Photocredits: watcharakun/FreeDigitalPhotos.net
All the built up expectations last year towards the possibility of concluding a plurilateral agreement on services on a large scale have now moved into limbo in the last month. The  23 parties announced in early December that negotiations were suspended after the US presidential election and due to difficulties in getting the EU to engage on key issues. Progress on the front of other mega-regional agreements such as TPP is even less likely.

The recent decision calls for the need to push forward with the services agenda within the Pacific Alliance which keeps a humble approach on this field. There is a lot to be done on this front starting with the development of an overarching regional policy that is certainly not exhausted by the aggregation of single services offers of each member.

Services exporting baskets in the PA members continue to be low when compared to other developing countries in Asia Pacific. Trade balances systematically show a deficit on services trade despite some progress and rapid growth. Transport and travel continue to play the most import role in the services export baskets of the countries while the potential of other commercial services, including business services, continues to be unleashed. A regional policy requires enhancing services exports within the PA and beyond.

Many issues should be considered for a regional services policy, but I would like to call the attention to some of them in this post. First, the need for regional strategies that help developing, not only competing but also complementing and integrated services offers. The members  provide competing services today in sectors such as engineering, software and IT services, health services, animation and video games. Second, regulatory coordination and harmonisation to facilitate services trade within the PA and with third countries. Moreover, it is worth examining the offers and general provisions contained in the TiSA agreement to improve some of the commitments made by the PA parties in the current agreements.

It seems that the global political scenario makes the PA the only foreseeable option for the members to move forward at a regional level in the field of services in the forthcoming years.

Sources: Bloomberg, WTO Reporter

Abstract:
Not available

Resumen:
Este reporte delinea las ventajas y los retos que la Alianza del Pacifico afronta en su camino hacia la integración económica. Más aún, destaca las oportunidades que el bloque comercial ofrece a las compañías privadas que pueden beneficiarse con la creación de este gran mercado y convertirse en uno de los impulsores de su éxito, en el caso que actúen decisivamente ahora.

Proyectamos que si la Alianza del Pacífico continúa sus esfuerzos de cooperación e integración, y toma los pasos correctos para mejorar la productividad, estará en posición de incrementar su actual promedio de crecimiento anual proyectado de 3.3 a 5.2% para 2035. Esto traerá vastos beneficios en términos de desarrollo humano y sustentabilidad donde la Alianza tiene metas ambiciosas. También ofrece oportunidades de negocios con posibilidades de amplio espectro dada la conexión de la Alianza con el mercado de Estados Unidos a través del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), suscrito por México, y a la región Asia-Pacífico por medio del TPP, del cual México, Perú y Chile son signatarios.

Aunque el énfasis ha estado en la negociación de bienes, se estima que la región tiene un gran potencial en materia de exportación de servicios. Con base en los acuerdos y lineamientos ya contenidos en el Protocolo Adicional, se espera que los países precisen a corto plazo las reglas y criterios específicos para armonizar el tratamiento de ámbitos tan diversos como los servicios profesionales, los servicios de offshoring, los servicios de telecomunicaciones, los servicios de transporte, entre otros.

Institutional Author: PwC
Full document: 2016, Pwc, El Futuro de la Alianza del Pacífico- Integración para un Crecimiento Productivo

Abstract:
The establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) is one of the priorities of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to enhance regional economic integration beyond the Bogor Goals, as reflected in the Beijing Roadmap for APEC in 2014. Multiple pathways could converge into the FTAAP, and these include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This paper discusses the potential of the Pacific Alliance (PA) to provide an additional pathway that also contributes to the FTAAP process and regional integration in Asia-Pacific.

The analysis suggests that the PA can be considered a comprehensive mechanism that is in line with the Bogor Goals, and its achievements in areas such as market access, services, investment, and new generation issues suggest that it is a WTO+ agreement. However, some issues would need to be negotiated among its members—such as intellectual property, labour, and environmental protection—for the PA to profile itself as a pathway equivalent to the TPP. The PA, however, is more comprehensive than the RCEP. The analysis also suggests that despite having only four members, the PA is a “living agreement” and is open to other APEC economies for membership and, therefore, has the potential to become a region-wide agreement.

Resumen:
No disponible

Authors: Camilo Pérez-Restrepo and Adriana Roldan-Pérez
Full document: 2016, Restrepo & Roldan, Is the Pacific Alliance a Potential Pathway to the FTAAP?

by Eric Leroux

The objective of the Pacific Alliance with respect to trade in services is to “build in a participatory and consensual way an area of deep integration to move progressively towards the free movement of […] services.” The key word in this sentence is “progressively”, and the missing, but (at least) equally important, one is “seriously”.

If one were to speak of the Pacific Alliance’s achievements in the services area in speed terms, one would say that it still is in first gear. Not that this is any different from what is taking place under other trade-liberalizing agreements; to the contrary, the Pacific Alliance is dutifully espousing the existing models reflected in, on the one hand, the NAFTA, and on the other, the GATS. The Pacific Alliance’s services disciplines negotiated thus far draw on both models, using, presumably, what is considered to be the best of both models. The problem is that those two models are now flawed: they no longer reflect the reality of the marketplace, nor truly tackle head-on those issues that will be determinative of real, significant, liberalization of services trade in the coming decades.