成立50载，东盟能否更上一层楼？

□ 文/ 蒂娜・科尔尼亚萨莉

By Jackson Ewing

成立50载，东盟能否更上一层楼？

□ 文/ 蒂娜・科尔尼亚萨莉

2017年东盟迎来成立50周年庆典，在这极具里程碑意义的一年，恰逢菲律宾担任东盟轮值主席国。

菲律宾总统杜特尔特宣布2017年主题为“合作促改革、与世界接轨”，并承诺要以东盟国家6.4亿人民的切身利益为核心，建立具有地区特色的理想模式，促进东盟地区的经济发展。

在2016年9月8日的东盟峰会上，菲律宾从老挝手中接过东盟轮值主席国的接力棒，菲律宾总统杜特尔特承诺，在坚持东盟的主导地位、统一与团结的原则下，引领东盟追求创新、促进东盟与全球合作。

东盟成立50周年，可看作是东盟克服当今所面临挑战的新起点、新契机。作为东盟轮值主席国及东盟创始成员国之一，菲律宾在应对全球、东盟地区以及本国所面临的各种挑战的同时，还要带领东盟各国走向经济繁荣、政治稳定与安全，任务十分艰巨。

在过去几年里，东盟虽然已经将消除关税壁垒作为议程的一项重要内容，但我们仍看到东盟各国之间的贸易额占东盟国家对外贸易总额的比重停留在20～24%。2015年，东盟经济共同体（AEC）成立；而到2016年，东盟经济共同体成立的第二年，仍有许多措施和事项未落实到位。

随着贸易保护主义日益高涨，全球经济停滞不前，人们对全球化的不安和焦虑加剧，严重阻碍了区域一体化的发展，也可能会破坏全球供应链。

自唐纳德・特朗普成功当选新任美国总统之后，跨太平洋伙伴关系协定进程突然中断，给东盟完成区域全面经济伙伴协定谈判带来更大的压力。

在东盟和东盟10+1自由贸易协定框架下，东盟国家签订了不少国际承诺；然而，有些东盟国家在遵守现有的承诺或升级承诺的过程中遇到不少问题，给东盟轮值主席国带来额外的负担；更糟糕的是，东盟仍然缺少合适的机制来解决争端。

要想解决这些问题，就需要以“东盟方式”对这些问题进行探讨。所谓“东盟方式”，体现的是团结一致的特点，而并非仅靠法律的刚性。东盟地区的贸易谈判代表预算和人力资源有限，这制约着谈判的及时顺利完成。

在经济方面，东盟面临着如美国总统特朗普推行保护主义及其政策的不确定性等诸多挑战。

考虑到全球经济危机和东盟地区内部所面临的挑战，在菲律宾担任东盟轮值主席国的这一年内，东盟国家一体化水平能否更上一层楼？

为达到目标，菲律宾政府宣布2017年要争取获得9项主要可交付的成果，包括推行中小企业的区域自行认证、一项东盟贸易便利化指标以及一份关于投资的重点战略行动议程，完成《东盟服务贸易协定》的签订、东盟经济共同体、东盟普惠制企业的同行审查，和执行关于创新、妇女与青年创业的东盟宣言。

东盟经济共同体GDP总额高达2.6万亿美元，是世界第七大经济体，人口超过6.2亿，亚洲排名第三，仅次于中国和印度。从实际情况出发，菲律宾将把中小型企业作为东盟地区包容性增长的主要推动力。

菲律宾扶持中小企业发展的计划，是非常合理的。扶持中小企业有助于克服发展障碍和刺激国民与地区经济。中小企业是东盟国家的GDP主要促进者和贡献者，其GDP占企业GDP总额的95～99%。在大多数东盟国家，中小企业为社会提供了51～97%的就业岗位，中小企业GDP占GDP总额的23～58%，中小企业出口额占外贸总额10～30%。通过促进市场准入，中小企业能够利用贸易投资机会，从区域经济一体化发展中获益。

然而，由于在资金、资源、包装、网络及市场计划等方面条件有限，大多数菲律宾规模企业和东盟地区规模企业仍然在自身的业务经营方面挣扎，限制了企业发展规模，难以获得国际竞争力。

以上种种问题能够得到解决吗？坦白讲，很多人对此抱以怀疑的态度，而且越来越多人担心杜特尔特的计划会遭到反对，因为现在更需要一个强有力的领导核心去带领地区走向强大、稳定。

2017年2月20～21日，东盟外长非正式会议在菲律宾长滩岛（Boracay）举行。 此次会议是菲律宾2017年担任东盟轮值主席国任期内一系列部长级会议的首场，也是东盟成立50周年的重要里程碑

东盟各国须对这些交付成果给予全力支持。经济一体化的担子不应仅落在轮值主席国的肩上，每一个东盟国家都有责任加速经济一体化进程、支持已通过的工作计划并解决国内及地区仍悬而未决的事项。

为防止分歧进一步扩大，成立一个更为有效的争端解决机制，东盟各国继续为当前各种问题寻找友好解决方案，也显得尤为重要。东盟国家应尽可能地利用可预见的经济机遇来避免对地区造成更大的损失。只要达到了这些目标，东盟发展必会更上一层楼。

・毛誉晔 编译

・来源：《雅加达邮报》

・本文所持立场不代表本刊观点

The Key to Food Security in Southeast Asia: Self-Sufficiency or Regional Integration?

By Jackson Ewing

In the food space, the ASEAN Economic Community is attempting to harmonize safety standards, improve infrastructure, enable trade and spread modern and sustainable agricultural practices. If successful, it could be a boon for farmers, consumers and a variety of stakeholders in between.

Collective food security has been on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’(ASEAN) agenda since its founding, and the 2007-2008 food crisis saw this agenda grow in relevance. The launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 is the latest regional integration effort and the most ambitious, seeking to build a single market and production base that promotes equitable development and makes Southeast Asia more globally competitive. In the food space, the AEC is making attempts to harmonize safety standards, improve infrastructure, enable trade and spread modern and sustainable agricultural practices. Where successful, it could be a boon for farmers, consumers and a variety of stakeholders in between.

Yet, headwinds to regional food system integration abound. Countries continue to protect domestic agricultural sectors from competition, retreat from the regional food trade and prioritize domestic production for strategic and political purposes. These policies arise from the trauma of past food price volatility and concerns about future price and supply uncertainty. They also risk impeding regional integration reforms that would do more good than harm.

Resisting the food trade

A chorus of voices from within and outside Southeast Asia find regional integration to be gravely dangerous, arguing that it will drive small farmers and businesses out of markets, fray the region’s agrarian social fabric and create a host of environmental problems from large-scale farming and natural resource exploitation.

These arguments dovetail with fresh memories of the 2007-2008 food price crisis, when rice prices more than tripled in just six months. Major rice suppliers implemented minimum export prices and curtailed or considered curtailing exports in the name of securing domestic needs. This led to escalating prices and fear of major food shortages among regional importers. The longer-term responses from these importers —Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia chief among them — have been a distrust of international markets and selfsuffi ciency strategies aimed at expanding local supply.

These reactions follow the logic that by extracting itself from import dependencies, a country can protect its citizens from unpredictable market movements that threaten its food security. They also play well politically, aligning with desires for domesticeconomic prioritization and the protection of agrarian livelihoods.

The problem with emphasizing selfsufficiency is that it mayundermine economic opportunities while leaving countries more vulnerable to food insecurity. Left to their devices, fewer farmers would grow rice in the countries now seeking greater self-sufficiency, as other crops are more profi table. Domestic policies that compel farmers to grow rice can keep them in low-value segments of the agricultural value chain, leaving them with less income for their daily needs, including food. These policies can also impede the structural transformation to less-agrarian economies that Southeast Asia desperately needs. Increasing the portion of the regional workforce that is employed off the farm is essential for regional economic and development progress. Mandating food self-sufficiency targets is often at odds with this objective.

Retreating from regional food trade also encourages products — and again, rice looms large — being grown in places where it makes little economic or ecological sense to do so. Countries insisting on domestic food sourcing can exhaust their soil and water resources in the process, all for yields that cost more than those available for import.

These policies paradoxically do not even provide greater food supply resilience. Thinning the regional food trade erodes the commercial relationships that provide a country with multiple sourcing options, which are invaluable for responding to abrupt or pervasive supply disruptions. As countries depend more heavily on domestic supplies, crop failures and major weather events that compromise these supplies become more damaging.

Regional integration efforts

Persuading countries that self-suffi ciency is not the best path to national food security requires providing an attractive alternative. For the AEC and other ASEAN integration mechanisms, this means improving confidence in the food trade by creating a robust supply environment. The development of strategic rice reserves is one tool to this end already showing some imperfect promise.

The ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) sees countries pledge rice stores to be made available in times of emergency, defined as a condition in which a member country is unable to attain its rice supply through normal trade. APTERR is intended for natural disasters and other unexpected events, but stocks could be deployed against a range of supply disruptions.

There are challenges and limitations to stockpiling. It is expensive, accompanied by losses and inefficiencies and provides no guarantee of food security, particularly if its deployment is slowed by political or logistical hurdles.

But APTERR remains a step in the right direction. Stockpiling food has traditionally been an opaque and nationalist agenda with market-distorting implications. A country that builds undisclosed stockpiles for domestic purposes may later offl oad stocks due to market conditions, increased production, storage rotation or a range of other factors, amplifying market volatility in the process. Regionalizing some stockpiles and making them transparent has the opposite potential to increase confidence in consumer countries and communities that if disruptions happen, food will still be available.

On the broader regional agenda, the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework and Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security (SPA-FS) seek to ensure regional food security while improving farmer livelihood. These policy sets have many layers, but include promoting a “conducive market and trade for agricultural commodities and inputs.” The tangible impact of AIFS and SPA-FS on regional food markets has so far been limited, but with the AEC seeking more fundamental integration, these existing statutes are forming a relevant foundation.

Enter the AEC

The AEC mixes targeted and general policies that create opportunities throughout Southeast Asia’s food value chains. Targeted policies seek to reduce the self-sufficiency targets of rice importing countries in exchange for delivery guarantees by exporters. They also seek to impede export restrictions, the likes of which fueled the 2007-2008 price crisis, and promote more private sector participation in food sectors that currently have heavy state footprints.

More broadly, the AEC seeks to create more sustainable food and commodities systems, and reduce environmental stresses through best-practice collaboration, improving research and by encouraging the production of specific products in ecologically viable areas.

The AEC is no panacea, and must deliver the case to regional stakeholders that they are better off deepening collaboration in the food sector than protecting and nationalizing it. This is an emotionally and politically charged task, as access to food and the enhancement of farmer livelihoods speak to both the everyday needs of Southeast Asian citizens and core elements of the region’s social and political character.

The AEC needs to get food policies right and gradually integrate food sectors in ways that bring Southeast Asia into a new phase of development, in which pronounced food insecurities are a thing of the past and profitable opportunities within and outside food sectors abound. This will be an uphill climb, and the AEC can provide a useful vehicle.

· Source: http://www.brinknews.com