LOCAL PROCUREMENT FOR FOREIGN FASTFOOD CHAINS

LOCAL PROCUREMENT FOR FOREIGN FASTFOOD CHAINS

It was one of my former professors who once told me that the role of a writer is to see things that other people do not see. I can’t recall now whether it was Amelia Bonifacio or Doreen Fernandez, both of whom shaped the way I look at ordinary things and find meaning in them. One of them said that if I could only see what everyone else already sees, then I’m not doing my job as a writer.

Recently, I remembered that bit of wisdom when I noticed something seemingly small — even trivial — yet revealing of something much bigger.

It happened when I bought a burger meal from Burger King. As I opened the paper bag, I noticed the sachet of ketchup that came with it. Out of curiosity, I read the fine print. It said: Made in China.

Now, some might shrug that off as unimportant. But to me, it was an eye-opener.

Why is ketchup for burgers sold in the Philippines being imported from China, when we have tomato and banana ketchup manufacturers right here — some of whom are even exporting their products abroad? Surely, ketchup manufacturing isn’t rocket science. So why are our own local producers missing out on supplying something as simple as ketchup to foreign fast-food chains operating on our soil?

SMALL DETAILS, BIG IMPLICATIONS

This little sachet of ketchup tells a much larger story about missed opportunities in our economy. Every imported ketchup packet represents income that could have gone to Filipino tomato or banana farmers, Filipino packaging suppliers, and Filipino workers in local factories.

If we multiply that by the millions of burgers sold across all foreign fast-food outlets in the Philippines every day, that’s a staggering amount of economic leakage — value that could have stayed within our borders.

NO LAW, JUST COMMON SENSE

As of today, there are no laws that require foreign fast-food franchises to source their supplies locally. The Government Procurement Law (RA 9184) does prioritize Filipino suppliers, but that only applies to public contracts, not private corporations.

However, this is not about imposing new rules or being heavy-handed. We don’t have to make it mandatory. What we can do is create incentives — tax perks, recognition programs, or even expedited import clearances for companies that commit to local sourcing.

Let’s not threaten them with penalties; let’s persuade them with the economic and branding advantages of supporting Filipino producers.

THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR LOCAL SOURCING

There are many practical reasons why sourcing locally makes sense even from a business standpoint.

For one, it avoids import tariffs, freight costs, and shipping delays. It also makes the supply chain more resilient and adaptable to local market changes. Using local ingredients allows franchises to tweak their flavors to Filipino tastes — just as many already use banana ketchup or calamansi as part of their menu offerings.

There’s also the public relations angle. Imagine the goodwill a global brand could earn by proudly announcing, “Now made with locally sourced ketchup from Filipino farmers.” That kind of message resonates with customers who are increasingly conscious of sustainability and community support.

GOOD EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW

Some companies are already doing this. McDonald’s Philippines, for instance, sources its rice, chicken, and some condiments from local producers. Meanwhile, Jollibee, though Filipino-owned, has shown that integrating local supply chains is possible even when expanding globally.

Even within foreign franchises, there’s often flexibility. Many franchise agreements allow local operators to choose suppliers, as long as the products meet quality standards. That means there’s room to negotiate — room for local ketchup, local packaging, local vegetables, and more.

WHY NOT A LOCAL PROCUREMENT POLICY?

The government, through the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) or the Board of Investments (BOI), could develop a Local Procurement Incentive Program — a framework that rewards foreign franchises for sourcing locally.

Such a program could include:

• Tax incentives for using locally manufactured food inputs and packaging.
  
  

• Recognition or awards for companies that achieve high local sourcing ratios.
  
  

• Public-private dialogues where food manufacturers, farmers, and franchises can co-create sustainable supply agreements.
  
  

Even local government units (LGUs) could help by linking local farmers’ cooperatives to nearby fast-food chains. If a city can supply its own tomatoes, onions, lettuce, or packaging materials, why import from thousands of miles away?

A MATTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST

We should look at this ketchup issue not just as a trade concern but as a development opportunity. Every sachet, every paper cup, every burger wrapper could represent a small piece of local livelihood — if only we cared enough to make it so.

I am not suggesting that we should ban imported supplies. Rather, I am suggesting that we open the door for Filipino producers to become part of the global supply chain — starting with the foreign brands that are already operating here and earning from our market.

MY SUGGESTION

Instead of letting ketchup money flow out of the country, let’s keep it circulating here — from farm to factory to franchise. Instead of helping tomato farmers in China, let’s help those in Ilocos, Bukidnon, or Mindoro.

We may be talking about something as small as a ketchup sachet, but small things add up. And sometimes, it’s in the smallest details that we find the biggest opportunities for national progress.

If we can see that — as my professors taught me long ago — then perhaps we are finally looking at our economy with open eyes.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-01-2026

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MANAGE STUNTING REDUCTION?

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MANAGE STUNTING REDUCTION?

Why is it that in Indonesia, the role of stunting reduction is assigned to the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs, and not to their Minister of Health? Do they know something that we do not know? Or is it simply because they take the problem more seriously than we do?

In Indonesia, stunting is treated not merely as a health issue but as a national development priority. It is managed at the Cabinet coordination level, because it is a problem that involves not only nutrition and healthcare, but also education, livelihood, sanitation, and local governance. That makes sense. After all, stunting—children being too short for their age due to chronic undernutrition—is both a cause and a symptom of poverty.

WHAT IS STUNTING, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Stunting is not just about a child’s height. It is about a child’s future. According to UNICEF, stunted children are more likely to suffer from poor cognitive development, lower school performance, and reduced productivity as adults. In other words, stunting isn’t just a health crisis—it’s an economic and social one.

In the Philippines, the 2023 Expanded National Nutrition Survey revealed that about 26% of Filipino children under five were stunted. That means roughly one in four Filipino children is growing up physically and mentally disadvantaged before even reaching school age.

INDONESIA’S MODEL: COORDINATION AT THE TOP

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs oversees stunting reduction as part of a broad mandate that includes education, health, social welfare, and family development. This official brings together the Ministries of Health, Education, Social Affairs, and Agriculture—aligning policies and funding toward a single goal: reducing stunting to below 14% by 2024.

They understood something important—that stunting is not only about feeding programs. It’s about clean water, maternal health, proper sanitation, and parental knowledge. It’s about creating communities where mothers have access to prenatal care, families can afford nutritious food, and children grow up in safe, healthy environments.

HOW IS THE PHILIPPINES COORDINATING ITS EFFORTS?

To be fair, the Philippines has begun taking steps in the right direction.

We now have the proposed Anti-Stunting Action Plan (ASAP) Council Act of 2025, filed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano. The bill seeks to establish a high-level council to lead a whole-of-government and whole-of-society strategy against stunting. The plan includes early childhood nutrition, maternal care, community education, and local government accountability.

In parallel, the Philippine Multisectoral Nutrition Project (PMNP)—jointly led by the Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) with World Bank support—integrates nutrition, agriculture, maternal health, and food security programs. It targets local governments with the highest rates of stunting and builds their capacity to deliver services effectively.

But here’s the real question: Are these efforts truly coordinated?

WHERE COORDINATION MATTERS MOST

How exactly do DOH, DSWD, and DepEd coordinate? Does the DOH ensure that local health units work with schools to deliver nutrition education and feeding programs? Does DSWD link its 4Ps beneficiaries to livelihood opportunities that improve family food security?

And what about non-government organizations (NGOs)? Many NGOs have deep experience in community nutrition, but are they getting the institutional and financial support they need?

We must remember that the root causes of stunting go beyond hunger. Poor families often rely on cheap, calorie-dense but nutrient-poor food. Clean water and sanitation are still inadequate in many barangays. And even when nutrition knowledge is available, the lack of access to livelihoods keeps families trapped in cycles of malnutrition.

A COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACH

The best solutions are often local. At the barangay level, nutrition councils should be activated and properly funded. Each council can coordinate five key pillars:

• Nutrition: Promote breastfeeding, micronutrient supplementation, and dietary diversity.
  
  

• Health: Ensure prenatal care, growth monitoring, and deworming services.
  
  

• Livelihood: Connect families to backyard gardening, aquaculture, and food-related enterprises.
  
  

• Education: Train barangay health workers and parents on child care and development.
  
  

• Governance: Use data-driven tools to track progress and mobilize local resources.
  
  

This approach goes beyond charity—it empowers communities. Imagine community kitchens that also serve as nutrition learning centers. Imagine composting and food waste recovery programs that feed community gardens. Imagine mapping local biodiversity to promote native, nutrient-rich crops instead of imported food products.

TREAT STUNTING AS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY

If Indonesia treats stunting as a development crisis, we should do the same. Stunting reduction should not sit quietly under the DOH’s nutrition division—it should be elevated to the Cabinet level, under a coordinating body that links human development, poverty reduction, and food security.

When we think of stunting only as a health issue, we limit our solutions to vitamins and feeding programs. But when we think of it as a human development issue, we begin to see how stunting connects to income, education, sanitation, and governance.

MY SUGGESTION

Let us assign stunting reduction to a Coordinating Minister for Human Development—someone who can align the efforts of DOH, DSWD, DepEd, DA, and LGUs, and who can also engage the private sector and civil society.

Let us make the fight against stunting not just a program, but a national mission. Because no nation can rise to its full height when its children cannot.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-28-2026

COMBINING THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION FUNCTIONS

 COMBINING THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION FUNCTIONS

In Indonesia, there exists a Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs—a cabinet-level position that supervises all national efforts related to human development, poverty reduction, and social welfare. This model is both elegant and practical. Why? Because human development and poverty reduction are two sides of the same coin.

When poverty goes down, human development goes up. It’s as simple as that. And when human development improves—when people are educated, healthy, skilled, and employed—poverty is naturally reduced. So why do we still treat them as separate, disconnected government functions in the Philippines?

TWO SIDES OF ONE COIN

In theory, every government program that improves education, health, housing, or livelihood contributes to human development. Likewise, every measure that increases income, creates jobs, or expands access to markets reduces poverty. Yet our bureaucratic setup has long treated these as parallel tracks rather than as an integrated mission.

If Indonesia can have one coordinating minister that oversees both human development and poverty reduction, why can’t we? Why do we still have different agencies running overlapping programs with little coordination and even less accountability?

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?

Here’s a simple but important question: Which agency in the Philippines is actually in charge of human development?

We could assume it’s the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), but that agency is more focused on social assistance—helping families in crisis, not necessarily developing their long-term human potential. The “development” in DSWD’s name has not always translated to human development in the holistic sense.

Perhaps the newly created Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) could be seen as part of this, but that’s focused on housing, not human capacity. Could there be a “Department of Human Development” someday? Maybe—but until that happens, no single agency truly owns the mandate for human development.

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF POVERTY REDUCTION?

The same question applies to poverty reduction. We have DSWD implementing cash transfer programs like the 4Ps, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) doing advocacy work, but no single office with the authority to coordinate and evaluate all poverty reduction efforts across government.

Worse, some officials still confuse poverty alleviation with poverty reduction. The former only provides temporary relief—food, cash, or aid. The latter requires structural change—jobs, livelihood, access to credit, and long-term empowerment.

If we don’t clearly distinguish between these two, we’ll always be caught in a cycle of assistance instead of advancement.

WHAT INDONESIA GOT RIGHT

Indonesia’s model solves this confusion. Its Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs oversees multiple ministries and programs under one unified vision.

This minister integrates initiatives from the Ministries of Education, Health, and Social Affairs, ensuring that programs for schooling, healthcare, and social protection move in sync. They also coordinate national efforts on stunting reduction, family-based welfare, and community empowerment.

The genius of this setup is in coordination. Instead of separate silos, they operate as one ecosystem aimed at improving quality of life and reducing poverty simultaneously. It’s not about more bureaucracy—it’s about better integration.

A MODEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES

The Philippines could adapt this model by creating a Coordinating Office for Human Development and Poverty Reduction—a high-level body that brings together DSWD, DOLE, TESDA, DTI, DA, DepEd, and DOH under one national framework.

This body would not replace existing agencies but rather align their goals, budgets, and performance indicators toward shared human development outcomes—jobs created, incomes increased, nutrition improved, literacy rates raised, and stunting reduced.

This coordination could even be anchored on the circular economy and dignity-based governance, ensuring that every livelihood program contributes not just to income generation but also to environmental sustainability and human empowerment.

STAFF VS. LINE FUNCTIONS

Perhaps it’s time the Philippine Cabinet distinguishes between staff and line functions. Agencies that deliver services (education, health, livelihood) are “line agencies.” But there should be a “staff” office that ensures these functions are harmonized toward national human development goals.

Without that staff-level coordination, we’ll continue to have fragmented efforts—TESDA training people without linking them to jobs, DTI helping MSMEs without access to finance, and DA supporting farmers who can’t find markets.

A COORDINATED, DIGNIFIED FUTURE

If Indonesia can do it, why can’t we? What we need is not more programs but better integration—a single steward for human development and poverty reduction who ensures that every peso spent truly improves Filipino lives.

I have always believed that governance should be rooted in dignity. Poverty strips people of dignity; development restores it. But dignity can only be restored through work, education, health, and opportunity—all coordinated under a unified vision of national human development.

So perhaps it’s time for our leaders to stop asking “Who owns what program?” and start asking “Who ensures that every Filipino truly benefits?”

Because in the end, human development is not just a government program—it’s a moral obligation. And poverty reduction is not just an economic goal—it’s the measure of a nation’s humanity.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-27-2026