The Sunstar, a newspaper from the Philippines, reported on 9 March 2011 that some tuna fishermen in General Santos City, the “Tuna Capital of the Philippines” are, or are considering, halting fishing operations because of the high oil prices.
According to the newspaper, for some fishing operations, such as handline fishing boats:
“For a single large-ticket hand line fishing expedition in the high seas that lasts for 30 to 45 days, the operational cost could run from P500,000 to P1 million, with Lim saying that fuel eats 60 percent to 65 percent of the amount.”
Here is a press release by the Philippines' Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the above subject:
Press Releases
DOLE launches action program to workers affected by the tuna fishing ban
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Region 12 launched Friday, February 26, 2010 the DOLE Action Program for workers displaced due to the tuna fishing ban in General Santos City.
DOLE 12 Regional Director Atty. Ma. Gloria Tango said that initially, the DOLE provided emergency employment assistance to workers displaced due to the ban by adopting the 60-40 mode of payment to workers for a period of 30 days. Sixty percent of the prevailing minimum wage in the region will come from DOLE while the remaining 40 percent will be shouldered by the participating affected company.
Tango said that the Damalerio Fishing Corporation (DFC), a group of companies composed of Celebes Tuna Fishing Corporation, Tuna Venture Corporation and Damalerio Fishing Enterprise availed of the said package of assistance that will benefit a total of 207 displaced workers.
Tango turned over the 1st tranche amounting to P456,435.00 representing the 60 percent of the workers minimum wage to Aurea Damalerio, President of the Damalerio Group of Companies held at the fishport compound last February 26, 2010.
The displaced workers of the companies will do maintenance work such as painting, welding, carpentry, electrical/mechanical repair, net-mending, refrigeration and hardware stock inventory.
Tango also said that NH Agro Industrial, Inc., another tuna fishing company affected by the closure of the 2 pockets in the Western and Central Pacific shall avail of DOLE’s Kabuhayan Starter Kits for its displaced workers or their beneficiaries.
She also said that youth beneficiaries/dependents of said workers will be prioritized in the Special Program for the Employment of Students (SPES) or the Kabataan Information Technology Opportunities (K-ITo) as mentors if they qualify.
Other affected companies may also avail of the Workers’ Income Augmentation Program (WINAP) of DOLE.
During the latest WTO Ministerial conference held in Geneva a number of demonstrations were held in down town but also around the WTO building.
One of these demonstrations included a group of fishermen from the Philippines. They were voicing their disapproval concerning the WTO’s negotiations which, among many other sectors, also affect trade fish products and the fisheries sector.
One of the banners that the “Progressive Fisherfolk Alliance in the Philippines” displayed during one of the demonstration read as follows:
“NO TO FISHERIES LIBERALIZATION - Seafish For Justice Network”.
In the text of the article the author alludes to the fact that, according to the protestors the WTO and its policies are a threat to their livelihoods because of trade liberalisation in the fisheries sectors. The author also mentions that Filipino fishermen are against the WTO because “WTO rules allow multinationals the freedom to fish in Filipino waters”.
I must confess that was slightly puzzled by this last sentence. As far as I know no WTO rule imposes free access to the waters of one of its Members. In actual fact many WTO countries do not allow foreign fishing in their waters.
After reading the above mentioned article it is not clear to me whether the Filipino fishermen only oppose the WTO liberalising trade in fish products through the so called “NAMA” (Non-Agricultural Market Access) negotiations or whether they are also against the WTO disciplining subsidies to the fisheries sector. As a side comment it is interesting to see that the Philippines is a regular member of the “Friends of Fish” group of countries, pushing for a wide ranging ban of subsidies to fisheries.
For those interested here is the link to the article in the “Trade Blog” of WDM:
In a my post of 18/01/09 titled “Philippines: seeking to conclude fisheries agreements with Palau and PNG” I was referring to the exploratory talks that the Philippine officials where conducting with the aforementioned two countries, with a view of concluding fisheries agreements.
Late July 2009 a number of press articles have echoed the signature by the Phiippines and Papua New Guinea of a “fisheries cooperation agreement”.
I could not find the exact contents of the agreement on either government’s website though the press mentioned the that the agreements will cover the following areas:
access to Philippino vessels to PNG’s Exclusive Economic Zone, “subject to certain conditions”.
Philipines’ assistance to PNG in aquaculture development and in providing technical assistance in the development of production enhancement and post-harvest infrastructure facilities such as fish ports and auction-type fish markets.
a mutual arrangement and recognition of the inspection protocols and procedures for the fishing/freezer vessels flying Papua New Guinea and Philippine flags and unloading catch in both countries and/or exporting to the European Union.
I deduct that the recently concluded interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the EU and PNG has played a major role in the speed whereby the bilateral fisheries arrangements have been negotiated. Thanks to the interim EPA, PNG tuna canners will be allowed to use raw material harvested by non-EU vessels and export the processed product at zero duty to the EU.
I wonder whether one of the components of the agreement, i.e. the Philippines’ compensation package provided as “in kind” assistance to PNG fishing and aquaculture industries, could be branded as “tied development aid”.
Furthermore I am very curious to see how the EU sanitary and health authorities react to the third component, i.e. mutual recognition of inspection protocols and procedures as agreed between the Philippines and PNG.
Here the link to a press article about the fisheries agreement:
The Philippines’ government is actively helping the tuna industry to develop, and in particular its tuna fleet.
An example of such active policy is the soft loan granted by the Department of Agriculture to a General Santos tuna producer, JK Fish Trade, which is owned by Jeremy S. Kintanar.
The loan is without interest and for an amount of Philippine Pesos 15 million (312,000 USD). It is payable in seven years and is intended to make two additional hand-line tuna boats replete with 30 pakuras or smaller boats that hunt adult tuna stocks in the high seas.
The funds come from the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF). The ACEF ended in 2005 but was extended for another two years, which ended on December 2007. It was again extended for another seven years that started last June 11, 2008 until year 2015.
Projects proposals for consideration under the fund include post harvest facilities, livestock and poultry, banana, fish, and other agricultural crops.
Here is the link to the official press release of 6 July 2009:
The termination of the country’s bilateral fishing access with Indonesia that lapsed two years ago has had negative consequences for Philippino companies.
Indeed, the five-year bilateral fishing agreement between the Philippines and Indonesia ended in December 2005, but was extended until the end of 2006. Under that bilateral fishing agreement, Philippine tuna fleets were allowed to "catch tuna and tuna-like species within the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It provided licenses to the Philippines for 75 catcher vessels, 150 fish carriers, 20 long liners, 300 light boats, and 10 single purse seiners, as well as allowed access to the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas of the Indonesian EEZ. The same pact also provided offloading and re-supply access to 10 Indonesian ports.
Government officials and businessmen from the Philippines are now approaching Palau and Papua New Guinea to explore the possibility of concluding fisheries agreements to relocate the fleet that can not longer benefit from the Indonesia agreement.
It is interesting to see that government officials ae involved in the search for a replacement for the Indonesia arrangement. Does this mean that the agreements with Palau and PNG, if any, will be more than granting private licenses to Philippino fishermen?
Here is a link to an official press release (Philippine Information Agency) dated 6 January 2009 on this matter:
It seems that the Philippino government is allowing tuna companies to import fuel directly. According to the Philippino press tuna companies would be allowed to import fuel from say, Malaysia, where it is cheaper (37 Peso/liter) than in the Philippines.
Furthermore tuna company discussed at the 10th National Tuna Congress a resolution asking the government for a 5 Peso per liter subsidy on petroleum products.
There have been also calls by politicians (e.g. Senate President Manny Villar) to "extend fuel discount, livelihood support and loans for the purchase of second-hand vessels to affected fishermen, while also pushing for the review of the Oil Deregulation Law.
Hereunder are links to the Philippino press and to a press release by Senator Villar:
Fasolt (only one "s") is a character in one of Wagner´s famous operas i.e. "Das Rheingold". He is a giant who helped in the construction of Wotan´s Walhala. He is killed by his mate Fafner.
Posts
