Apec can be a game changer for agriculture sector

In many ways, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation can significantly assist agriculture. This is especially true because of the sad state of our agricultural development, especially in this crucial time of climate change. We can benefit greatly from Apec through technology transfer and the exchange of agriculture best practices. We can also formulate mutually beneficial business arrangements with Apec member-economies. This will create the many rural jobs we sorely need for our people.

Participation

Of course, Apec has risks. What worthwhile endeavor doesn’t? But with citizen vigilance and participation, our government authorities can properly manage these risks.

In the months preceding the Apec Leaders’ Meeting this week, Alyansa Agrikultura was asked to participate in five Apec working sessions. The invitation came from the Philippine government and the Apec Business Advisory Council.

Alyansa Agrikultura, established in 2003, is a farmer-fisher coalition composed of 42 federations and organizations covering all major agricultural sectors. Some of its prominent federation members are PAKISAMA (in 46 provinces), Pambansang Kilusan ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (in 42 provinces), and Kilusang Mangingisda (in 15 provinces).

They mostly represent people organizations (POs—the producers themselves), with a few supporting non-government organizations (NGOs—which provide assistance to the POs).

AA participated in five important Apec meetings on services, food security, financial structure reform, and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).

On the forums on services where AA was a participant in Boracay and a speaker in Cebu, AA advocated an Apec Services Group which would also emphasize agriculture. Services constitute 52 percent of Gross Domestic Product across Apec countries, and therefore deserve special attention. In agriculture, services such as credit, marketing, and training often spell the difference between success and failure for farmers and fisherfolk.

In Iloilo, where AA served as the Chair of the Working Group on the Food Security Roadmap toward 2020, AA advocated the provision and exchange of creative technologies in view of climate change. Also emphasized was the need for small farmer and fisherfolk involvement in food security planning and implementation, as well as a carefully phased program of agriculture trade liberalization across Apec economies.

AA likewise participated in two Apec meetings in Makati. On Financial Structure Reform, AA advocated bank rule flexibility to provide credit access to small farmers and fisherfolk. In particular, Land Bank should significantly increase its current 12 percent loan portfolio share to this sector since it was first established as an agriculture bank. For the meeting on MSMEs, AA pointed out the need for farmer, fisherfolk, and cooperative development initiatives so that they can effectively participate in Apec’s MSME domestic and international programs.

Throughout these five meetings, Filipino small farmers and fisherfolk were able to participate, contribute, and benefit from Apec activities. It is the first time they have taken such an active role in Apec. However, this should be just the beginning. Necessary follow-up is needed to bring the Apec potential for Philippine agriculture to fruition. This farmer-fisher involvement should therefore be institutionalized by the Philippine government for all future Apec meetings.

Risks

In any significant undertaking, there are always risks. These risks should be identified and managed properly. When Apec was first conceived, its main purpose was trade liberalization.

However, when the Philippines hosted the Apec meeting in 1996 under President Fidel Ramos, this focus was changed to sustainable development. Too rapid trade liberalization under uneven conditions of different trade subsidy levels would actually hinder sustainable development, especially in developing economies. Besides, Apec had the potential of doing much more than just trade mechanisms. It could also pursue other development initiatives in areas such as technology, finance, and economic enhancement mechanisms.

This initial misguided free trade emphasis can be used by some Apec economies to rationalize some unjustified tariff rates lower than the WTO agreements. This may be detrimental to some developing economies, which operate in a non-level playing field and may not yet be ready to cope effectively with these rates. Similarly, some trade facilitation measures which unintentionally facilitate smuggling should also be rejected.

Citizen vigilance with responsible government authorities can address these potential risks. As long as sustainable development rather than trade liberalization remains the Apec focus, Apec will continue to be a bane rather than a boon, especially to small farmers and fisherfolk. This way, Apec can truly assist Philippine agriculture and be a significant factor in attaining our nation’s elusive 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 [email protected] or telefax (02) 852-2112).