Philippines, Japan Slated To Resume PJEPA Review Negotiations In Feb.

By BERNIE CAHILES-MAGKILAT
January 28, 2012, 12:10am

MANILA, Philippines — Philippines and Japan are set to resume talks next month on the general review of their bilateral agreement next month after Japan had moved for the postponement of their negotiations scheduled in December last year.

Trade and Industry Secretary Gregory L. Domingo told reporters at the launch of the Philippine Business Registry but refused to give the details of the talks. It was Japan who called for the postponement in December of the Philippines-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement.

The delay, however, in the negotiations for the general review of the Philippines-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (PJEPA) are going to benefit both sides, which are both seeking conflicting positions on this comprehensive trade pact.

Officials said that Japan has requested for further liberalization that would mean further deepening of the existing tariff reduction schedule provided under the bilateral trade deal.

On the other hand, the Philippines would move for an upward adjustment in tariff rates or at least a stay in the existing tariff reduction schedule.

“Japan has requested for a postponement, but it is good for us (Philippines) because Japan has moved for more liberalization and further tariff cuts,” an official said.

Entry of Japanese products has been steadily rising under the PJEPA, but export of Philippine products has been sluggish.

Japan is seeking for further cuts in tariffs of medium-sized vehicles while the Philipines would like to delay auto tariff reduction. As one of its requests, the Philippines would surely push for the liberalization in the hiring of Filipino caregivers.

Already, negotiations for the general review of the PJEPA have been moved to January next year.

Lead trade negotiator Trade and Industry undersecretary Adrian S. Cristobal Jr. said both countries have agreed to re-schedule the 4th Meeting of the PJEPA Joint Committee, which will discuss, among other issues, the general review of the trade agreement.

In a Note Verbale from the Embassy of Japan, the Japanese government has requested the Philippines for an alternative date for the 4th Joint Committee Meeting. The review discussions will continue next year.

In the 3rd Meeting of the PJEPA Joint Committee held on February 28, 2011, the Philippines and Japan agreed to conduct preliminary talks on the general review through the various Sub-Committees under PJEPA. Since then, the Sub-Committees on Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin, Investments, and Movement of Natural Persons (Nurses and Careworkers) have been meeting to initiate talks on the general review. The 4thMeeting of the PJEPA Joint Committee will then discuss the results of these various Sub-Committee meetings.

To prepare the government for the General Review, the Department of Trade and Industry has held nationwide consultations in preparation for the PJEPA general review, “We are consolidating comments gathered from our stakeholders during the PJEPA consultations held nationwide. The major points raised by businesses, academe, and civil society are being considered in the development of the Philippine agenda for the forthcoming review," said Undersecretary for Industry Development and Trade Policy Adrian Cristobal Jr.

The DTI launched early this year “One Country, One Voice,” a series of public consultations on trade policy, including the PJEPA. The consultations were held in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao as well as among Filipino nurses and businesses in Japan. More than 300 representatives from the academe, civil society, business sector, and government agencies have participated in the consultations.

Generally, stakeholders have commented on the need to raise the tariff rate quota (TRQ) for agricultural exports to Japan and access to technical assistance to support capacity building in developing standards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Issues on the movement of natural persons, specifically for nurses, were also raised.

 

Comments