SYDNEY — The platypus, a species unique to Australia, was reintroduced into the country’s oldest national park just south of Sydney on Friday in a landmark conservation project after disappearing from the area more than half a century ago.
Known for its bill, webbed feet, and venomous spurs, the platypus is one of only two egg-laying mammals globally and spends most of its time in the water at night.
Due to its reclusive nature and highly specific habitat needs, most Australians have never seen one in the wild.
The relocation is a collaborative effort between the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Taronga Conservation Society Australia, World Wild Fund for Nature Australia and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Four females were released on Friday into the Royal National Park, which was established in 1879 and is the second oldest national park in the world.
No confirmed platypus sightings have been reported in the park, located about 35 kilometers or one hour’s drive south of Sydney, since the 1970s.
The relocation comes at a time when the platypus is increasingly threatened by habitat destruction, river degradation, feral predators, and extreme weather events such as droughts and bushfires.
Estimates on the current population vary widely, from 30,000 to some 300,000.
“(It is) very exciting for us to see platypuses come back into the park, for a thriving population here to establish themselves and for Sydneysiders to come and enjoy this amazing animal,” said Gilad Bino, a researcher from UNSW’S Centre for Ecosystem Science.
The platypuses, which live along Australia’s east coast and in Tasmania, were collected from various locations across south-eastern New South Wales state and subjected to various tests before relocation.
Each platypus will be tracked for the next two years to better understand how to intervene and relocate the species in the event of drought, bushfire, or flood, researchers said. — Reuters
President BBM’s state visit to the US bears more significance than traditionally attracting US investors to consider the Philippines as investment site or to obtain more trade access for our exports. It symbolizes a shift of the current US paradigm of her foreign relations, which for us we may also want to consider.
The US apparently has broadened her dealings with trading partners from one simply based on exchange of trade concessions to an expanded one where we go along with deepening our military relations with the US, or to whatever aspect of our partnership which helps strengthen it.
The current Biden administration appears to have rethought the contribution of trade to her economy and global growth. The US has led the world in strengthening the multilateral trading system since the 1960s. Her major push for a rules-based global trading system was embodied in the establishment of the World Trading Organization (WTO) in 1995. With the WTO came all the new rules in trade or stronger rules of existing ones, all aimed at effectively implementing the agreed trade concessions of trading partners. Those rules are packaged in the Uruguay Round Final Act.
Because of the WTO, we had to liberalize, among other reforms, our agricultural markets and implement agriculture and food standards to ensure food safety and protect the world’s agriculture from pests and diseases which trade may inadvertently disseminate.
The 1990s and 2000s, following that paradigm of free trade based on underlying comparative advantage, gave way to further deepening of trade relations among a subset of the WTO members. The ASEAN member nations agreed to form a free trade area among its economies, and that trend got replicated elsewhere in the world with scores of preferential trade agreements.
Preferential trade relations further expanded with ASEAN agreeing to form free trading rules with her key trading partners like China, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, in what we now know as ASEAN Plus One trade agreements.
As the 2010s unfolded, East Asia, under US leadership, had formed a mega trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. That agreement is practically half of the world economy, and thus many of us in the region wanted to be part of it or be left behind.
The rival country to the US in economic leadership in East Asia, China, had offered a similar package to the same countries. She led the establishment of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP, another mega trade deal. We had just recently ratified RCEP, with advocates of it thinking that the mega trade deal is going to bring prosperity and growth to our country.
RCEP pushed up China as an economic leader in East Asia, particularly because of the Trump administration. Former President Trump cancelled US sponsorship of TPP, signaling to the world his administration had rethought US leadership of her foreign trade relations.
However, China’s gain got scuttled by a two-year COVID pandemic which essentially slowed down global trade and pushed countries to more inward-looking policies. The country where COVID started, China’s economy had contracted because of the global disease, along with those of her trading partners. When the world bid goodbye to COVID, global supply chain problems continued to slow down trade.
When the US elected President Biden in 2020, I had thought that perhaps his administration was going to resurrect the TPP agreement and would exert US economic leadership again in East Asia. I was mistaken on the paradigm of free trade.
Ideas had changed in the US, from a pure embrace of the principle of free trade to one of fair trade.
On April 27, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan articulated the US assessment of how the rules-based trading system of the 1990s had impacted the US economy. He deplored the fact that after decades of globalization, US industrial base had been “hollowed.” He further noted the growing inequality in the US and what that does to democracy. The ascendancy of former President Trump was rooted in his promise to address the loss of jobs in the US. Even now, the continuing appeal of Trump is testimony of how globalization had adversely affected the US economy.
According to Sullivan, “much of the international economic policy of the last few decades had relied upon the premise that economic integration would make nations more responsible and open, and that the global order would be more peaceful and cooperative — that bringing countries into the rules-based order would incentivize them to adhere to its rules. It didn’t turn out that way. In some cases, it did, and in lot of cases it did not.”
In response to these challenges, the US appears to be adopting a pragmatic approach to engaging international relations. The paradigm is inclusive, in my view, of the rules-based trading system but would include new aspects of those relations that the US needs to address her economic weaknesses after decades of globalization. Two other challenges Sullivan had noted down are climate change and geopolitical and security competition.
I see in the state visit of President BBM to the US the realization of the new US paradigm. Simple trade agreements are a thing of the past, or, shall I say, the world just has all the rules it needs to push for global economic integration. But rules are not enough. Trading partners must abide by them.
The world may need to expand the capability of trading nations to trade, address challenges of climate change, ensure that the benefit of global trade accrues to most of the world’s population, and sustain world peace. After all, what good do trade agreements give us if we have underlying geopolitical differences with our trading partners. We have problems with China trying to take over part of our territory in the West Philippine Sea. What net good will expanded trading with China because of RCEP give us if we lost that part of our country?
LESSONS FOR US Like the Biden administration, we too must rethink how global trade relations ought to be implemented. Trade should not be a palliative to problems that emanate from the structural weaknesses of our economy.
Consider our agriculture sector. Its contribution to economic growth had lagged the rest of the economy, and that spawns rural poverty and food shortages. Structurally, that is because we had broken up our farmlands and left owners with no access to capital and weak capability to exploit economies of scale. How then can we expand and diversify our agricultural exports if we don’t address this problem? How can we benefit better from RCEP or ATIGA in food and agricultural trade with the low productivity of our farming sector?
Consider another problem: the African Swine Fever (ASF). I have followed the implementation of government programs to address the ASF problem. What we have are circulars based on “clinical” observations of sick pigs. Our authorities have not been proactive and have not used improved technologies such as conducting more frequent onsite examinations using affordable onsite examinations. After three years of ASF, previously ASF-free provinces in the Visayas — Iloilo and Cebu — are now suffering from this disease.
And why have we not been as proactive? Ironically because of pork imports. This is using trade as a palliative.
There are some of us who want to close our country to trade. I think they are mistaken. What we must do is strike a balance between accessing pork trade and, at the same time, addressing the underlying structural problem which continues to spread ASF in our country.
Generally, we must promote consolidated management of our farmlands, or, better still, raise the farm ownership ceiling to, say, 25 not five hectares so that more enterprising Filipinos would be able to make our agriculture sector more productive. But, at the same time, we must be ready to use imports to relieve food shortages, and the easy way of assuring this is to liberalize farm trade.
Just consider another problem. The Food Safety Act of 2013 had transferred the regulation of veterinary medicines and related devices from the Bureau of Animal Industry to the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). The FDA’s capability is low, since obviously it has still to understand this part of the economy. Worse, the FDA regulators are less appreciative of the urgency of the problem than the farm owners who must attend to the livestock diseases of their businesses. Animals would need veterinary medicines, and if supplies cannot come in readily because the FDA has not approved import licenses of these medicines, producers cannot effectively address problems and productivity goes down. Why can’t the government address this problem speedily?
Economists, like me, have explained that those who had been displaced by global trade will find other sources of income in the economy. If they had been rice producers, and rice tariffication had displaced them, they may consider producing other farm products. But shifting has a cost which rice farmers may not be able to afford. Without overcoming this cost, those farmers become displaced, and, like the US industrial sector, our farming industries would become “hollowed.” Global trade, used as a palliative to our food shortages, aggravates rural poverty and income inequality worsens. Farmers, small as they are, cannot address this structural problem. Had our farmlands been consolidated in management, their managers would have been likely more capable than individual small farmers of shifting to other uses of the land in response to trade liberalization.
The government should assist — but I would not advocate for it as the main driver of change. In my view, the public incentive of the government to address structural problems is weaker than owners.
Economic pragmatism requires us to know the structural problems and addressing these, even as the economy is open to international trade. Those of us who believe that we must solve the structural problems first before opening our country to trade are fundamentally wrong. We have seen this in the rice sector. We were supposed to tarrify our rice imports in 1995, but for a quarter of a century we somehow managed to postpone this because our farmers were not ready for the competition, or we must solve the structural problems in the rice industry. This had caused rice insecurity. Our farmers continue to be unable to avail themselves of scale economies.
We must do both at the same time: address our structural problems and open the economy to trade. The private sector has the comparative advantage over the government in addressing the structural constraints of our agriculture sector.
Ramon L. Clarete is a professor at the University of the Philippines School of Economics.
“Congress vows passage of Maharlika,” said a recent headline. In a radio interview, Senator Chiz Escudero said that Senate Bill 2020 that creates the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) has a large chance of being approved before the Senate goes on recess on June 2.
Some Cabinet members, legislators, and policymakers have been all praises for the latest version of the MIF, claiming that it is now “unrecognizable,” compared to its first version due to its numerous revisions.
Despite its improvements, the bill in its current form is still dangerous. We commend the exclusion of the state-managed pension funds, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Social Security System (SSS), from Maharlika’s funding sources. But other conspicuously controversial provisions remain.
We first examine the bill’s objectives. State participation in economic enterprises is justified by correcting market failures as well as enabling or creating missing markets. The question therefore: Is there a market failure or a missing market that the current Maharlika fund wishes to tackle? If so, which market?
The MIF still lacks clarity in its objectives. There has yet to be a rationalization of the fund which justifies its creation and its differences from existing investment bodies.
Section 4 states that the objective of the bill is to “generate optimal returns on investments (ROIs), while contributing to the overall goal of reinvigorating job creation and poverty reduction by sustaining the country’s high-growth trajectory.” But tension can exist between having “optimal ROI” and contributing to job creation and reduction of poverty. ROI is about profitability, a financial matter; meanwhile, job creation and reducing poverty is about high social returns, which cannot be strictly measured in terms of financial profitability.
The functions in Section 9 of the bill are listed to be managing and growing the assets and financial investments. However, the declaration of policy in Section 2 states that the Maharlika Investment Corp. (MIC) is about “investing national funds… to promote economic growth and social development.”
Essentially, Section 9 is about managing a wealth fund, which is different from generating investments for development. But the bill’s title suggests that Maharlika is about generating investments.
The bill thus reveals confusion and incoherence as to what the MIC is truly about.
Further, the conceptualization of MIC has an unintended consequence of emasculating financial institutions. The bill still includes several provisions that undermine our financial institutions.
The bill’s Section 55 amends Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) 7653 (The New Central Bank Act). Section 2 of RA 7653 states “There is hereby established an independent central monetary authority, which shall be a body corporate known as the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.” The core of RA 7653 found in Section 2 is the independence of the BSP. The proposed Maharlika amendment thus explicitly removes the BSP’s independence.
In the same vein, the BSP is enfeebled, and its independence frustrated by mandating it to permanently remit 100% of its dividends to the fund upon full payment of BSP capitalization.
If the government needs to capitalize MIC, it does not need to involve the BSP, constrain it, and shape its behavior. By ordering the BSP to remit its declared dividends to MIC, the bill is dragging the central bank into an entity that is inconsequential to its core mandate.
If the government’s interest is to find sources of capital for MIC, it does not need to pull in the BSP. The BSP’s declared dividends are directly remitted to the National Government, and the National Government should decide the appropriate and efficient use of its dividends.
The government must exercise sound economic judgment on how these dividends will be used. These dividends have alternative uses, which may be more efficient and cost effective than the creation of Maharlika.
Several pieces of legislation strengthening the country’s pandemic resilience, including bills creating the Philippine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Magna Carta for barangay health workers, and the medical reserve corps, are currently pending in the Senate. These bills still lack a clear source of funding. Clearly, the resources being funneled towards Maharlika have opportunity costs. These resources could be used to build a more robust healthcare system, for example.
The latest proposal for Maharlika is to make it the mechanism to attract investments from official donors or creditors and private investors to finance heavy infrastructure and climate change projects. We indeed welcome Investments in these areas.
But does one need an all-encompassing Maharlika to catch all those investments? Or will the objective of investment mobilization be served by having corporations that are sector-specific or industry-specific?
Why create another layer of organization to manage and direct such investments when institutions already exist that perform such roles. The Land Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines, which the bill authorizes to provide capitalization to MIC, have the mandate to support and promote government’s development programs.
For climate change financing, we have the Philippines’ Green Climate Change Fund, which can be further strengthened.
With respect to having an all-encompassing investment body, the Philippines has a National Development Co. (NDC). Its vision is to be the country’s “leading state-owned enterprise investing in diverse industries, serving as an effective catalyst for inclusive growth.”
In this case, it would be more reasonable to review the NDC towards strengthening it and making it more responsive to the challenges of the 21st century. What is needed is not a new investment fund but rather an amendment of the NDC law.
The creation of the MIF is therefore redundant; the proposal merely adds another layer of organization to manage investments.
Further, as a state-owned corporation, Maharlika must be rationalized in the broader context and framework of industrial policy (IP). This IP framework for Maharlika remains unclear and needs to be spelled out in more specific terms. We quote Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Felipe Medalla, who mentioned that “a more focused spending plan would also be good.”
We note that our Senators have been taking more time to study the bill. We appeal to our Senators to strike out the bad provisions that cripple our financial institutions and correct Maharlika’s misconceptions and inconsistent objectives.
Is Maharlika worth saving? Removing the bad provisions and clarifying the wrong concepts would lead us to a curious situation where the bill becomes a shell without anything substantial to offer.
Rather than passing an untimely bill creating an investment fund that upends financial institutions and strains public finance, we believe that we are better off focusing on key measures that address big bottlenecks to growth and investments. To wit: the narrower fiscal space, food inflation, inadequate power supply, and weak health system.
Political capital is scarce. We urge the Senate to use its political capital wisely. To quote our fellow BusinessWorld columnist, Diwa Guinigundo: “We would just have to ensure we choose our economic battles well.”
The co-authors Pia Rodrigo and Filomeno Sta. Ana III belong to Action for Economic Reforms.
ON MAY 13, at our initiative, ministers from the Indo-Pacific and the European Union (EU) and partners gathered in Stockholm. Our meeting is a call for action as much as it is the demonstration of the EU’s continuous commitment to the Indo-Pacific region.
We meet as the world grapples with aggression, geopolitical tensions, economic turbulence, and the climate crisis. In these consequential times our partnerships are essential, and never before has the case for cooperation between our regions been so convincing.
The Indo-Pacific region is of strategic importance. The region holds the larger part of the earth’s population and economy. Through its waters passes the major share of world trade. Stability and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific are vital for our prosperity. The fate of climate change and the health of oceans are largely decided there. When fundamental freedoms and openness are threatened, be it in Europe, the Indo-Pacific or elsewhere, the European Union is not indifferent.
We live in a world of shared security. The rise of tensions in parts of Asia has global consequences. Correspondingly, developments in Europe reverberate also in the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is felt through its flagrant breaches of the principles of the UN charter and through food and energy price hikes. We have a common interest in addressing these challenges and upholding the UN Charter and international law. Indeed, the aims of Ukraine — to protect its freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity — is of fundamental importance for all.
In the challenges we face there are many notable parallels between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Supply chains are stretched, inflation destabilizing, energy insecure, technology competitive, disinformation proliferating, and cyber security threatened. In short, the futures of Europe and the Indo-Pacific are inextricably linked, and our interests align in many ways.
Together, the European Union and the Indo-Pacific are strong enough to make a real difference on free trade and supply chains, technology and climate change, and broad security. We account for more than two-thirds of global trade, GDP, and population. Through closer relations we can further influence cooperation on key global challenges.
In the European Union’s Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific we pledge a growing engagement and invite our partners to join us in addressing common challenges. We envision deeper partnerships on sustainable prosperity and the environment, digital connectivity, and security, including human security. Our Indo-Pacific Strategy is above all an invitation to our partners in the region to dialogue and to address the issues at stake.
The proposition of the European Union is clear. We are ready to act on a broad palette of cooperation reflecting our extensive and long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. The latter is exemplified through our Free Trade Agreements, where we have active negotiations with Australia, India, Indonesia, and Kenya, having relaunched negotiations with Thailand and expect to sign an agreement with New Zealand soon. We engage in infrastructure, development cooperation and ocean conservation stretching from the African coast well into the Pacific.
Importantly, the European Union’s approach constitutes an open and inclusive partnership model for the Indo-Pacific where we cooperate based on common interests and the protection of shared values and principles. This design allows us to address the challenges we face more effectively. Our goal is to build strategic trust and promote joint leadership in addressing global challenges.
As we welcomed participants to the EU Indo-Pacific Ministerial Forum in Stockholm on May 13, our discussions will focus on our common interests, challenges and values with the goal of supporting closer coordination and integration. It is a clear message of the long-term European commitment to the Indo-Pacific.
Josep Borrell Fontelles is the EU high representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy while Tobias Billström is the minister for Foreign Affairs, Sweden.
WHILE the market for electric-battery materials was booming, one group of investors stayed on the sidelines: mining giants.
That seems surprising. Firms such as Anglo American Plc, BHP Group, Glencore Plc, Rio Tinto Group, and Vale SA got where they are today by spotting whatever commodities would see strong demand and weak supply in future, scouring the world for the best resources, and watching the money roll in.
A decade ago, the likes of lithium, cobalt, and graphite were minor materials, affected less by electric vehicles than the markets for lubricants, drill-bits, and smelting equipment. Nowadays, battery demand is so intense that rising prices risk holding back the energy transition, and major industrial consumers are rushing to lock down supplies. There are few better ways to finance the multibillion-dollar investments needed to decarbonize our economies than letting the balance sheets of giant companies loose on the problem — so where have the major miners been?
Mostly absent from the scene.
Anglo American, BHP and Vale have shown no interest in battery materials beyond their existing suite of elements, with the first two notably cool on the prospects for lithium in particular. Glencore invested this month in an electric-battery recycling business, but has shown no interest in digging up fresh supplies. Only Rio Tinto has made efforts to drill for the commodity, with a deposit rich in borates (a product it already mines) whose license was canceled last year by the Serbian government.
Recent dealmaking suggests they may have underestimated lithium’s potential. The merger announced last week between Allkem Ltd. and Livent Corp. will create a business that would have had $1.2 billion of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (Ebitda) last year, on an impressive 63% margin. Combined, the two will almost certainly boast a market capitalization north of $10 billion, the fifth lithium miner to reach that level. Albemarle Corp. and Tianqi Lithium Corp. have been repeatedly turned down in recent months in offers for Australian early-stage producers.
That gives the lie to one argument frequently made by major mining companies (and repeated, to be sure, by this columnist): That battery elements simply constitute too small a market for a materials giant to bother with. Within just a few years, most potential takeover targets in the lithium space have gone from being too small to attract attention to being too large to digest. The most bruising battle currently under way in the mining industry, Glencore’s offer for Canada’s Teck Resources Ltd., involves a target whose enterprise value and Ebitda are in the same ballpark as the big four lithium miners.
There are valid reasons why the big end of town remains wary of lithium. Many of the largest players are out of the question as M&A targets. China’s Tianqi and Ganfeng Lithium Group Co. are off-limits thanks to laws barring foreign investment in mining, while Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile SA, or SQM, is also a hard target given large stakes controlled by Tianqi and its former chairman Juan Ponce Lerou.
You can add to that the fact that the lithium market itself is small and volatile. Chinese prices of lithium carbonate have fallen by about two-thirds over the past six months, though they linger about 50% above 10-year average levels. The viability of developing new mines depends on whether the world remains in deficit over the next decade — a situation that would be good for producers, since it would push up prices — or slips into surplus, crashing the value of investments.
Still, the reluctance of major mining companies to get involved in the biggest growth market for materials this decade represents a paucity of vision. Lithium carbonate demand is likely to quadruple by 2030 to more than three million metric tons annually, representing a $90-billion market at current prices. It should grow yet further over the coming decades, as the energy transition gathers pace.
One way to solve the immaturity of the market — the most fundamental factor that diversified miners point to in justifying their doubts — is precisely for larger companies to get involved. At present, no players in the lithium space have the financial capacity to invest against the grain, spending more when prices are low and less when they’re high.
However, that capability is precisely what ensures the world has relatively stable markets in commodities from crude oil to copper and iron ore. The large balance sheets of Saudi Arabian Oil Co., BHP, Glencore, and others help to shave the peaks and troughs from the inevitable cycle of commodity prices.
If they want to see lithium become a commodity with similar abilities to churn out reliable cash flows year after year, the biggest mining companies are going to need to get involved.
Spotlight is BusinessWorld’s sponsored section that allows advertisers to amplify their brand and connect with BusinessWorld’s audience by enabling them to publish their stories directly on the BusinessWorld Web site. For more information, send an email to online@bworldonline.com.
Join us on Viber at https://bit.ly/3hv6bLA to get more updates and subscribe to BusinessWorld’s titles and get exclusive content through www.bworld-x.com.
Puregold Channel’s 'Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile' features 21-year-old Tiktok sensation Yukii Takahashi, starring as recovering toxoplasmosis patient Angge.
Still on its winning streak in the retailtainment sector, Puregold Channel is keeping more viewers across the country enthralled by its latest series on YouTube, Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile.
Smack dab in the middle of this engaging series is 21-year-old Tiktok sensation Yukii Takahashi, who plays Angge, the female lead. Yukii first started making videos on Tiktok in March 2022. With her natural charm and humor, she soon amassed a whopping 8.2 million followers on the platform. This caught the eye of Cornerstone Entertainment, which signed her up not too long after.
To date, Yukii has snagged various gigs in entertainment: she has hosted the reality survival show “Top Class” and has released a single titled, “Bounce”.
‘Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile’ is Yukii Takahashi’s biggest break yet, after she plummeted to fame through Tiktok, now amassing an impressive count of 8.2 million followers.
“Discovering exceptional talents like Yukii and giving them the opportunity to shine is just one of the many joys and fulfillment while creating Puregold retailtainment content,” Ms. Ivy Piedad, Puregold Marketing Manager, says.
Acknowledging that retailtainment is the future, Piedad affirms that Puregold Channel strives to provide quality entertainment to customers and viewers through captivating stories.
In Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile, Yukii stars alongside actor, singer, and songwriter Wilbert Ross who plays Bryce, a video game enthusiast who has trouble navigating the dating scene. Angge then agrees to become Bryce’s virtual wingwoman for a fee so she can help her brother pay their bills.
Episode three showed that the arrangement worked—Angge did help Bryce ‘connect’ with women. But proximity, as it happened, could breed intimacy. Viewers were left to to wonder: was romance brewing between Angge and Bryce? Were their feelings the real deal?
In the upcoming fourth episode, viewers’ interest shift to Angge and Bryce as potential lovers. The fun and kilig kick in as they figure in kuwela scenes with the domineering Bessie, Bryce’s friends Genski and Ketch, and Chili Anne who had a secret crush on Bryce.
With more fans and viewers thrilled by Bryce and Angge’s chemistry, and fascinated by the story’s twists and turns, Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile is now a Saturday habit for many netizens.
Catch Ang Lalaki sa Likod ng Profile’s next episode on May 13, 7 p.m., on Puregold’s official YouTube Channel.
Do you want FREE entertainment? Subscribe now to Puregold Channel on YouTube. For more updates, like @puregold.shopping on Facebook, follow @puregold_ph on Instagram and Twitter, and @puregoldph on TikTok.
Spotlight is BusinessWorld’s sponsored section that allows advertisers to amplify their brand and connect with BusinessWorld’s audience by enabling them to publish their stories directly on the BusinessWorld Web site. For more information, send an email to online@bworldonline.com.
Join us on Viber at https://bit.ly/3hv6bLA to get more updates and subscribe to BusinessWorld’s titles and get exclusive content through www.bworld-x.com.
In photo (from left to right): Karla Cruz, GCash Strategy and Implementation Head, Gibs Gumapo, GCash Head of Security, Atty. Gilbert Escoto, GCash Head of Legal, Usec. Alexander Ramos, Head of CICC, Atty. Avery Anatalio of GCash Legal team, and Atty. Alvin Navarro of CICC Legal team
GCash legal and security officials paid a courtesy visit to the head of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, Undersecretary Alexander Ramos as they seek to ramp up their partnership against fraudsters and other cybercriminals.
GCash has signed a memorandum of agreement with the CICC in 2022 in a bid to strengthen collaboration in going after perpetrators involved in phishing, smishing, online fraud and scams, vishing, and other cybercrimes that target GCash users.
In cooperation with authorities, GCash has already blocked 3.1 million fraudulent accounts. The e-wallet has also taken down 722 phishing sites and 38,000 malicious social media posts and accounts from January 2022 to April 2023.
Spotlight is BusinessWorld’s sponsored section that allows advertisers to amplify their brand and connect with BusinessWorld’s audience by enabling them to publish their stories directly on the BusinessWorld Web site. For more information, send an email to online@bworldonline.com.
Join us on Viber at https://bit.ly/3hv6bLA to get more updates and subscribe to BusinessWorld’s titles and get exclusive content through www.bworld-x.com.
Buildings are seen along EDSA in Quezon City, July 3, 2022. — PHILIPPINE STAR/ MIGUEL DE GUZMAN
MANILA – The International Monetary Fund (IMF) kept its economic growth forecast for the Philippines this year at 6.0%, and projected next year’s gross domestic product expansion to come in between 5.5% and 6.0%, a Fund official said on Friday.
IMF mission head Jay Peiris, in a press conference in Manila following a staff visit, said fighting inflation was the “first priority” for Philippine policymakers.
Fiscal and monetary measures will help bring that down, he added. — Reuters
A Philippine trial court on Friday dismissed one of the two remaining drug trafficking charges against Leila M. de Lima, a former senator and one of ex-President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s staunchest critics.
Ms. de Lima, now 63, and another defendant was acquitted of the charges, according to the 39-page decision written by Mutinlupa Judge Abraham Joseph B. Alcantara, a copy of which was sent to reporters via Viber by her lawyer, Rolly Francis Peoro.
The former senator, who was arrested in 2017 and accused of taking drug money months after leading a Senate investigation into Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs, said she had no doubt from the start that she would be acquitted “based on the merits and the strength of my innocence.”
“That’s already two cases down, and one more to go,” she said in a statement. “I am of course happy that with this second acquittal in the three cases filed against me, my release from more than six years of persecution draws nearer.”
Ms. de Lima, who is imprisoned at the national police headquarters near Manila, the capital, originally faced three charges and was cleared in one case in 2021.
Amnesty International said Friday’s decision was “long overdue.”
“We urge the authorities to also quash the remaining drug case and to ensure that her application for temporary freedom in this pending case is processed speedily and fairly,” interim Deputy Regional Director for Research Montse Ferrer said in a statement.
“The authorities must not delay her release any longer and allow her to be reunited with her family, friends and supporters after six long years.”
Key state witnesses started retracting testimony against the former senator as Mr. Duterte’s six-year term in office came to an end. All of them claimed to have been coerced by his government into falsely accusing her.
Ms. de Lima had applied for bail based on those retractions, for which the court had yet to rule. Her first application for bail was denied in 2020.
She incurred Mr. Duterte’s ire when, as chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights, she started a probe in 2009 into extrajudicial killings by the so-called Davao Death Squad in the tough-talking leader’s hometown, where he was the long-time mayor. Mr. Duterte later vowed to “destroy” her.
Mr. Duterte’s drug war is now being investigated by the International Criminal Court for possible “crimes against humanity.”
At least 6,117 suspected drug dealers had been killed in police operations, according to data released by the Philippine government in June 2021. Human rights groups estimate that as many as 30,000 suspects died. — Norman P. Aquino and John Victor D. Ordoñez
DoTr Secretary Jaime Bautista is joined on stage by MBC Board of Trustees and event sponsors present during the F2F with Cab Sec. Bautista Session.
Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista pushed for more Public-Private Partnerships and amending the Procurement Law to help fulfill his goal to transform Philippine transportation to global standards.
Sec. Bautista made the calls at a meeting with the Makati Business Club (MBC), which presented Sec. Bautista with a statement of support for the Reliable and Affordable Public Transportation initiatives of the Department of Transportation (DoTr) and the Administration.
While many of DoTr’s projects are covered by Official Development Assistance (ODA), Sec. Bautista outlined some of DoTr’s priority projects that welcome PPP:
For Air: Expansion and modernization of airports, including the Manila International Airport and 9 other regional airports
For Rail: North-South Commuter Railway, Metro Manila Subway, MRT-7, and the extension of LRT-1
For Road: Bus rapid transit systems in Cebu and Davao
“We are encouraging the private sector to support the operations of these projects,” Sec. Bautista said at the meeting with MBC members and partners in New World Hotel, Makati, on May 10. “Government has very limited funds to support infrastructure projects. We do have financing from ODAs and other institutions, but we need private sector financing too.”
DoTr Secretary Jaime Bautista with Makati Business Club Trustee Lito Tayag on stage for the F2F with Cab Secs Q and A
MBC also supports DoTr’s push for an amended procurement law to accelerate the upgrade and acquisition of transport infrastructure, including air management systems and facilities. This will help reduce the risk of technical glitches at the Manila International Airport and other regional airports, and ensure smoother travel experiences.
The Statement of Support for Reliable and Affordable Public Transport commends the steps that the DoTr is taking to improve road-based public and active transportation — including busways, jeepneys, bikes, and walking. The statement also invites the department for further dialogue on collaborative solutions — either through policy or projects — to address urgent commuter challenges. It has been signed by over 30 MBC executives so far.
MBC asked Sec. Bautista to elaborate on the PUV Modernization Program (PUVMP), which some groups say could displace operators who cannot afford modern jeepneys.
Sec. Bautista said 60% of jeepney operators have already consolidated, which would help them to tap financing for the replacement vehicles. He said the DoTr aims to have 90% of jeepney drivers and operators be consolidated by the end of the year, the new deadline for phasing out traditional jeepneys.
“We need to work more closely with local government to help PUV operators, drivers, and cooperatives receive financing,” said Sec. Bautista. LGUs have the authority to draft Local Public Transport Route Plans (LPTRP) that are approved by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Many banks require applicants to present a LPTRP to apply for a loan for PUVs.
Sec. Bautista informed the audience of the other benefits of consolidation, including organized dispatching, better maintenance, training, minimum wage, and SSS and Medicare benefits.
The meeting with Sec. Bautista was the fourth session of MBC’s F2F with Cab Secs Series featuring key economic officials — in partnership with Acciona, SM Investments, Steel Asia — to deepen public-private dialogue and collaboration. This session was also sponsored by Angkas, Delbros Group, and Metro Pacific Tollways Corp.
MBC promotes safe, sustainable, and affordable transportation via its Business For Biking Program in partnership with Shell Philippines and others. To learn more about this program and MBC’s transportation initiatives, please email trisha.teope@mbc.com.ph.
Spotlight is BusinessWorld’s sponsored section that allows advertisers to amplify their brand and connect with BusinessWorld’s audience by enabling them to publish their stories directly on the BusinessWorld Web site. For more information, send an email to online@bworldonline.com.
Join us on Viber at https://bit.ly/3hv6bLA to get more updates and subscribe to BusinessWorld’s titles and get exclusive content through www.bworld-x.com.
The Philippine economy grew by 6.4% in the first quarter, the slowest growth in two years. — PHILIPPINE STAR/ MICHAEL VARCAS
By Luisa Maria Jacinta C. Jocson, Reporter
THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMY grew by 6.4% in the first quarter, the slowest in two years as elevated inflation and rising interest rates dampened consumer spending, the statistics agency said on Thursday.
Preliminary data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) showed that gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by 6.4% in the January-to-March period, slower than the revised 7.1% growth in the previous quarter, and the 8% expansion in the first quarter of 2022.
It exceeded the median estimate of 6.1% GDP growth in a BusinessWorld poll of 23 economists and settled within the government’s 6-7% target for the year.
“This was the lowest growth registered after seven quarters when the country started to recover from the pandemic in the second quarter of 2021 (when GDP grew 12%),” National Statistician Claire Dennis S. Mapa said at a press conference in Quezon City on Thursday.
However, the latest GDP print was the slowest in eight quarters or since the 3.8% contraction in the first quarter of 2021.
On a seasonally adjusted quarter-on-quarter basis, GDP growth slowed to 1.1% from the 2% growth in the previous quarter.
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Arsenio M. Balisacan said that while first-quarter growth was slower year on year, it should not be interpreted as a slowdown.
“Rather, the economy is normalizing its previous trend. The better-than-expected first-quarter performance this year implies that we are returning to our high-growth trajectory despite the various challenges and headwinds we have faced,” he said at the same briefing.
Mr. Balisacan noted the Philippines’ economic growth was the highest among Southeast Asian countries that have already released first-quarter GDP data. The Philippines is ahead of Indonesia (5%), China (4.5%), and Vietnam (3.3%).
CONSUMER SPENDING Household final consumption, which contributes around three-fourths to GDP, grew by 6.3% in the first quarter. However, this was slower than the 7% growth in the previous quarter, and 10% a year earlier.
Mr. Balisacan said persistent inflation and tighter monetary conditions impacted growth in the first quarter.
“One cannot discount that the slowdown that we have seen in the first quarter is partly the effect of high inflation… When the prices are high, there’s less (consumer) demand, then that obviously is reflected in the economy,” he said.
Inflation accelerated to a 14-year high of 8.7% in January before easing to 8.6% in February and 7.6% in March. Inflation averaged 8.3% in the first quarter, still well above the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) 2-4% target range and 6% full-year forecast.
Since May 2022, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has raised rates by 425 basis points to combat inflation. This brought the key policy rate to a near 16-year high of 6.25%.
“High inflation remains a challenge, the BSP’s move to raise its key policy rates to anchor inflation expectations and ensure price stability, may dampen future growth. But the improvement in the business climate can counter this unintended effect,” he added.
The NEDA secretary said expectations that inflation will return to the 2-4% target band by the end of the year could rebuild consumer and business confidence, which would boost spending and investments.
“This slowdown, if you want to call it, it’s just a temporary thing. I think this favorable investment climate that will come out as a result of the decreased inflation will more than outweigh any residual effects of the past increases in interest rates,” he said.
Meanwhile, government expenditure growth rose to 6.2%, faster than the 3.5% in the first quarter last year and 3.3% in the fourth quarter.
“This (reflects) a robust public construction performance primarily driven by the road infrastructure and railway projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Transportation,” Mr. Balisacan said.
Gross capital formation, the investment component of the economy, jumped 12.2% from 3.8% in the fourth quarter. However, this was slower than the 17.7% growth in the first quarter of 2022.
Among major industries, services rose by 8.38% in the first quarter, easing from 8.42% in the same quarter of 2022 and 9.8% in the previous quarter.
“Services had the biggest contribution to growth, at five percentage points, followed by industry at 1.2 points and agriculture at 0.2 point,” Mr. Mapa said.
Industry growth eased to 3.9% from 10% a year ago, while agriculture expanded by 2.2% from 0.2% a year ago.
“Agriculture’s performance this quarter — primarily due to favorable weather conditions — is a promising beginning to 2023, especially given the expected challenge of El Niño later in the year,” Mr. Balisacan said.
Net primary income from the rest of the world was 81.2%, lower than the 102.7% in the first quarter of 2022 but better than the 59.9% in the previous quarter.
Gross national income — the sum of the nation’s GDP and net income received from overseas — rose by 9.9%, slightly lower than the 10.5% a year ago, but higher than the 9.3% in the fourth quarter.
ON TRACK In order to achieve the lower end of the government’s 6-7% target, Mr. Balisacan said that the next three quarters must grow by an average of 5.9%.
GDP growth should average 7.2% in the next three quarters to meet the upper end of the target, he added.
“Looking at what’s driving the growth, we do think that’s still very much doable,” the NEDA secretary said.
However, Mr. Balisacan flagged several risks to the growth outlook, including the looming El Niño weather phenomenon.
The state weather bureau said El Niño may emerge in the next three months at an 80% probability and may persist until the first quarter of 2024. This would increase the likelihood of below-normal rainfall conditions, which could bring dry spells and drought in some areas.
“The El Niño can affect the economy in different ways, the most obvious one is on the production side, especially agriculture… During the strong El Niño years, rice production could decrease by double digits. Even a slight El Niño could cause agricultural production to decrease by 1-2%,” Mr. Balisacan said.
Since agriculture only accounts for 10% of GDP, he said El Niño “may not deeply impact the economy.”
El Niño can also impact the supply of electricity, particularly dams and power plants that are dependent on water, Mr. Balisacan said.
The country’s last episode of El Niño was in 2019. In the first quarter of 2019, GDP grew by 5.6%.
OUTLOOK ING Bank N.V. Manila Senior Economist Nicholas Antonio T. Mapa said first-quarter growth was faster than most had anticipated but 6.4% print could be the highest for the year.
“We expect GDP to remain in expansion mode for the rest of the year, although we are bracing for a likely slowdown as the triple threat of high inflation, elevated borrowing costs and rising debt levels weigh on momentum,” he said in a note.
ING’s Mr. Mapa said pent-up demand from the economic reopening “will be completely washed out by the second quarter.”
“Challenges are also mounting across sectors with the agricultural sector facing an El Niño episode, which could also take down with it a substantial part of the Philippine manufacturing sector given the sizable contribution of food manufacturers,” he added.
Capital Economics Senior Asia Economist Gareth Leather said the Philippine economy is expected to further weaken in the next quarters amid elevated interest rates and weak global demand.
Mr. Leather said exports are “likely to remain subdued” and consumer spending will “slow further over the coming quarters.”
“The lagged impact of monetary tightening will curtail private consumption growth in the coming quarters. Furthermore, the central bank’s index on consumer sentiment remains firmly in negative territory,” he added.
Both Mr. Mapa and Mr. Leather expect GDP growth of 5.5% this year.
Pantheon Chief Emerging Asia Economist Miguel Chanco said that the economy “clearly lost more momentum at the start of this year,” citing slowing exports and household consumption.
Despite global headwinds, Robert Dan J. Roces, chief economist at Security Bank Corp., said the Philippines is likely to “remain a standout performer in the region,” citing robust household spending and investments as drivers of growth.
Mr. Roces also said that slower first-quarter growth may give room for the BSP to pause its tightening cycle.
“The first-quarter GDP data, coupled with signs of cooling price pressures, may encourage the central bank to consider a more cautious stance on further tightening measures, potentially leading to a pause of interest rate hikes,” he said in a Viber message.
“With inflation on the downtrend and growth showing signs of slowing, we believe this opens the door for BSP Governor Felipe M. Medalla to pause and keep policy rates at 6.25%,” Mr. Mapa added.
The meeting with Sec. Bautista was the fourth session of MBC’s F2F with Cab Secs Series featuring key economic officials — in partnership with Acciona, SM Investments, Steel Asia — to deepen public-private dialogue and collaboration. This session was also sponsored by Angkas, Delbros Group, and Metro Pacific Tollways Corp.
