【TPP関連海外ニュース】TPP交渉、日本参加せずとも年内妥結困難か

【TPP関連海外ニュース】TPP交渉、日本参加せずとも年内妥結困難か

まず一本目の記事ですが、国内の参加表明騒ぎとは裏腹にTPPシンガポール会合関係者
からはTPP交渉が年内妥結困難な可能性についてメディアにではじめています。最も難
航する繊維分野や知的財産権分野で交渉が進んでいないためです。医薬品などが大きな
争点となっている知的財産権分野では米国は今回会合で新しい提案書を提出せず議論が
ほとんど進みませんでした。
残り5月のペルー会合と9月の米国会合しか年内予定されておらず、その二回で議論を収
斂させるのは難しいのではないか、という状況です。参加表明後は、TPP交渉自体を自
ら瓦解させる必要があるので、こうした情勢の分析は不可欠になってきます。

2本目の記事は、相変わらずの内容なのですが、日本の参加で交渉妥結が遅れる、協定
の水準が下がるというものです。
両方Inside　US　Tradeの記事です。とりいそぎ第一報ということでご理解ください。

Negotiations Expert: Even Without Japan, TPP Hard To Conclude This Year

Posted: March 12, 2013

SINGAPORE ? Even if Japan does not join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) n
egotiations in the near term, it will be difficult for the 11 participating co
untries to reach a deal by the end of this year due to the number of issues th
at are still outstanding and the fact that there are only two more negotiating
rounds scheduled before October ? the target date for wrapping up an agreeme
nt, according to a trade negotiations expert closely following the talks.

In a March 11 interview here, Deborah Elms, who heads the Temasek Foundation C
entre for Trade and Negotiations (TFCTN) at Nanyang Technical University, said
the main reason it will be hard to strike an agreement this year is the fact
that there is too much time-intensive work left in the area of textiles and ap
parel and on U.S.-Vietnam market access.

This is on top of the outstanding rules-related issues that are also difficult
to resolve given the domestic sensitivities they invoke, such as intellectual
property protections for pharmaceuticals, Elms said. In her role, she provide
s technical assistance and training for trade negotiators in Asia.

If the negotiations are not concluded at the October meeting of leaders on the
sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, it is unlike
ly that they would be concluded before the end of the year, she said. Nearly a
ll major TPP announcements have happened at APEC summits and leaders’ calenda
rs are very tight at the end of the year, Elms argued.

But she held out the possibility that, even if the TPP talks are not concluded
yet, leaders could “declare victory” and then have negotiators spend additi
onal time to complete the talks under the guise of “legal scrubbing.”

Elms acknowledged that the chances for wrapping up TPP might be improved if pa
rticipating countries agree to schedule an additional round of negotiations in
July.

The calendar initially set by TPP negotiators for this year only foresaw negot
iating rounds in March, May and September (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 7). But the
re has been constant speculation among stakeholders that negotiators may sched
ule an intervening round in July, possibly in Canada.

In general, Elms argued that completing the market access negotiations will be
much more time-intensive than finishing negotiations in the other TPP chapter
s that lay down rules in such areas as intellectual property rights (IPR), lab
or, environment and competition.

But that is not to say that the rules provisions will be easier to negotiate,
she said, noting that many of these issues such as pharmaceutical IPR protecti
ons are sensitive, political issues. But these issues can be less time-consumi
ng because they often involve missing pieces in a text, such as the length of
data exclusivity for biologic drugs.

When confronted with straightforward options like these, it is easier for nego
tiators to come to the table having already worked out several possible positi
ons they make take depending what their counterparts put forward.

“So to me those are difficult, and they’re politically sensitive and all of
that, but they’re less time consuming to resolve than the market access, the
textiles,” she said.

On textiles and apparel, Elms said she did not expect this issue to be resolve
d at the current round here, even though the U.S. was hoping to present some i
nitial proposals for items that it wants to include on two short-supply lists
of yarns and fabrics that could be sourced from outside the TPP region for app
arel that can enter the U.S. duty free.

U.S. apparel importer sources here said they were not aware that U.S. trade of
ficials had made any proposals for the short-supply lists during this round, a
lthough they did not rule out that possibility.

At the December round in Auckland, the U.S. floated the idea of the two short
supply lists ? one temporary and one permanent ? as a way to provide some fl
exibility from the restrictive yarn-forward rule of origin it has proposed in
the talks. Vietnam opposes such a rule because it would make it harder for its
apparel exports to the U.S. to qualify for TPP tariff preferences.

In a related development, Vietnam has refused to budge in areas where the U.S.
is seeking greater access to the Vietnamese market, such as agricultural and
industrial goods.

At this point, the U.S. is unlikely to present a complete short-supply proposa
l until the May round, Elms said. At that time, Vietnam is not likely to agree
to it on the spot and would have to go back to its government and industry to
consult, she added. That means a Vietnamese counterproposal would not likely
come until the September round, and even if there is a breakthrough at that ro
und, the U.S. and Vietnam would still have to resolve remaining market access
issues that have been stalled as a result of the textile fight.

“There are other areas that are held up right now pending the resolution of t
extiles,” Elms said. “And so timewise I don’t think one round, effectively
September, would be enough time to actually resolve those issues.”

Further complicating the issue is the fact that other countries may propose it
ems to be added to the short-supply lists. In that case, the U.S. would likely
have to bring those suggestions back to its textile industry in order to vet
them, according to one textile industry source.

Elms sought to illustrate the sheer quantity of work that still remains to be
done in U.S.-Vietnam market access by pointing out that, going into this round
, the U.S. “undefined basket” — which typically includes the most sensitive
tariff lines where the length of the phaseout is not yet determined — had ro
ughly 1,000 items. The other four baskets in the U.S. market access offer are
immediate tariff elimination, five-year phaseout and 10-year phaseout.

Also outstanding are several complex legal issues related to how the TPP will
relate to existing bilateral FTAs between the parties, and these will take tim
e to work out, Elms argued. First, TPP parties will have to determine whether
the agreement will include tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for agricultural goods, a
nd whether TRQs in existing bilateral FTAs will remain in place.

The U.S. is not negotiating market access with any of the TPP countries with w
hich it already has an FTA, with the exception of Canada. Presumably, existing
TRQs could remain in place if parties agreed, although that would mean tariff
s on the products they cover would not go to zero as is the objective in TPP.

The second legal issue related to market access is how TPP countries will actu
ally implement the agreement given that it will create a complex web of pluril
ateral and bilateral preferential tariff levels.

While the stated goal of TPP is to have all tariffs go to zero eventually, the
re will be differing U.S. tariff levels during the implementation period due t
o the bilateral FTAs already in place. For instance, an apparel product from P
eru would enter at a duty rate established under the U.S.-Peru FTA, while an a
pparel product entering from Vietnam would enter at a potentially different du
ty rate under the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral market access schedule that will be d
one as part of TPP.

One clear example of this inconsistency is for goods that may never see their
tariffs go to zero. This could be the case for Australian and Peruvian sugar i
mports to the U.S., both of which are subject to TRQs under bilateral FTAs. Th
e U.S. has thus far refused to negotiate with Australia on sugar in TPP.

Elms acknowledged that one possible solution to this problem of differing tari
ff levels is to implement a marking system similar to the one used to distingu
ish goods from Canada and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(Inside U.S. Trade, Sept. 24, 2010).

Those marking rules were needed because the U.S. had already negotiated one ta
riff schedule with Canada in their bilateral FTA and then negotiated a differe
nt one with Mexico, although both were eventually brought into alignment.

Inside U.S. Trade

Daily News

Expert Says Japan Entry Would Delay TPP, But May Not Lower Ambition

Posted: March 12, 2013

—

SINGAPORE — Japan’s entry into the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiatio
ns will not automatically reduce the level of ambition in the negotiations bec
ause its effort to protect sensitive products does not differ much from that o
f current participants to do the same, but it will further slow the negotiatio
ns that are already difficult to conclude this year, according to a trade nego
tiations expert here.

Deborah Elms, who heads the Temasek Foundation Centre for Trade and Negotiatio
ns and provides technical assistance to Asian trade negotiators in that role,
said the scheduled September round could potentially be the first time Japan i
s at the table.

Even if Japan agreed to sign off on everything that has been negotiated up to
that point, which is questionable, there will still be outstanding issues at t
he September round that need to be discussed along with additional work to bri
ng Japan into the fold, she speculated.

If Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announces his intent to join the TPP this week, t
he earliest Japan will be able to formally enter the talks is July, she said.
The next negotiating round scheduled after that date is September, unless coun
tries agree to hold an additional round in July.

Once Japan announces its intent to join, all current TPP participants have to
agree to this expansion, and Japan would have to wait out a 90-day consultatio
n period that is part of the U.S. internal procedure for beginning trade negot
iations with a new country.

Elms argued that it is worth slowing down the TPP negotiations in order to bri
ng in Japan due its economic importance. She also backed the widely held notio
n that, once Japan joins TPP, South Korea will also seek to join. This is in p
art because South Korea already has agreements with all TPP partners except Ja
pan, and would therefore likely view the TPP as a good opportunity to secure m
arket access to Japan, Elms said.

She noted that any effort by Japan to protect sensitive agricultural goods lik
e rice would not be that different from the positions being taken by other TPP
partners, including the United States. She pointed out that the U.S. has “to
ns of exceptions” it is seeking in the TPP, including on sugar, maritime cabo
tage, air travel and sub-federal level procurement.

Elms said that she could not say for sure that Japan’s participation would mea
n no exclusions, but also noted that it’s uncertain whether there will be no e
xclusions even if Japan does not join. She also pointed out that once Japan en
ters the negotiations, it may be difficult for it to truly protect its sensiti
ve sectors because other TPP partners may adopt a tactical position of refusin
g additional market access for Japanese autos or electronics unless it budges
on agriculture.

Overall, Elms said she believes the TPP will come close to fully liberalizing
trade in goods, but will not reach the goal of 100 percent tariff elimination.
“I know people will be very depressed about that, and they will say you have
failed at this initiative,” she said.

But she likened it to telling a child they will only be successful if they ach
ieve an A+ on his or her report card. “You have to say … I would like an A+,
the closer you get on an A+ the happier I am, but if you’re not all the way
to an A+ and 100 percent, I’ll still love you in the morning.”