To get the most benefit for our people, we must choose one of three approaches insofar as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is concerned: immediate ratification; outright rejection; or deferral, then ratification when we are ready. The third approach is what India is doing, which we believe to be the best option.
Delaying will give us time to do the minimum preparatory steps so agriculture is not significantly harmed. This can be done within three to six months, depending on our government’s political will.
In a forum by the Management Association Foundation last March 1, Cielito Habito, chair of Brain Trust, Inc., spoke about RCEP’s benefits. He says it: widens market access opportunities; fosters more cross-border regional value chains; increases members’ attractiveness to Foreign Direct Investments; promotes easier micro, small and medium enterprises’ participation; lowers cost of doing business; and opens wider opportunities for Filipino service providers and professionals.
Federation of Free Farmers national manager Raul Montemayor, on the other hand, cited the disadvantages: We are not prepared because of our vulnerability to imports and inability to compete in export markets; promised gains from trade have not materialized; there are doubts regarding trade remedies under RCEP; and there is lack of trust in government.
Can we have a win-win solution? Yes, if we learn from our World Trade Organization (WTO) experience. Joining WTO gave us important benefits, but we did not address its threats.
Vietnam identified these threats and provided concrete actions to address them. As a result, it is now far ahead of us in agriculture development.
We can learn from Vietnam. It has several effective agriculture support programs, including subsidies. We do not have those. In addition, the Department of Agriculture (DA) only gets 2 percent of the national budget, as compared to Vietnam’s 6 percent.
Recall, too, that the Commission on Audit in 2020 reported that the DA had P22 billion in unliquidated funds. Some alleged that a significant portion of this was lost to corruption. Much of this occurred in the regions, perhaps without the knowledge of the head office.
The legislated public-private Philippine Council of Agriculture and Fisheries (PCAF) provided a procedure that helped prevent corruption at the regional level until it was abolished. The private sector, with PCAF personnel, would visit the provinces to investigate budget use. This was a deterrent to corruption, and should thus be restored.
Likewise, the annual quarterly meetings of the PCAF international relations committee were also stopped. The last meeting about the RCEP was on July 2019. Unfortunately, this was after the RCEP agreement had already been finalized without the private sector being informed of the contents nor given a chance to recommend improvements.
The DA has officially stated there were no threats emanating from RCEP, contrary to what 104 organizations were saying.
Consultations with the private sector should be resumed and even enhanced. Otherwise, how will we thresh out what they are saying vis-a-vis that of the DA?
It is imperative that when we increase imports due to RCEP, we must make sure these will not exacerbate smuggling and deprive our farmers of their livelihoods.
We must set up anew a public-private structure that previously helped the Bureau of Customs in its antismuggling work. This group, which met once a month, helped decrease the smuggling rate by 25 percent and 31 percent during the two times they were operational.
While industries will benefit from RCEP, agriculture will not. The sector is only asking for a few months of preparation. After that, we can join RCEP.
The author is Agriwatch chair, former secretary of presidential programs and projects and former undersecretary of DA and DTI.
Contact is Agriwatch_phil@yahoo.com.