POLICY FOR THE TEAM OF NEGOTIATORS FOR Project funded by the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
policy for the team of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

POLICY FOR THE TEAM OF NEGOTIATORS FOR Project funded by the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 17, 2023 1.63k likes •1.87k views

SHORT TRAINING IN TRADE POLICY FOR THE TEAM OF NEGOTIATORS FOR Project funded by the ETHIOPIAS WTO ACCESSION European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF Module 3: Preparation of offers for

slide-1
SLIDE 1

bkp DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH & CONSULTING Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

SHORT TRAINING IN TRADE POLICY FOR THE TEAM OF NEGOTIATORS FOR ETHIOPIA’S WTO ACCESSION

Derk Bienen

Module 3: Preparation of offers for non-agricultural products

28 - 31 March 2011

Day 2/Session 3 WTO Members’ interests

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Overview – Session 3

1. State of play at the Doha Round

 Actors – Member groupings  Modalities  Flexibilities

  • 2. Recent accessions

 Summary  Individual concessions made: As part of the group work

1

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Working Party Members for Ethiopia’s accession?

  • Might include:

 Australia Brazil  Canada China  Djibouti EC  Egypt India  Japan Kenya  US

  • What are the interests of these countries in Doha

Round NAMA negotiations?

2

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Member groupings in Doha Round NAMA negotiations

  • In groupings, WTO Members with certain common

interests pursue their joint objectives

  • Groupings are typically informal (some are formal)
  • Countries can be members in several groupings
  • Overview of groupings:

 Friends of Ambition  NAMA-11 group of developing countries  "Middle Ground" Group  Least Developed Country (LDC) Group  Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)  Developing countries with low binding coverage ("Paragraph 6" Countries)  Recently Acceded Members (RAMs)  African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP)  African Group

3

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Friends of Ambition

  • Interests:

Members seeking a high level of ambition in NAMA

  • negotiations. This is not a formal group of Members

but rather a categorisation based on these positions traditionally held by these members.

  • Members:

Australia; Canada; European Communities; Japan; Korea; New Zealand; Norway; Switzerland; United States.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Comprehensive concessions

4

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

NAMA-11 group of developing countries

  • Interests:

Members seeking an outcome which ensures sufficient flexibility in tariff reductions and less than full reciprocity with relation to tariff reductions made by the developed countries.

  • Members:

Argentina; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Brazil; Egypt; India; Indonesia; Namibia; Philippines; South Africa; Tunisia.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Allow flexibility

5

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

"Middle Ground" Group

  • Interests:

Group of Members seeking to improve market access conditions into both developed and developing countries while balancing the interests of the two

  • ther groups described above.
  • Members:

Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Mexico; Pakistan; Peru; Singapore and Thailand.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Indifference

6

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Least Developed Country (LDC) Group

  • Interests:

Members seeking to defend the specific interests of LDCs, including to secure duty-free and quota-free market access in developed country markets.

  • Members:

A group of 32 WTO Members: Angola; Bangladesh; Benin; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Central African Republic; Chad; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Djibouti; The Gambia; Guinea; Guinea Bissau; Haiti; Lesotho; Madagascar; Malawi; Maldives; Mali; Mauritania; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nepal; Niger; Rwanda; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Tanzania; Togo; Uganda; Zambia.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Allow flexibility

7

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)

  • Interests:

A group of developing countries seeking consideration of their small, vulnerable economies in tariff reduction modalities.

  • Members:

Barbados; Bolivia; Cuba; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Fiji; Guatemala; Honduras; Jamaica; Mauritius; Mongolia; Nicaragua; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; and Trinidad and Tobago.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Indifference (abstractly supportive)

8

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Developing countries with low binding coverage (a.k.a. "Paragraph 6" Countries)

  • Interests:

Group of developing Members defending the specific interests of countries with a low binding coverage.

  • Members:

Cameroon; Congo; Côte d'Ivoire; Cuba; Ghana; Kenya; Macao, China; Mauritius; Nigeria; Sri Lanka; Suriname; Zimbabwe.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Allow flexibilities

9

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Recently Acceded Members (RAMs)

  • Interests:

Members wishing to secure special provisions to take into account the extensive market access commitments undertaken as part of their accession.

  • Members:

Albania; Armenia; Cape Verde; China, Croatia; Ecuador; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Georgia; Jordan; Kyrgyz Republic; Moldova; Mongolia; Oman; Panama; Saudi Arabia; Chinese Taipei; Tonga; Viet Nam; Ukraine.

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

To be treated similarly to RAMs

10

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP)

  • Interests:

Members wishing to prevent or minimize the erosion

  • f the non-reciprocal preferences received in the EU

and the US; and to ensure that their contribution is commensurate to their level of development.

  • Members:

79 countries

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Largely indifferent, abstract support

11

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

African Group

  • Interests:

A group formed to prevent or minimize the erosion of the non- reciprocal preferences received in the EU and the US; and to ensure that their contribution is commensurate to their level of development.

  • Members:

Angola; Benin; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo; Côte d'Ivoire; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Djibouti; Egypt; Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; Guinea; Guinea- Bissau; Kenya; Lesotho; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Rwanda; Senegal; Sierra Leone; South Africa; Swaziland; Tanzania; Togo; Tunisia; Uganda; Zambia; Zimbabwe

  • Likely position on Ethiopia’s accession:

Allow flexibilities

12

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Member groupings – lessons for Ethiopia

  • Which groups are “friends”, which ones are “foes”?
  • So is this encouraging?

13

“Friends”: flexibility Limited support “Foes”: concessions

  • NAMA-11 group of

developing countries

  • LDCs
  • “Paragraph 6”

countries

  • African Group
  • “Middle Ground”

Group

  • SVEs
  • RAMs
  • ACP
  • Friends of

Ambition

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Member groupings – lessons for Ethiopia

  • Which WP Members are “friends”, which ones are

“foes”? – based on their grouping? The number of “friends” and “foes” in the WP is balanced, foes being the largest WTO Members

14

“Friends”: flexibility Limited support “Foes”: concessions

  • NAMA-11 group of

developing countries: Brazil;

Egypt; India

  • LDC group: Djibouti
  • “Paragraph 6”

countries: China

  • African Group:

Egypt, Kenya

  • “Middle Ground”

Group: China

  • SVEs: ---
  • RAMs: China
  • ACP: Djibouti, Kenya
  • Friends of

Ambition: Australia;

Canada; European Communities; Japan; United States

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Modalities – application of Swiss formula (1)

  • Developed countries (9 Members)

 Apply the Swiss Formula: No flexibilities

  • Developing Countries (84 Members)

 Applying the Formula (Paragraph 7) - (36 Members)

  • Apply the Swiss formula, but can chose in a menu that provides for

combinations of:

  • Higher coefficients (resulting in lower tariff cuts) than that which

shall be applied by developed countries.

  • Choose to leave some tariff lines untouched (i.e. left unbound or

not reduced in its binding) or subject them to smaller reductions.

 Small, Vulnerable Economies – SVEs (Para. 13) (23 Members)

  • Exempt from the application of the Swiss formula. Subject to a

"target average" approach instead.

15

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Modalities – application of Swiss formula (2)

  • Developing Countries (84 Members) – continued

 Members with low binding coverage (Para. 8) (12 Members)

  • Exempt from the application of the Swiss formula. Subject instead to

an increase in their tariff bindings at a certain target average rate.

 Exempt from tariff reductions (13 Members)

  • Not required to contribute further. This category is comprised not only

by some RAMs, but also by two Members who would qualify as SVEs.

 Recently Acceded Members - RAMs (para. 18 – 20)

  • This is a cross-cutting category that overlaps with the This is other
  • nes. RAMs can benefit from the specific flexibilities in the category

for which they qualify.

  • LDCs (32 Members)

 Exempt from tariff reductions

16

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Modalities – current state of the Swiss formula

17

  • Applied on line-by-line basis, with 4 coefficients: 1 for

developed countries, and 3 options for developing countries linked to the flexibilities through a "sliding scale“:

where, t1= Final bound rate of duty t0= Base rate of duty a = 8 = Coefficient for developed Members x = 20, y= 22, z = 25 to be determined as provided in paragraph 7

  • Base rate:

 Bound duties: bound rates after full implementation of current concessions  Unbound: MFN applied rates plus 25 percentage points

   

1

z)

  • r

y

  • r

(x

  • r

a z)

  • r

y

  • r

(x

  • r

a t t t   

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Flexibilities

  • If Ethiopia were a WTO Member, it would qualify to

benefit from flexibilities in the following groups:

 LDC:

  • Flexibility (defensive): no commitment for liberalisation

 SVE

  • Definition: total non-agricultural trade must be less than 0.1

per cent of world trade in the reference period of 1999 to 2001

  • Flexibility

18

If average of non-agricultural tariff lines bound of a Member is: Reduce to a new average of: At or above 50 per cent 30 per cent at or above 30 to 50 per cent 27 per cent at or above 20 to 30 per cent 18 per cent below 20 per cent Minimum line-by-line reduction

  • f 5 per cent on 95 per cent of

lines, or equivalent

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Recent accessions

19

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Project funded by the European Union under its Trade Capacity Building Programme for Ethiopia under the 9th EDF

Accession commitments overview

20

Country name Date of WTO Membership Status Final bound tariff MFN Applied tariff Binding

  • verhang

Binding coverage Final bound tariff MFN Applied tariff Binding

  • verhang

Binding coverage Final bound tariff MFN Applied tariff Binding

  • verhang

Ecuador 21 January 1996 DC 25.6 15 171% 100 21.2 10.7 198% 100 21.7 11.3 192% Mongolia 29 January 1997 DC 18.9 5.1 371% 100 17.3 5 346% 100 17.6 5 352% Panama 06 September 1997 DC 27.7 13.4 207% 100 22.9 6.2 369% 100 23.5 7.2 326% Kyrgyz Republic 20 December 1998 DC 13 7.8 167% 99.9 6.7 4.2 160% 99.9 7.5 4.7 160% Jordan 11 April 2000 DC 23.7 18.1 131% 100 15.2 9.8 155% 100 16.3 10.8 151% Georgia 14 June 2000 DC 13.6 8.3 164% 100 6.5 0.3 2167% 100 7.4 1.4 529% Albania 08 September 2000 DC 9.4 7.8 121% 100 6.6 4.8 138% 100 7 5.2 135% Oman 09 November 2000 DC 28 12.4 226% 100 11.6 4.7 247% 100 13.8 5.7 242% Croatia 30 November 2000 DC 10.8 10.3 105% 100 5.5 4 138% 100 6.2 4.8 129% Moldova 26 July 2001 DC 13.6 11.2 121% 100 6 3.7 162% 100 7 4.7 149% China 11 December 2001 DC 15.8 15.6 101% 100 9.1 8.7 105% 100 10 9.6 104% Taiwan 1 January 2002 NDC 17.8 16.9 105% 100 4.8 4.5 107% 100 6.5 6.1 107% Armenia 5 February 2003 DC 14.7 6.9 213% 100 7.5 2.2 341% 100 8.5 2.9 293% Macedonia, FYR of 04 April 2003 DC 13.2 13.7 96% 100 6.3 6.8 93% 100 7.2 7.7 94% Nepal 23 April 2004 LDC 41.5 14.8 280% 99.3 23.7 12.4 191% 99.4 26 12.7 205% Cambodia 13 October 2004 LDC 28.1 18.1 155% 100 17.7 13.6 130% 100 19 14.2 134% Saudi Arabia 11 December 2005 DC 20.7 7.1 292% 100 10.5 4.9 214% 100 11.8 5.2 227% Viet Nam 11 January 2007 DC 18.5 24.2 76% 100 10.4 15.7 66% 100 11.4 16.8 68% Tonga 27 July 2007 DC 19.2 100 17.3 100 17.6 Ukraine 23 May 2008 DC 11.1 13 85% 100 5 4.4 114% 100 5.8 5.5 105% Cape Verde 23 July 2008 LDC 19.3 12.1 160% 100 15.2 10.2 149% 100 15.8 10.4 152% Agricultural goods Non-Agricultural goods All goods