Trade and Fiscal Incentives - National Agricultural and Fishery ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED General REGION Impact Reasons Level Reasons 10 None Weak program Poor High costs of inputs / timeliness of rice importation 11 (Grains) None Untimely importations, high costs of inputs 12 (Grains) Low Input prices remain high; dumping of imported rice reduces prices; untimely entry of imported rice CARAGA Low Guidelines on programs not properly implemented; high input costs; smuggling not controlled; not sustainable production Source: AFMA Regional Consultations Poor Laws unfriendly to farmers; too focused on consumers than producers; failure in establishing price system PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Organize farmers for bulk importation Conduct R&D in producing inorganic fertilizer Imports should not come during harvest time Promote sustainable system in irrigated rice Farmer orgs should do importation Adopt mitigating reasons to reduce impact of globalization Nationalize products Strict monitoring of warehouses owned by cartels Review policies on tariff rates Create rice and corn board Strengthen price stabilization council Poor Lack of consultations with stakeholders PAFC should be part in recommending importations Poor Ineffective program implementation Advocacy for inorganic fertilizer Implement “abono Filipino” in the region Increase rice production through new technologies, increase area, increase productivity Proper implementation of trade policies 4.2 - 32
4.2.55 In terms of level of program implementation, all the 10 Regions (100%) rated it poor (score of 1 to 3) with 10 as the highest possible score. The major reasons cited varied from inconsistencies of government policies (e.g. rice imports’ timeliness and bias to consumers) affecting the program level; government red tapes and ineffective program implementation; selective beneficiaries of the program; and lack of consultations with stakeholders. 4.2.56 The Regional consultations also made several proposed improvements on how to make the trade component of AFMA be more effective. These are generally categorized into four: rice trade policies (export-imports, tariff and competitiveness), efficiency and competitiveness in rice production through the adoption of technologies and other measures, stakeholders’ participation, and institutional reforms (Table 4.2.16). b. Trade and the Corn Subsector 4.2.57 Seven Regions provided inputs in the analysis of trade impact on the corn subsector. These are Regions 1, 2, 3, 4-A, 4-B, 5, and 7. Regional participants indicated a range of none (no score), to high (score of 8 to 10) on the general impact of trade on the corn subsector. Regions 2 and 7 affirmed no impact of AFMA trade component on corn; had poor (score of 1 to 3) level of implementation due to government corn importation, corn smuggling and minimum government intervention. On the other hand, four Regions (1, 4-A, 4-B, 5) indicated low impact of AFMA trade component and poor level of program implementation due to common reasons of: importation during peak harvest; mostly for domestic use and no surplus for export; and minimum government assistance (interventions) to corn farmers. 4.2.58 There was one Region (Region 3) however, whose participants affirmed the high (score of 8 to 10) impact and good (score of 8 to 10) level of program implementation of AFMA trade component on the corn sector. The reasons cited for high impact were: the Region is strategically located in a high demand area where market prices received by farmers are high. Likewise, the private sector participation was cited as a major reason for good program implementation. 4.2.59 Finally, the proposed measures for improvement suggested by the Regional participants include: strong political will to stop untimely imports and smuggling; monetization of fertilizer donated by foreign countries; closer monitoring of prices; subsidy on fertilizer and advocacy on the use of BIO-N fertilizer; and intensification of e-trade project of DA (Table 4.2.17). 4.2 - 33
Page 1 and 2: 4.2 TRADE AND FISCAL INCENTIVES Rat
Page 3 and 4: Value (F.O.B in million US$) Figure
Page 5 and 6: 4.2.10 Trends in the agricultural i
Page 7 and 8: Market Shares of Philippine Agricul
Page 9 and 10: Shrimps and Prawns 4.2.14 Figure 4.
Page 11 and 12: Tuna 4.2.16 The average market shar
Page 13 and 14: Seaweeds and Carrageenan 4.2.18 The
Page 15 and 16: 4.2.24 Trade reforms in the Philipp
Page 17 and 18: 4.2.33 The interlocking issues rela
Page 19 and 20: Table 4.2.1 Number of Firms that av
Page 21 and 22: competitiveness of the agricultural
Page 23 and 24: 4.2.45 Apparently, ACEF Executive C
Page 25 and 26: Table 4.2.8. Respondents Satisfacti
Page 27 and 28: Table 4.2.11. Respondents by Availm
Page 29 and 30: Table 4.2.14. Respondents by Availm
Page 31: Table 4.2.16. Impact of AFMA Trade
Page 35 and 36: c. Trade and the High Value Commerc
Page 37 and 38: SELECTED REGION IMPACT I MPLEMENTAT
Page 39 and 40: Table 4.2.19. Impact of AFMA Trade
Page 41 and 42: IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED Gene
Page 43 and 44: IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED Gene
Page 45 and 46: 4.2.67 The major reasons for this
Page 47 and 48: h. The results of stakeholders’ i

Trade and Fiscal Incentives - National Agricultural and Fishery ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?