|
Had we
understood what the Japan-Philippines Econo-mic
Partnership Agreement (Jpepa) was really about, seeing
it as a response to the failures of global trade
initiatives, then we might not be the pathetic victims
we currently are to the food crisis that afflicts us.
Reaping the harvest from the Jpepa would
have at least led to food security by hitching our star
to one of the better-run agro-industrial powers. That
cannot be timelier as we increasingly rely on foreign
markets both as suppliers and buyers.
The damaging effects of parochialism and
the downsides of delaying the ratification of the Jpepa
are compelling. Nothing could be a more persuasive
argument to get off our fat and complacent behinds than
imminent unrest and the prospects of famine.
Likewise, nothing better illegitimates
Gloria Arroyo’s unprecedented 7.3-percent gross domestic
product growth than the nightmare of soup-kitchen lines
and food rationing. On the latter, we’ve already begun
ap-
portioning rice to democratize depleted supplies.
Supplies we claim to have.
As for a soup-kitchen economy, even Mrs.
Arroyo’s statistics show how deep below the poverty line
we’ve sunk, there suffocating under the stench of famine
and political pestilence compounded by illusory economic
growth.
Unfortunately, the Jpepa remains in the
back burners because the Senate has been distracted by a
coterie of officials and one scandal after another. But
never mind about arguing the constitutionality of
privileges or the accusations of baselines betrayals.
Never mind also bribes and corruption. Compared with the
cataclysmic
effects of widespread hunger, those are esoteric,
perhaps even sophisticated, concerns. Hardly enough to
cause a revolt in a population largely composed of
apathetic agricultural workers.
Hunger and destitution, on the other
hand, can catalyze bolder, more aggressive measures.
Something the comfortably seated might want to consider.
This is something our globe-trotting
senators ignore while trapped within the confines of
egos, personal aggrandizement and ambitions. Few realize
that the Jpepa is a necessary counterfoil against the
failures of global trade agreements set at the various
World Trade Organization (WTO) conferences since the
first riots in Seattle in 1999 through the last
ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in 2005.
The Doha Round initiated in Qatar in
2001 tried to ease trading imbalances. The need to
establish an equitable system between North and South
economies failed not simply because the gap between rich
and poor countries seem impossibly wide, but because
those that make the rules break them.
One of the most debilitating breaches is
on the issue of farm subsidies ,where Western economies
employ scale, export revenues and hefty tax dollars to
support commercial farming against the vulnerabilities
of economies that don’t subsidize.
The WTO should have provided poorer
countries leverage against developed economies, but its
failure to police and then punish the latter from
pursuing inequitable practices now forces the rest of
the world into bilateral contracts as ways forward.
That is the impetus for the Jpepa. And,
indeed, quite a number in Asean have forged forward with
Japan.
Unfortunately, rather than establish
better trade through it, in recent days, out of
desperation, we’ve succumbed to the very anomaly that
created a need for the Jpepa.
When the misallocation of agricultural
funds deprives farmers of adequate support, that’s
another form of betrayal. Worse, by importing from
economies that subsidize farm products, through our
taxes, we directly provide richer economies funds that
perpetuate subsidies that create dumped products.
If there is anything that should awaken
us to the criticality of ratifying the Jpepa, it is the
desperation that we now apply as palliatives to the
food-security crisis. Connect the dots and we see our
own government subsidizing foreign farmers by providing
them with export revenues—money we could have channeled
to critical local fertilizer subsidies.
Farming groups say that 95 percent of
agricultural exports to the Japan will enjoy zero
tariffs under the Jpepa. If those constitute
approximately $8 billion of yearly exports to Japan,
then by dilly-dallying on ratifying we are squandering
not just rare opportunities but real revenues.
Let us run through some of the positive
impacts on our largely agricultural population where the
7.3-percent growth statistic remains unfelt and
detached.
Through tariff elimination and market
access under the Jpepa, studies show we can export
approximately $419 million of agricultural and fishery
products into Japan’s previously prohibitive economy.
This, on top of the $353-million duty-free tariffs on
major farm and fishery exports already committed.
These near-term upsides include
high-revenue earning Filipino farm and fishery products
listed under Japan’s General System of Preferences and
previous tariff protection ranging from 5 percent to 20
percent eliminated within three to 10 years.
Beyond this detail is an important trade
consideration. Philippine goods will be classified
according to their nature rather than usage or origins.
This harmonized system eliminates the bias long
afflicting our products. More important, Philippine
products will be accorded national treatment and, thus,
will be on equal status with Japanese products.
Studies by the Senate Economic Planning
Office show the Jpepa would have a positive incremental
impact on GDP of between 0.9 percent (or P54.3 billion)
without additional synergies, increasing to 1.73
percent, and a high of 3.03 percent with incremental
Japanese investments.
From the Jpepa’s increased access, the
Board of Investments estimates Japanese foreign direct
investments at P559 billion between now and 2016.
Real revenues and investments are better
than hollow GDP. This is a train we don’t want to miss. |
