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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED General PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT REGION Impact Reasons Level Reasons 11 Low Local market not favorable in high Fair Needs info dissemination on trade; Simplify requirements (One-stop shop) density production gov’t should extend trade promotion only Export market not developed for small fishermen, only big companies High input costs Tuna products are handled only by the private sector LGUs and NGOs collaborate for trade info 12 Moderate Construction of roads increased Poor Capitalists are the ones benefiting from Transparency of safety nets and measures trade trade, while small fisherfolks are left behind implemented by LGUs Investors coming in Unscrupulous use of chemicals not good for the subsector Increased presence of traders increased prices of fish Gov’t favoring support to GOCCs CARAGA None Not felt locally Poor Stakeholders have no access to facilities Provide access of the program to small fisherfolks CAR High Monopoly of businessmen on prices of feeds/fish Poor Dependent on location of aquaculture Schedule harvests Problem with marketing assistance; Provide accessible credit to producers to avoid high production costs in fish culture harassment of traders ARMM High ARMM produces 80% of seaweeds plus fishes Poor Chinese controlling seaweeds trade Set up seaweed semi-processing plants Private sector initiative Many fly by night traders from Malaysia Federate / organize all seaweed producers Gov’t not serious to help seaweeds industry DA should assist in marketing 4.2 - 44
4.2.67 The major reasons for this “moderate” impact were due mainly to high private sector participation, high international and domestic market demands, and adequate infrastructures reducing production and logistics costs. Some of the exportable fishery products with high demand were seaweeds and sea urchins (Region 1 and ARMM); seaweeds and prawns (Region 10); tilapia (Region 3) and goby marine fish (Region 2). Similar reasons mentioned above were given by participants from Regions 8, CAR, and ARMM, why they evaluated the general impact of trade in fisheries as “high.” 4.2.68 To enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of the fisheries subsector, especially, relative to trade, the participants proposed the following improvements: more private sector participation, appropriate trainings for entrepreneurs for quality standards by CHED and BFAR; enhancement of support services and capital to expand production and markets; organization of small fisherfolk for direct trading and better access to the program, establish more access to market information and one stop shops for exporters; provide tax incentives and establish fund sourcing from local and foreign sources; set up processing and storage for seaweeds and fishery products; and other measures related to production, processing, marketing, and storage efficiency of fishery products (Table 4.2.20). Conclusions 4.2.69 The analysis of the trade and fiscal incentives component of AFMA indicated the following: a. The trends in the export and import of agricultural outputs and inputs showed that the Philippines had consistently become a net importer during AFMA implementation period; b. There were no major changes in the market destinations of Philippines’ major product exports before and post AFMA period. Some of the little changes in market destinations occurred in pineapple and pineapple products, tobacco and to some extent, tuna during AFMA implementation period; c. The agriculture export performance of the Philippines was partly stymied by the WTO-Agreement. The difficulty in the negotiations emanates from the operationalization of the key pillars of the agreement itself: a) Market access of tariffs and tariffications including special safeguards and tariff quotas; b) Domestic support which centers on the interpretation of the green box, blue box, and development programs, and amber box including the di minimis principles; c) Export Competition covering export subsidies, anticircumvention (e.g. state agency exports) and export prohibitions 4.2 - 45
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 and 32: Table 4.2.16. Impact of AFMA Trade
Page 33 and 34: 4.2.55 In terms of level of program
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: IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED Gene
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?