Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of British Columbia recently wrote a column for Troy Media on the virtues of the Canada-European Union free trade deal. He listed five reasons why he thinks the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, should be ratified as soon as possible. But there are at least as many [...]
Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of British Columbia recently wrote a column for Troy Media on the virtues of the Canada-European Union free trade deal. He listed five reasons why he thinks the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, should be ratified as soon as possible.
But there are at least as many reasons why Prime Minister Stephen Harper should walk away from the CETA negotiations. Most relate to the ways that CETA is not about trade at all but about making dubious policy reforms that constrain our economic, social and environmental policy options in the future.
First of all, a procurement chapter in the Canada-EU deal would forbid the provinces and cities from favouring local goods and services in transit, hydro and other large infrastructure projects. Say goodbye to the 25 per cent local content rule on subway purchases in Toronto or Montreal, which creates spinoff benefits for local manufacturing. Buy local food policies in public buildings and cafeterias could also be banned.
More than 50 Canadian municipalities and municipal associations have asked to be excluded from CETA for these reasons. The backlash is not about favouring Canadian over European companies but about giving up the ability to use public spending to achieve local or sustainable development objectives. The losers will be small- and medium-sized companies that benefit from this kind of strategic procurement.
Second, we know the EU will not accept a deal with Canada that does not extend patent protections on brand-name pharmaceuticals. Even the federal government estimates the changes could increase drug costs in Canada by up to $2 billion annually by keeping cheaper generics off the market for longer. Undoubtedly this cost will be offloaded to consumers who already pay too much for prescription drugs in Canada. Continue reading »
As forecasters continue to downgrade their near-term projections for the global economy, many countries are stepping up efforts to conclude new trade agreements with key commercial partners. In just the past four months, the United States has announced that it wants to reach a free trade accord with the European Union, Japan has joined the [...]
As forecasters continue to downgrade their near-term projections for the global economy, many countries are stepping up efforts to conclude new trade agreements with key commercial partners.
In just the past four months, the United States has announced that it wants to reach a free trade accord with the European Union, Japan has joined the discussions taking place under the rubric of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and work on trade liberalization has accelerated among the members of the Association of Southeast East Asian Nations.
The backdrop for these regional negotiations is both a soft world economy and an ever diminishing prospect of finalizing a major new global trade deal through the long-stalled World Trade Organization (WTO) talks – the so-called “Doha Round.” The WTO process has essentially broken down, overwhelmed by the complexity of the contemporary multilateral trade agenda and by the inherent difficulty of achieving consensus among the 150 plus countries that comprise the WTO’s increasingly fractious membership.
Where does Canada fit within this evolving global commercial policy landscape? Canada is part of the ongoing the TPP process. In addition, Ottawa has inked a draft free trade agreement with South Korea, although it has yet to give a clear signal that it is committed to ratifying or implementing it. We are also participating in preliminary talks with India and Japan aimed at fashioning bilateral trade agreements with these important nations. But the most significant trade negotiation in which Canada is currently engaged is that with the European Union (EU) to establish a new Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Continue reading »
Governments are facing a series of “convergence challenges” on the future of the international trading system, according to a report issued on Wednesday by a 12-member panel convened by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy. The report – which was issued under the Director-General’s own responsibility – marked the conclusion of a process that was announced at [...]
Governments are facing a series of “convergence challenges” on the future of the international trading system, according to a report issued on Wednesday by a 12-member panel convened by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy.
The report – which was issued under the Director-General’s own responsibility – marked the conclusion of a process that was announced at the global trade body’s 2011 ministerial conference. The panel that prepared the report was made up of 12 members from the business sector and civil society, and had been tasked with identifying 21st century trade challenges.
The report – which takes a medium to long-term view of the trading system’s challenges – provides “food for thought” for both WTO members and other stakeholders, the Director-General told a packed conference room at the organisation’s headquarters in Geneva.
The 40-page document is divided into three chapters: one on the state of trade and its contributions to growth and development; the second on the “transformational factors” of the current global economy that have, in turn, shaped trade; and a third on the panel’s recommendations for potential action.
Click here to read a full outline of the report.
The full report The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence can be accessed by clicking here.
Source: Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest | ICTSD
With President Obama’s announcement in February 2013 that the United States will be launching trade negotiations with the European Union (“EU”) this summer, the pressure is on for Canada and the EU to complete the Canada European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”) negotiations. Both Parties are said to be engaged in intense negotiations. [...]
With President Obama’s announcement in February 2013 that the United States will be launching trade negotiations with the European Union (“EU”) this summer, the pressure is on for Canada and the EU to complete the Canada European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”) negotiations. Both Parties are said to be engaged in intense negotiations. Political choices may be inevitable in an agreement of this size and complexity.
This bulletin highlights five key areas of ongoing negotiations with significant implications for Canadian businesses: government procurement, financial services, investor protection, IP for pharmaceuticals, and rules of origin. We address strategic considerations.
Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory [...]
Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory protectionism harms the U.S. economy and violates our trade obligations.
A number of factors combine to explain the rise in regulatory protectionism. Economic globalization has provided Americans with access to a wide range of imported products. This has enabled consumers to demand not only high-quality products at low cost but also products that are produced according to consumers’ philosophical or ethical preferences. Simultaneously, domestic producers seeking protection from this influx of imports must find alternative shelters now that the use of tariffs and quotas is constrained by international law and economic good sense. The consequence is a perfect storm in which social welfare activists and special commercial interests join forces to promote regulatory regimes that unfairly and unnecessarily restrict imports.
There is already a system of laws in place to prevent regulatory protectionism. The rules of the international trading system recognize that domestic laws can be just as protectionist as tariffs. Many of the disciplines of World Trade Organization (WTO) law are embedded in the rules U.S. administrative agencies follow when setting new regulations.
But the U.S. government must take its WTO obligations more seriously. Prior to implementing a new regulation, federal agencies should be required to evaluate the possibility that less trade-restrictive alternatives could meet regulatory goals as effectively as their preferred proposal. Also, the U.S. government should not dilute or bypass the multilateral rules of the WTO through bilateral or regional negotiations that accept managed protectionism.
This paper uses a number of recent examples of protectionist regulations to show that the enemies of regulatory protectionism are transparency and vigilance. Policymakers should be skeptical of regulatory proposals backed by the target domestic industry and of proposals that lack a plausible theory of market failure. These are red flags that the proposal is the product of privilege-seeking special interests disguised as altruistic consumer advocates.
Click here to download the policy analysis.
Source: K. William Watson and Sallie James | Cato Institute
The following is excerpted from the 12 June 2012 edition of Embassy Magazine. Heading into a third round of talks toward a free trade deal with Canada, Morocco’s foreign minister says he’s happy with the progress so far and “will not negotiate to destroy any one sector.” Both economies should benefit, says Saad Dine El [...]
The following is excerpted from the 12 June 2012 edition of Embassy Magazine.
Heading into a third round of talks toward a free trade deal with Canada, Morocco’s foreign minister says he’s happy with the progress so far and “will not negotiate to destroy any one sector.”
Both economies should benefit, says Saad Dine El Otmani.
This article is available in its entirety here (subscription required).
So many negotiations, so little time… As Canada starts working on the second phase of its Global Commerce Strategy, trade experts say that the Harper government has to take a careful look at its strategy for negotiating trade agreements. “Our Government will aim to complete negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union [...]
So many negotiations, so little time…
As Canada starts working on the second phase of its Global Commerce Strategy, trade experts say that the Harper government has to take a careful look at its strategy for negotiating trade agreements.
“Our Government will aim to complete negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union by 2012. It will also seek to complete negotiations on a free trade agreement with India in 2013. In all international forums and bilateral negotiations, our Government will continue to stand up for Canadian farmers and industries by defending supply management.”
Overly ambitious? What we do know is that these forecasts in the June 2011 Throne Speech have not always matched reality. Negotiations between the EU and Canada have yet to be concluded, and on a recent trade trip to India, Prime Minister Harper was forced to recognize the slow pace of trade talks aimed at boosting trade with the world’s largest democracy. And while Ottawa has officially made its way into discussions concerning a potential Transpacific Partnership, more and more Canadians are adamantly demanding an end to supply management, which is the backbone of much of Canada’s farming industry.
This is the backdrop against which International Trade Minister Ed Fast, last May, mandated a panel of leaders from the business world to advise him on how to proceed in the coming years. He is expected to unveil his new Global Commerce Strategy within the next few months.
The most recent draft of the White Paper on Canadian international trade dates back to 2007. At the time, the persistent deadlock in the Doha round of trade talks signalled a shift away from the multilateral approach, and Canada dove into a series of bilateral and regional negotiations. Those efforts produced a half dozen free-trade agreements with some 10 countries as well as a dozen foreign investment promotion and protection treaties, most notably one with China last year.
So what might the next step be? Should the government continue along the same path? Or has it gone too far, too fast? Should Canada take the time to better gauge its needs and the risks associated with such an intensive agenda? Lawyers and other experts weigh in.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: Hugo de Grandpré — CBA National
Birgit Matthiesen is currently the Senior Advisor, US Government Relations, to the President for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. In this capacity, Mrs. Matthiesen is the association’s point person in the U.S. to advocate trade and economic issues on behalf of Canada’s manufacturing and export interests. She is also a member of the Global [...]
Birgit Matthiesen is currently the Senior Advisor, US Government Relations, to the President for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. In this capacity, Mrs. Matthiesen is the association’s point person in the U.S. to advocate trade and economic issues on behalf of Canada’s manufacturing and export interests. She is also a member of the Global Business Dialogue’s Board of Advisers and recently spoke at a GBD members’ lunch about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its impact on government procurement. While this was an off-the-record session, Ms. Matthiesen agreed to allow staff of the GBD’s TTalk online publication share some of what she said.
Although we don’t know exactly what the Government Procurement chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations contains, two things seem clear, however. The first is that there were robust procurement discussions surrounding the TPP when there were only nine countries negotiating. And the second is that Canada’s participation in TPP going forward will give those discussions a new dimension.
As to the pre-Canada phase, we were struck by a report in Japan Press Weekly from September 2011, which opened this way:
“U.S. major corporations are trying to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) framework as a golden opportunity to enter the government procurement markets of other countries.”
The article went on to cite an earlier letter to the Obama administration from ECAT – the Emergency Committee for American Trade – which emphasized the role government procurement plays in many economies, including, presumably, such key TPP countries as Vietnam and Malaysia. Canada, of course, wasn’t part of the TPP negotiations then; along with Mexico, it didn’t become a TPP negotiating partner until last fall. And when Canada looks at government procurement – or at least when CME does – it is through the prism of their experience in the U.S. market, and especially the darker colors of the American Recovery and Improvement Act of 2009. That legislation, and subsequent bills that have copied it in important respects, included a protectionist feature that was devastating to many Canadian firms. In a nutshell, it obligated state and local agencies – water management authorities, for example – to follow buy American policies that were new to them. The effect was to lock some Canadian companies out of markets they had supplied for years.
Ironically, and because of U.S. commitments in existing agreements, some of the “buy American” conditions that local authorities were asked to impose would not have been available to the Federal agencies demanding them if they themselves had been the purchasing authorities. In TPP, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters see an opportunity to remedy that problem. As Ms. Matthiesen explained, one way to strengthen the procurement rules through TPP would be “to prohibit restrictions imposed on the financial assistance that one level of government provides to another level of government.”
With the foregoing as a goal, CME has suggested language to the Canadian Government that it hopes Canada’s negotiators will urge on their TPP counterparts from other countries. It reads as follows:
“Where an entity listed in [XXX] of a Party’s Schedule provides financial assistance to another entity the primary purpose of which is to provide for the procurement of construction services, the entity providing the assistance shall not make the assistance contingent upon the use of domestic goods over goods from any other Party”
The concern expressed by the CME in this regard touches on a persistent theme in the North American trade dialogue and a contentious issue long-familiar to Canadian diplomats.
What struck us as much as the preceding arguments about U.S. policy was Ms. Matthiesen’s larger point about government procurement generally and infrastructure projects in particular. She talked about the aging infrastructure of North America. Canada and the United States are both riddled with roads, bridges, and water systems that urgently need to be upgraded or replaced. Conversely, she also spoke about the dramatic requirement for new infrastructure systems throughout emerging markets such as India, China etc., to meet exponentially rising demand.
Ms. Matthiesen’s assessment that there is no clear horizon for government procurement spending is both an unassailable proposition and a powerful argument in favor of the need for creative proposals and future-oriented compromises on procurement in TPP and other trade negotiations.
A secret foreign policy document obtained by CBC News suggests that the Harper government should hasten its pace in forging trade deals with China and other emerging economies. “Our influence and credibility with some of these new and emerging powers is not as strong as it needs to be and could be,” the document reads. [...]
A secret foreign policy document obtained by CBC News suggests that the Harper government should hasten its pace in forging trade deals with China and other emerging economies.
“Our influence and credibility with some of these new and emerging powers is not as strong as it needs to be and could be,” the document reads.
“Canada’s trade and investment relations with new economies, leading with Asia, must deepen, and as a country we must become more relevant to our new partners,” it said.
The document also mentions Africa as place with a fast growing middle class. “The fact remains that, over time, African countries have the potential to challenge the likes of Brazil and China as major investment destinations,” it said.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: CBC News
Update: Secret Conservative Foreign Policy Document Draws Fire
Customs regulatory developments and enforcement are on the rise in many Asian countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, as pressure grows to increase customs revenue collections. Failure to be informed and plan ahead in this evolving and complex area can result in border delays, stiff penalties, increased risk of inspections and customs [...]
Customs regulatory developments and enforcement are on the rise in many Asian countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, as pressure grows to increase customs revenue collections. Failure to be informed and plan ahead in this evolving and complex area can result in border delays, stiff penalties, increased risk of inspections and customs audits, and missed production or delivery deadlines.
Multinationals willing to succeed in Asia and international trade face evolving and complex tax and customs regulations. Enforcement cases are high-profile, audits are on the rise, and yesterdays’ knowledge simply isn’t enough to make the right trade compliance decisions today.
After the tremendous success of its inaugural Asia Customs Compliance Summit in June 2011 and its flagship trade compliance conferences in Europe and the United States, ACI and C5 Group are proud to announce the 2nd Advanced Singapore Summit on Asia Customs Compliance.
The unique conference was specifically designed for Asia trade compliance executives, accountants and attorneys, and will provide a comprehensive Asia customs compliance roadmap to meet your company’s operational challenges on a country by country basis. Benefit from the experience of senior customs executives from the high technology, automotive, consumer products, life sciences and manufacturing industries. Gain practical tips on:
- How to import used equipment in China and the Philippines
- How to spot opportunities under the ASEAN-China FTA and ensure communication between procurement, tax, and global trade compliance departments
- How to respond to customs violations in Thailand
- Calculating transfer price v. custom value on related party transactions in China
- How a multinational should organize staff and what is expected of customs and trade professionals in each country
- Implementing compliance procedures based on Korea-US FTA and Korea-EU FTA ratification
Participants will also receive comprehensive materials prepared by the speakers especially for this conference. These are invaluable reference materials which you will use again and again long after the conference is over.
Date: Monday, February 25 to Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Location: Singapore Marriott Hotel, Singapore
Register now to ensure your place at this unique customs compliance benchmarking event in Singapore. Call +1 416 926 8200 in the US, or +44 20 7878 6888 in Europe, or register online.
In the current global economic downturn, many companies have been hit hard with falling orders and rising costs – a double whammy so to speak. For the immediate short term, there does not appear to be an end in sight to the bad economic news. Many companies are looking to reduce costs, but often neglect [...]
In the current global economic downturn, many companies have been hit hard with falling orders and rising costs – a double whammy so to speak. For the immediate short term, there does not appear to be an end in sight to the bad economic news. Many companies are looking to reduce costs, but often neglect to review their international trade activities. There are certainly savings to be made here.
Customs duty and other import-related taxes can be manageable costs, if you assess your operations to determine the different elements. Many companies don’t know the true extent of their import duties and taxes, simply because they are often hidden in the Cost of Goods Sold account. For some companies, the true cost may be higher than the corporate tax cost, particularly during a downturn when profits are reduced.
You can start by looking at your cross border transactions for the past year, which will give you a good snapshot of your international trade activities and costs. Next, you can take proactive steps to determine if these costs can be legitimately reduced, and how best to accomplish it.
Here are a few key areas you may consider reviewing:
Many companies do not take full advantage of available bilateral and multilateral preferential trade agreements, due to concerns about liability for errors, complex qualification rules, increased compliance burden and risks, or just a lack of awareness of the opportunity. A well-structured claim for preferential tariff treatment can provide huge cost savings, particularly as the ASEAN rules have been amended to make qualification more straightforward and potentially simpler.
Click here to read the complete article.
Source:
Michael Fung | PricewaterhouseCoopers WMS Pte Ltd.
Business World Online
Writing at the Worldtradelaw website, Simon Lester draws attention to a painfully ironic contradiction embedded in the leaked Regulatory Coherence chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) regional free-trade agreement which states: Each Party should ensure that covered regulatory measures are plainly written, clear, concise, well organized and easy to understand, recognizing that some measures address technical [...]
Writing at the Worldtradelaw website, Simon Lester draws attention to a painfully ironic contradiction embedded in the leaked Regulatory Coherence chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) regional free-trade agreement which states:
Each Party should ensure that covered regulatory measures are plainly written, clear, concise, well organized and easy to understand, recognizing that some measures address technical issues and that relevant expertise may be needed to understand and apply them.
Lester asks, “…can anyone tell me with a straight face that the Regulatory Coherence chapter itself is ‘plainly written, clear, concise, well organized and easy to understand’?”
In order to put this query to the test, let’s have a look at a paragraph of the preamble to Article X2 of the proposed Regulatory Coherence guidelines:
The Parties recognize that regulatory coherence can be facilitated through domestic mechanisms that increase inter-ministerial consultation and coordination associated with processes for developing regulatory measures of general application. The Parties further recognize that engagement among Parties on regulatory matters can be enhanced through ensuring that information on regulatory measures is centrally collected and widely disseminated. Accordingly, each Party shall endeavor to ensure that it has a process or mechanism to facilitate central coordination and review of certain new regulatory measures (“covered regulatory measures”) at the central level of government, and should consider establishing and maintaining a national coordinating body for this purpose. Each Party should determine the scope of covered regulatory measures on the basis of criteria made available to the public, whether through law, regulation or other measures. Recognizing that each Party may determine the appropriate scope of covered regulatory measures, it should ensure that coverage is significant and not arbitrarily limited in order to avoid application of this Chapter.
Well, there you go. How much more “plainly written, clear, concise and… easy to understand” can one get than that?
When the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] first came into being in 1948, regional arrangements were considered exceptional. Indeed, it was not until the beginnings of the European integration process in the 1950s that a significant part of international trade was to become preferential. In the ensuing years, several other preferential agreements were [...]
When the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] first came into being in 1948, regional arrangements were considered exceptional. Indeed, it was not until the beginnings of the European integration process in the 1950s that a significant part of international trade was to become preferential. In the ensuing years, several other preferential agreements were established, but it was not until the 1980s that they started to become the significant component of world trade that it is today. The major increment in the number of agreements came in the 1990s. We can count almost 400 preferential trade agreements currently in existence, and each member of the WTO on average belongs to 13 separate agreements.
A number of reasons can be adduced to explain their rising and continuing. They may serve political or strategic ends. Countries may wish to go further and faster in the direction of economic integration than they have been able to do in the WTO. They may be motivated by a fear of exclusion as competing countries secure better access to markets of interest. They may be an insurance policy against future protectionism. They may act as a signalling device to attract foreign investment. They may also serve as a vehicle for policy consolidation nationally, using an international obligation to make it harder for domestic interests to exert an influence over trade policy.
Canada and China this week released a study that examines the “economic complementarities” that exist between the two countries as part of a broader effort to expand bilateral trade and economic relations. According to a press release by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the study provides a broad overview of the Canadian and Chinese [...]
Canada and China this week released a study that examines the “economic complementarities” that exist between the two countries as part of a broader effort to expand bilateral trade and economic relations. According to a press release by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the study provides a broad overview of the Canadian and Chinese economies and bilateral trade relations and examines seven economic sectors in greater depth. These sectors are agriculture and agri-food (including fish and seafood), clean technology and environmental goods and services, machinery and equipment, natural resources and derived products, services, transportation infrastructure and aerospace, and textiles and related goods.
The study concludes that the Canadian and Chinese governments should continue to deepen and strengthen bilateral trade and investment ties through appropriate bilateral instruments to ensure that citizens in both countries can continue to build a prosperous and sustainable future. Minister of International Trade Ed Fast indicated that the Canadian government is “carefully reviewing the information contained in the study” and “considering its findings.”
China is Canada’s second-largest single-nation trading partner with two-way merchandise trade of $65 billion last year. Canadian exports to China grew by 27% last year while imports from the mainland increased 8%. The Harper government has identified China as a priority market under its Global Commerce Strategy and has declared that advancing Canada’s trade and investment interests with that country is “key to the future and prosperity of Canadians.”
Remarks by British Ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott to the Washington International Trade Association – July 25, 2012: A deep, comprehensive, state of the art free trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States is, in my view, both the greatest challenge and the biggest prize on the trade policy market today. [...]
Remarks by British Ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott to the Washington International Trade Association – July 25, 2012:
A deep, comprehensive, state of the art free trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States is, in my view, both the greatest challenge and the biggest prize on the trade policy market today.
It is a chance for us to set the standard for 21st century free trade agreements—a chance to shape the progress of globalisation as opposed to being shaped by it. And the political stars are aligned within the EU in a way they may not be again for some time. We cannot let the opportunity slip through our fingers.
It is difficult to overstate the potential of this project. The combined EU-US GDP—over thirty-two trillion dollars as of last year—accounts for nearly half the world’ output. Our trade and investment relationship is of similarly staggering size: bilateral trade between the EU and US reached $989 billion last year, and our combined bilateral investment stocks approached $3.5 trillion.
The EU-US High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, co-chaired by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, has been exploring what is possible since last November. Last month its interim report noted:
“… a comprehensive transatlantic trade and investment agreement, if achievable, is the option that has the greatest potential for supporting jobs and promoting growth and competitiveness across the Atlantic.”
Despite the low level of our current tariffs, the huge size of our commercial relationship means that the potential economic benefits would be far greater than from any prior free trade agreement. Estimates suggest that a comprehensive deal covering goods, agriculture, services, investment, government procurement and regulatory co-operation would be worth two to three percent in GDP gains to the EU and the US. Irresistible at a time when growth is so stubbornly low and fragile. That’s why the UK has been at the forefront of pressing the case. . . .
An EU-US free trade agreement is not a magic bullet for Europe. Nor is it a cop-out from the Eurozone’s problems. The Eurozone is, incrementally, dealing with its sovereign debt and banking crisis, and its structural imbalances. Trade is the best tool we have in the kit bag to put growth into gear. We will put our economies back on a path that is sustainable—and at minimal cost to the taxpayer, who is already feeling the burden of the economic downturn and continued uncertainty.
Right now, there are trillions of dollars in the global economy sitting around doing nothing but lose value. If we restore businesses’ confidence in market certainty and global stability—if we open up new markets for their goods and services —we unleash the potential of the free market and business’ investment.
Source: British Embassy
Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative posted two announcements in the Federal Register requesting input from the public and stakeholder groups on how its Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) negotiating priorities should be updated in light of the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the list of TPP member countries. Instructions for participation online, or in person, [...]
Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative posted two announcements in the Federal Register requesting input from the public and stakeholder groups on how its Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) negotiating priorities should be updated in light of the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the list of TPP member countries.
Instructions for participation online, or in person, are included in the links posted below.
The next negotiating round of the TPP will take place in Leesburg, Virginia from September 6-15, 2012.
European Union officials in Brussels today called for the launch of talks with Japan on a free-trade agreement, seeking to expand economic ties with Asia. The European Commission, the EU’s regulatory body, presented its proposal for negotiations with Japan on removing commercial barriers such as tariffs. The commission also aims to scale back non-tariff barriers [...]
European Union officials in Brussels today called for the launch of talks with Japan on a free-trade agreement, seeking to expand economic ties with Asia. The European Commission, the EU’s regulatory body, presented its proposal for negotiations with Japan on removing commercial barriers such as tariffs. The commission also aims to scale back non-tariff barriers in the Japanese market for financial services and for key goods such as cars and pharmaceuticals.
“Trade liberalization remains the cheapest way we have to stimulate our economy,” European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht told reporters in Brussels. “The ball is now in the member states’ court. I would ask them to seize this opportunity and to give the commission a mandate to start negotiations soon.”
De Gucht said a free trade deal with the world’s third largest economy could increase the EU’s gross domestic product by almost one percentage point, boost EU exports to Japan by one third, and add 400,000 extra jobs across the 27-nation bloc.
The EU is sidestepping perpetually stalled World Trade Organization efforts to open markets by instead seeking trade deals with individual countries or groups of nations.
The 27-nation bloc struck a trade accord with Korea that took effect last year and is close to ratifying a pact with Colombia and Peru that will strengthen European ties with Latin America after earlier agreements with Mexico and Chile. The EU is also nearing completion of comprehensive free-trade negotiations with Canada and considering seeking a similar deal with the U.S.
A U.S.-European Union working group is due to deliver by the end of June a preliminary report on ways to increase bilateral trade and investment. The joint High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth established in late 2011 was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of existing trade barriers and making recommendations on policies [...]
A U.S.-European Union working group is due to deliver by the end of June a preliminary report on ways to increase bilateral trade and investment. The joint High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth established in late 2011 was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of existing trade barriers and making recommendations on policies to reduce or remove them, from enhanced regulatory cooperation to the negotiation of one or more bilateral trade agreements. Business groups have used the opportunity to reiterate their support for a transatlantic free trade agreement, but comments from U.S. and EU officials suggest that they may have to settle for something less ambitious.
In a May 22 speech to the London School of Economics and Political Science, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said that in the aftermath of the global economic downturn “a consensus has emerged on both sides of the Atlantic that we can – and we should – do even more to tap the full potential of this extraordinary relationship to boost our growth, support more and better jobs, and to help meet the competitive challenges of the coming decades.” As a result, he said, U.S. and EU negotiators “are working together to examine a wide range of possibilities, including: eliminating conventional barriers to trade in goods, such as tariffs and tariff-rate quotas; reducing barriers to trade in services and to transatlantic investment; promoting regulatory approaches that facilitate trade; reducing, eliminating or preventing in the first place behind-the-border barriers to trade in all categories; and developing rules and principles on other global issues that are of common concern.”
Kirk stated that any new transatlantic trade negotiation “would need to achieve full liberalization of market access for all categories of goods and expand transatlantic flows of services and investment” and should also “identify new approaches to non-tariff barriers” such as health- and safety-related measures. Specifically, he added, the U.S. would want any such agreement to be “at least as broad and ambitious” as existing U.S. trade agreements. He added that this approach could serve as a model for advancing the Doha Round or other multilateral trade liberalization negotiations by providing an alternative to “the negotiating dynamic that existed before.” Read the complete article here.
Source: STR Trade Report
At the stroke of midnight, a planeload of flowers – an important export for Colombia – left Bogota to become the first shipment under the deal. Later on Tuesday, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle was set to be unveiled as one the first U.S. exports to Colombia as part of the agreement. Both countries hope the deal [...]
At the stroke of midnight, a planeload of flowers – an important export for Colombia – left Bogota to become the first shipment under the deal. Later on Tuesday, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle was set to be unveiled as one the first U.S. exports to Colombia as part of the agreement.
Both countries hope the deal will boost mutual exports and investments, as well as underpin the two countries’ close political ties. Colombia has long been seen as one of the United States’ staunchest allies in the region.
