Presentation on theme: "Mode 4: current regimes Julia Nielson / Olivier Cattaneo Trade Directorate OECD."— Presentation transcript:
Mode 4: current regimes Julia Nielson / Olivier Cattaneo Trade Directorate OECD
Current regimes zCountry case studies yUS and Australia xbest data, well-developed schemes xtransparency of information yfocus on general lessons/insights zTreatment of labour mobility in RTAs ydifferent models ydetail distributed, focus on general patterns
Country case studies zGATS schedules set out commitments BUT ymay not reflect current regime ydont mention visa categories zNeed to look at actual temporary entry systems operated by migration authorities ysense of scale of entry yterms, conditions and means of entry zBut this requires some mapping of mode 4 coverage….
Country case studies zDifferent systems, different policy communities -migration and trade (mode 4) ycategories not the same yinformation required not always the same zSome interpretations involved ylevel of detail not always sufficient to judge extent of mode 4 coverage
Country studies - issues zMigration categories do separate between temporary and permanent yand often between short-term visit and longer term (but still temporary) presence zWithin temporary entrants, also distinguish ytype of occupation (skill level or perhaps sector or specific profession - e.g., medical) ycountry of origin
Country studies - issues zMigration categories do NOT generally distinguish between service and non- service activities xe.g., business visitors or company managers etc could involve service and non-service sector activities zNot always clear what might be a service xe.g., temporary agricultural workers OR suppliers of fruit-picking services yEven where service sector indicated, may not correspond to W/120 categories
Country studies - issues zAlso not always clear the extent to which an activity is commercial xe.g., amateur and professional athletes zSome activities are also mixed modes xe.g., industrial/occupational trainees (mode 2 consumption or mode 4?) xexchange programs - students (mode 2) and lecturers (mode 4)? xWorking Holiday Makers - mode 2 tourists or mode 4 service suppliers?
Country studies - issues zDefinition question yforeign workers working on contract for domestic companies vs as employees of domestic companies xlanguage of GATS vs members commitments yBut are issues xcan be difficult to know type of contract xnot a migration distinction xhave included them without prejudice to determination on this point
Country study - findings zTemporary entry increasing zGeneral requirement for a certain level of skills or education zSponsored workers required to be paid the same rates as nationals and same working conditions zAll subject to general visa conditions regarding e.g, good health and character xfamilies often included
Country study - findings yPeriods of stay vary according to type of entrant xextensions generally (but not always) possible and subject to a maximum limit yDetailed breakdown by category provide good data on numbers and country of origin of key entrants xe.g., temporary visitors for business, intra- corporate transferees and specialty occupation workers in the US; business visitors, medical and educational in Australia
Country study - findings zSpecific regimes in areas of particular interest xe.g., sport, entertainment, medical xlinked to mode 3 - investors or intra-corporate transferees/regional headquarters agreements xGATS - service sellers visa in Australia yAttempts to minimise any negative impacts on nationals (e.g., labour market testing) ySpecial facilitation schemes for certain nationals, including on the basis of RTAs.
RTAs zWide variety - from total freedom of labour to facilitation of existing access only yreflects, e.g., geographical proximity; levels of development, cultural and historical ties. ywhile GATS is limited to temporary movement of service suppliers, some RTAs go beyond this xfree movement of labour xor limited movement, but beyond service suppliers
RTAs yRTAs not providing full labour or service supplier mobility tend to use GATS-type carve outs xexclude permanent migration and access to labour market xdont impinge on right to regulate entry and stay of individuals yMost RTAs are subject to general immigration legislation xparties retain discretion to grant, refuse and administer residence permits
RTAs zSymbiotic relationship between RTAs and the GATS yNAFTA provided model for GATS yother RTAs use GATS model (e.g., EU- Mexico, US-Jordan) zRTAs also feed off each other yLatin American agreements; proposals in FTAA resemble NAFTA and EU-Mexico
RTAs zSome cover movement only under mode 4 in services chapter xe.g., MERCOSUR, US-Jordan zSome group all mobility separately xe.g, Group of Three, Japan-Singapore zothers include reference to mobility of key personnel in investment provisions xe.g., ASEAN, proposals in draft FTAA zor sectoral chapters xe.g., EU-Mexico in financial services
RTAs zFacilitated movement of people does not always equal right to provide specific services yneed to read in conjunction with liberalisation commitments on particular service sectors for all types of agreement xagreements can exclude certain service sectors from coverage; apply special rules to certain sectors xprofessions remain governed by national regulations on licensing and qualifications
RTAs zNeed to be careful comparing RTAs (apples and oranges) ysome restrictions are unnecessary when the RTA doesnt offer a certain kind of access xe.g., EU specification that certain jobs reserved for nationals only required in context broad mobility ysome RTAs offer broad mobility, but exclude some sectors; others cover all sectors but limit mobility to certain defined groups.
RTAs zPaper creates number of broad groupings based on text, not implementation yfull mobility of labour xEU, EEA, EFTA, COMESA, Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement ymarket access for certain groups, including beyond service suppliers and/or agreements grouping all mobility in a separate chapter xCARICOM, NAFTA, Canada-Chile, Europe Agreements, Japan-Singapore, Group of Three
RTAs yAgreements using GATS model with some additional elements xUS-Jordan, EU-Mexico, AFTA, Euro-Med (Morocco, Tunisia), New Zealand-Singapore yAgreements using the GATS model xMERCOSUR yAgreements providing no market access but facilitated entry xAPEC, SAARC yNo provisions or works in progress xCEFTA and FTAA, SADC respectively
RTAs zAdditionally, some RTAs create special visa schemes or other types of managed entry xTrade NAFTA visas xAPEC Business Travel Card yExperience might be interesting for GATS xindicates that the more diverse the membership, more scope allowed for existing regimes xadministrative capacity a major issue
Conclusion zBoth RTAs and country case studies underline yrange of options for access, calibrated to national needs yneed for close policy coordination and dialogue between migration and trade authorities yneed to consider how to implement commitments and administrative capacity required