help but feel sad whenever I think about this. The rich can “rest in peace” forever in their mausoleums and memorial parks. But the poor cannot even have security of tenure in their graves. If their relatives fail to pay, their bones may be dug up and displaced. Do you call that justice? 

Here we see inequality that extends even beyond life. Sad to say, in the Philippines, there is inequality even in death. 

So, what has happened? Have burial plots become like market stalls—rented for a time, and if unpaid, simply vacated? Shouldn’t there be a principle that burial plots are beyond the commerce of man? 

To be fair, I understand the dilemma of local governments. As populations grow, cemetery space runs out. But is that not part of their function—to plan for the needs of the future? Morbid as it may sound, people die every day, and their final resting places should be part of long-term urban planning. 

This is where I think LGUs must innovate. Instead of relying only on traditional burial grounds, they could offer the option of cremation and build public columbaria. Cremated remains take far less space, but the decision to cremate should be up to the relatives. Old bones from temporary graves could also be respectfully transferred into communal ossuaries, again with the consent of the relatives. These are solutions that balance dignity with practicality. 

But here is the bigger question: should we not legislate permanent burial rights nationwide? At present, local ordinances can dictate how long one can “rent” a grave, and practices differ from city to city. That opens the door to abuse. 

What we need is a national law that guarantees permanent interment in public cemeteries. Such a law should prohibit “grave rentals” and ensure that remains are undisturbed unless the family consents or if a court orders it otherwise. Unauthorized exhumations should be penalized. 

The Commission on Human Rights has already pointed out that disrespectful handling of remains may even violate human rights. After all, how can we claim to value human dignity if we cannot even respect the dead? 

Of course, the space issue remains. But building columbaria is one solution. Eco-burial zones, where remains are interred in biodegradable urns, could be another. LGUs could also designate burial grounds for indigent families, ensuring that no one is denied a dignified resting place simply because of poverty. 

This leads me back to the Marikina case. Has there been proper closure? Have the displaced families been given justice? Or will this issue fade away until another cemetery scandal shocks us again? 

We cannot allow this cycle to continue. The national government, through Congress, should act now. At the same time, LGUs should step up in planning for sustainable and dignified cemetery services. 

The dead should not be treated as a burden to be managed. They are reminders of our shared humanity. If we cannot provide justice and equality even in death, what does that say about the kind of society we are building? 

For me, the call is clear: let us advocate for permanent burial rights. 

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-13-2025