RCEP in the eyes of the Philippine Government and the Marginalized.

The Philippine government has a positive outlook towards RCEP.

In 2018 DTI Secretary Ramon Lopez praised RCEP stating that: “The Philippines, together with
other RCEP parties, will greatly benefit from this partnership especially in harnessing the
economic benefits from promoting trade, investment, employment, and economic growth,”.
(https://www.bworldonline.com/rcep-negotiations-seen-finishing-in-2019/)

In an article by the Foreign Service Institute in FSI.GOV.PH there are 3 points which have been
pointed out by the Philippine government favoring RCEP:

First the focus towards a foreign policy free from foreign intervention unlike previous foreign
policies.

“The Philippines finds itself in the thick of things as it assumes the ASEAN chairmanship for
2017. Hence, the conscious move to demonstrate the government’s willingness to push for the
conclusion of RCEP can be taken as a significant step in its pursuit of an independent foreign
policy, which greatly revolves around its ‘strategic shift’ away from the US and toward China”.

Second the Philippines is strategically partnering with China to possibly gain aid in exploring its
territorial waters.

“Philippine government’s willingness to enter into large trade deals like the RCEP with advanced
Asian economies outlines two key insights on how it perceives the trajectory of free trade
agreements (FTAs) in the region. Firstly, FTAs will expand to cover non-trade aspects of
economic cooperation. Secondly, China will play a very critical role in determining the direction
of Asian FTAs but fair treatment must be afforded to all member economies”.

Lastly an independent study adopted by the government has shown the promises of RCEP for
the country.

“Cororaton (2015) finds that the trade agreement has an overall positive impact on the country
within the period 2014-2023. Specifically, Philippine exports to RCEP members will expand in
sectors such as construction, transport and machinery equipment, and services; while rice and
textile industries will experience contraction during the ten-year period. Further, commodity
prices will decline, real household incomes will rise, and USD 2.4 billion worth of foreign direct
investment (FDI) will be poured into the Philippine market. More importantly, poverty indicators
as well as the GINI coefficient will decrease and an additional welfare of USD 4.5 billion can be
reaped by the Philippine government”. (http://www.fsi.gov.ph/rcep-and-the-future-of-asian-free-
trade-agreements-a-philippine-perspective/)

However many Farmer’s groups and Worker’s organizations oppose RCEP. In its official
website the IBON Foundation has listed 4 points that dispel the benefits of RCEP.

1. RCEP threatens the country’s food security. A Philippine Institute for Development Studies
(PIDS)-funded study shows that rice production would sink by 4.3% as import volume rises by a
huge 33.15% under RCEP. Another PIDS study projects that Philippine rice import volume
could increase by 100% from the current 2.2 million metric tons (MT) to 4.4 million MT from
2017 to 2022. This is especially when the Philippine quantitative restriction* (QR) on rice under
the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture is lifted this July.
2. RCEP will pose a threat on poor Filipino farmers who rely on saving and exchanging seeds
for their planting needs. In Asia, it is said that farm-saved seeds account for as much as 90% of
all seeds used in the region. But the long tradition of farmers of saving and freely exchanging
seeds among themselves has been under relentless attack by big agribusiness corporations
promoting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-protected agrochemical-intensive seeds including
the so-called high-yielding varieties (HYVs), genetically modified (GM) seeds, as well as hybrid
seeds.

3. RCEP will further restrict the Philippine government from using policy and regulatory tools to
promote national economic development.

“Fair and equitable treatment” of foreign investors is one of the rights that negotiators want
RCEP to guarantee. This pertains to a “standstill” on laws and regulations, according to critics of
RCEP. It means that RCEP governments are not allowed to revise or amend their existing laws
if it would harm the interest of RCEP investors.

4. RCEP will not necessarily increase Philippine food and agriculture exports and will further
undermine the country’s agriculture sector. Philippine trade officials claim that the Philippines
would push for more exports of local goods in the RCEP to include agri-food commodities such
as canned tuna, fresh pineapple, mango, garments of synthetic fibers, raw cane sugar, crude
coconut oil, cut tobacco, bananas, coconut, copra, and cooking oil. But the country could not
expect to increase exports or substantially gain from more trade liberalization. RCEP markets
have already been opened up for Philippine products in the past, but the country has not taken
advantage of this so-called market openness. This is because the country’s weak manufacturing
base and underdeveloped infrastructure continue to hamper any potential to improve
production. In other words, the country needs to focus more its efforts on developing domestic
production for domestic consumption, instead of the competitive yet uncertain markets.
(https://www.ibon.org/four-reasons-why-rcep-will-be-detrimental-to-filipino-
farmers/?fbclid=IwAR15OYRRrgYYudhLNBKCGxKap2iVNkno1eAvw3054Nfl3LJZwyycS5YUye
Q)