Content uploaded by Marta Soprana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marta Soprana on Nov 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Marta Soprana
Facilitation 2.0: Services
and Trade in the Digital Age
rtaexchange.org
September 2018
Think Piece
II
RTA EXCHANGE
Acknowledgements
Published by
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 917 8492 – ictsd@ictsd.ch – www.ictsd.org
Publisher and Chief Executive: Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
1300 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20577, USA
Tel: +1 202 623 1000 – www.iadb.org
Acknowledgements
This paper has been produced under the RTA Exchange, jointly implemented by the International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB). For more information on the RTA Exchange, please visit www.rtaexchange.org/.
The RTA Exchange is managed by Marie Chamay, Director of Strategic Initiatives, and
Christophe Bellmann, Senior Resident Research Associate, with the support of Emily Bloom,
Project Officer, RTA Exchange at ICTSD, in collaboration with Antoni Estevadeordal, Manager,
Integration and Trade Sector, and Jeremy Harris, Economist and Integration and Trade
Specialist.
This think piece is one of a series of papers developed by the RTA Exchange that explore
Facilitation 2.0. The series is managed by Felipe Sandoval, ICTSD Senior Advisor, Trade Law
and Negotiations.
Facilitation 2.0 is a comprehensive approach to twenty-first-century trade conceived by ICTSD
that encompasses services, goods, investment, and e-commerce. It builds on the Trade
Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and lays out a possible way forward
for its expansion, while providing an innovative narrative for coherent policymaking at the
domestic, regional, and multilateral levels.
Marta Soprana is a Trade Consultant at TradePol Consulting in Lugano, Switzerland.
The author wishes to thank Markus Jelitto, Iza Lejárraga, Felipe Sandoval, Christophe Bellmann,
and Andrew Crosby for their helpful comments and inputs on a previous draft of this paper.
Citation: Soprana, Marta. 2018.
Facilitation 2.0: Services and Trade in the Digital Age.
RTA
Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and Inter-
American Development Bank.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of her employer, nor should they be attributed to ICTSD or IDB.
Copyright ©ICTSD and IDB, 2018. Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this
material for educational and non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. This
work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivates 4.0
International Licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/.
ISSN 2520-2278
III
RTA EXCHANGE
Contents
TABLES
ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEFINING SERVICES FACILITATION
2.1 What Is Services Facilitation?
2.2 Understanding Services Facilitation in the Context of
Facilitation 2.0
2.3 Fostering Development through Services Facilitation
3. SERVICES FACILITATION IN THE RTA CONTEXT
3.1 Types and Depth of Provisions
3.2 Scope of Application
4. MULTILATERALISING SERVICES FACILITATION:
LESSONS FROM RTAs
5. SERVICES FACILITATION AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
6. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
VI
1
V
IV
1
15
14
13
4
16
5
4
1
3
11
IV
RTA EXCHANGE
Tables
Table 1. Services facilitation in regional trade
agreements (RTAs): type and depth of provisions
(most recurring)
Table 2. Services facilitation in regional trade
agreements (RTAs): type and depth of provisions
(less recurring)
Table 3. Services facilitation in regional trade
agreements (RTAs): scope of application
Table 4. Role of services facilitation provisions
7
10
11
15
V
RTA EXCHANGE
Abbreviations
CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
CPTPP Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
EU European Union
FDI foreign direct investment
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GVC global value chain
ICT information and communication technology
MFN most-favoured nation
MRA mutual recognition agreement
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
RTA regional trade agreement
SDG Sustainable development Goal
SME small and medium-sized enterprise
TFA Trade Facilitation Agreement
TFSA Trade Facilitation in Services Agreement
WTO World Trade Organization
VI
RTA EXCHANGE
The digital era calls for a coherent, integrated, and multidimensional approach to
trade policy across areas (goods, services, investments, intellectual property rights,
and electronic commerce) and negotiating forums at both regional and multilateral
levels. From a facilitation perspective, this would entail shifting from the traditional
only-goods approach to a Facilitation 2.0 framework.
This paper focuses on one specific component of Facilitation 2.0: services. More
specifically, it explores existing approaches to services facilitation in the context
of regional trade agreements (RTAs) and how these regional trade regulatory
experiences can inform World Trade Organization (WTO) members about potential
opportunities for convergence at the multilateral level. It also addresses paths to
multilateralisation, offering a potential alternative to the negotiation of a self-standing
services facilitation agreement.
Services facilitation can be described as the simplification, modernisation, and
harmonisation of services supply processes with a view to reducing transaction costs.
It is intended to complement, integrate with, and work in tandem with market access,
as it is charged with removing all administrative and regulatory barriers that limit the
ability of firms and consumers to benefit fully from market liberalisation.
From a sustainable development perspective, understanding how to best facilitate
trade in services at the regional and multilateral level is very important, because
services facilitation can promote sustainable development indirectly—by supporting
services liberalisation in its contribution to the 2030 Agenda—and directly—by
advancing the achievement of specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
namely good health and well-being (SDG3); good-quality education (SDG4); gender
equality (SDG5); industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG9); and reduction in
inequalities (SDG10).
An analysis of a representative group of RTAs that were either concluded or entered
into force in the past decade shows that, while only recently discussed at the WTO,
services facilitation is not a novel topic in the context of RTAs. All the agreements
under examination have included provisions, with different degrees of scope and
depth, which—directly or indirectly—facilitate trade in services, and in most cases
the parties have undertaken commitments beyond the General Agreement on Trade
in Services, especially with respect to disciplines on domestic regulation.
The paper shows that, at the regional level, trade in services is facilitated primarily
through increased transparency; improved administration of procedures (including
fees and charges); and advanced disciplines on regulatory requirements. Other,
Executive Summary
VII
RTA EXCHANGE
less recurring provisions include regulatory cooperation, mutual recognition of
qualifications, and provisions facilitating the movement of natural persons. It also
reveals that the scope of application of provisions facilitating trade in services can
differ significantly, with three possible (not mutually exclusive) scenarios identified
across and within RTAs: horizontal, sector-specific, and mode-specific.
Four lessons on the potential for multilateralisation of disciplines on services
facilitation can be drawn from RTA best practices. First, the areas where the parties
to the RTAs showed the highest degree of convergence are transparency, primarily
through the publication of measures affecting trade in services (including information
on mode 4 and licensing requirements and procedures); the establishment of enquiry
mechanisms and contact points; and the streamlining of administrative procedures,
including those related to the temporary entry of services suppliers. Since these are
also the commitments that may require less effort to be applied on a most-favoured
nation basis, because de facto they already do, they have the greatest potential for
multilateralisation.
Second, with the exception of transparency-related provisions and commitments
to keep applicants informed during the application process, which almost all RTAs
couched in hard law, the parties to RTAs showed a preference for soft(er) commitments
in all other disciplines related to the facilitation of trade in services. Thus, it is more
likely for WTO members to agree on negotiating multilateral disciplines on services
facilitation as soft (or best-endeavour) law rather than hard law.
Third, as it is highly unlikely that a self-standing services facilitation agreement
would be the optimal solution, owing to the difficulty in achieving a critical mass
behind a range of topics larger and deeper than the limited areas of convergence
identified above, the architecture of GATS offers valid and solid alternatives for the
multilateralisation of disciplines on services facilitation in the form of additional
commitments under Article XVIII and disciplines on domestic regulation under Article
VI:4.
Fourth, whatever the procedure to negotiate new obligations on services facilitation
at the multilateral level, WTO members must ensure coherence with any other
provisions that have been discussed or adopted under the e-commerce and investment
agendas, because in the current digital era all aspects of international trade are
closely interrelated and, therefore, bound to influence and affect one another.
1
RTA EXCHANGE
1. Introduction
In the past two decades, digital innovations and
technological progress have led to significant
changes in the structure of production methods,
processes, and business models, as exemplified by
the emergence and growth of electronic commerce;
data now being transferred across borders alongside
goods, services, capital, and people; and global
value chains (GVCs) becoming a stable feature of
world trade.1 At the heart of this transformation
are services, whose contribution to gross domestic
product and employment has increased remarkably
since the early 2000s (ICTSD 2016). Most notably, a
growing share of value added in trade is attributable to
services, which is partly due to certain service sectors
(e.g. distribution, financial, and telecommunication
services) being enablers of international supply
chains and manufacturing industries undergoing
servicification, which means that they increasingly
buy, produce, and sell services (National Board of
Trade Sweden 2016).
The growing fragmentation of supply chains, the
increasing complexity of the linkages between goods,
services, capital, data, and intellectual property, and
the progressively central role played by services
in the world trade system have two major policy
implications. First, trade policy must adapt to the
economic and regulatory challenges brought by the
digitalisation of the world economy to ensure the
maximisation of the efficiency of GVCs and cross-
border transactions, while safeguarding legitimate
policy objectives. Second, the digital era calls for a
more extended, inclusive, and coherent approach to
trade policy across dimensions (national, regional,
and multilateral) and trade areas (e.g. goods,
services, investments, and electronic commerce)
(OECD 2015).
It is in this context that Facilitation 2.0, which involves
unilateral structural reform, coherent trade policies,
and multiparty initiatives at different international
forums, including the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and regional trade agreements (RTAs), emerges as a
potential response to the need to enable trade in the
digital era (Meléndez-Ortiz 2018).
This paper focuses on one specific component of the
Facilitation 2.0 framework: services. More specifically,
it explores existing approaches to services facilitation
in the context of RTAs and how these regional trade
regulatory experiences can inform WTO members
about potential opportunities for convergence at the
multilateral level.
The paper starts by defining services facilitation,
with a discussion of its relationship with the other
components of the Facilitation 2.0 framework and
its importance from a sustainable development
perspective. It then proceeds to analyse a
representative universe of RTAs, identify trade-
facilitating provisions related to services, and assess
likely areas of convergence for multilateralisation. A
discussion on the potential path to create an efficient
and coherent interface between RTAs and the
multilateral trading system on services facilitation
follows. The paper concludes by exploring the links
between provisions facilitating trade in services and
sustainable development.
1 With GVCs, the various stages of the production process
are located across different countries through international
outsourcing and offshoring of activities. See OECD (n.d.).
2.1 What Is Services Facilitation?
The concept of facilitation applied to the realm of
services is still relatively novel. While rather extensive
literature exists on goods-related trade facilitation
and its objective of reducing transaction costs in
trade in goods by expediting the movement, release,
and clearance of goods and promoting cooperation
2. Dening Services
Facilitation
2
RTA EXCHANGE
on customs compliance issues, especially since the
conclusion on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA),
studies specifically dedicated to services facilitation
are quite limited, and no universally recognised
definition of services facilitation is available.
So, how can facilitation of trade in services be defined?
What does it entail? One could adopt the TFA approach
and describe it as the simplification, modernisation,
and harmonisation of regulatory measures affecting
services supply with a view to reducing transaction
costs. Measures exemplifying a TFA-based facilitation
approach for services trade would include increased
transparency, streamlining procedures for licences,
simplifying visa-related processes for the temporary
entry of service suppliers, reducing administrative
red tape, and encouraging transnational institutional
cooperation. Work done by Anér and Stavroulakis (2008),
who identified increased transparency, administrative
cooperation, and regulatory coordination as potential
tools to facilitate services trade and underpin market
access, and Chakravarty (2017), who argued that
solutions to facilitate trade in services are largely
within the realm of removing regulatory bottlenecks
and promoting institutional cooperation, offer some
support to this approach.
Some WTO members opined that the scope of
application of the TFA should be extended to other
areas, such as services. India, for example, recently
put forward a proposal for the negotiation of a Trade
Facilitation in Services Agreement (TFSA) based on
the premise that it is necessary to reduce transaction
costs associated with the unnecessary regulatory
burden and procedural bottlenecks affecting trade in
services (S/WPDR/W/55; WTO 2016b).
Existing literature addresses services facilitation
through the identification of barriers to trade in
services and potential policy interventions to eliminate
them. Albeit meagre, it exposes a crucial issue by
establishing what facilitating trade in services actually
means: its relationship with market access. De (2013),
in recognising the impact that reforming domestic
regulation can have on facilitating trade in services,
still mentions two market access measures (the
reduction of stringent foreign ownership caps and the
relaxation of restrictions on the type of commercial
presence) among potential tools to facilitate services
trade. Anér and Stavroulakis (2008), on the other
hand, discussed potential solutions to facilitate trade
in services with respect to a number of obstacles that
existed in the European Union (EU) Internal Market
despite the fact that there is an EU supranational legal
order in the field of services.
Despite their affinity, services facilitation and market
access should not be confused with one another.
Obstacles to trade in services that fall under any of the
six types of restriction listed in the General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS) Article XVI are to be
removed through autonomous or negotiated market
access liberalisation. For example, restrictions on
the movement of natural persons result primarily
from lack of market access commitments by WTO
members rather than from lengthy visa procedures
and, thus, streamlining immigration procedures
will do little to foster the temporary entry of service
suppliers unless WTO members agree to undertake
less stringent mode 4 market access commitments.
However, other types of barrier to services trade—
falling outside the realm of application of GATS Article
XVI—can be reduced or eliminated through recourse to
what can be defined as services facilitation measures.
For example, since lack of transparent information
on licence requirements can contribute to increasing
costs for service suppliers that intend to establish a
commercial presence abroad, especially small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), adopting measures
that encourage greater transparency on licensing
requirements and the application process may help
facilitate the supply of services through mode 3.
Thus, not all services trade impediments can be
addressed through services facilitation, which is
to be intended as complementing, integrating, and
working in tandem with market access. In other
words, charged with removing all administrative and
regulatory barriers that limit the ability of firms and
consumers to benefit fully from market liberalisation,
services facilitation ensures that “the market access
arising out of existing as well as future liberalisation
3
RTA EXCHANGE
commitments are effective and meaningful”
(S/WPDR/W/57; WTO 2016a).
Facilitating services is especially crucial when
market access is allowed de jure—a WTO member
has undertaken full or partial commitments in the
service sector at issue—but excessively burdensome
and lengthy procedures discourage foreign service
suppliers from entering the market, acting de
facto as a zero-quota kind of services barriers.
For example, a WTO member that sets a not-too-
stringent limit on the number of suppliers of tourism
services through licensing for mode 3 may de facto
completely discourage foreign SMEs that would fulfil
the requirements for licensing to actually enter the
market if information on the application procedure
was too fragmented or obscure or available only in
the national language, and the application procedure
was too lengthy and costly. By increasing transparency
and streamlining administrative procedures, the
above-mentioned foreign SMEs may be better able to
take advantage of the (partial) services liberalisation
undertaken by the WTO member.
So, while a potential affinity exists between measures
aimed at facilitating trade in services and measures
related to market access, it would be best to consider
the latter as excluded from the services facilitation
agenda, since WTO members already have a vehicle
to remove market access restrictions—that is,
successive rounds of negotiations aimed at binding
commitments towards further liberalisation. Still, it is
worth pointing out that measures aimed at increasing
transparency and removing procedural barriers may
still facilitate trade in services, even in the absence of
binding market access commitments.
How significant are barriers to trade in services that
would require a services facilitation (rather than a
market access) approach? Or, from a TFA perspective,
how considerable a problem are transaction costs in
services? Some evidence offered by the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
suggests that the costs of services trade barriers,
especially those associated with domestic regulation
falling short of best practices in competition and
rule-making, are as high as, if not higher than, the
costs of barriers to trade in goods, with the average
level of restriction amounting to trade costs up to
150 percent on cross-border exports in sectors such
as telecommunication services. This would seem to
support the view that there is indeed a need to curtail
transaction costs affecting trade in services and
that these process would entail the reduction (and
possibly removal) of behind-the-border obstacles
and procedural bottlenecks (OECD 2017). However,
it is worth noting that since the OECD estimate itself
is based on the Services Trade Restrictiveness Index,
which encompasses a wide array of measures—
including on services facilitation—the effect on trade
costs is attributable to all types of restriction, and not
only those related to services facilitation. Given also
that empirical analysis on trade costs in services is still
rather limited, it is evident that the above-mentioned
findings should be treated with caution, especially with
respect to the impact of trade costs on different modes
of supply.
2.2 Understanding Services
Facilitation in the Context
of Facilitation 2.0
The digital era, characterised by services becoming
increasingly complementary or embedded in goods,
growing and expanding electronic commerce, foreign
direct investments (FDI) shifting in geography and
volume, and production processes extending beyond
national borders, calls for a coherent, integrated, and
multidimensional approach to trade policy across
areas (goods, services, investments, intellectual
property rights, and electronic commerce) and
negotiating forums at regional and multilateral levels.
From a facilitation perspective, shifting from the
traditional only-goods approach to a Facilitation 2.0
framework would serve this purpose well.
Ensuring integration and coherence between services
facilitation, investment facilitation, and e-commerce
facilitation policies is particularly crucial owing
to the strong interlinkages between these areas.
Investment relates to services from both a regulatory
4
RTA EXCHANGE
and an economic perspective. The establishment of a
commercial presence abroad (mode 3) partly overlaps
with the concept of investment (in the services
sectors), and many RTAs already include mode 3
provisions under investment chapters or sections.
Also, investments have contributed significantly to
the development of new services with a strong digital
component. Therefore, the development of disciplines
on investment facilitation in RTAs and under the
aegis of the Informal WTO Dialogue on Investment
Facilitation for Development are undoubtedly relevant
to services facilitation.2 Similarly, as e-commerce
is understood to mean “production, distribution,
marketing, sale or delivery of goods and services
by electronic means” (WT/L/274; WTO 1998), any
discipline aimed at facilitating electronic commerce
developed at regional and multilateral levels may also
be relevant to promoting trade facilitation in services.
Therefore, expanding the trade facilitation agenda,
expressed as Facilitation 2.0, to include services,
investments, and e-commerce—with their potential to
promote inclusive growth, generate well-paid jobs, and
foster sustainable development—best responds to the
need to adapt trade policy to the new interdependent
challenges and opportunities posed by technological
progress (Meléndez-Ortiz 2018).
2.3 Fostering Development
through Services Facilitation
Services facilitation can also contribute significantly
to promoting sustainable development. It does so
in a twofold manner. At a more general level, it
supports services liberalisation in its contribution
to the three pillars of sustainable development.3 By
helping to remove the obstacles that limit the ability
to benefit fully from market liberalisation in the
services sector, facilitating services trade through
increased transparency, streamlined administrative
procedures, and regulatory reform contribute to
ensuring that services can efficiently and effectively
foster sustainable development through growth and
non-growth channels.4
On a more specific level, services facilitation disciplines
may contribute directly to the achievement of a
number of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—
and relative targets—set out in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, as discussed in Section 5.
2 For example, during the six meetings of the Informal
WTO Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for Development,
the participants exchanged views and experiences on a
number of issues, including the publication/notification of
investment-related measures, and procedural aspects of
investment applications, which in the context of services
are relevant to mode 3 (establishment of a commercial
presence). See WTO (2018).
3 Point 5 of the 2002 Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development refers to three interdependent
and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable
development: economic development, social development,
and environmental protection. See United Nations (2002).
4 As inputs in the production of manufacturing and
agricultural products and through the increasing role of
servicification, efficient services can stimulate economic
growth by affecting labour productivity and competitiveness.
The improvement of basic services (e.g. health-related and
education services) and the development of information and
communication technology (ICT) services can help to reduce
the digital divide, lead to greater social inclusion, and allow
women and other vulnerable minorities to engage more
actively in the domestic economy. Finally, the development
of environment-related services can help to reduce the
negative environmental externalities linked to increased
production and consumption. See ICTSD (2016).
While discussions on services facilitation in a
multilateral setting are still germane, disciplines on
this issue have been quite advanced at a regional level.
In order to understand how RTAs have addressed
services facilitation and whether there are elements of
convergence that could be harvested for multilateral
negotiations, this study analysed a representative
3. Services Facilitation
in the RTA Context
5
RTA EXCHANGE
group of RTAs that were either concluded or entered
into force in the past decade, namely the New
Zealand–Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership
(2010); the EU–Georgia Association Agreement
(2014); the Pacific Alliance Free Trade Agreement
(2016); the EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (2016); the EU–Japan Economic
Partnership Agreement (2017); the Comprehensive
and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
Partnership (2018); and the EU–Singapore Free Trade
Agreement (2018).
This study focused on services-related chapters
and annexes (cross-border trade in services and
movement of natural persons) and horizontal
chapters on regulatory transparency and regulatory
coherence, which apply also to services sectors.
For the purposes of this paper, chapters dedicated
exclusively to investment and electronic commerce
were not included in the investigation.
The analysis focused on three key aspects: (i) the types
of provision on services facilitation contained in these
agreements; (ii) the scope of application of provisions
related to the facilitation of services trade; and (iii)
the depth of commitments on services facilitation
undertaken by the parties.
3.1 Types and Depth of
Provisions
Although none of the agreements under examination
contains a chapter or section explicitly dedicated
to services facilitation, all seven RTAs include
provisions that, directly or indirectly, may facilitate
trade in services, with articles detailing licensing or
qualification procedures—for example, Annex III to
Chapter 13 in the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China
Closer Economic Partnership; Article 12.3 in the
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA), indicating criteria for the adoption of domestic
regulation measures relating to qualification
requirements, technical standards, and licensing
requirements (Article 9.9 in the Pacific Alliance and
Article 8.30 in the EU–Japan Economic Partnership
Agreement); or establishing procedures for publishing
laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative
rulings to ensure greater transparency (Article 26.2
in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP).
As Table 1 shows, at a regional level, trade in
services is facilitated primarily through increased
transparency, improved administration of procedures
(including fees and charges), and advanced disciplines
on regulatory requirements. Other, less recurring
provisions include regulatory cooperation, mutual
recognition of qualifications, and provisions facilitating
the movement of natural persons (Table 2).
Transparency
All RTAs examined herein contain provisions aimed
at increasing transparency in the adoption and
implementation of measures affecting trade in
services. While separate chapters or sections can
be dedicated to transparency, with their scope of
application extending to all issues covered by the
agreement, including trade in services (e.g. Chapter 27
of CETA), a number of RTAs have included transparency
provisions that apply specifically to trade in services
(e.g. Annex III to Chapter 13 of the New Zealand–Hong
Kong, China RTA) or individual services sectors (e.g.
Article 13.11 of CETA for financial services; Article
14.19 of the Pacific Alliance; Article 13.18 of CPTPP for
telecommunication services; Article 8.39 of the EU–
Japan RTA for postal services).
In the sampled RTAs, the most recurring transparency
provisions that facilitate trade in services either reaffirm
or incorporate existing transparency commitments in
GATS or introduce new requirements or specifications
that are not mandated in GATS (GATS+).5 Provisions
that encourage the prompt publication of laws,
regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings
relevant to services, and those that call for the
establishment of enquiry or contact points to provide
5 For more details, see Lejárraga (2013).
6
RTA EXCHANGE
specific information to entrepreneurs and services
suppliers of the other party, tend to fall under the
first category. GATS+ transparency provisions, on
the other hand, include those detailing what type of
information should be published,6 and those setting
forth guidelines for publishing measures relevant to
trade in services, including providing opportunity for
comments before the entry into force of a measure.7
Differences emerge as to the coverage offered by
each RTA on these transparency provisions. While
in the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China RTA, Pacific
Alliance, and CPTPP the parties included all four
types mentioned above, the EU–Georgia agreement
focuses primarily on the need to establish enquiry
points to respond promptly to all requests on
relevant measures. Interestingly, on the latter, there
is the highest convergence among the RTAs under
examination. Excepting the EU–Japan RTA, all
agreements contain strong commitments related
to the establishment of contact points or enquiry
mechanisms.
Actually, transparency provisions in RTAs are generally
included as hard law (e.g. “must,” “shall”), with CETA
(Article 27.1 on publication) and CPTPP (Article 26.1
on the type of information to make publicly available
for telecommunication services) using terminology
(“shall ensure that”) that refers to situations where
the government itself is not directly executing the
obligation but ensures that a regulator, or competent
authority, is complying with the commitment.
Regulatory disciplines and administration of
procedures
As Table 1 shows, in order to facilitate services trade,
RTAs also quite frequently include three types of
provision aimed at removing potential regulatory
bottlenecks: (i) disciplines on domestic regulations
that spell out the criteria upon which measures
related to licensing requirements and procedures,
qualification requirements, and procedures should be
based; (ii) detailed descriptions of how to administer
measures affecting trade in services in a simpler
and more transparent manner; and (iii) criteria for
the application of fees and charges in relation to
administrative procedures and authorisations.
With regard to disciplines on domestic regulation,
while the parties to RTAs show a noticeable
convergence towards the nature of the criteria (they
need to be objective and transparent) and the depth
of the commitments (expect in the EU-led RTAs with
Georgia and Japan, the commitments are generally
couched in soft law language), differences emerge
about how the parties present them. Notably, RTAs
to which the EU is not a party are more inclined to
offer indicative examples of objective and transparent
criteria, such as competence and the ability to supply
the service (e.g. Article 9.9 of the Pacific Alliance),
mimicking the language of GATS Article VI:4(a). On
the other hand, EU-led RTAs tend to provide for
GATS+ exhaustive lists of criteria, such as clarity,
6 Art. 8.23 of the EU–Japan RTA, which applies to mode 4
only, provides a non-exhaustive list of types of information
to be published that includes categories of visa, permits,
or any similar type of authorisation regarding entry and
temporary stay; documentation required and conditions
to be met; maximum length of stay under each type of
authorisation; and conditions for any available extension
or renewal. Annex III to Chapter 13 of the New Zealand–
Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership provides
another illustrative list of information to be published
that includes the official titles, addresses, and contact
information of relevant competent authorities; applicable
licensing requirements and criteria, terms, and conditions
of licenses, and licensing procedures and fees; procedures
relating to appeals or reviews of applications; and the
normal timeframe for processing of an application.
7 Indeed, while GATS Art. III on transparency does not
establish a public comment procedure, a number of RTAs
do. A case in point is Art. 11.13 of CPTPP, which promotes
regulatory transparency in financial services by calling for
the parties to promptly publish regulations to be adopted;
provide reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed
regulation; address in writing substantive comments
received from interested persons; allow a reasonable period
between publication and entry into force of the regulation;
and maintain or establish appropriate mechanisms for
responding to enquiries regarding measures of general
application relevant to financial services.
7
RTA EXCHANGE
Type of discipline
RTAs already in force RTAs concluded but not yet in force
New Zealand–
Hong Kong
(2010)
EU–
Georgia
(2014)
Pacific
Alliance
(2016)
EU–
Canada
(2016)a
EU–Japan
(2017)
CPTPP
(2018)
EU–
Singapore
(2018)
Transparency Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Publication of measures
Type of information to be made publicly
available GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Reasonable time to comment GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Enquiry mechanisms and contact points
Disciplines on domestic regulation
(conditions for licensing and qualification) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Defining criteria for measures relating to
qualification and licensing requirements
and procedures, and technical standards
GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Application or due consideration of
international standards
Reference to GATS Article VI:4 negotiations
Administration of measures (licensing and
qualification procedures) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Acceptance of applications in electronic
format GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Administration of measures not creating
unnecessary barriers to trade
Licensing procedures not unduly
complicated or more burdensome than
necessary
Independence of competent authority GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Informing applicants of incomplete
documentation GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Informing applicants of rejected
applications GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Informing applicants of any rights and
timeframe or review of, or appeal against,
decision
GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Reasonable time to submit application GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Reasonable timeframe to complete
processing of application GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Opportunity to resubmit application GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Adequate procedures to verify and assess
qualifications GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Table 1.
Services facilitation in regional trade agreements
(RTAs): type and depth of provisions (most recurring)
8
RTA EXCHANGE
objectivity, transparency, advance public availability,
and accessibility (e.g. Article 12.3 of CETA).
Interestingly, the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China
RTA and CPTPP are the only agreements where the
parties committed to taking into account international
standards to determine conformity with the
disciplines on domestic regulation contained in the
agreement, a clear reference to GATS Article VI:5(b).
Also in the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China RTA is
an explicit reference to the potential incorporation
of disciplines negotiations under GATS Article VI:4, a
feature it shares with the Pacific Alliance Agreement
and CPTPP. In both cases, the commitments are
couched into soft law.
As to the administration of measures, the RTAs
under examination show a tendency to include
GATS+ provisions detailing the application process
for licensing and qualification procedures. Indeed, in
most RTAs, the parties made strong commitments
to inform applicants of incomplete documentation,
rejected applications, and any rights and timeframe for
review of, or appeal against, decisions. Convergence
also exists on the need to complete the processing
of applications within a reasonable timeframe, with
the Pacific Alliance and the EU–Japan RTAs couching
this provision in strong law rather than soft law.
All RTAs undertook soft commitments on the
application of fees and charges.
Mutual recognition of qualifications
Another issue of relevance for the facilitation of services
trade where convergence among WTO members is
still somewhat limited is the mutual recognition of
professional qualifications, which is addressed in a
handful of the RTAs under examination. A case in
point is CETA, which proposes some non-binding
guidelines to provide practical guidance to facilitate
the negotiation of mutual recognition agreements
(MRAs) (Annex 11-A). The CPTPP, in its Annex on
Professional Services, encourages the establishment
of dialogues among the relevant bodies of each party,
with a view to recognising professional qualifications
Type of discipline
RTAs already in force RTAs concluded but not yet in force
New Zealand–
Hong Kong
(2010)
EU–
Georgia
(2014)
Pacific
Alliance
(2016)
EU–
Canada
(2016)a
EU–Japan
(2017)
CPTPP
(2018)
EU–
Singapore
(2018)
Fees and charges Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Reasonable and proportionate licensing
fees GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Fees determined with regard to
administrative cost GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Objective, transparent, and commensurate
administrative fees GATS+ GATS+
Licensing fees do not restrict supply of the
services GATS+
Table 1.
Continued
Hard law (e.g. “must,” “shall”)
Soft law (e.g. “may,” “could,” “should,” “shall endeavour,” “shall ensure,” “shall take into account”)
a Provisionally in force.
GATS+: RTA provisions that mirror a corresponding obligation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) but introduce new
requirements or specifications that are not mandated in GATS.
Source: Author
9
RTA EXCHANGE
and facilitating licensing or registration procedures.8
Provisions facilitating mode 4
A small number of RTAs have provisions aimed
specifically at facilitating mode 4, primarily through
increased transparency (by means of enhanced
access to information on the requirements for
temporary entry by business persons); streamlined
immigration procedures; and the establishment of
enquiry mechanisms or contact points (Article 10.5
of CETA). For example, the agreement between New
Zealand and Hong Kong, China explicitly states that
the purpose of its Chapter 14 (dedicated entirely to
mode 4) is to facilitate the movement of business
persons (Article 1) and calls for the expeditious
processing of completed applications for immigration
formalities (Article 5). Similarly, the EU–Japan RTA
clearly indicates the desire of the parties to facilitate
the entry and temporary stay of natural persons
for business purposes (Article 8.22), with specific
provisions aimed at ensuring that the processing
of applications related to mode 4 follows good
administrative practices (Annex 8-C).
9 Art. 12.8 of CPTPP establishes that the parties shall
consider undertaking mutually agreed cooperation activities,
subject to available resources, including by (i) providing
advice on the development and implementation of electronic
processing systems for visas; and (ii) sharing experiences
with regulations, and the implementation of programmes
and technology related to border security, and the expediting
of certain categories of applicants in order to reduce facility
and workload constraints.
Regulatory cooperation
Another type of provision relevant to services
facilitation that is found less frequently in RTAs
is regulatory cooperation. Indeed, a number of
RTAs also encourage horizontal, mode-specific, or
sector-specific regulatory cooperation with a view
to facilitating services trade via the sharing of best
practices on implementation and the exchange
of information on procedural requirements and
associated formalities, although the language
remains generally soft and non-binding. The parties
to CETA, for example, while agreeing on the need to
facilitate bilateral trade and investment in a way that
reduces unnecessary differences in regulation, made
regulatory cooperation voluntary and left ample space
for policy manoeuvre to policymakers and regulators
in the EU and Canada to adopt legislation (Chapter
21). In CPTPP, the parties addressed cooperation
specific to regulatory coherence (Article 25.7) and
mode 4 (Article 12.8),9 while the EU and Singapore
focused their attention on cooperating to promote the
development of telecommunication services (Article
8.48) and maintain a dialogue on regulatory issues
raised by electronic commerce (Article 8.61).
8 Through best endeavour language, CPTPP also calls
for the establishment of a Professional Services Working
Group as a means to facilitate trade in professional services
(Art. 10.9).
10
RTA EXCHANGE
Type of discipline
RTAs already in force RTAs concluded but not yet in force
New Zealand–
Hong Kong
(2010)
EU–
Georgia
(2014)
Pacific
Alliance
(2016)
EU–
Canada
(2016)a
EU–Japan
(2017)
CPTPP
(2018)
EU–
Singapore
(2018)
Provisions pertaining to recognition Y N Y Y N Y N
Facilitation of dialogue between regulators GATS+
Harmonisation, recognition of regulatory
outcomes, recognition of qualifications and
professional registration, or recognition
arrangements
GATS+
Non-most-favoured nation (MFN)
recognition GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Guidelines to facilitate negotiation of
mutual recognition agreements GATS+
Implementing temporary licensing regime GATS+ GATS+
Provisions facilitating movement of
natural persons Y N N Y Y Y N
Acceptance and processing of applications
in electronic format GATS+
Reasonable immigration processing fees GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Processing fees do not unduly impair or
delay trade in services GATS+ GATS+
Publication of information on requirements
for temporary entry GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Establishment of enquiry mechanisms or
contact points GATS+ GATS+
Type of information to be made publicly
available GATS+ GATS+
Cooperation N Y N Y N Y Y
Regulatory cooperation GATS+ GATS+ GATS+ GATS+
Cooperation to increase transparency GATS+
Cooperation on mode 4 provisions GATS+
Hard law (e.g. “must,” “shall”)
Soft law (e.g. “may,” “could,” “should,” “shall endeavour,” “shall ensure,” “shall take into account”)
a Provisionally in force.
GATS+: RTA provisions that mirror a corresponding obligation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) but introduce new
requirements or specifications that are not mandated in GATS.
Source: Author
Table 2.
Services facilitation in regional trade agreements
(RTAs): type and depth of provisions (less recurring)
11
RTA EXCHANGE
3.2 Scope of Application
As Table 3 illustrates, the scope of application of
provisions facilitating trade in services can differ
significantly, with three possible, not mutually exclusive
scenarios: horizontal, sector-specific, and mode-
specific.10 For example, RTAs can include provisions
facilitating trade in services with a horizontal scope
of application—i.e. covering all service sectors and
modes of supply (e.g. Article 95 of the EU–Georgia
RTA) or covering both goods and services (e.g.
Chapter 15 in the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China
RTA; Chapter 27 in CETA on transparency). While all
RTAs under examination have at least one provision
aimed at facilitating trade in services that applies to
all sectors (including those where no commitments
were undertaken), they also all have sector-specific
services facilitation provisions, with the New Zealand–
Hong Kong, China RTA being the notable exception. A
case in point is the Pacific Alliance, which includes an
annex dedicated entirely to the supply of professional
services that contains provisions related to services
facilitation.
10 The same RTA can have horizontal, sector-specific, and
mode-specific provisions, although, clearly, the scope of
application of a single provision cannot be both horizontal
and sector-specific.
Scope of
discipline
RTAs already in force RTAs concluded but not yet in force
New Zealand–
Hong Kong
(2010)
EU–Georgia
(2014)
Pacific Alliance
(2016)
EU–Canada
(2016)a
EU–Japan
(2017) CPTPP (2018) EU–Singapore
(2018)
General
application Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Transparency x x x x x x
Disciplines
on domestic
regulation
x x x x
Administration
of measures x x x x
Fees and
charges x x x x
Administration
of economic
needs tests
x
Provisions
pertaining to
recognition
x
Cooperation x x
Specific modes Y – Y Y Y Y –
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3 Excludeda,b Excludeda,b
Mode 4
Transparency,a
Mode 4-
relat ed
provisionsa
TransparencyaTransparencyaTransparency,a
cooperationa
Table 3.
Services facilitation in regional trade agreements
(RTAs): scope of application
12
RTA EXCHANGE
Scope of
discipline
RTAs already in force RTAs concluded but not yet in force
New Zealand–
Hong Kong
(2010)
EU–Georgia
(2014)
Pacific Alliance
(2016)
EU–Canada
(2016)a
EU–Japan
(2017) CPTPP (2018) EU–Singapore
(2018)
Specific sectors - Y Y Y Y Y Y
Telecommuni-
cation services
Transparency,a
administration
of measuresa
Administration
of measuresa
Transparency,a
administration
of measuresa
Telecoms,a
administration
of measuresa
Transparency,a
administration
of measures,a
fees and
charges,a
cooperationa
Financial
services
Transparency,a
administration
of measuresa
TransparencyaTransparencya
Transparency,a
administration
of measuresa
Transparencya
Postal services
Transparency,a
administration
of measuresa
Professional
services
Disciplines
on domestic
regulation,a
administration
of measures
Administration
of measures,a
recognition
of mutual
recognition
agreement
(MRA)
Annex Y – Y Y Y Y –
Sector-specific Professional
services
Professional
services
Mode-specific Mode 4
Issue-Specific Domestic
regulation MRAs
Table 3.
Continued
a Provisionally in force.
b Mode 3 is excluded from the scope of application of the chapter on cross-border trade in services and is incorporated under the
investment chapter (not analysed for the purposes of this paper).
Source: Author
A third set of agreements comprises all the RTAs
that have limited the scope of application of services
facilitation provisions to specific modes. For example,
Chapter 14 of the New Zealand–Hong Kong, China
agreement is dedicated to facilitating the movement
of business persons of either party engaged in the
conduct of trade and investment between the parties
and establishing streamlined and transparent
immigration procedures for applications made by
business persons of the other party, with Article 5
providing details to ensure the expeditious application
of procedures for business persons. The New
Zealand–Hong Kong, China RTA, therefore, contains
provisions aimed at facilitating the supply of services
through the movement of one specific category of
natural persons (mode 4). Likewise, in the EU and
Japan RTA, the parties established under Article 8.22
that “the measures taken by each Party to facilitate
and expedite procedures related to the entry and
temporary stay of natural persons of the other Party
for business purposes shall be consistent with Annex
8-C,” an annex dedicated specifically to mode 4 that
calls for the parties to follow good administrative
practice.
13
RTA EXCHANGE
Services facilitation has been addressed, in different
degrees of scope and depth, in all RTAs, and in
most cases the parties have undertaken GATS+
commitments (especially with respect to disciplines
on domestic regulation). This signals a shared concern
and desire among the parties on the need to remove
barriers to trade that derive from lack of information
and inefficient domestic regulation. Thus, RTAs can
contribute to informing the discussion currently
taking place at the WTO on the services component of
Facilitation 2.0 by offering insight on the issues where
convergence among WTO members is likely stronger,
and that, therefore, have the greatest potential for
multilateralisation, as well as how the latter could be
achieved.
Four lessons on the potential for multilateralisation
of disciplines on services facilitation can be drawn
from RTA best practices. First, the areas where the
parties to the RTAs showed the highest degree of
convergence are transparency, primarily through the
publication of measures affecting trade in services
(including information of mode 4 and licensing
requirements and procedures); the establishment
of enquiry mechanisms and contact points; and the
4. Multilateralising
Services Facilitation:
Lessons from RTAs
streamlining of administrative procedures, including
those related to the temporary entry of services
suppliers. These are also the commitments that may
require less effort to be applied on a most-favoured
nation (MFN)-basis because de facto they already
do.11 Indeed, transparency-related commitments to
promptly publish information relevant to services
trade tend not to discriminate against third parties,
while other commitments (e.g. implementation of
temporary licensing programmes) apply only to the
parties to the agreement, making them potentially
more costly, lengthy, and politically sensitive to
multilateralise. Thus, WTO members may find it more
fruitful to engage in the multilateralisation of services
facilitation provisions by addressing these areas
first, rather than focusing on areas where diverging
approaches are more evident, such as recognition and
the facilitation of mode 4.
The second lesson relates to the potential legal strength
of services facilitation provisions in a multilateral
context. With the exception of transparency-related
provisions and commitments to keep applicants
informed during the application process, which almost
all RTAs couched in hard law, the parties to RTAs
showed a preference for soft(er) commitments in all
other disciplines related to the facilitation of trade in
services. Therefore, unless WTO members move to
depart greatly from the language used at the regional
level, it is likely that only disciplines related to increasing
transparency—including in relation to the provision
of information on temporary entry requirements and
administrative procedures—have the potential to be
multilateralised as hard rather than soft law.
Third, taking into consideration that convergence exists
mainly on two issues (increased transparency and
improved administrative procedures) and that the TFSA
proposal put forward by India received a tepid reaction
11 Implementation is key to understanding whether a
measure is de facto applied on an MFN basis. If a party
to an RTA makes all relevant measures publicly available
also to non-parties, then in practice it is implementing a
transparency measure on an MFN basis.
Special consideration should be given to provisions
aimed at facilitating the supply of services through the
establishment of a commercial presence abroad (i.e.
mode 3). While RTAs chapters on services or cross-
border trade in services usually contain services
facilitation provisions, also chapters or sections
dedicated to investment may have disciplines relevant
to mode 3, including on investment facilitation. For
the purposes of this paper, mode 3-related facilitation
provisions that are addressed only in chapters or
sections dedicated specifically to investment were not
considered.
14
RTA EXCHANGE
from the other WTO members, it is highly unlikely that
a self-standing services facilitation agreement would
be the optimal solution. Negotiating a new agreement,
in the footsteps of the TFA, requires a critical mass
that can drive negotiations towards consensus and a
strong political will, both of which are currently lacking.
Extending the scope of the current TFA to include
services would also prove a difficult task.
The architecture of GATS offers valid and solid
alternatives to a self-standing agreement to
promote services facilitation in the form of additional
commitments under Article XVIII and disciplines on
domestic regulation under Article VI:4, bearing in mind
that the latter can actually take the form of Article XVIII,
and the former can go beyond disciplines on domestic
regulation.12 WTO members could follow the example
of the Reference Paper on Basic Telecommunications,
which establishes a common set of regulatory
guidelines that became a binding commitment, under
Article XVIII, for its signatories upon adoption, to draft
obligations aimed at facilitating trade in services.
Such a solution would be easier to reach from both
a procedural and a political perspective than a
standalone services facilitation agreement, because
the scope of the services facilitation provisions could
be limited to transparency and the streamlining
of administrative procedures (where convergence
among RTAs is higher) and the commitments would
be binding only to those WTO members that decide to
adopt them. It would also provide for a harmonised set
of rules that would help reduce regulatory asymmetry
and cut administrative red tape across borders.
Finally, whatever the procedure to negotiate new
obligations on services facilitation at a multilateral
level, WTO members must ensure coherence with
any other provisions that have been discussed or
adopted under the e-commerce and investment
agendas, because in the current digital era all aspects
of international trade are closely interrelated and,
therefore, bound to influence and affect one another.
12 It is worth noting that all seven RTAs under examination
have included disciplines on the criteria for measures relating
to qualification and licensing requirements and procedures.
As mentioned in Section 2.3, services facilitation
can promote sustainable development indirectly, by
supporting services liberalisation in its contribution
to the 2030 Agenda, and directly, by advancing the
achievement of specific SDGs.
Table 4 offers a few examples of the role services
facilitation provisions can play in attaining a number of
SDGs. It shows that facilitating health and educational
services by improving the procedures for the recognition
of qualifications and fostering the negotiation of MRAs
can play a role in promoting the transfer of knowledge
(e.g. on vaccines) required to ensure healthy lives,
universal access to sexual and reproductive health, and
inclusive and equitable education (SDGs 3, 4, and 5).
The development of disciplines on domestic regulation
on licensing requirements in the financial sector, on
the other hand, may contribute to improving the
regulation of global financial markets and, therefore,
reduce inequalities (SDG 10). Finally, increased
transparency on the laws and regulations governing
the supply of communication and computer services
may help empower women by enhancing the use of
enabling technology (SDG 5) and assist in the provision
of universal and affordable access to the internet
(SDG 9).
In recognising the importance of services facilitation
for the 2030 Agenda, it should also be noted that
institutional capacity constraints, unless properly
addressed, may prevent developing countries and
least developed countries from fully capturing the
benefits accruing from increased transparency and
simplified procedures in the services sector. While
the representative group of RTAs analysed in this
paper offers little guidance on this issue, since no
provisions related to services facilitation were found
to take into consideration different developmental
circumstances (with the exception of Chapter 25 on
regulatory coherence in CPTPP), the TFA experience
5. Services Facilitation
and Sustainable
Development Goals
15
RTA EXCHANGE
Sustainable Development Goal Reference/target Service sector Services facilitation
3 (Good Health and Well-Being) Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being
for all at all ages
Health services Recognition of
qualifications
4 (Quality Education) Ensure inclusive and equitable good-quality
education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all
Educational services Recognition of
qualifications
5 (Gender Equality) Ensure universal access to sexual and
reproductive health and reproductive rights
(Target 5.6)
Health services Recognition of
qualifications
5 (Gender Equality) Enhance use of enabling technology, in
particular information and communications
technology (ICT), to promote empowerment
of women (Target 5.8)
Communication
services, computer
services
Increased transparency,
administration of
procedures
9 (Industry, Innovation and
Infrastructure)
Significantly increase access to ICT and
strive to provide universal and affordable
internet access in least developed countries
by 2020 (Target 9.c)
Communication
services, computer
services
Increased transparency,
administration of
procedures
10 (Reduced Inequalities) Improve regulation and monitoring of
global financial markets and institutions
and strengthen implementation of such
regulations (Target 10.5)
Financial services Disciplines on domestic
regulation
Table 4.
Role of services facilitation provisions
Source: Author
could be used as a footprint to develop multilateral
disciplines facilitating trade in services that allow for
some flexibility in the implementation of regulatory
commitments based on members’ capacity.
Services facilitation, an essential component of the
Facilitation 2.0 framework, is a rather novel concept
that refers to the simplification, modernisation, and
harmonisation of services regulation with a view to
reducing transaction costs. Similar to the TFA, which
is heralded as a powerful tool to addressing the needs
of developing countries in tackling poverty alleviation,
services facilitation can contribute to fostering the
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Therefore,
understanding how to best facilitate trade in services
is particularly important from a development
perspective.
So far, the most significant advances in rule-making
on services facilitation have taken place at the regional
level. An overview of a representative set of RTAs
shows that it is common for parties to RTAs to include
provisions, with different degrees of scope and depth,
that—directly or indirectly—facilitate trade in services
and that in most cases the parties undertook GATS+
commitments.
Taking into consideration that the architecture of GATS
offers valid and solid alternatives to a self-standing
agreement for the multilateralisation of disciplines on
services facilitation, RTA best practices indicate that
disciplines on transparency and the streamlining of
administrative procedures, including those related to
the temporary entry of services suppliers, have the
greatest potential for multilateralisation—in the form
of additional commitments under GATS Article XVIII or
Article VI:4—and that WTO members are more likely
to agree on negotiating multilateral disciplines on
services facilitation as soft (or best-endeavour) law
rather than hard law.
6. Conclusion
16
RTA EXCHANGE
References
Anér, E m i l i e a n d M a r k o s M o n t m a r S t a v r o u l a k i s . 2 0 0 8 .
The Contribution of Trade to a
New EU Growth Strategy: Facilitating Trade in Services.
Stockholm: National Board of
Trade of Sweden.
Chakravarty, Aveek. 2017.
India’s Proposal for Trade Facilitation in Services: a Breath of
Fresh Air for Global Trade?
CTEI Working Paper. Geneva: Graduate Institute.
De, Prabir. 2013. “Assessing Barriers to Trade in Services in India: an Empirical
Investigation.”
Journal of Economic Integration
28 (1).
ICTSD. 2016,
Services and Sustainable Development: a Conceptual Approach
. Geneva:
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
Lejárraga, Iza.2013.
Multilateralising Regionalism: Strengthening Transparency
Disciplines in Trade.
OECD Trade Policy Papers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD).
Meléndez-Ortiz, Ricardo. 2018.
Facilitation 2.0: Enabling Trade in the Digital Era.
Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. https://www.
ictsd.org/opinion/facilitation-20-enabling-trade-in-the-digital-age.
National Board of Trade Sweden. 2016.
The Servicification of EU Manufacturing:
Building Competitiveness in the Internal Market.
Stockholm: National Board of Trade
of Sweden.
OECD. 2017.
Services Trade Policies and the Global Economy
. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
OECD. 2015.
Trade Policy Implications for Global Value Chains
. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). https://www.oecd.org/tad/trade-
policy-implications-gvc.pdf.
OECD. n.d. “Global Value Chains (GVCs).” Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD). www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm.
United Nations. 2002.
Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
.
A/CONF.199/20. New York: United Nations.
WTO. 2018.
Investment Facilitation: Relationship between Trade and Investment.
Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO). www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/
mc11_e/briefing_notes_e/bfinvestfac_e.htm.
17
RTA EXCHANGE
WTO. 2016a.
Communication from India: Possible Elements of a Trade Facilitation in
Services Agreement
. S/WPDR/W/57. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO).
WTO. 2016b.
Communication from India: Concept Note for an Initiative on Trade
Facilitation in Services
. S/WPDR/W/55. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO).
WTO. 1998.
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
. WT/L/274. Geneva: World
Trade Organization (WTO).
Jointly implemented by the International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the RTA Exchange works in the interest
of the sharing of ideas, experiences to date, and best practices
to harvest innovation from RTAs and leverage lessons learned
towards progress at the multilateral level. Conceived in the
context of the E15 Initiative, the RTA Exchange creates a space
where stakeholders can access the collective international
knowledge on RTAs and engage in dialogue on RTA-related
policy issues.
