Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on Friday 26 January 2007 were approved unanimously without amendment.
Matters Arising
To write a position paper on what SITPRO would like to see included in bilateral agreements
The Chairman said that this was linked to Agenda item 4 and that the Secretariat would consider further in the light of discussion under that agenda item.
To pass on to the Group any information heard regarding the EU’s bilateral agreements from EuroChambres
Nothing had so far been heard. The Secretariat would follow up with BCC and report on any information received.
To provide Frank Springate (HMRC) a link to international TF standards and recommendations (UNCTAD and WCO)
Discharged by the Secretariat.
To provide a written report of the Boksburg meeting in Zambia
Circulated in the meeting (see annex A to these minutes). The Group were asked to consider whether the note threw up any ideas for what it might discuss in future and to let the Secretariat know.
Update on Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs)
Duncan Adams (Europe and World Trade Directorate, DTI) updated the Group on the position in each of the current RTAs with South Korea, India and ASEAN. He also noted that there were other agreements in progress with the Andean and Central American countries, but these were not very trade related.
The Korean agreement was progressing most swiftly. Negotiations had been launched in May 2007 and two chapters had been put forward including on services. The UK had sought to influence the European Commission by providing a synthesis of stakeholder views and communicating its own policy position. In particular to promote the removal of all tariff barriers and the selective removal of non-tariff barriers linked to specific interests e.g. Scotch Whisky. The EU’s aim was to equal or improve upon what the US had achieved. The next rounds of negotiation would be in July and September 2007 while the ambitious target was to complete by the end of the year.
With regard to India there had been an informal meeting in May and negotiations were to be launched on 28/29 June. The Indians had distinct offensive interests in services where they had expertise and any intelligence from the Group as to what India was seeking would be welcome. There was however a tension in that they were protective of domestic producers and providers. As a consequence the agreement would take longer to negotiate.
The negotiations with ASEAN had been launched but there had been no discussions as yet. One issue was how to deal with Burma. The UK was clear that Burma could not benefit from the negotiations and there was expectation that ASEAN might do something presentationally to allow Burma in as observers. These negotiations would take even longer than for India and there might need to be variable geometry as between the EU and ASEAN members.
The expectation was that all the agreements would be “WTO plus”, for example including voluntary recognition of EU voluntary procedures and fewer checks and testing. The outcome would have to be reciprocal.
The Group noted the position reached in RTA negotiations. In discussion, the Group suggested that sequencing could be a problem if multilateral negotiations in the WTO framework were not completed before the bilateral negotiations. There was also concern about the MFN principle as regards trade facilitation matters such as customs clearance: was it realistic to suppose that a country could have one set of customs procedures for goods from certain countries and another one for others?
Asked about the EU-Ukraine agreement, Duncan Adams said that the EU’s main target was regional integration with emerging markets. The agreement with the Ukraine was more like an EPA and the big carrot was EU membership.
The Chairman concluded that there was room for more thought and analysis as to what the Group considered should be brought forward to the DTI/Commission negotiators. In particular to what extent trade facilitation security/fast tracking should be carried forward into the RTAs as negotiating objectives. Members were invited to contribute their thoughts and ideas in writing to the Secretariat which would aim to produce a paper for consideration at the next meeting.
Trade Facilitation Progress Report
Mike Edbury ( Europe and World Trade Directorate, DTI) was unable to attend the meeting but had provided an informal report of the proceedings in the Negotiating Group on TF at its meeting on 7-8 June 2007. This was circulated to the Group in the meeting with the proviso that it was not for further distribution (see attached).
The report was noted with thanks. The Chairman noted that any agreement on TF would depend on wider agreement on the Doha development Agenda as a whole. A breakthrough by the G4 was still awaited, and unless the agriculture and NAMA negotiations stuck to the timetable everything would be delayed. The prospects for agreement by the end of June were unclear: the Agriculture Chair was circulating a compromise text and, while this had not been rejected, delegations did not seem optimistic that it would be a basis for agreement. The NAMA Chair was considering circulating a corresponding formula-based text. Services remained a poor third to these (despite being talked up): commitments to existing levels of services liberalisation were all that was realistically expected. The Group noted that a DDA agreement was still possible but that, the more the timetable became extended, the greater the risk of running into the US Presidential calendar.
Turning to the detail of the report, the Group considered specific issues on which its views were sought:
Capacity Building and Technical Assistance:
Concern was expressed that special and differential treatment (S&DT) had no place in an agreement about procedures that would operate to all countries’ advantage and that best endeavours commitments were of little use. Countering this, one member considered that developing countries’ concern was not so much about fear of dispute settlement per se as of dispute settlement if they failed to implement within the specified time limit. Generally this was seen as an implementation issue linked to capacity building. The resources for capacity building had to be available from donors to enable developing countries to implement their commitments. The commitments were a political undertaking and had to be supported by some means to enforce them. One member thought expert conciliation might be a better than dispute settlement as a means to this end. The Group noted that careful checks and balances were likely to be required in the language adopted.
With regard to a responsible body the Group’s view was that the views set out in subparagraph (d) were along the right lines.
US W144
Concerns were expressed that this proposal appeared to benefit the express carriers at the expense of others operating “Just in Time” deliveries to clients by e.g. logistics companies. Developing countries were likely to question the proposal as having no benefit for them. The Group concluded that while the proposal might be superficially attractive there were no good reasons to cater for specific types of trade in the agreement.
US W145
This was largely seen as “motherhood and apple pie”.
Turkish Proposal
The Group noted that currently only three WTO Agreements required an enquiry point (GATS, TBT & SPS) and that there was a good argument for the provision to go wider. The Group felt that, in respect of administrative burdens for trade, a single point of contact was both very useful and a step toward single windows, which SITPRO and the trade supported strongly. However some members were unclear first whether the Turkish proposal was aimed at administrations or traders and secondly whether it was intended that there should be a single website or that the information should be available on-line, whatever the source. The Group noted the need for these aspects to be clarified.
Customs Brokers
The Group considered that, as a point of principle, mandatory use of customs brokers should be opposed. The general logic was that if customs agents were adding value to the transaction, their business would continue; if not, they just added to costs and took money out of the system for e.g. growers in developing countries. It was noted however that the US had a customs broker regime and there was some concern that it could be unhelpful to use too much negotiating collateral against a powerful vested interest. However the point was also made that mandatory regimes were anyway in decline (as being inefficient) and the EU should avoid acquiescing too readily in allowing them to continue.
Consularisation Fees
As with customs brokers, the Group considered that, as a point of principle, a mandatory requirement for consularisation should be opposed. The point was made that consularisation fees did not, of themselves, facilitate trade or provide certainty. Fees were simply a not-so-hidden way of raising revenue. Where there were fees they should be limited by the agreement to a cost recovery basis. There was also a suggestion that a move to self-certification could remove the need for consularisation.
The Negotiating Group on TF: Discussion of Points E,F,I & J Rev 10
E. Appeal procedures
Right of Appeal: the Group supported the EU proposal and made the point that an administrative solution was preferable as a first step in solving disputes and that any system should be simple and predictable.
Release of Goods in Event of Appeal: The Group considered that the proposal was politically motivated and aimed at e.g. the well known Sudan food colourings restrictions and import ban. It was suggested that DTI should contact the FSA and CCP for a policy view if it had not already done so.
Appeal Mechanism in a Customs Union: The Group also considered this to be a politically motivated step aimed at the EU (related to point 2 above and following on from the recent case brought by the US). That said, the Group accepted that, in relation to Customs procedures, SITPRO had long argued that as a minimum there should be consistency between one EU member state and another.
F. Other Measures to Enhance Impartiality, Non-Discrimination and Transparency
Uniform Administration of Trade Regulations: this was supported by the Group.
Maintenance and Reinforcement etc: the Group strongly endorsed this.
Import Alerts/Rapid Alerts: the Group noted that this appeared to go much wider that trade facilitation and even trade policy, as it appeared to relate to the Community’s RAPEX system for unsafe products which was operated independently by the member states. The Group recommended that EWT should take advice from CCP, STRD and FSA.
Detention: as (3) above
Test procedures: as (3) above
I. Consularisation
The Group noted that this was covered by its views on consularisation fees (agenda item 5 above).
J. Border Agency Cooperation
The Group supported co-ordination of activities and co-operation of border control agencies (not just Customs). In the Group’s view these needed to be the subject of provisions stronger than a best endeavours clause, although there were some doubts as to how dispute resolution might apply in this area .
ICC Recommendation for a WTO Agreement on TF – Draft paper
Iain MacVay introduced the ICC paper calling for TF to be taken out of the Single Undertaking as an early harvest of work included in the Doha Round. The paper was not yet finalised and comments were encouraged to be sent in writing to the Secretariat by the end of the week (15 June 2007).
Raising the Political profile of TF
The Group noted that TF had achieved a degree of visibility. It had however taken a long time to detach trade facilitation from the other so-called Singapore issues and there was a need to remain sensitive to developing country sensibilities despite TF being portrayed as “a win-win” and despite the negotiations being much less controversial than they had previously been. There was also a danger of TF being hostage to the future of the agriculture negotiations. Against this background the Group felt that more could be made of the potential economic gains from an agreement and that the potential mutual advantages could be promoted more vigorously without raising the political profile. The Group also felt that the profile of TF and the linked requirement for capacity building needed to be raised with donors in order to get a more effective outcome: the need for this was urgent.
The Chairman invited further comments by the end of the week (15 June 2007)
Implementation issues
Due to the late hour the Chairman suggested that the Group should come back to this point at its next meeting.
Any Other Business
GATS Working Party on Domestic Regulation Disciplines on Domestic Regulation
The Chairman drew the Group’s attention to the proposed Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the informal Note from the Chairman of the GATS Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR). These offered LDCs a complete exemption from the Disciplines, and suggested the developing countries should apply the Disciplines on a best endeavours basis. One member contrasted this approach with the innovative approach in the TF negotiations linking implementation of commitments to capacity building.
Date of Next Meeting
To be arranged.
Graham Bartlett
Secretariat
Return to Policy Groups: TFAAG
