The Agreement between New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Cooperation (ANZTEC) is the first free-trade agreement (FTA) that Taiwan has signed with a country with which we do not maintain diplomatic relations.
While this agreement will almost certainly have a stimulating effect on the depressed domestic economy, the joint efforts of the public will be the factor that decides whether it will meet the expected targets.
New Zealand is a great agricultural nation that possesses advanced agricultural production technology: Its quality control and cold process technologies are the best in the world.
The country’s agricultural production value exceeds US$25 billion and it exports the bulk of its farming products, which include meats, dairy products, fruit and wool to a total value of US$31.5 billion. This makes up as much as 71 percent of New Zealand’s total exports, which are well received around the world.
In recent years, the country has been even more active in its efforts to develop Asian markets, such as China, Japan and South Korea.
In contrast, Taiwanese farmers are small farmers, with limited tolerance and ability to adapt, making the prospect of such strong competition out of the ANZTEC agreement daunting.
Official data shows that New Zealand’s agricultural exports to Taiwan reached a total value of US$607 million last year.
The bulk of these exports, 105,253 metric tonnes, consisted of livestock products at a value of US$434 million, 55,981 tonnes of agricultural products at a value of US$111 million, 7,936 tonnes of aquatic products worth US$13 million and 155,635 tonnes of forestry products at a value of US$49 million.
On the other hand, Taiwanese agricultural exports to New Zealand only amounted to US$2.53 million. These exports included 1,063 tonnes of agricultural products worth US$2.25 million, 85 tonnes of aquatic products worth US$270,000, 12 tonnes of forestry products at a value of US$10,000 and no livestock products.
The domestic consumer market for agricultural products is limited, but when the import tax exemption for New Zealand agricultural products takes effect, its beef, mutton, deer antler, kiwifruit, apples, wine and dairy products will increase sharply.
With price drops, these products are likely to take an increasingly large share of the market.
Although there is complementarity with local agricultural products due to seasonal differences, there will be increased competition for apples and livestock products.
The reason for this is that domestic consumers focus on price, quality and brand name when making their purchasing decisions.
Since domestic agricultural production costs are high and there is a lack of economies of scale, a drop in the price of New Zealand kiwifruit, beef, mutton and dairy products while maintaining quality means that these products are likely to replace other local Taiwanese fruits and livestock products.
This is likely to create an even more difficult situation for the local industry.
To strengthen support for local products among consumers, the government should be quick to introduce a complete set of guidance measures to promote variety improvements, production technology advancements, added-value increases, food safety certification and marketing, which would all help farmers.
It also would not hurt to learn from the global marketing of New Zealand kiwifruit and Norwegian salmon.
In order to expand the export market for Taiwanese agricultural products, the government should use the agreement to implement a planned selling program directed at New Zealand for outstanding Taiwanese agricultural products such as mango, pineapple, wax apples, tea, Taiwanese tilapia, striped bass, mullet, Phalaenopsis orchids and Oncidium orchids.
It should take such concrete measures instead of relying on fuzzy slogans saying that the agreement will not have an impact on the Taiwanese market and farmers, that there is no need to fear competition and that it will help promote an upgrade of Taiwan’s agricultural industry.
There is research to show that by signing the ANZTEC, the total production value of Taiwan’s agricultural industry will shrink by about NT$4 billion and that livestock products will bear the brunt of the impact.
Using economic models to make deductions and estimates, making too many assumptions and leaving too much space for intervention, frequently produces results that differ greatly from the real world.
Since this is the case, it could well be that although losses don’t seem to be particularly high, they could be concentrated in a small number of industries.
In addition to its having a substantive effect, we also must not neglect the psychological impact of the ANZTEC agreement. It is natural for us to worry about or fear the unknown.
Half-deliberately, half-unintentionally, government agencies have lately created the impression that Taiwan’s agricultural industry is the main obstacle to international trade talks. It has not communicated sufficiently with farmers either before or after international trade talks have taken place.
In particular, officials have long focused on commercial industries at the cost of the agricultural industry.
This has made farmers feel that they are coming under pressure and it also makes them lose confidence and trust in the government.
As a result of this lack of mutual trust, farmers worry that the government will make compromises on agricultural issues just as easily as it did in connection to the deregulation of US beef imports, and that this will endanger their livelihoods and, by extension, have a negative impact on the implementation of government agricultural policy and on how the government plans it’s global trade strategies.
Looking at the controversy that has resulted from the recent signing of the cross-strait service trade agreement between Taiwan and China, the government should avoid reporting only positive effects of the agreement while keeping quiet about any negative impact it may have.
It should make a point of providing timely reports that give farmers full information about the actual situation, and it should also promise to provide concrete support measures to those farmers that are negatively affected to allow them to go on with their farming without worrying about the future since this would help facilitate future FTA talks with other countries.
Du Yu is chief executive officer of the Chen-Li Task Force for Agricultural Reform.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS