An examination of the ASEAN Economic Community based on agricultural commodities supported by Oxfam GB across Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam

1
Please donot cite withoutpermissionfromthe author. The researchfindings andrecommendations
are the view of the author and do not reflect that of Oxfam GB, Oxfam International or any Oxfam
affiliate.The authorcan be reachedvia haquesanjan@gmail.com orshaque@oxfam.org.uk
An examination of the ASEAN Economic
Community based on agricultural
commodities supported by Oxfam GB across
Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Thailand, and Viet Nam
Sanjan Haque, Intern
Economic Empowerment Team, Oxfam GB
Asia Regional Centre, Bangkok
October 2013

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND 6
SECTION 2 UNRAVELLING THE AEC: EXPLAINING COMMON EFFECTIVE
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF, NON TRADE BARRIERS ANDSOFT TRADE
BARRIERS 9
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS 9
COMMON EFFECTIVE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF AGREEMENT 10
TEMPORARY EXCLUSION LIST 11
NON-TARIFF BARRIERS 13
INVESTMENTS IN ASEAN 14
Cambodia 15
Indonesia 15
Myanmar 16
Philippines 17
Thailand 17
Viet Nam 17
EVIDENCE FROM INTRA- AND EXTRA-ASEAN INVESTMENT 18
SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF COMMODITY FLOWS AND STOCKS ACROSS
ASEAN 23
OVERVIEW OF COMMODITY TRADE IN EASTERN ASIA 23
Export and Import trends from 2008-2011 23
Eastern Asia commodity production 2008-2012 25
Global actors within the export and import of commodities 25
Overview of the commodity trade where Oxfam GB operates 26
Cambodia 26
Indonesia 27
Myanmar 28
Philippines 29
Thailand 29
Viet Nam 30

3
SECTION 4 SECURING ASEAN’S FOOD UNDER A REGIONAL ECONOMIC
AGREEMENT 32
SECTION 5 INTERVIEWS WITH EXPERTS 34
BUILDING INSTITUTIONS 34
INCLUSIVE GROWTH 34
PROTECTIONISM 35
SECTION 6 CONCLUSION 36
KEY BARRIERS TO THE FULL AND EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AEC 36
KEY AGRICULTURE COMMODITIES FOR EACH COUNTRY 37
IMPACT OF THE COMMODITIES IN EACH COUNTRY BY THE AEC 38
FOOD SECURITY AND TRADE IN KEY FOOD ITEMS 38
SECTION 7 NEXT STEPS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 41

4
Executive Summary
The premise of this report is based on the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which will
become operational from December 2015. Most AEC countries are agricultural countries and
the movement toward free trade in 2015 will bring about changes in the flow of agricultural
goods between these countries. Cheaper agricultural commodities will flow into countries
that have less comparative advantage and eventually could mean that local production of
some commodities may no longer be viable. Changes such as these will affect the poor the
most. The report has been written with the express aimof understanding the AEC Blueprint,
specifically related to agriculture, food and forestry; impediments to implementation of the
principles of the AEC; analysis of the commodities being produced and traded within the
region; analysis of commodities in OxfamGB country offices.
Section 1 provides a background of the AEC; analyzed sections related to agriculture, food
and forestry; and highlighted the research questions. Section 2 provides a conceptual
understanding of FTAs; elaborated on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff Agreement
(CEPT) created to reduce tariffs across the AEC; described Sensitive and High Sensitive Lists
from each nation; explained Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB); analyzed schedule of investments for
each AEC member with an Oxfam GB office.1 Section 3 provides an overview of commodity
trade in Eastern Asia; analysis of import, export and production trends from 2008-2011;
identified top global commodity importers and exporters; and recommend commodities for
each Oxfam GB country office. Section 4 undertakes a light-touch on ASEAN’s focus on food
security and section 5 synthesizes reflections from experts. The report is completed with a
conclusion and recommendations on the next step for research. I have modified the
recommendations according to feedback from the Oxfam GB steering committee provided
from 21-25 Oct 2013.
The original activity plan included field visits to each country office to collect local data to
answer the research questions in the original proposal.2 However after discussion with senior
members of the Oxfam GB Economic Empowerment team in Bangkok this was not possible
and as such the research focus shifted towards a macroeconomic analysis based on desk-
1 Oxfam GB has presence in the following AEC member nations: Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Philippines,Thailand,and VietNam.
2 What arethe 10 key agricultural commodities thataresuitablefor women in each of these countries:Thailand,
Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia and Myanmar?; How will these commodities in each country be
affected by AEC and intra-regional Trade Agreements?; What are the current prices of each commodity in the
country and how will imports of these commodities from AEC countries affect local prices?; What is the local
cost of production of each commodity and will producers be ableto earn profit from sellingthe commodity at
the new price?

5
research and interviews with experts. The report has not been able to fulfill the first and
fourth research question from the original proposal due to the requirement of undertaking
the Gendered Enterprise and Markets (GEM)3 analysis and collecting local data. The report
can be modified in each section with further analysis of the regional story regarding
commodities and AEC. However due to the paucity of literature analyzing AEC impact upon
regional economic development esp. for the primary sector, it is strongly recommended that
country offices are given resources to collect data and analyze the readiness of national
government’s to adhere to AEC under the direction of a dedicated researcher with a history
of analyzing Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and their impact upon agriculture dependent
income households.
I would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Oxfam GB steering committee
throughout the research phase.
Ms Sasiya
Sophastienphong
Economic Development Program
coordinator
OxfamAsia Regional
Centre, Bangkok
Dr Arpaporn Sumrit Research coordinator OxfamAsia Regional
Centre, Bangkok
Ms Maria Bernabe Economic Justice Policy and
Research Coordinator
OxfamInternational,
Philippines
Mr Sok Khim Programme Manager OxfamCambodia
Mr Aloysius Suratin Deputy Country Director OxfamIndonesia
Mr Felipe Ramiro Jr. Programme Coordinator OxfamPhilippines
Ms Kasina Limsamarnphun Program Coordinator OxfamThailand
Mr Minh Quang Dao Livelihoods Programme Coordinator OxfamViet Nam
3 The goal of the GEM program: Increase food security, both directly for rural communities, and indirectly for
others living in poverty; Empower smallholder farmers, and especially women, through an increased and
sustainable income; Increase employment of smallholder farmers and those without land or assets in the
targeted communities.

6
Section 1 Background
The ASEAN uses the tagline ‘One Vision, One Identity, One Community’ to highlight oneness
of the regional association which has embarked on a path of economic & security integration
and the creation of a socio-cultural community. The AEC Blueprint was adopted at the 13th
ASEAN summit on 20 November 2007 in Singapore to establish the community by 2015. The
AEC forms one part of a pillar under ASEAN Vision 2020, which also includes the ASEAN
Security Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC).
The AEC reflects the principles of ASEAN an “open, outward-looking, inclusive, and market-
driven economy consistent with multilateral rules as well as adherence to rules-based
systems for effective compliance and implementation of economic commitments” (ASEAN,
ASEAN Economic Blueprint 2009). It is a single market and production base aiming to make
ASEAN more dynamic and competitive with new mechanisms and measures to strengthen
the implementation of economic initiatives; accelerate regional integration in the priority
sectors; facilitate movement of business persons, skilled labour and talents; and strengthen
the institutional mechanisms of ASEAN (ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Blueprint 2009).4
The single market and production is comprised of five core elements:
(i) free flow of goods;
(ii) free flow of services;
(iii) free flow of investment;
(iv) freer flow of capital; and
(v) free flow of skilled labour.
The AEC blueprint explicitly state it “will transform ASEAN into a region with free movement
of goods, services, investment, skilled labour, and freer flow of capital (2008). There are two
important components: priority integration sectors (see below); and food, agriculture and
forestry. The AEC aims to address the issue of the development divide currently in existence
between ASEAN-6 and CLMV5 nations by addressing different sectors under these two
nomenclatures. But a more nuanced understanding is reflected through segmentation
between high income nations of Brunei and Singapore, higher middle income nations of
4 The AEC envisages the following key characteristics: (a) a single market and production base, (b) a highly
competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitableeconomic development, and (d) a region fully integrated
into the global economy.
5 Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand (ASEAN 6); Cambodia, Lao, Myanmar, and
Viet Nam (CLMV).

7
Malaysia and Thailand, lower middle income nations of Indonesia, the Philippines, Viet Nam
and low income nations of Cambodia, Lao and Myanmar.
The AEC areas of cooperation include:
1. Human resources development and capacity building;
2. Recognition of professional qualifications;
3. Closer consultation on macroeconomic and financial policies;
4. Trade financing measures;
5. Enhanced infrastructure and communications connectivity;
6. Development of electronic transactions through e-ASEAN;
7. Integrating industries across the region to promote regional sourcing; and
8. Enhancing private sector involvement for the building of the AEC.
Priority Integration Sectors
Agro-based products Air travel* Automotive e-ASEAN
Electronics Fisheries Healthcare Tourism
Rubber-based
products
Healthcare Textiles and apparels
*Air travel shall be deemed to refer to air transport.
The AEC follows the principles laid by General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) and WTO
Agreement (Uruguay round) with an explicit timeline for the reduction of tariffs & quotas and
work towards the reduction of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB). In some cases member states will
have different timelines due to economic development differentials and thus aim to follow
the ideals of universality and uniformity of implementation but this is often followed by a
multi-track timeline.
Another component of the agreement includes creating standards through which goods are
measured before permitted to enter a territory. It is often these barriers to trade, which
reduce the scope for agriculture, food, and forestry products to be freely traded. This is often
reflected through Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures used to regulate the production,
storage and treatment of primary sector commodities. The current round of negotiations of
the WTO at Doha has come unstuck due to the disagreement amongst member countries on
the standards for SPS. The compliance mechanism for SPS leads to higher costs for producers
and consumers in low-income primary sector focused economies while issues of food safety
and disease control are high on the agenda for high income ones.

8
The agriculture, food, and forestry sectors have been, on the whole, protected through
different measures in the AEC. In combination with non-tariff barriers (NTB) the flows and
stocks of commodities currently supported by Oxfam GB will be largely unaffected. This
document will unravel the various compliance measures under the AEC, which directly affect
agriculture, food, and forestry and its implication on livelihood programs across OxfamGB in
the region.
In principal the AEC aims to support economic growth within ASEAN but more specifically as
an outcome, to support ASEAN-6 achieve higher middle-income status while kick starting or
provide accelerated growth to CLMV. The key questions tackled by this report will constitute
a baseline of qualitative information reflecting compliance levels of member nations and AEC
impact on agriculture, food, and forestry. This paper will attempt to answer the following
research questions.
1. What are the key barriers to the full and effective implementation of the AEC?
2. What are the 10 key agricultural commodities that are suitable for women in each of
these countries: Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia and Myanmar?
3. How will these commodities in each country be affected by AEC and intra-regional
Trade Agreements?
4. What are the possible implications for food security and trade in key food items?
Due to the current constraints of the research I have been unable to answer question 2 in its
entirety esp. becausethe application of the gender lens as mentioned earlier. However, I have
borrowed the macro level indicators used by GEM to select the commodities based on
macroeconomic data. I was also unable to answer question 3 in its entirety due to the paucity
of time in which to analyze an additional five FTAs signed by ASEAN with Australian & New
Zealand, China, India, Japan and Korea (see Annex 1). As advised by the team at Oxfam GB I
focused exclusively on the AEC.

9
Section 2 Unraveling the AEC: explaining Common Effective
Preferential Tariff, Non Trade Barriers and soft trade barriers
This section will discuss the concept behind FTAs, global regimes that support their
development, political economy of ASEAN, tariff regime central to AEC, and conclude with
discussion on different NTB and soft trade barriers. The purpose of this section is to provide
a conceptual foundation for the report, which underpins the narrative on FTAs, their context
within the modern political economy of the South East Asia sub-region, Asia-Pacific region
and the world trade.
Free Trade Agreements
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)6 establishedin 1947 was formed to lower
barriers to international trade. These included customs duties (or tariffs) and measures such
as import bans or quotas that restrict quantities selectively. This also includes nontrade
barriers such as red tape and exchange rate policies.Since 1947 there have been eight rounds
of agreements, which progressively reduced different forms of barriers to trade across the
world (See Annex 1 for ASEAN members’ accession to the WTO).
Free Trade Agreements are undertaken by sovereign nations to lower barriers to trade in
goods and services as espoused by WTO (previously by GATT). The agreements differ in terms
of content and participation but often reflect traditional geographicaland cultural links.Many
FTAs across the world are between nations with shared borders and contiguous territorial
spaces such as the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
Mercado Común del Sur (Mercosur) in South America, and Economic Community Of West
African States (ECOWAS). At the turn of the century there has been a proliferation of
intercontinental FTAs i.e.agreements between nations without territorial contiguity. This was
given greater impetus in the period after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008 to expand
trade opportunities. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has gained greater traction on both
sides of the Pacific while there have been discussions on Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and NAFTA. The GFC and the rise of China have given
greater impetus for Europe, North America and ASEAN to liberalise in order to remain
competitive and globally relevant.
6 Precursor to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) created in 1 January 1995.

10
There is almost a certain level of inevitability of regional economic integration as way to
expand opportunities for trade. The exception to the rule has been a pan-Arab and South
Asian free trade area, which reflects political and economic maturity as well as issues related
to the cache of national security and cooperation, which do not exist in sufficient volume
between nations within these regions. Russia has led the Eurasian Economic Union with
members of the former Soviet Union, which attempts to reignite the old political and
economic supremacy of the Russian Federation over the region.
The FTA reflects an aspiration for increased economic integration between nations as a driver
for economic growth however governments can also adopt protectionist measures for
political expediency to placate domestic interests. This is translated through the creation of
reservation lists often in the form of Sensitive List (SL) and High Sensitive List (HSL) to protect
industries of national interest. This provides different forms of protection for domestic
producers from investors through a number of different measures from restriction of
investment, high tariffs with a long term sliding period and/or moratorium for an indefinite
period.
Common Effective Preferential Tariff Agreement
In principle, the AEC cover allmanufactured and agricultural products, although the timetable
for reducing tariffs and removing quantitative restrictions and other non-tariff barriers differ.
This agreement provides member states the opportunity to progressively include products
for immediate liberalisation through reduction of intra-regional tariff rates, removal of
quantitative restrictions and other non-tariff barriers.
The product coverage includes all manufactured products, including capital goods, processed
agricultural products, and those products falling outside the definition of agricultural
products. There are 40,773 tariff lines in the Fast and Normal tracks of the CEPT. The average
tariff rates in 1993 was 12.76 percent, in 1999, this average was reduced to 4.48 percent or
to less than half of the average base rate of 1993 and down to 2.3 percent in 2008 (ASEAN,
CEPT Product Profile n.d.).
The Normal Track has a total of 25,918 tariff lines; Malaysia with the most number of tariff
lines under the normal track (5,710) while the Philippines has the lowest (3,432). The CEPT
also includes a fast track program where products are scheduled to undergo an accelerated
tariff reduction program to reduce the level of protection down to 0-5 percent in ten years.
The sectors covered by the Fast Track program include:
Fats & oils Mineral products Chemicals Plastics
Hides & leather Pulp & paper Textiles & apparel Cement
Gems Base metals & metal
articles
Machinery &
electrical appliances
Miscellaneous
manufactured articles

11
Source: (ASEAN, CEPT Product Profile n.d.).
Unprocessed Agricultural Products
As defined in Article 7 of the CEPT Agreement as:
(a) agricultural raw materials/unprocessed products covered under Chapter 1-24 of the
Harmonised System (HS), and similar agricultural raw materials/ unprocessed products in
other related HS Headings; and
(b) products which have undergone simple processing with minimal change in form the
original products.
Under the CEPT agriculture products such as tobacco, coffee, live animals and animal
products, which come under the Sensitive List with tariff reduced to Zero by 2015. There are
a total of 1,823 tariff lines in the listof unprocessed agriculture products, four percent of total
tariff lines in ASEAN: fish,edible vegetable and edible fruits (ASEAN, CEPT Product Profile n.d.)
Temporary Exclusion List
The products in the Temporary Exclusion List (TEL) can be protected from trade liberalisation
temporarily, as the name suggests. However, all these products would have to be transferred
into the Inclusion List and begin a process of tariff reduction so tariffs are reduced to 0-5
percent. The annual instalments of products from the TEL were transferred into the Inclusion
Listfrom 1 January 1996. The table below highlights the aggregateof allitems included within
the CEPT and tariffs liberalised to zero value (Table 1). This reflects good level of progress
however, a refined micro levelanalysis is required to further analysethe sector-based impact.
The items largely include merchandise goods and finished products covering the
manufacturing sector while agriculture, food and forestry items are largely protected. This
will be examined later in the paper.
Table 1 Items with zero tariffs in the CEPT
2000 2012
ASEAN 30,000 <80,000
ASEAN-6 35,000 <90,000
CLMV 8,000 >60,000
Evidence of intraregional trade and reduction of tariffs

12
Mikic has undertaken research, which investigates the correlation between reductions in
tariffs with share of intraregional trade from 2000-2006. The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement
(AFTA) was signed in 1992 with the agreement on CEPT for the ASEAN FTA, so there has been
a long term, concerted effort to reduce tariffs and work towards a tariff and duty free trade
zone. Mikic argues that the creation of the GEL,SL and TELwere liberalisationunder a‘typical’
ASEAN approach which allowed flexibility but also free riding (Mikic 2009, 12). Table 1 shows
a clear reduction in duties of less than 80,000 items across ASEAN but the figure for ASEAN 6
is higher than CLMV nations, which have until 2015 to be aligned to the principles of the CEPT
and AFTA.
The CEPT had a significant impact on the reduction of average tariff rates across all nations
(Table 2). The ASEAN average fell to less than one percent while the CLMV nations have
reduced from 7.5 to 1.7 percent. The greatest drop in tariffs appeared within ASEAN 6 nations
from 3.6 to 0.05 percent. However, this has not resulted in significant changes in the total
share of intra ASEAN trade as a percentage of all trade within ASEAN (Table 3), which has
remained constant from 1993 until 2011. A comparison with an established FTA such as the
EU reflects that two-third of all trade is between member nations, which means AEC has a
long way to go for genuine regional integration.
Table 2 Average tariff rates on imports of ASEAN
CLMV (%) ASEAN 6 (%) ASEAN (%)
2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012
7.51 1.69 3.64 0.05 4.43 0.68
Table 3 Intra and extra ASEAN trade (% of total ASEAN)
Intra-ASEAN (%) Intra-EU (%) Extra-ASEAN (%)
1993 25.1 74.9
2003 24.5 75.5
2011 25.0 63.7* 75.0
*Represents trade in goods. Trade in services accounted for 56.1 of exports 58.4 percent of
imports.
Mikic has disaggregated the data according to specific sectors, which provides a granular
understanding of changes in intra regional trade relating to the CEPT. The research has
examined the tariffs and intra regional imports from 1996-2007 for “Food and beverages”,
“Transport equipment and parts”, and “Industrial supplies not elsewhere specified”.For Food
and beverages the weighted average applied tariff fell from 20 percent in 2000 to less than

13
five percent in 2007 while in the same period share of intra regional imports increased from
less than 33 to 45 percent. The weighted average applied tariff for Transport equipment and
parts was 17 percent in 2000 and fell to 4.5 percent in 2007 while trade rapidly increased
from eight to 37 percent. Industrial supplies not elsewhere specified had weighted average
applied tariff of 8.5 percent in 2000 and fell to less than one percent while trade had changed
from 20.5 to 29.5 percent. The largest shift in intra regional trade was Transport equipment
and parts of 29 percent, which is reflective of the large manufacturing base, which exists
within ASEAN 6 nations. The second largest shift was in Food and beverages of 12 percent but
this sector started from a high base of 33 percent while Transport equipment and parts
started from a low base of eight percent.
Non-Tariff Barriers
There is no agreed definition at the WTO and NTB include, in principle, all measures other
than tariffs used to protect domestic industry. The term normally refers to “government
imposed” or “government sponsored” measures, other than tariffs. This signifies a significant
drag on regional economic integration and raises the cost of entry for investment, sometimes
discouraging it all together and represents an inefficient allocation of capital when restricted
to domestic producers. Optimum resource allocation lends itself to higher returns on capital
investment and labour force productivity when capital is utilised by efficient producers
regardless of nationality. This is seldom achieved by most economies with national security
often used as an excuse to protect local industries.
Formally the AEC has reservation lists for each member nation covering investments and
Sensitive List(SL), High Sensitive List (HSL) and General Exception (GE) List covering goods and
services.
Sensitive List. This contains unprocessed agricultural products, which are given a longer time
frame before being integrated within the free trade area. The commitment to reduce tariffs
to 0-5 percent, remove quantitative restrictions and other non-tariff barriers was extended
until 2010. The CLMV nations were provided a different timeline up to 2013 (Viet Nam), 2015
(Laos and Myanmar) and 2017 (Cambodia) to meet this deadline. The High Sensitive List is
largely comprised of rice and related goods. It must be noted that after much investigation, I
was unable to locate the individual HSL and SL for each member of the AEC however, the
reservation list provides insight into the level of protectionist measures member states have
undertaken with products related to agriculture, food and forestry (See Annex 5).
General Exclusion (GE) list. These products are permanently excluded from the free trade
area for reasons of protection of national security, public morals, human, animal or plant life
and health and articles of artistic,historic and archaeologicalvalue.There are 1,036 tariff lines

14
in the GE List representing about 1.61 percent of all tariff lines in ASEAN and more specifically
487 or 0.89 percent for ASEAN-6 remain in the SL, HSL and GEL categories (South East Asian
Council for Food Security and Fair Trade 2009).
Annex 4 has details of broad tariff lines created by the six countries where Oxfam GB is
currently working. The only two items across the six countries, which would directly affect
Oxfam GB households, include cocoa leaf in Cambodia and Tobacco in Viet Nam, while
Thailand does not have a GE list.
Investments in ASEAN
A significant element of any FTA is the extension of national treatment for investors across a
broad array of sectors. More pertinent for this report, remain access to land, property rights,
employment of foreigners and capital controls.
Under the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA)7 all industries shall be open
and national treatment granted to investors both at the pre-establishment and post-
establishment stages with some exceptions as listed in member countries through TEL and
SL. The TEL will be slowly phased out based on an agreed timeline while the SL will be
reviewed periodically. The ACIA will cover the following pillars:
1. Investment protection;
2. Facilitation and cooperation;
3. Promotion and awareness;
4. Liberalisation.
The reservation list created by each member nation reflects protectionist measures
undertaken for goods, services and investment with a combination of the following: reduce
tariff cuts; quotas and investment constraints. In principal the WTO was established to
encourage the adoption of Most Favoured Nation (MFN)8 amongst its members and reduce
the intensity of NTB such as the ones created by a reservation list.
At closer inspection of the AEC principal, which includes the creation of a single market and
production base and a highly competitive economic region amongst others, the creation of
the extensive schedule of investment’s reservation list remains a significant barrier to
7 Combination of the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) and ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA).
8 Most-favoured-nation treatment (GATT Article I, GATS Article II and TRIPS Article 4), the principle of not
discriminating between one’s trading partners. “shall accord immediately and unconditionally to services and
service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to like services and
servicesuppliers of any other country” (Article1 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services)

15
achieving these principals. This has to be understood within the context of the political
economy of each nation and demands of different national industry groups with vested
interest in investments and job creation. The adherence to MFN principal may not lead to an
influx of Foreign Direct Investment within LDC primarily due to structural issues.Theseinclude
rules on capital controls, infrastructure development, labour skills and mobility, and supply
chain management.
I am working with the premise that all these factors are negatively correlated to FDI in LDCs
i.e. high barrier to entry because of these factors lead to lower FDI. However efficiency gains
are made when capital is allocated to firms with the ability to achieve optimum output. This
is often the casewith FDIs often achieveefficiencygains through better management capacity
and knowledge to achieve higher marginal output per unit of good produced. By creating
reservation lists governments reflect political machinations from domestic interest groups
over sound economic management. However, this requires much closer investigation and
analysis from each member state because AEC include nations from all income groups and
therefore national interest groups lobbying government will be different in each country
context. I have created a summary of the schedule of investment’s reservation list for the six
countries where Oxfam GB operates (see Annex 2 for further details).
Cambodia
A signatory to AEC including the ACIA, Cambodia has a schedule of investment, which includes
provisions under land and labour. National Treatment shall not apply to any measure related
to land ownership, leasing, transactions, or use; including conditions on which such land shall
be held, including the use of natural resources associated with land. The ownership of land
remains confined on a co-ownership basis where Cambodia citizen must hold majority share
i.e. 51 percent equity. In light of labour the national treatment shall not apply to any measure
regarding the hiring of employment policies and obligation of the investor. The maximum
percentage of foreigners who maybe employed in each of the enterprises shall not exceed 10
percent of the total number of Cambodian employees. (ASEAN, Schedule to the ASEAN
Comprehensive Investment Agreement 2010).
Indonesia
The schedule of investment created by Indonesia takes a particularly high protectionist
approach across allsectors where national treatment is not applied to any measures affecting
land, property and natural resources associated with land, including acquisition, ownership
and lease of land and property. With regards to agriculture and fisheries national treatment
shall not apply to any measures with respect to activities, which relate to national food

16
security. The rules are much more stringent within fishery where traditional fishery9 is not
allowed to be undertaken by foreign investors. Foreign investors are allowed to undertake
fishery activities in Indonesia and its Exclusive Economic Zone, subject to licensing conditions
imposed by the relevant regulatory authorities.
There are also restrictions placed on agriculture services incidental to agriculture: foreigners
are encouraged to invest in largeholder farming as the restriction is placed on allinvestments
less than 25 ha and based on specific crops (corn, soy, peanuts, green beans, rice, cassava,
sweet potato; other food crops are wheat, oats, barley, rye, millet, taro, and other food crops
not classified elsewhere). Annex 2 (Indonesia) has a breakdown of the different estate crops
as well as breeding and propagation of forest plants. A combination of regulations, standards
and ownership stipulation has made FDI within this sector hamstrung.
Myanmar
In the case of land ownership, national treatment may not apply to any measures affecting
land,10 property and natural resources associated with land, which is owned by the State.
However, government-owned land or those owned by the government department,
organization and private land owned by the citizen can be leased for initial 30 years and
extendable two consecutive terms of 15 years subject to the approval of the Myanmar
Investment Commission. With regards to forestry only state-owned enterprises are permitted
to operate with no scope for FDI. In the area of fishery, investors are required to form a joint
venture with State organization (or) existing joint venture company or private Myanmar
Company, subject to the approval of the Government. This form of investment requires
Cabinet level approval and subsequently securing permits from two different institutions.
The government does not have reservations on investments in many other sectors other than
very specific manufacturing areas. Many other member nations have protected other food
items, which are not mentioned by Myanmar reflective of the economic and political
transition currently underway in the country.
9 For the purpose of this reservation, the term “ traditional fishery” refers to “small scale fisherman” as
stipulated in Law Number 31 of 2004 as amended by Law No. 45 of 2009 concerning Fishery and Regulation of
the Minister of MarineAffairs and Fisheries of theRepublic of Indonesia.Small scalefisherman isdefined as any
person whose livelihood isfishingto fulfil daily lifeneeds.
10 For the purposes of reservation, land includes residential land, Commercial land, Industrial land and
Agricultural & Livestock land

17
Philippines
The government has ensured that national treatment shallnot apply to any measure affecting
land and property associated with land, including their acquisition, ownership, lease,
development, utilization, conservation and protection. In regards to labour, national
treatment shall not apply to a right, franchise, privilege, property or business, which is
expressly reserved by the Constitution or the laws of the Philippines to its citizens. It will also
be inapplicable for a foreign investor that intervenes in the management, operation,
administration or control of such businesses, which are reserved for Filipinos, whether such
investors are officers, employees or labourers therein, except technical personnel whose
employment may be specifically authorized by the Secretary of Justice. With regards to SME
foreign equity is restricted to a maximum of 40 percent for domestic market enterprises with
paid-in equity capital of less than the equivalent of USD 200,000.
In the area of agriculture, fishery and services incidental national treatment shall not apply to
any measure relating to food security, poverty alleviation and social equity, income
enhancement and profitability, global competitiveness and sustainability. This shall include
restrictions on foreign equity. In forestry and services incidental the national treatment shall
not apply to any measure relating to utilization, exploitation, occupation, possession, or
conduct of any activity within any forest and grazing land. Foreign equity may be allowed up
to 40 percent, subject to government approval.
Thailand
Across all sectors Thailand permits foreign equity of not more than 50 percent ownership of
registered capital. Land ownership has limitations based on a capital investment floor set by
the investment bureau. The government will not extend national treatment to SMEs. See
annex 1 for detailed examination of the reservation for different sectors. The common factor
across all sectors remains the uniformity in foreign equity of ownership at 50 percent.
Viet Nam
The national treatment will not be extended to establishment, acquisition, organization and
operation of foreign invested enterprises or foreign invested projects as well as land, property
and natural resources associated with land, including but not limited to acquisition,
ownership, lease, policy on the usage of land, land planning, term of land use, rights and
obligations of land users. National Treatment shall not apply to any measure relating to
treatments granted to SME.
In conclusion for this section, the AEC members under examination have revealed a high level
of investment protection, security for domestic producers and non-alignment of national
rules with the AEC Blueprint. The AEC sets out a roadmap for integration and primarily the

18
national treatment of investors under AIA (precursor to ACIA). While this dispels the threat of
displacement of local land owners’ esp. small scale farmers with whom OxfamGB undertakes
much of its activities, the high barriers to entry reduces the scope to increase intra regional
investment. The purpose of the AEC is to improve the level of investment beyond the status
quo with a focus on increased integration between nations and creation of a genuine single
market. The national interests driven by narrow political realities and national investors
support the inefficient use of capital from one perspective but also protect small scale
farmers, often unable to compete with international investors combined with different levels
of governance over land and contract enforcement.
Evidence from intra- and extra-ASEAN investment
The investments within ASEAN remain dominated by extra ASEAN investments although this
has fallen steadily from 2009 to 2011 from 87 to 77 percent (Table 4). The percentage change
intra ASEAN investments increased 56 percent between 2009-2010 but only increased by 45
percent from 2010-2011. This reflects stymied levels of overall inflow of investments within
the regional bloc. At the onset it can be argued the CEPT as well as the subsequent AEC
Blueprint has accelerated investments within the region with a steady rise of the proportion
of intra ASEAN investment from 2009-2011. Further disaggregation of the data reveals that
the ASEAN 5 investments as percentage of total net inflow remained the same from 2009-
2010 with slightincreasebetween 2010-2011 while the largestproportion of change occurred
within BCLMV countries from 2009-2010 with a 64 percent increase but even that has
dropped from 2010-2011 by 11 percent. The proportion of extra ASEAN investment within
BCLMV nations dropped by 11 and two percent from 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively.
This maybe reflective of regional investment integration but further political and economic
factors need to investigated to validate this initial finding.
Across the six Oxfam GB program offices under focus, the percentage of intra ASEAN
investment increased from 2009-2010 except for Thailand. This changed in the period 2010-
2011 with negative investment figures for Cambodia and continued for Thailand. However,
investments had fallen for all other countries compared to the previous period with the
exception of Philippines where investments had increased from 112 to 138 percent from
2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively. The Philippines had seen a dramatic drop in extra
ASEAN investment from 2009-2010 by 56 percent with a small recovery from 2010-2011 of
eight percent. Thailand has seen a 56 percent rise in extra ASEAN investments from 2009-
2010 but this dropped by six percent from 2010-2011. Cambodia had seen a rise in intra
ASEAN investment of 50 percent from 2009-2010 but a dramatic fallof 56 percent from 2010-
2011. However, extra ASEAN investment had risen steadily from 13 percent from 2009-2010
and 35 percent from 2010-2011. Viet Nam had seen intra ASEAN investments grow
throughout this period with a 67 percent increase between 2009-2010 but this tapered to

19
only 13 percent from 2010-2011. Myanmar’s data is incomplete for 2011 so, we saw a 61
percent rise in intra ASEAN investments from 2009-2010 and extra ASEAN trade fell by 222
percent in the same period. Indonesia sawfluctuations within intra ASEAN investments falling
to a three-year low of 25 percent in 2011 reflecting 56 percent drop (Table 4).
The levels of intra ASEAN investments have steadily increased but much of this concentrated
within lower income nations without much progress amongst higher income nations. The
creation of the AEC is primarily to increase intra ASEAN investments and with the current
trend of investments from higher to lower income countries, it bodes well to achieve the
reduction in economic disparity between nations. However, the schedule of investments as
outlined above highlightfew opportunities for significantchanges from the current status quo
to improve the investment climate. The constriction of the national treatment of ASEAN
investors, as stipulated by the AEC Blueprint (see quote below), remains a bottleneck for the
growth of intra ASEAN investment and any rise in investments will reflect a drip effect rather
the large flows envisioned in the document.
“Under the AIA, all industries (in the manufacturing, agriculture, fishery, forestry and mining
and quarrying sectors and services incidental to these five sectors) shall be open and national
treatment granted to investors both at the pre-establishment and the post establishment
stages, with some exceptions as listed in member countries’ Temporary Exclusion Lists (TEL)
and Sensitive Lists (SL). The TEL is to be phased-out based on agreed timelines. Although the
SL does not have a timelinefor phasing-out, they will bereviewed periodically”.(‘A3, Free Flow
of Investment’, AEC Blueprint, 2008: p12).

20
Please do not cite without permission from the author. The research findings and recommendations are the viewof the author and do not reflect that of
OxfamGB, OxfamInternationaloranyOxfamaffiliate.The authorcanbe reachedvia haquesanjan@gmail.comorshaque@oxfam.org.uk
Table 4 Percentage of intra and extra ASEAN investments as a proportion of net inflow
Intra ASEAN investment as a
percentage of total net inflow
Extra ASEAN investment as a
percentage of total net inflow
Percentage change of
intra ASEAN investment
Percentage change of
extra ASEAN investment
Country 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009-2010 2010-2011 2009-2010 2010-2011
Brunei
Darussalam
1 14 5.6 99 86 94 97 -33 31 53
Cambodia 32 45 25.1 68 55 75 50 -56 16 35
Indonesia 28 43 43.3 72 57 57 77 29 56 28
Lao PDR 18 41 17.9 82 59 82 58 -151 -32 20
Malaysia -4 6 22.2 104 94 78 111 80 83 8
Myanmar 7 38 - 93 62 0 61 0 -222 0
Philippines 0 3 -8.5 100 97 108 112 138 -56 8
Singapore 12 9 20.6 88 91 79 39 65 52 13
Thailand 30 14 4.1 70 86 96 -18 -290 57 -6
Viet Nam 6 16 20.2 94 84 80 67 13 -7 -13
Total 13 16 23.0 87 84 77 56 45 48 11
ASEAN 51/ 15 15 23.4 85 85 77 55 50 55 13
BLCMV1/ 7 20 18.8 93 80 81 64 -11 -11 -2
1/ ASEAN 5 consists of Indonesia, Malay sia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, while BCLMV comprises Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, My anmar and Viet Nam.
Source: Data calculated by author with reference to Table 5

21
Table 5 Foreign direct investments net inflow, intra- and extra-ASEAN
Country 2009 2010 20112/ Share to total net inflow to
ASEAN, 2011
Share ofIntra-ASEAN, 2011
Intra-
ASEAN
Extra-
ASEAN
Total net
inflow
Intra-
ASEAN
Extra-
ASEAN
Total net
inflow
Intra-
ASEAN
Extra-ASEAN Total net
inflow
Intra-
ASEAN
Extra-
ASEAN
Total net
inflow
Intra-
ASEAN
Extra-
ASEAN
Total
net
inflow
Brunei
Darussalam
3.1 368.3 371.4 89.5 535.9 625.4 67.5 1,140.8 1,208.3 0.3 1.3 1.1 5.6 94.4 100.0
Cambodia 174.0 365.0 539.0 349.0 433.6 782.6 223.8 667.9 891.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 25.1 74.9 100.0
Indonesia 1,380.1 3,496.7 4,876.8 5,904.4 7,866.4 13,770.9 8,338.1 10,903.5 19,241.6 31.7 12.4 16.9 43.3 56.7 100.0
Lao PDR 57.3 261.3 318.6 135.4 197.2 332.6 54.0 246.8 300.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 17.9 82.1 100.0
Malaysia (60.2) 1,465.3 1,405.1 525.6 8,630.2 9,155.9 2,664.3 9,336.6 12,000.9 10.1 10.6 10.5 22.2 77.8 100.0
Myanmar 67.8 895.5 963.3 171.7 278.5 450.2 - - - - - - - - -
Philippines (4.9) 1,967.9 1,963.0 40.2 1,257.8 1,298.0 (107.0) 1,369.0 1,262.0 -0.4 1.6 1.1 -8.5 108.5 100.0
Singapore 2,791.1 21,215.0 24,006.1 4,569.0 44,182.6 48,751.6 13,213.4 50,783.8 63,997.2 50.3 57.8 56.1 20.6 79.4 100.0
Thailand 1,463.2 3,390.3 4,853.5 1,236.9 7,874.6 9,111.6 317.1 7,461.0 7,778.1 1.2 8.5 6.8 4.1 95.9 100.0
Viet Nam 428.7 7,171.3 7,600.0 1,300.9 6,699.1 8,000.0 1,499.4 5,930.6 7,430.0 5.7 6.8 6.5 20.2 79.8 100.0
Total 6,300.2 40,596.5 46,896.7 14,322.7 77,955.9 92,278.6 26,270.6 87,840.0 114,110.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 23.0 77.0 100.0
ASEAN 51/ 5,569.3 31,535.2 37,104.4 12,276.2 69,811.7 82,087.9 24,426.0 79,853.8 104,279.8 93.0 90.9 91.4 23.4 76.6 100.0
BLCMV1/ 730.9 9,061.4 9,792.3 2,046.5 8,144.3 10,190.7 1,844.6 7,986.2 9,830.8 7.0 9.1 8.6 18.8 81.2 100.0
value in US$ million; shareinpercent
Source ASEAN Foreign Direct Investment Statistics Databaseas of30 September 2012(compiled/computedfrom data submission, publications and/orwebsites ofASEAN Member States'central banks,nationalstatistics
offices, and relevantgovernment agencies through theASEAN Working Groupon ForeignDirect InvestmentStatistics)
Symbolsused Notes
- not availableas ofpublicationtime Details may not addup to totals due torounding offerrors.
n.a. not applicable/not available/not
compiled
1. ASEAN 5 consists ofIndonesia, Malaysia,thePhilippines, Singaporeand Thailand,whileBCLMV comprises BruneiDarussalam, Cambodia, LaoPDR,Myanmarand Viet Nam.
0.0 value is below 0.1% 2. Singapore's data for 2011excludes inter-companyloans as geographical andindustry breakdown arepresently notavailable. Inter-companyloans withintra-/extra-ASEAN
breakdown for 2011shownare estimated by the ASEAN Secretariat.
p/ preliminaryfigures The FDI is on a net basis,andcomputed as follows: NetFDI =Equity +Net Inter-company Loans +Reinvested Earnings. The net basis concept implies that the followings
should bededucted fromtheFDI gross flows: (1) reverse investment (madeby a foreign affiliatein a host country toits parentcompany/direct investor; (2) loans givenby a
foreign affiliateto its parent company; and
3. Repayments ofintra-company loan (paidby a foreign affiliateto its parent company). As such, FDInetinflow canbe negative.

22
Source: ASEAN Statistics,http://www.asean.org/news/item/foreign-direct-investment-statistics (accessed 31 Oct2013)

23
Section 3 Evaluation of commodity flows and stocks across ASEAN
In the previous sections I have provided an analysis of the AEC blueprint, explained concepts
on FTAs and explained the parameters for investment within ASEAN. The principal laid out in
the AEC blueprint highlights an aspiration to strengthen economic integration through lower
tariffs, quotas and by removing other barriers to trade. However, national interests seem to
obfuscate this process and the schedule of investment reservation list reduces the scope for
free trade. There are significant levels of protection accorded to agriculture, food & forestry
items, which will provide short-run protection from competition however; the CEPT provides
the scope for the gradual reduction of tariff and thus increasing competition on items
between nations.
This section will examine the flows and stocks of key commodities looking at export and
import of top commodities of East Asia, major commodity actors (importers, exporters), top
commodities by production, and detailed analysis of commodities selected by each Oxfam
country office. The commodity specific data for Oxfam livelihood programs details
information of production, export volume and value, import volume and value, and unit price
per tonne for each country. I will examine the items selected by each country against the
prevailing regional and international trends in trade in commodities and analyse the income
generation potential for each commodity selected by the country office. I will create a
scorecard to select commodities for each country based on the analysis of AEC blueprint and
macroeconomic data of commodities in the region. The disaggregated data can be located in
Annex 3.
Overview of commodity trade in Eastern Asia
The data has been collated from Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)11 database, which
has been collected by national bodies on behalf of FAO and shared via an open-source
platform. I collected from 2008 because of two factors: the AEC Blueprint was agreed in 2007
and Global Financial Crisis (GFC) occurred in 2008. The latter left a significant imprint on the
global economy especially on food prices, which significantly affected ASEAN.
Export and Import trends from 2008-2011
The overall trend in primary sector commodities between 2008-2011 reveal the top 10
imports in the Eastern Asia region has seven-eight items which can be referred to unfinished
or unprocessed. Conversely, seven of the top 10 commodity exports are value added items.
11 Food and AgricultureOrganisation, http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E (accessed 16 Oct.
13)

24
In 2008 soybean has dominated the import items followed by maize, palm oil and natural dry
rubber. The soybean market in Eastern Asia has grown with imports increasing by 24 percent
since2008 commensurate with a risein value of 22 percent however; the unit value per tonne
has fallen by 3.2 percent. Eastern Asia has a net deficit in soybean production with imports in
2011 at 58.8 million tonnes compared to exports at 219,243 tonnes (Table 1-4).Maize imports
have dropped by three percent since 2008. While the value has marginally changed at 0.4
percent while it has remained second on list of commodity production across the region
(Table 1-4) for the period 2008-2011. The unit value per tonne has increased by 2.1 percent
reflecting exogenous factors in the shift in price.
The palm oil import has grown by nine percent with value rising by little less than 19 percent
and unit value per tonne growing by 10.6 percent. This commodity shows tremendous
demand within the region esp. as it is one of the largest producers. The natural dry rubber
imports had risen by more than 13 percent between 2008 – 2011 while prices increased at an
extraordinary 49 percent, commensurate with a 41 percent rise in unit value per tonne.
The Food Preparation items (flour, malt extract) remained the top export since 2008 with a
rise in quantity by 22.5 percent along with a rise in value of nearly one third of value in 2008
commensurate with rise in unit value per tonne by 15 percent. The value addition of raw
materials both through domestic production and imported items has seen increases in value
addition to the commodities as exported processed goods. Export volume of Fruit Pulp and
Preserved Vegetable increased by 3.5 and 5.5 percent respectively. However, Fruit Pulp
increased in value by 26.7 percent and Preserved Vegetable less than 21 percent. In both
cases unit value per tonne has increased by one quarter for fruit pulp and more than 16
percent for vegetable since 2008. Unfortunately exports of cigarettes increased by 4.8
percent with rise in value of 18.4 percent while unit value per tonne has risen by more than
14 percent.
The Eastern Asia region commodity sector has seen increases in commodities in their raw
form with increases in value added products at more than six of the top 10 export items in
the region since 2008. All of this points to the rise in value addition industry within Eastern
Asia and their dominance in the commodity market for the region. This reflects shifts in the
labour force, overall direction of investments in the sector and an overall shift towards higher
value addition investments across the region. Oxfam GB programs would do well to create
networks between the small-scale farmers and industry related to value addition viz. selling
in the open market.

25
Eastern Asia commodity production 2008-2012
The data on commodity production has been gathered from the perspective of revenue
generated in aggregate. The overall trend since 2008-2011 has shown consistency in the type
and revenue generated by each commodity. Nine of the top-10 items in this period remained
the same with some changes in position with the exception being Fresh Cow Milk and
Tomatoes (Table 9-13). However, in 2012 there were four new items in the top-10, which was
not seen in the previous four years (Groundnuts, Sugar beet, Rapeseed, Cottonseed). Using
2008 as the base year, revenue in 2011 had increased by seven percent but dropped by 94
percent in 2012. This shows a lag in the impact of the GFC upon cash crops due to their prices
being determined by market demand.12
The only commodity to have aconverse relationship to this trend was Rice,paddy where there
was a fall in 2011 from 2008 but since has increased by 3.4 percent in 2012 (Annex 4: Figure
1). The period from 2008-2011 saw a fall in revenue reflective of protectionist measures
undertaken across major rice producers, two of them are AEC members (Thailand, Viet Nam).
The shifts in the other commodities are closely related to long-run factors where changes at
the macroeconomic level require 2-3 years to be reflected in the market. Figure 2 (Annex 4)
shows a steady rise in aggregate revenue of the top-10 commodities in the post GFC period,
2009-2011 reflective of the 2-3 year impact period. In 2012 we see dramatic drop in revenue
and changes in the top-10 items, which include low value items as well as tapered global and
local demand. Despite the changes in the top-10 items, four items (Rice, paddy; Maize; Sugar
Cane; Wheat) have remained consistent with slight changes in position from 2008-2012. This
reflects stability in the continued investment, production, trade and demand for these
commodities beyond the macroeconomic situation across the world. While the production of
these commodities maybe determined by aggregate demand and national control measures
(through NTB) but this impact at the local level has a significant lag in many LDCs, as localand
national markets are not well connected. This can be both a blessing and a curse.
Global actors within the export and import of commodities
The biggest global players in the import of commodity items remain the two largest
economies (China, mainland; USA). Table 14 highlights from 2008-2011 these two nations
represented combined value of US$ 207 billion or 75 percent of the top-10 commodity
12 Although the links between changes in commodity prices and GFC are tenuous as in many instances of price
fluctuations arelinked to supply by major producers,investments by institutional investors and political factors.
However, one cannot ignore the magnitude of the GFC in 2008 and wide reaching impact on institutional
investors as well as national governments ability providepricesupport.

26
importers in the world. China alone has a share of 52 percent of the top-10 importers with a
net change in imports from 2008-2011 of more than 50 percent while the USA has seen a
drop of less 36 percent of imports in the sameperiod. The top-10 importers have traditionally
remained OECD countries with the increasing presence of China since 2008.
The biggest players in the export sector reflect the presence of the USA but the rise of ASEAN
countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand), which together compose of 62 percent of all
commodity exports in the top-10. ASEAN’s share is 28 percent of all exports by top-10
exporters for this period (Table 14). The USA has seen a net change of 4.6 percent while
ASEAN has seen an increase of 56 percent as share of the top-10 exporters from 2008-2011.
However, the commodity driving this growth has been palm oil for Indonesia and Malaysia
while Thailand has broken through to the top-10 in 2011 with Natural Dry Rubber.
In the international commodity market populous nations are beginning to determine global
food consumption patterns. In 2008 eight of the top-10 importers were members of the OECD
but fast-forward to 2011 and China makes up four of the top-10 positions with India
completing the balance between OECD and emerging markets as well the majority of human
population. The USA and Japan make up the other half of the top-10 (Table 15-18). There is a
stronger division within the export market with many food items are being produced in LDC
or emerging markets with the USA and France as outliers. This is reflected in high cost of
labour and a loss of comparative advantage in OECD nations as well as efficiency gains and
increased capacity for production and consumption within BRICS and LDCs.
Overview of the commodity trade where Oxfam GB operates
Each country based reflection will include analysis of the commodities traded in the country
and due to paucity of local data I have undertaken macro-economic level analysis which takes
into account factors including the indicators from WEL whereby commodities are selected
based on current trends in trade and three other factors. As a result I have recommended
three items for each country as livelihood options.
 Access to local consumption market (2)
 Viability of export promotion (2)
 Potential to scale-up (2)
 Increasing demand for increased income (WEL) (3)
 Value addition (WEL) (3)
Cambodia
In the period 2008-2011 Natural Dry Rubber, Palm Oil and Cigarettes remained firmly fixed
within the top five exports with average revenue of US$ 77 million, US$ 10.2 million and US$
7.3 million per annum respectively (Table 23). In the same period imports of cigarettes and
refined sugarhave remained consistentlyin the top-five imports with an averageimport value

27
of US$ 184 million for refined sugar from 2008-2011 and US$ 155 million per annum for
cigarettes for 2008-2012. Interestingly refined sugar fell outside of the top-five items in 2012
after remaining in the top two import items from 2008-2011 (Table 24).
Oxfam Cambodia had concentrated on the following items for livelihoods support: cabbage,
corn, durian, honey, mango, palm sugar, pomelo, potato, rice, shallots, and soybean. These
items (barring rice, palm sugar, and soybean) have no direct correlation with the top-five
export items for Cambodia or the EasternAsiaproduction (Tables 9-13).As income generation
remains a key focus of any livelihood program then a shift towards commodities with
consistent and high market demand maybe a prudent program based choice.
Items
Indicators Natural dry rubber Tobacco Palm Oil
Access to local consumption market 0 2 0
Viability of export promotion 2 2 2
Potential to scale-up 2 1 2
Increasing demand for increased
income (WEL)
3 3 3
Value addition (WEL) 3 3 3
Total 10 11 10
Indonesia
In the period 2008-2011 the top-five export and import items have remained unchanged
except in 2009 when for Food Preparation conceded to Refined Sugar. Indonesia remains one
of the largest exporters of Palm Oil and Natural Dry Rubber as shown in Tables 19-22. Palm
oil exports are valued US$ 12.1 billion, Natural Dry Rubber US$ 5.5 billion, coffee, green at
US$ 903 million and cocoa beans US$ 996 million per annum. These items are high value cash
crop for the national economy. Wheat has remained the most sought after import item along
with Soybeans and Cake of Soybeans comprising average annual cost of US$ 3.7 billion. As a
member of G20 and significant player within Asia pacific, Indonesian consumption and
exports determine significantly the regional stocks and flows of commodities. Besides being
a global player within palm oil and rubber, Indonesia is a significant consumer of rice and
other staple items traded in the commodity sector.
OxfamIndonesia currently provides livelihood support to the following items: cassava, corn,
durian, mango, pomelo, potato, rice, seaweed, shallot, shrimp, soybean, and vanilla. As with
Cambodia, these items (barring rice, soybean) has no correlation with the top-five items
within export market of Indonesia as well as the Eastern Asia production (Tables 9-13). The

28
program would be wise to direct resources to support farmers to cultivate crops with strong
market demand and export potential.
Items
Indicators Coffee, green Cocoa beans Palm Oil
Increasing demand for increased income
(WEL)
3 3 2
Total 11 9 6
Myanmar
The top-two import items (palmoil, food prep necessities) have not changed from 2008-2011
with non-alcoholic beverage also consistently featuring in the top-five import items. In total
these items cost Myanmar US$ 439 million per annum with palm oil making up 48 percent of
this total (Table 27). In the export sector Dry beans are the top item followed by chickpeas,
maize and sesame seed. Dry beans constitute 88 percent of the average earnings of these
four items for this period with real term per annum value of US$ 918 million (Table 28).
OxfamMyanmar* is currently supporting chickpeas,chillies,cotton, onion and sesameas part
of the livelihood options across its programs. Apart from chickpeas, the other four
commodities do not feature within top-five commodities in the export market and do not
reflect the top commodities in value terms of production across the Eastern Asia region.
However, the Myanmar political economy is different from the rest of AEC as it has recently
had embargoes lifted by the US and EU and returned to the international arena. The
underinvestment across all sectors combined with low labour productivity and significant
non-tariff barriers to trade limit the scope of Oxfam Myanmar to focus on programs in the
higher value addition sector of agriculture, food and forestry products may be limited.
Items
Indicators Chickpeas Sesame Cotton

29
(WEL)
2 2 3
Total 8 8 10
*All the items mentioned in the above listare within the current commodity support program
undertaken by Oxfam Myanmar.
Philippines
The top five import items has seen one new entrant in each of the four years from 2008-2011
with Wheat, Necessary Food Preparation, Cake of Soybeans and Dry Milk Skimmed
consistently in the top-five items (Table 29). The import value of wheat has been on average,
38 percent of the four items mentioned and worth US$ 738 million. The combined import
value of these four items per annum was US$ 1.9 billion from 2008-2011. The export sector
has also seen the dominance of four items over the period (Coconut oil, Bananas, Desiccated
Coconuts, Pineapples canned) with an average per annum combined export value of US$1.8
billion. Coconut oil dominated with 59 percent of the average export value per annum.
Oxfam Philippines* is currently supporting cassava, cocoa, coconut, coffee, crabs, garlic,
onion, sugar cane and tuna as part of the livelihood options across its programs. Coconut and
sugar cane remain the only two items, which fall within the top-five export items for the
Philippines. Although centrifugal sugar is a value added commodity however, Oxfam
Philippines support sugar cane, which is the raw material. The selected commodities have
strong market presence without necessarily being in the top-five export items and therefore
it is important that the pipelines required to establish continued market access for these
items are secured, for long term sustainable income generation.
Items
Indicators Coconut Banana Pineapple
(WEL)
3 2 3
Total 11 8 11
*Coconut has been included within Oxfam Philippines commodity support program.
Thailand
There is symmetry in the export and import items for the consistency in the items for the
period 2008-2011. Thailand is a major global exporter for natural dry rubber (Table 19) and

30
as a result rubber products (Rubber Nat dry and Natural Rubber) constituted 65 percent of
the top-five items average exports value per annum. Natural dry rubber constituted an
average export value of US$6.2 billion per annum for 2008-2011 (Table 32). In the import
sector soybean products (Soybeans, Cake of Soybeans) constituted on average55 percent per
annum of import value of the top-five items from 2008-2011. Cake of soybeans had an
average per annum import value of US$ 1 billion while soybean was US$ 899 million.
Oxfam Thailand is currently supporting directly or indirectly livelihood programs relating to
coffee, corn, organic rice, organic vegetables, shrimp and tea. In many of these programs
there is indirect support in the form of capacity development, value addition, and alternative
livelihood option for adaption to climate change. Along with Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore
(outside the purview of this study), Thailandis a middle income or above country with astrong
industrial and manufacturing base with value addition being a key focus in the agro-based
sector. The country program has shifted slowly towards leveraging learning for policy
advocacy and therefore gathering evidence for sustainableincome generating options are key
to securing livelihoods which can adapt to climate change.
Items
Indicators Chicken Soybeans Rubber
(WEL)
2 2 3
Total 7 7 8
Viet Nam
The top-five import items have remained consistent with continuous appearances of cake of
soybeans, distilled alcoholic beverage and cotton lint between 2008 and 2010, however in
2011 four out of the five import items have been replaced from the previous period. The
aggregate value of top-five import items in 2011 was US$ 6.7 billion while the average per
annum from 2008-2010 was US$ 2.9 billion. The average unit value/tonne of the top-five
import items in 2011 was US$ 1,022, 2010 was US$ 7,950, 2009 was US$ 10,015, and 2008
was US$ 13,276. This must be analysed in consideration of the high value item of distilled
alcoholic beverage, which skewed the average per annum figure (Table 33).

31
The top-five export items have remained consistent with a new entrant each year from 2008-
2011. The coffee, green has an average export value of the top-five items for this period of
US$ 2.1 billion followed by natural dry rubber with US$ 1.4 billion. The average export value
of the four items (Coffee, green; Rubber Nat Dry; Cashew Nuts Shelled; Pepper (piper spp.)
consistently in the top-five from 2008-2011 was US$ 1.2 billion (Table 34).
Oxfam Viet Nam is currently supporting directly or indirectly livelihood programs relating to
cow, rice, cocoa, black pig, and shrimp. These items do not correspond with the top-five
import or export items for Viet Nam and only rice corresponds as the top-10 Eastern Asia
production items. These items have significant market demand and if the country program
can support the individual items with a business-led focus the income generation options for
the farmers will be strengthened and sustained for the foreseeable future.
Items
Indicators Coffee,
green
Cashew nuts Pepper
(WEL)
3 3 3
Total 9 10 9
In the selectionof theseitems, I have exclusivelyexamined the viabilitythrough the indicators
mentioned above. This has,centrally, examined the economic viability and income generation
capability from the sector and the propensity for Oxfam GB supported households to become
aligned to the sustained growth of these items. All of these items have been top-five export
items from 2008-2011 with a consistent high unit value per tonne.
The caveat to this analysis remains undertaking local level political economy review, value
chain analysis of the commodity for the community in-focus, and most importantly GEM
analysis. This can only be undertaken at the country level which was not possible during the
period of this study however, the above analysis and attached data in Annex 3 provides a
foundation for commodity selection, which focuses on income generation for women small
scale farmers.

32
Section 4 Securing ASEAN’s food under a regional economic
agreement
The discussion on the impact of AEC for Oxfam GB programs remains incomplete without an
investigation into issues relating to regional food security. In 2011 nearly 80 million (of 550m)
in ASEAN considered food insecure (Cambodia, Lao, Myanmar and Philippines) and low-
income food deficit countries include Cambodia, Lao, Philippines and Timor-Leste. This
section will examine the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) framework; and examine
regional discussions on issues related to food security and integration.
Regional Food Security
The AIFS was established with the goal of long-term food security and to improve the
livelihoods of farmers in the ASEAN region. The objectives included: increasing food
production; reducing post harvest losses; promote market for trade in agriculture
commodities and inputs; ensure food stability; promote availability and accessibility to
agriculture inputs; and implement regional food emergency relief arrangements.
The precursor to the AIFS was the price hike for basic essential as a result of the GFC in 2008,
which, in tangent led to increases in production cost (high price for fuel oil, fertilisers, drop of
yield, and higher cost of storing perishable goods). There were also demand side issues which
included structural changes in global demand for food commodities, competing demand for
some agriculture commodities and land use for the emerging bio fuels market coupled with
agriculture market speculation contributed to the soaring food prices. At the 29th ASEAN
Ministers of Agriculture & Forestry (AMAF) meeting held in Chiang Mai in 2008, it was agreed
that a timely and reliable data and information system for policy decisions; and long term
agriculture development plan focusing on sustainable food production & trade would be
developed.
The priority commodities for food security in ASEAN included: rice, maize, soybean, sugar,
and cassava. The major components of AIFS included:
1. Food Security & Emergency/Shortage Relief
a. Strengthen food security arrangements;
2. Sustainable Food Trade Development
a. Promote Conducive Food Market & Trade;
3. Integrated Food Security Information System
a. Strengthen Integrated Food Security Information Systems to effectively forecast,
plan and monitor supplies and the utilisation for basic food commodities;
4. Agriculture Innovation
a. Promote sustainable food production;

33
b. Encourage greater investment in food & agriculture based industry to enhance
food security;
c. Identify and address emerging issues related to food security.
The action program included regional food security reserve initiatives and mechanisms:
 ASEAN Food Security Reserve Board (AFSRB);
 ASEAN + 3 Emergency Rice Reserve (ERR);
 ASEAN fund for food security.
Chandra and Lontoh (2010) argue there are major discrepancies between aspiration of ASEAN
to remain as an open economic regional grouping and its member countries insistence on
maintaining the protection of their food markets. The GFC tested ASEAN solidarity by
supplying global food needs at the expense of fulfilling the need of food supplies in other
ASEAN member countries. The rice producing nations wanted to create a cartel, Organisation
for RiceExporting Countries (OREC),which did not materialiseinto a substantive body. Lontoh
recommends developing food security policies in-line with the spirit of ASEAN regionalism;
expand the AIFS & ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS) and ERR; and ensure the
development of social safety nets in place and work with non-state stakeholder to minimise
adverse impacts of open food trade regimes.

34
Section 5 Interviews with experts
As a part of the investigation, I undertook expert interviews within Thailand based on the
research questions. The interviews were unstructured and semi formal with individuals
working directly or indirectly with ASEAN integration. The interviews took place from 17 June
– 31 October 2013 across Bangkok. The discussions have been divided into three areas:
Building Institutions, Inclusive Growth and Protectionism. The interviewees included the
following persons:
1. Mr Marcus Brand. Senior Adviser on Democratic Governance, Rule of Law and Justice
Sector Reform, UNDP Myanmar
2. Dr Mia Mikic. Chief, Trade Policy and Analysis Section, United Nations ESCAP
3. Anonymous. Second Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Kingdom
of Thailand
4. Ms Yumiko Yamamoto. Program Specialist, Poverty Reduction Practice, UNDP Asia-Pacific
Regional Centre
Building institutions
Brand argued that the drive towards building the AEC was a positive step towards supporting
economic growth and more importantly increase the scope for good governance. The
creation of a regional bloc, from his perspective, creates greater clout within global
conferences for issues of economic growth, political strength and attracting inward
investment. He also argues there is a threat such institutions maybe co-opted to legitimate
undemocratic institutions and identifies the ASEAN Human Rights Commission as key to
sustainable path to development and equity within nations and the foundation for
integration. Yamamoto concurs there are low levels of focus upon building democratic
institutions to support pro-poor growth with the AEC currently geared towards supporting
large corporations and capitalists.
The ASEAN Secretariat does not have a sovereign entity to enforce the AEC blueprint, which
requires self-regulation. National legislative bodies did not ratify the document, which
reduces its legal foundation. Each member has equal voice, which means a minority of one
country can derail or slow down deliberation. This reduces the speed of policy negotiations,
agreement and in the long-term credibility of the institution.
Inclusive growth
Mikic argued Cambodia, Lao and Myanmar require significant capacity development at the
border, customs and trade agencies in order to adhere to new compliance framework. Brand
argues that the AEC placed too great an emphasis on economic integration without focus on
other pillars for development. The compliance measures for investment are significantly

35
divergent between ASEAN-6 and CLMV countries, which maybe a constraining factor for
supporting inclusive growth across AEC nations.
Protectionism
In an interview with a member of staff at the Department of International Economic Affairs
within the Thailand government revealed services and investment are unaffected with AEC
improving the facilitation space for investments from other AEC countries. Intra-ASEAN
investments should increase but may not reach potential until national government improve
compliance to AEC rules. Non-tariff barriers: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
represent standards in the quality of the production and processing of agriculture, food and
forestry products. This adds another layer of cost for producers, reduce the scope for farmers
to access different export markets and set a high entry cost for importers. The AEC aim to
follow WTO ascribed SPS measures. Infrastructure upgrade is occurring at different pace with
Thai government investments leading the way to upgrading the road network within the
Greater Mekong Sub-region.

36
Section 6 Conclusion
At the top of this report I started with four research questions (see Section 1), which I
attempted to answer using a combination of qualitative and quantitative evidence sourced
from government and non-government sources. The evidence has been mostly secondary
data with limited primary data collected through interviews from experts based in Thailand.
The purpose of the study was to provide analysis and evidence of the potential impact of the
AEC on different Oxfam GB programs and identify commodities, which would support
women’s involvement in small scale farming in Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Thailand, and Viet Nam.
Key barriers to the full and effective implementation of the AEC
The architects of the AEC envisaged a regional economic integration area to contribute
towards economic growth for all member nations, which, in principal, dovetails with the WTO
and neo-liberal economics of free-markets and borderless competition. The AEC contains
members with some of the highest economic differentials compared to other similar
economic communities such as the EU, ECOWAS, and MERCOSUR where the starkest
distinction remains in GDP/capita, Myanmar US$419 and Singapore US$ 36,631.
Beyond the natural distinctions between nations, reflective of structural and historical
factors, the AEC is hamstrung by narrow national interests underpinned by natural
monopolies held by domestic interests as well a distinct lack of a powerful ASEAN-based
institutional structure for enforcement. The Schedule of Investment Reservation List
highlights high degree of protectionist measures undertaken by national governments. This
significantly extends for agriculture, food & forestry products although the AEC Blueprint
(Section A7) encourages enhancement of intra and extra ASEAN trade and long term
competitiveness of ASEAN’s agriculture and forestry products/commodities.
The CEPT has an order for tariff reduction across allsectors and items with the ability to affect
the Oxfam GB programs in the medium and long run. The tariff-based barriers to entry will
increase competition through the formal channels of trade however, the porous borders
within GMS and weak compliance measures give rise to significant informal cross-border
trade. This will ultimately affect market price and demand rather than the AEC.
The NTB exist in the form SPS measures, infrastructure constraints and soft barriers.13 These
measures create a significant barrier for agro-based products to enter higher value markets
13 Barriers created through excessive government policies or regulations imposed on businesses that are not
known to foreign entities seeking to conduct trade. Also known as "soft" barriers, they do not directly impede

37
such as exports from low compliance countries such as Myanmar and Laos to high compliance
countries such as Singapore. The SPS measures remain the strongest formal measure, which
will reduce the scope to increase trade and create an effective inter-regional supply for basic
staple items. The development of road network and building capacity of customs and border
services are at variant degrees, which will result in a staggered enforcement environment for
the AEC.
Key agriculture commodities for each country
The originalrequirement of the study stated the identification of 10 items suitablefor women.
The internal discussion at the OxfamGB ARC with the Regional EDP & GEKN Coordinators and
Change Lead, we discovered the GEM analysis designed by Oxfam GB required in-depth field
based analysis based on each item. According to the GEM program document Philippines is
the sole representative from East Asia.14 The GEM approach requires data on household
activity spent by women small-scale farmers compared with the labour intensity factor for
each item. The sum of these two elements is used to determine the suitability of the item for
women farmers. Apart from the technical aspect the remaining country offices in East Asia
have not been exposed to the GEMprogram. This research requires a much longer time frame
and field level research, the scope for which was limited at this phase of the study. However,
I have provided recommendations in the next step of the research as well as collaboration
with a policy research organisation to leverage learning to policy makers.
As a result of this constraint I have undertaken macroeconomic analysis of the top
commodities by export, import and production for eachcountry and created a five-point scale
to evaluate the efficacy of the items selected. The primary selection criteria for the
commodity was, the economic viability of the item and its income generating potential for
the household. All the items were selected with market access in mind, to ensure households
would be able to access local, national and potentially international markets through
wholesalers.The trend analysis outlined in section3 has provided astrong economic rationale
for the items with each item holding a top-five position in the export market. The export
market was chosen specifically due to existing channels for production and stronger value
chain then compared to provide substitutes for imports. The value chain for items offering to
be an import substitute would, in all likelihood, have a weak value chain and consumer
behaviour towards domestic alternative might require longer time to change.
trade, rather, they make it more difficult by imposing standards and requirements that can't be met by
foreign exporters.
14 GEM Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan,Bangladesh,Colombia,Ethiopia, Malawi,Nigeria,Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT), Philippines,Sri Lanka,Tajikistan,Tanzania,Zambia, Zimbabwe.

38
Impact of the commodities in each country by the AEC
From the initial economic analysis these are established commodities with a strong export
market. The AEC has the possibilityof expanding trade between nations with lower tariffs and
reduced barrier to trade. In the short-run the impact will be minimal since the market for
these items have adapted to the current barriers to trade (pre-AEC), the price for these items
are basedon aggregatedemand as opposed inflationary pressures and tariffs,and these items
are also globally traded with prices being set within international exchanges. In the medium-
long run the volume trade will increase due to stronger ties between AEC nations due to the
agreement with the potential to affect regional and international prices. This requires in-
depth sector based national economic analysis, investigation of market access for small-scale
farmers, local barriers to entry for new entrants and additional factors relating to political
economy of production the item.
Food security and trade in key food items
Although this item was not originally included in the research proposal I have undertaken a
light touch towards ASEAN’s approach towards creating an ecosystemfor food security across
the region. The success ofthe AEC cannot be measured solely in economic terms, through the
expansion of trade between AEC members, growth in GDP across member states, increase in
FDI from member states and any other monetary and economical indicators.
Success of the AEC should also include the ability for the regional body and national
government to ensure fair access to food at an affordable price for the poorest groups. The
AEC is currently geared towards the expansion of manufactured and finished good with
limited provisions for servicesector expansion. And without adegree of diversion of resources
to create food price support for the very poorest groups, the AEC will exist to only raise
expectations but deliver very little for the very poorest.

39
Section 7 Next steps for further research
The report provides a comprehensive macro economic analysis of commodity trade within
the region along with recommendations based on national and international trade data. The
focus of Oxfam programs has been to empower women’s livelihood options across the world.
The drawback of undertaking a desk-basedresearch remains the lackof gender disaggregated
primarily data. There are two key questions (below) from the original proposal, which remain
unanswered and require country-level research.
i. What are the 10 key agricultural commodities that are suitable for women in each
of these countries: Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia and
Myanmar?
ii. What is the local cost of production of each commodity and will producers be able
to earn profit from selling the commodity at the new price?
Any future research should directly feed into programs and advocacy directly affecting the
very poorest households across ASEAN. This report provides afoundation for macroeconomic
data analysis for commodities traded across the region however, at the program level,
country focused data needs to be collected to support program review and leverage learning
within the policy-making domain. In order to ensure research support practice and advocacy,
OxfamGB is advisedto collaborate with other civilsocietyorganisations supporting livelihood
programs in the region and policy advocacy at the national government level.
I have undertaken discussions with World Vision International and The Asia Foundation in
Bangkok for a collaborative research project, which examines the readiness of each AEC
member and policies in place at the country level, which will directly affect the very poorest
households. There is a dearth of quality research examining the efficacyof FTAs upon the lives
of the very poorest in South East Asia as well as the impact such agreements have upon the
equity across the country. I suggest the following plan of action for joint research, which will
support programs and policy advocacy with ASEAN.
AEC Country level analysis:
Compliance level forthe schedule of investments
Priorityintegritysectors
Awarenessandknowledge perceptionsurveyamongstdifferent stakeholder
inpublicand private sectorsaswell asgeneral population
Livelihoods Regional and local level analysis:
Price surveyof commoditieswithinthe region
Detailedvalue chainanalysisforeachcommodity
Value additionsectorsrelatedto specificcommodities

40
Social Enterprise developmentwithImpactInvestment
Logistical analysis Costs relatedto delivering foodfrom farm to fork
Detailedanalysisof logisticsupportatthe local level
Factors behindprice determination
Stakeholdersinvolvedindeterminingthe prices
Connectingwithregional,national andinternational markets
Infrastructure investments undertaken by national governments to comply
withASEAN level agreements
Commoditytrade Country level baseline analysis
Commoditytrade,flowsandstockswhichaffectthe poorest2012/13
Income and poweranalysisof householdsthatworkwithcommoditieswhich
are mostlikelytobe affectedbythe AEC
Identifyinformal trade incommoditiesanditsimpacton the market
National policy
advocacy
Leverage learningwithgovernmentinstitutionsrelatedtotrade,national
development,andpovertyreduction.

41
Bibliography
ASEAN. ASEAN EconomicBlueprint. Frameworkdocument,Jakarta:ASEAN,2009, 59.
—.CEPT ProductProfile. http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-
community/item/cept-product-profile (accessed2013 йил 02-October).
—.“Schedule tothe ASEAN ComprehensiveInvestmentAgreement.” Association of South EastAsian
Nations. 2010. http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community/item/asean-
compehensive-investment-agreement-reservation-list(accessed2013 йил 30-September).
Chandra,AlexanderC,andLucky A Lontoh.“Regional FoodSecurityandTrade PolicyinSoutheast
Asia:The Role of ASEAN.”TradeKnowledgeNetwork (InternationalInstitute forSustainable
Development)PolicyBrief 3(June 2010): 1-7.
Chandra,AlexanderC,LuckyA Lontoh,and Ani Margawati.“The GenderImplicationsof Trade
LiberalizationinSoutheastAsia.”TradeKnowledgeNetwork (International Institute forSustainable
Development),2010: 1-24.
Mikic,Mia. "ASEAN andTrade Integration." "Striving Together:ASEAN &TheUN",ESCAPSeries on
Inclusive& SustainableDevelopment:3. Bangkok:UNESCAP,2009. 1-42.
SouthEast AsianCouncil forFoodSecurityandFair Trade.“ASEAN Updates.” ASEAN-6AchievesZero
Tariffs. Jakarta,2009 йил 31-December.

An examination of the ASEAN Economic Community based on agricultural commodities supported by Oxfam GB across Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to An examination of the ASEAN Economic Community based on agricultural commodities supported by Oxfam GB across Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam

Similar to An examination of the ASEAN Economic Community based on agricultural commodities supported by Oxfam GB across Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam (20)

An examination of the ASEAN Economic Community based on agricultural commodities supported by Oxfam GB across Cambodia Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam