Philippine agriculture inadequately addressed in Asean
At the April 10 Asean Economic Community (AEC) Forum, Alyansa Agrikultura leaders felt that the government needed to give more attention to Philippine agriculture.
On that day, the government’s AEC committee recommended: “Think of AEC in terms of three Cs—complementation, collaboration and cooperation—rather than a single big C of competition.”
The saying “Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents” applies to the Asean integration that starts in 2015. While the positive orientation is needed, we should not be blind to the fact that our products will have competition from Asean imports. While we can be “gentle” in promoting trade based on comparative advantage, we should be “wise” in protecting our products from unequal Asean subsidies. We can do this by matching those subsidies and consequently level the playing field.
Industry bias
The call of President Aquino for inclusive growth, which necessarily includes agriculture, should be heeded. Last year, manufacturing posted a 10.3 percent growth while agriculture grew by only 1.2 percent. More attention should definitely be given to agriculture.
I have become more knowledgeable about industrial activities in the Asean region. Over the last five years, I have been alternately business development or technical committee chair and the two-year president of the Asean Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM). I have also been involved in international trade discussions as a member of the public-private sector Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries (Pcaf). During this period, I have seen government give much more attention to industry compared to agriculture.
This should be corrected immediately. When WTO was ratified, the farmers were told this would improve, rather than harm, their welfare. However, since the competitiveness enhancement measures promised by the previous government were not delivered, WTO caused more harm than good.
In the last five years, we see this in the agriculture growth recorded: Zero percent in 2009 to 2010, 2 percent in 2011, 3 percent in 2012, and zero percent in 2013. This is well below the government target of 4-5 percent annual agriculture growth. What happened to our farmers in the WTO should not happen in the AEC.
Three areas
The three Asean areas that should be addressed to benefit Philippine agriculture are subsidies, private sector participation, and smuggling.
Asean countries will supposedly be on a level playing field because the tariffs will be the same. But a level playing field means not only tariffs but also subsidies. Their summation equals the total support a product gets from a country. So if other countries give more subsidies than us, we will not have a level playing field.
At last week’s forum, United Broiler Raisers Association President Elias Jose Inciong from the Alyansa Agrikultura asked the government to finally find out the agricultural subsidies of other Asean countries so that we can match theirs. DA agreed, but other agencies did not. He also asked for the establishment of agricultural laboratories that are needed to certify our exportable products and validate our imported products’ conformity to minimum safety and quality standards. Because these requests have been unheeded for three years, some do not agree with the published statement released during the forum that “the key agreements and regulations that will govern our business and economic relationships under the AEC are already in place and operational”.
For private sector participation in the AEC, industry is well represented, but not agriculture. During the forum, DTI management from the Secretary down to all the regional directors were present. Only one director came from DA. The private sector organizations presented as AEC partners were all from industry, but none from agriculture. For private sector planning, 26 industry roadmaps were completed, but not one agriculture roadmap. This is little comfort for our farmers, because AEC is less than two years away.
For the smuggling attempts that may increase because of AEC, agriculture should get what industry has been getting for the last three years. DA should obtain the antismuggling intelligence from the Bureau of Customs (BOC) that DTI now gets, such as import entry information. To prevent technical smuggling, DA should be allowed to join DTI in the BOC Valuation and Classification Review Committee. And while BOC allows accredited industry private sector technical experts, it has stopped giving this accreditation to agriculture since 2010.
If AEC is to be beneficial for us, it is imperative that we adequately address our agriculture. Only then can we simultaneously achieve both economic development and inclusive growth.
(The author is chair of Agriwatch, former Secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former Undersecretary for Agriculture, Trade and Industry. For inquiries and suggestions, e-mail [email protected] or telefax 8522112).
