We must take full advantage of our hosting Apec this year. They should be done by engaging Apec through its various committees so that we can hasten our inclusive growth. Since this kind of growth must include the welfare of farmers and fisherfolk, we should look to Apec opportunities for them.
Though Apec is largely beneficial for us, we must also be aware of its potential risks. To paraphrase a statement from the Bible, “we must be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.”
In 1996, when the Philippines hosted Apec, I was assigned to be the Apec focal point for civil society. This included people organizations (POs), non-government organizations (NGOs) and the women sector.
Gathering insights from leaders such as Nicanor Perlas and Dan Songco, we recommended to then President Fidel Ramos that the Philippines lead a change of Apec’s focus from trade liberalization to sustainable development. This was in line with Ramos’ thinking. He then led the heads of the 21 economies to sign an Apec Leaders’ statement championing the sustainable development initiative.
At that time, in many areas, excessive and too speedy trade liberalization was benefiting the developed countries at the expense of the less developed ones. Though the volume of international trade increased, the sustainable development of less developed countries decreased. Though selective and well-paced trade liberalization is the right path to people’s welfare, the speed and breadth of this liberalization should be tempered by the actual conditions in certain countries.
For Philippine agriculture, the fast pace of trade liberalization was more harmful than beneficial. Fortunately, since 1996, Apec has given higher priority to sustainable development than unbridled trade liberalization.
Apec today
If you open the Apec website (www.apec.com), you will find the good news that has happened since 1996. Of the 36 Apec areas, only 12 are on trade. The remaining 24 support different aspects of sustainable development.
Let me share the benefits to farmers and fishers in two of these sustainable development areas that we personally experienced in the last three months: services and food security. So much was learned from the sharing of best practices and potential work arrangements with the 21 Apec economies that can contribute to our farmer and fisherfolk welfare.
In services, an Alyansa Agrikultura (AA) official was a delegate in the Boracay meeting, and subsequently a speaker in the Cebu meeting. In the latter meeting, Makati Business Club’s Peter Perfecto said: “Almost 30 percent of the agriculture productivity is actually services, not goods.” At these meetings, services essential to farmer and fisherfolk welfare were discussed, such as technology transfer, credit and marketing.
In food security, where an AA leader chaired the group on Apec Food Security Roadmap until 2020, critical concerns such as climate change, food losses amounting to more than 30 percent, and quality enhancement measures were shared with corresponding best practices and recommendations. In these areas as well as others, engaging Apec proved very beneficial to the Philippine farmer and fisherfolk participants.
Vigilance
The fear of oppositors that some Apec aspects may cause us harm should not be dismissed, but instead addressed. While the correct phasing of trade liberalization in the Philippines is beneficial, some liberalization initiatives advocated by a few powerful Apec economies should be opposed.
For example, some want us to accept totally the Kyoto protocol on trade facilitation. We agreed with most of the protocol’s provisions. But we cannot accept those that, in facilitating trade, also inadvertently facilitate smuggling. One such provision is to allow changes in the Custom Declaration of an imported product even after that product has arrived on our shores. Thus, a smuggler is motivated to either misdeclare, misclassify or undervalue a product. He knows that if he is caught, he can always change his customs declaration without penalty.
Another example is the insistence of some Apec economies that we decrease tariffs of some products to be the same as theirs for an alleged level playing field. But support is measured by the summation of both tariffs and subsidies. When an economy wants us to decrease our tariffs for a certain product with practically no subsidies, while that economy refuses to decrease its subsidies, this is certainly not a level-playing field. Unfortunately, some economies are using the Apec cover of trade liberalization to push for these unfair bilateral or multilateral Fair Trade Agreements (FTAs).
When we engage Apec, we must take advantage of its many benefits, especially in the sharing of best practices and the complimentary bilateral and multilateral arrangements. At the same time, we must exercise vigilance in avoiding its potential dangers. It is in this judicious engagement of Apec that can put us on a fast track towards 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, email agriwatch_phil@yahoo.com or telefax (02) 852-2112)