STATE TRADING

REPLies to QUESTIONs FROM the european union[1]
REGARDING the PHILIPPINES' NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATION^[2]

The following communication, dated and received on 17 October 2024, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of the Philippines.

_______________

Question 1

Could the Philippines explain why the administered price in table DS:5 of _G/AG/N/PHL/85 is substantially below the average representative domestic sales price as reported in _G/STR/N/19/PHL?

Reply:

The discrepancy between the administered price in Table DS:5 of _G/AG/N/PHL/85 and the average representative domestic sales price as reported in _G/STR/N/19/PHL primarily arises from the different stages at which these prices are applied. The administered price reflected in Table DS:5 pertains specifically to palay, which is rice paddy in its raw form. On the other hand, the average representative domestic sales price reported in _G/STR/N/19/PHL is for rice that has undergone processing and is ready for consumption.

The transformation of palay into rice involves various costs and value-added processes, including milling, storage, transportation, and marketing, which contribute to the higher average sales price of rice compared to palay.

Question 2

Could the Philippines specify what the total quantity of rice and corn purchased by the National Food Authority from the local farmers was? At what price did the National Food Authority purchase the quantities?

Reply:

According to the data provided by NFA and reflected in _G/STR/N/19/PHL, the total procured quantity of rice paddy from the local farmers totaled to 683,132 MT in 2020 and 460,482 MT in 2021. These quantities were procured by the NFA at P19.00 per kilogram.

The NFA did not purchase corn in 2020 and 2021.

Question 3

Could the Philippines elaborate more on the import of rice – who the parties involved were, and whether they were state or private entities?

Reply:

The parties involved in the importation of rice were private entities that are accredited in accordance with existing laws, rules, and regulations to engage in the importation, exportation, and trading of rice.

Question 4

The Philippines stated in _G/STR/N/19/PHL that the National Food Authority did not engage in the export of rice and corn because there was no surplus from the domestic production of both products in 2020 and 2021. In case of surpluses in 2022, who would be engaged in the export of the quantities?

Reply:

In the event of surpluses in 2022, accredited private exporters and traders would be authorized to export rice, in accordance with Rice Trade Liberalization Law of 2019. Concurrently, the National Food Authority (NFA) would retain its exclusive authority to export corn, as mandated by the existing Presidential Decree No. 4, as amended.

__________