Gov’t urged to reject NAMA proposals

The government is being urged to reject the latest trade proposals in the Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

A fishery non-organization said the proposals do not only result in low tariffs, it also makes the Philippines lose its policy options to protect the local fisheries sector, whose products are included in the NAMA talks along with industrial goods.

The Tambuyog Development Center said that among the trade proposals, which are found in the July 10 text of the NAMA negotiations, is a binding formula that leads to steep tariff cuts averaging 44 percent of the average tariff commitment of 23.4 percent of the country’s products — resulting in tariff levels of only 12 percent to 14 percent  after the formula is applied.

The tariff level of 23.4 percent is the country’s commitment in the Uruguay Round of WTO negotiations.

In a press conference, Arsenio Tanchuling, executive director of Tambuyog, urged Philippine negotiators to reject the July 10 text and to push for a return to the NAMA text of the 6th Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005.

He said the steep tariff cuts are due to very low coefficient figures ranging from 19 to 26 in the formula for developing countries.

Tanchuling also noted that binding the country’s non-agriculture tariffs at such low levels of 12 percent to 14 percent would make the country lose the policy option to use tariffs as a protective measure.

“Only by allowing the tariffs to remain unbound can we retain the flexibility to set tariffs to either high or low levels depending on domestic needs. Tariffs can even be increased up to 100 percent, the maximum level allowed under the Philippine tariff code, if that is needed to prevent seasonal surges in fisheries imports that could lead to depressed fish prices that would adversely affect the income of local fishers. Binding at lower rates makes us lose this flexibility to use tariffs as a protective measure,” he pointed out.

Tanchuling argued that the flexibilities proposed in the July 10 text are now “severely curtailed” since these have been linked to the coefficient rates in the binding formula when they were supposed to be “stand-alone” provisions under paragraph 8 of previous NAMA texts.

Tanchuling noted that paragraph 8 has been deleted in the July 10 text.