IV. Fokus Indonesia : Prioritas Perundingan RCEP dibandingkan TPP

Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013

IV. Fokus Indonesia : Prioritas Perundingan RCEP dibandingkan TPP Forum Trans Pacific Partnership atau yang biasa disebut TPP dicetuskan oleh Amerika Serikat belakangan ini untuk menandingi atau meredam pertumbuhan kawasan Asia yang dipicu oleh China dan India. Indonesia dituntut untuk berhati-hati dalam mengambil keputusan untuk memfokuskan diri di forum TPP atau RCEP?. Sebelum menjawab pertanyaan tersebut, baiknya ditinjau terlebih dahulu kondisi FTA baik bilateral dan regional yang sudah terbentuk. Indonesia juga ASEAN tidak dapat dipungkiri akan lebih baik jika terintegrasi dengan negara lain dan membentuk mega-regional FTA. Ketidakpuasan banyak anggota WTO terhadap laju perundingan DOHA membuat banyak negara mengambil inisiatif untuk melakukan biateral dan regional FTA dengan harapan kesepakatan akan lebih cepat terwujud karena jumlah anggota yang lebih sedikit sehingga konflik kepentingan antar anggota akan lebih cepat terselesaikan. Terhitung sampai April 2013, terdapat 76 perjanjian perdagangan baik itu bersifat bilateral maupun regional, dengan negara-negara di Asia menjadi negara yang terdepan dalam perjanjian perdagangan tersebut. Di satu sisi, tren perdagangan dan investasi yang menjadi semakin terfragmentasi, membentuk rantai produksi global yang menuntut semakin terintegrasinya kawasan ekonomi. Di sisi lain, banyaknya FTA bilateral dan regional yang sudah terjalin, tidak dipersiapkan untuk menghadapi tren tersebut. Sebagai respon dari ketidaksinergian tersebut, banyak negara berupaya membentuk mega-regional FTA sebagai langkah untuk menyederhanakan kompleksitas FTA dan mendukung kondisi perdagangan dan investasi dalam membentuk rantai produksi global. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

171


Dua perundingan mega-regional, TPP dan RCEP mendominasi perundingan regional di kawasan Asia Pasifik. Dapat ditarik kesimpulan sederhana bahwa kedua mega-regional FTA ini berkompetisi satu sama lain seperti yang dijelaskan secara implisit di atas. Namun dalam sudut pandang yang lebih luas, dalam jangka waktu yang lebih panjang, kedua mega-regional FTA ini sebenarnya melengkapi satu sama lain. Keduanya dapat dikatakan dua jalan yang berbeda menuju terintegrasinya ekonomi di kawasan Asia Pasifik, dimana keterhubungan antara barang, jasa, dan manusia saling terkait dan dapat bergerak secara bebas di kawasan. Mencoba kembali menjawab pertanyaan utama tadi, manakah yang lebih baik untuk Indonesia?. Diantara anggota ASEAN, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, dan Brunei sudah memastikan diri mengikuti perundingan kedua mega-regional FTA tersebut. Indonesia di satu sisi baru memfokuskan diri pada skema RCEP. Untuk memahami perbandingan antara TPP dan RCEP, maka keduanya perlu dilihat dari sudut pandang pragmatis dan geostrategis. Dari sudut pandang pragmatis, Indonesia berpendapat untuk terus melanjutkan perannya sebagai observer pada perundingan TPP daripada ikut sebagai peserta pada tahap ini. Dalam TPP, penekenan dalam negosiasi lebih banyak ditujukan pada area yang kita sebut isu perdagangan “next-genaration”. Perjanjian ini bersifat mengikat secara hukum yang melewati skema tradisional perjanjian FTA sebelumnya. Pada skema tradisional perjanjian FTA, beberapa kebijakan “dalam batas” / kebijakan domestik adalah tanggung jawab sepenuhnya pemerintah. Di Indonesia misalnya, isu tarif buruh, peraturan persaingan usaha, standar tenaga kerja menjadi tanggung jawab sepenuhnya pemerintah pusat, bekerja sama dengan pemerintah daerah. Perjanjian perdagangan “next generation” akan mencabut hak pemerintah negara Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

172


pesertanya dalam menerapkan kebijakan-kebijakan yang diatur dalam perjanjian tersebut. Acuan kebijakan langsung mengacu pada hasil kesepakatan yang dirumuskan dalam perjanjian perundingan. Peran pemerintah menjadi sebatas evaluator dan penjaga agar kebijakankebijakan yang sudah disepakati dijalankan. Selain itu, perundingan TPP lebih menitikberatkan pada isu-isu perdagangan yang menjadi kepentingan negara-negara maju seperti hak atas kekayaan intelektual dan procurement pemerintah. Setidaknya dari sudut pandang Indonesia, TPP kurang memberikan ruang untuk pembahasan isu perdagangan negara berkembang seperti peningkatan akses pasar untuk tekstil dan produk pertanian, yang menjadi keunggulan negara-negara berkembang. Hipotesa sederhana yang muncul adalah, kehadiran USA, Jepang, dan Kanada yang merupakan negara-negara maju yang diidentifikasi sebagai negara-negara yang paling banyak melakukan proteksi dan memberikan subsidi bagi petani lokal mereka akan mengedepankan isu perdagangan yang lain selain isu pertanian. Meskipun begitu, isu perdagangan “next generation” bukannya tidak penting bagi Indonesia, namun hal tersebut bukan prioritas bagi Indonesia saat ini. Sebagai negara berkembang, Indonesia butuh untuk mempertahankan fleksibilitasnya untuk mengimplementasikan reformasi struktural (behind the border) sesuai ritme dan kemampuannya, dibandingkan jika harus didikte oleh perjanjian perdagangan eksternal yang bersifat mengikat. Pada tahap ini, ambisi yang ingin dicapai melalui perundingan TPP dinilai terlalu ambisius bagi Indonesia dan negara berkembang lainnya, selain juga lebih mengedepankan isu perdagangan negara maju. Perundingan RCEP sebaliknya, di satu sisi juga berambisi untuk mencari solusi isu-isu perdagangan yang diangkat oleh perundingan TPP, perbedaannya, perundingan RCEP dinilai lebih seimbang memperjuangkan kepentingan Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

173


negara-negara maju dan berkembang. Lebih jauh lagi, RCEP memberikan keleluasan bagi para anggotanya melalui special and differential treatment terutama bagi anggota ASEAN untuk dapat mengimplementasikan reformasi struktural. Hal ini memungkinkan negara peserta RCEP untuk memilih fokus sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan kemampuan mereka. Semakin terintegrasinya RCEP juga dapat menguraikan kompleksitas FTA bilateral dan regional yang ada saat ini. Komitmen bersama anggota RCEP untuk menghasilkan komitmen pada waktu yang bersamaan juga dapat dilihat sebagai fitur yang tidak dijumpai pada perundingan TPP. Selain itu, peran surat keterangan asal (SKA) pada perundingan RCEP juga tidak kalah penting. Dalam lima perjanjian perdagangan ASEAN+1 FTA dan 23 perjanjian perdagangan bilateral yang menyertakan negaranegara anggota ASEAN memiliki aturan SKA yang berbeda. Hal ini akan berdampak pada tingkat kesulitan para pelaku usaha dalam menerbitkan SKA, yang akan berujung pada mudah/sulitnya mendapatkan preferential treatment. Banyaknya variasi SKA dalam skema perjanjian perdagangan yang sudah terbentuk membuat proses harmonisasi SKA sulit dilakukan. Diharapkan, kesepakatan yang ingin dicapai dalam perundingan RCEP dapat menyelaraskan perbedaan SKA tersebut sehingga benang kusut FTA di kawasan Asia lebih mudah diuraikan. Dari sudut pandang geostratefis, perbedaan antara TPP dan RCEP tidak hanya terletak pada susunan keanggotaannya, namun juga arsitektur geografinya. TPP, hingga saat ini belum menyertakan India dan China, dua raksasa dari negara ekonomi berkembang. Keanggotaan TPP lebih didominasi oleh banyak negara maju dan kaya seperti Amerika Serikat, Kanada, Jepang, Australia, dan Selandia Baru. Model kerja sama TPP berpusat pada Amerika Serikat sebagai “hub” nya, dengan negaranegara Amerika Latin dan Asia sebagai “spokes” nya. Walaupun di satu Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

174


sisi, konfigurasi “hub” dan “spokes” menyederhanakan medan perdagangan regional bagi negara-negara eksportir ke US, namun di sisi lainnya, hal tersebut hanya akan sedikit berpengaruh terhadap perdagangan antaran anggota yang berperan sebagai “spokes”. Sebaliknya dalam RCEP, pusat perkembangan terletak pada format perjanjian perdagangan ASEAN+1 dengan Australia, China, India, Jepang, Korea, dan Selandia Baru serta negara-negara anggota ASEAN lainnya. Bagi Indonesia dan ASEAN, RCEP jauh lebih menarik ketimbang TPP karena model pengembangan nya berpusat di ASEAN. Selain itu, meskipun RCEP tidak melibatkan Amerika Serikat, namun melibatkan Jepang, Korea selatan, dan tiga ekonomi terbesar negara berkembang yaitu China, India, dan Indonesia. Perkiraan kasar menyebutkan bahwa implementasi RCEP akan menyumbang 260-644 milyar dollar kepada ekonomi dunia. Dari sudut pandang potensi pertumbuhan, RCEP juga menawarkan pertumbuhan yang lebih menjanjikan bagi ASEAN dan Indonesia karena letak geografisnya yang berada diatara China dan India. Indonesia dan ASEAN dapat mengambil kesempatan seiring pertumbuhan ekonomi kawasan di utara dan selatan nya. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, ASEAN telah menjadi sumber ketiga terbesar untuk FDI bagi negara-negara anggota ASEAN setelah EU dan Jepang. Selain itu, jumlah pengunjung pariwisata terbanyak juga berasal dari ASEAN. Tanpa menyederhanakan proses perundingan RCEP, perjanjian perdagangan RCEP harus memiliki kualitas yang tinggi tidak hanya pada sektor perdagangan barang, termasuk sektor pertanian, namun juga sektor perdagangan jasa. Pasar perdagangan jasa yang terbuka, aktif dan terus berkembang akan sangat kritikal bagi Indonesia. Hal tersebut dapat mengangkat peran Indonesia untuk dapat berpartisipasi dalam rantai produksi global yang lebih tinggi, dengan melibatkan lebih banyak Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

175


tenaga kerja yang terampil dalam industri yang memiliki marjin keuntungan yang lebih besar. Ekonomi dewasa ini semakin bergantung pada sektor jasa sebagai penggerak aktivitas ekonominya juga penciptaan lapangan kerja. Sektor jasa seperti transportasi dan logistik, telekomunikasi, dan jasa keuangan dapat menciptakan basis bagi infrastruktur ekonomi, sedangkan jasa di sektor pendidikan, kesehatan , dan sosial dapat meningkatkan ketersediaan dan kualitas tenaga kerja Indonesia. Jasa profesional juga menyediakan keahlian yang semakin spesifik yang dibutuhkan oleh perusahaan-perusahaan untuk meningkatkan level produktivitas dan kompetisinya. Di beberapa negara yang memiliki pendapatan perkapita yang tinggi, sektor jasa berkontribusi sebesar 75% dari output ekonominya, sedangkan di Indonesia jumlah tersebut baru mencapai kisaran 40%. Melihat fakta tersebut, sektor jasa dan sektor yang terkait dengan sektor jasa merupakan sektor yang paling berkembang pesat dalam ekonomi Indonesia. Dalam perundingan multilateral WTO, liberalisasi perdagangan jasa turut macet bersama aspek lain yang diperundingkan di putaran DOHA. Negara-negara berkembang tidak ingin membuka sektor jasa nya karena negara-negara maju terutama Amerika Serikat dan negara-negara Eropa tidak mau membuka sektor pertanian mereka. Sebagai respon terhadap hal ini, 28 negara maju mengambil inisiatif untuk merundingkan perjanjian perdagangan jasa plurilateral yang dikenal sebagai Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Dengan TiSA ini, negara maju mengharapkan negara-negara berkembang untuk ikut serta dalam perundingan tersebut, jika tidak, mereka akan tertinggal. Skema RCEP jika dapat muncul sebagai sebuah perjanjian yang memiliki komitmen tinggi terhadap sektor perdagangan jasa akan dapat menjadi lawan sebanding bagi TiSA. Dilihat dari susunan keanggotaannya, TiSA Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

176


tidak menyertakan negara-negara berkembang di Asia, tidak pula termasuk China dan India. Padahal, di Asia lah potensi perdagangan jasa banyak ditemui. Di luar Pakistan dan beberapa negara anggota dari Asia Latin, keanggotaan TiSA banyak didominasi oleh negara kaya yang membentuk struktur perdagangan jasa yang sudah mapan dan cukup terbuka antara satu sama lain. Hal ini menyebabkan ruang untuk perkembagnan perdagangan jasa di forum TiSA sangat terbatas. Liberalisasi sektor perdagangan pada forum RCEP sebaliknya, menawarkan keuntungan yang jauh lebih besar karena struktur perdagangan jasa yang masih dapat dikembangkan secara luas.

Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

177


LAMPIRAN

THE SECOND MEETING OF THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP TRADE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE (2ndRCEP-TNC) 23-27 September 2013, Brisbane, Australia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

1. The Second Meeting of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Trade Negotiating Committee was held on 23-27 September 2013 in Brisbane, Australia. The Meeting was attended by lead negotiators and respective delegations from ASEAN Member States, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand, the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for ASEAN Economic Community and staff members of the ASEAN Secretariat. The Meeting was chaired by Mr. Djatmiko Bris Witjaksono, Director of ASEAN Cooperation, Ministry of Trade, Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN lead negotiator Mr. Iman Pambagyo, Director-General of Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

178


International Trade Cooperation, Ministry of Trade, Indonesia, working in conjunction with the AFP Facilitator, Mr. Michael Mugliston, Special Negotiator, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia. 2. The list of delegates. Agenda Item No. 1

Adoption of the Agenda

3. The Meeting considered and adopted the revised agenda. Agenda Item No. 2

Business Arrangements

4. Australia briefed the Meeting on the business arrangements which appears as. Agenda Item No. 3

The First RCEP Ministerial Meeting

5. The Meeting considered and agreed on Summary of Discussions of the First RCEP Ministerial Meeting which appears as, except for sentence 3 of paragraph 5, as shown below: “The TNC will negotiate the parameters towards less deviation than the existing ASEAN+1 FTAs following the guidance by the RCEP Ministers.” 6. The Meeting noted Korea’s reservation on “limited deviation” and also China’s reservation on having schedules of commitments for investment applying to all RCEP participating countries. 7. The Meeting exchanged views on the bracketed sentence and the following are the highlights:


179


a. ASEAN and some AFP countries supported paragraph 5 of the SOD including the third sentence as a factual reflection of the guidance from Ministers; b. Some of the RCEP participating countries expressed that there was no clear agreement by the Ministers on the deviation being less than the existing ASEAN+1 FTAs; c. Some of the RCEP participating countries expressed the lack of information on the level of existing deviations which make it difficult to define the parameters for the deviation; and d. Some of the RCEP participating countries pointed out that there is no deviation for some ASEAN+1 FTAs. 8. The Meeting agreed to revisit the sentence 3 of paragraph 5 at an appropriate time. 9. The Meeting noted Japan’s proposal on “Modalities of the negotiation on market access of Trade in Goods” and also took note that Japan had distributed a proposal on parameters for deviation in Working Group on Trade in Goods. Agenda Item No. 4 Presentation and Discussion on Selected Issues to be covered in RCEP 4.1 Economic and Technical Cooperation 10. Indonesia presented ASEAN’s non-paper on “Economic and Technical Cooperation” which appears as. The Meeting noted that the ASEAN Plus Working Group on Economic Cooperation had taken stock of economic cooperation activities pursued under different ASEAN+1 FTAs and identified the need to build on and avoid duplicating these activities under RCEP. The Meeting also noted some ASEAN Member States’ and AFP’s views that some of the Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

180


elements in the ASEAN’s non-paper needed to be further considered especially the objectives, conceptual framework, scope of cooperation before discussion of funding, and governance arrangements. The Meeting further noted AFP’s views that the efficient and effective implementation of RCEP agreement should be the primary objective of the cooperation. The Meeting also noted the interest of ASEAN Member States and some AFP countries to establish a working group to facilitate a more structured discussion on this topic. The Meeting agreed to encourage the experts to continue the discussion on an informal basis and to defer establishment of a working group to a later stage. 11. The Meeting noted there was an informal discussion among some experts on economic and technical cooperation held on the sidelines. Indonesia’s draft notes of the informal discussion. On the suggested next steps, the Meeting agreed to: a. Provide written comment, if desired, on the notes of the informal discussion in order to better reflect participating experts views; b. Provide contact details of their respective experts to Indonesia and the ASEAN Secretariat by 31 October 2013; c. Provide written comments on ASEAN’s non-paper to Indonesia by 31 October 2013; d. Indonesia circulating the revised ASEAN’s non-paper, taking into consideration comments raised by RCEP participating countries, by 2 December 2013; and e. Experts can continue to exchange any views by email intersessionally and at 3rd RCEP TNC meeting, as necessary. 4.2 Intellectual Property Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

181


12. Japan presented a non-paper on “Future RCEP Intellectual Property (IP) Work Program” on the importance of IP protection in shifting to a high-value economy, promoting innovation and for “regional public goods” of international level, and proposed next steps to establish a Working Group on IP. The Meeting noted the three areas of cooperation on IP as stipulated in the Guiding Principles include utilisation, protection and enforcement. Some AFPs noted the need for greater utilization of IP, and the need to build on existing IP protections, including in the digital environment. The Meeting also noted the concern raised by some RCEP participating countries on IP and the need for Japan to clearly identify the specific TRIPs plus elements they wish to pursue given the difficulty of some RCEP participating countries to commit to a TRIPs plus outcome. The Meeting further noted the concern of some RCEP participating countries that protection of intellectual property should not become a barrier to legitimate trade and to public health and nutritional needs of people, and must contribute to technology dissemination. India conveyed its intention to provide non papers on traditional knowledge and geographical indications at an appropriate time. The also Meeting noted the interest of some AFPs to establish a working group on intellectual property at an appropriate time to continue the discussion on this issue. 13. The Meeting noted that ASEAN IP experts will be discussing Japan’s non-paper separately, and was seeking to prepare an ASEAN nonpaper on IP. The Meeting also noted there was an informal discussion among some experts on IP. To facilitate discussions of experts inter-sessionally, RCEP participating countries were requested to provide the contact details of their respective IP experts to the ASEAN Secretariat by 31 October 2013. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

182


14. The Meeting noted the possibility of having an IP seminar on the sideline of the next TNC Meeting in Malaysia. 4.3 Competition 15. The Meeting exchanged views on competition taking into consideration the initial deliberations on Japan's non-paper tabled at the first TNC. The Meeting discussed the next steps for advancing competition and agreed to encourage experts to continue the discussion on an informal basis to coincide with the TNC 3 in Malaysia. The Meeting noted that Australia and Korea intend to submit a non-paper in advance of TNC 3. 4.4 Dispute Settlement 16. Korea presented a paper on “Elements to be explored in the RCEP Dispute Settlement Chapter (DSM)”. The Meeting noted the issues raised pertaining to the objectives (e.g. interpretation of RCEP agreement) and some of its elements (e.g. coverage, scope of exceptions, non-violation complaints, establishment of panel and its associated costs, choice of forum, alternative dispute resolution). The Meeting also noted the interest of some AFP countries that there would be a need to establish a working group on dispute settlement at an appropriate time. The Meeting further noted the interest of some RCEP participating countries in establishing a more broadly-focused working group to address institutional and legal issues, including cross-cutting issues with horizontal implications (e.g. general provisions and definitions, general exceptions, transparency provisions and institutional provisions). Some AFP countries expressed reservation for establishing such working group with such a broad function. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

183


Agenda Item No. 5

Other Issues

17. New Zealand presented a non-paper on “Government Procurement”. The Meeting noted ASEAN’s difficulty to pursue this topic, formally or informally, at this point of time given the lack of a mandate to negotiate government procurement in the RCEP agreement. The Meeting also noted that some AFP countries supported the inclusion of Government Procurement in the RCEP agreement, and the suggestion of some AFP countries to continue to exchange information and experiences on this issue so as to develop a good understanding of the issues. 18. The Meeting noted the interest of Japan and New Zealand respectively to discuss electronic commerce as well as labour and environment in the RCEP negotiations. The Meeting also noted that, following the recent election, Australia is reviewing its position on labour and environment issues in the RCEP context. The Meeting further noted that ASEAN is not interested to discuss labour and environment issues at this point of time. Agenda Item No. 6 Consideration of the Summary of Discussions of the RCEP Working Groups 6.1 Trade in Goods 19. The ASEAN Lead Negotiator and AFP Facilitator of the RCEP WGTIG briefed the Meeting on the outcomes of its second meeting. The Meeting endorsed the report of the second RCEP WGTIG meeting. 20. The Meeting endorsed the establishment of the sub-Working Groups on Rules of Origin (ROO) and Customs Procedures and Trade Facilitation (CPTF) under the purview of WGTIG. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

184


6.2 Trade in Services 21. The ASEAN Lead Negotiator and AFP Facilitator of the RCEP WGTIS briefed the Meeting on the outcomes of the second meeting. The Meeting endorsed the report of the second RCEP WGTIS meeting. 6.3 Investment 22. The ASEAN Lead Negotiator and AFP Facilitator of the RCEP WGI briefed the Meeting on the outcomes of its second meeting of the WGI meeting. The Meeting endorsed the report of the second RCEP WGI meeting. Agenda Item No. 7

Work Programme for 2013-2015

23. The Meeting discussed its work programme for 2013-2015. The Meeting agreed that the dates and venues for the 4th and 5th RCEP TNC meetings should be confirmed as soon as possible. The Meeting requested the ASEAN Secretariat to update the work programme based on the decisions made at this meeting. 24. The Meeting noted ASEAN’s position to focus on goods, services and investment at the next TNC meeting, with informal discussions on economic and technical cooperation, and competition. The Meeting also noted ASEAN and some AFP countries position to prioritize the agenda item to be taken up at the next TNC meeting including providing guidance to the RCEP Working Groups, particularly Trade in Goods, in their discussion on modalities for single schedule of commitments. The Meeting further noted the strong view of some AFP countries that the area stipulated clearly in the Guiding Principles, such as Intellectual Property and Dispute Settlement, should be equally treated in the agenda of TNC and discuss in TNC to Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

185


achieve a comprehensive and balanced outcome of RCEP negotiation. It was proposed that the agenda for TNC2 items 4 and 5 should be used as the proforma basis for future TNC Meetings. The Meeting also noted the view of some AFPs that RCEP participating countries should be given the opportunity to present papers on any relevant topics at TNCs. Agenda Item No. 8

Other Matters

8.1 Principles for the Efficient Conduct of TNC and Working Group Meetings 25. Australia briefed on the paper “Principles for the Efficient Conduct of RCEP TNC and Working Group Meetings. The Meeting agreed that the paper will help to foster common understanding on how RCEP TNC and its working groups could be conducted more efficiently to ensure timely conclusion of RCEP negotiation by end 2015 as envisaged by the Leaders. The Meeting also agreed that the paper will be living document and will be revised, as the needs arise. 26. The Meeting requested WGTIG to present an interim report to TNC3 of the discussion on modalities of tariff commitments and the possible parameters for limited deviations. Korea expressed reservation on the “limited deviations”. 27. The Meeting agreed that the sub-working group on CPTF would be scheduled to meet sequentially with respect to sub-working on ROO. 8.2 Media Guidelines for Reporting on the 2nd RCEP TNC Meeting 28. The Meeting considered and adopted key messages for briefing the media on the outcomes of the 2nd RCEP TNC. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

186


Agenda Item No. 9

Date and Venue of the Next Meeting

29. The Meeting noted that the 3rd RCEP TNC meeting would be held on 21-24 January 2014 in Malaysia. The Meeting also noted that this meeting would be preceded by ASEAN and AFP Caucus meetings on 20 January 2014. 30. The Meeting also noted that the 4th RCEP TNC meeting would be held in China in April 2014. The exact dates and venue would be communicated in due course. Agenda Item No. 10 Consideration and Adoption of the Summary of Discussions of the Second RCEP TNC Meeting 31. The Meeting considered and adopted the Summary of Discussions of the Second RCEP TNC meeting held on 23-27 September 2013 in Brisbane, Australia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Delegations from the ASEAN Member States, China, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the ASEAN Secretariat expressed their appreciation to the people and Government of Australia for the warm hospitality and excellent arrangements made for the Meeting.


187


NON-PAPER ON ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION UNDER THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP) I. Purpose of the Non-Paper This non-paper is for the preparation of the establishment of the Economic and Technical Cooperation under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) covering the design and management of the Economic and Technical Cooperation. The management parts will include implementation system as well as monitoring and evaluation process for consideration by the RCEPTrade Negotiating Committee (TNC). II. Background 1. The RCEP Negotiations were launched by Leaders of ASEAN and ASEAN FTA Partners at the sideline of the 21st ASEAN Summit on 20 November 2012 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The objective of RCEP negotiations is to achieve a modern, comprehensive, highquality and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement among the ASEAN Member States and ASEAN’s FTA Partners. In line with the RCEP Guiding Principles, the RCEP-TNC is mandated to negotiate on economic and technical cooperation taking into account the different level of development of RCEP participating countries. 2. At the First RCEP TNC and RCEP Working Groups meeting on 9 - 13 May 2013 in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, ASEAN was tasked to develop a non-paper on Economic and Technical Cooperation. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

188


3. The previous exercise in 2011 to look into the various economic cooperation programs and activities in the different FTAs has been undertaken by the ASEAN Plus Working Group on Economic Cooperation (APWG-EC). The group proposed an outline of the Work Program comprising three core components, namely (i) Activities that support FTAs related targets and objectives, (ii) Activities that contribute towards the expansion of the regional economic integration, (iii) Outreach and promotional activities of region-wide economic integration. The group also further recommended an in-depth study to identify the development gaps and capacity building needs, and subsequently, the relevant activities for the Work Program as well as suggesting the appointment of coordinating body. III. Objective Economic and Technical Cooperation under the RCEP will aim at narrowing development gaps among the RCEP participating countries and maximizing mutual benefits from the implementation of the RCEP agreement by setting the environment that would enable the developing and least developed countries (LDCs) in the region to meaningfully participate in the RCEP. The Economic and Technical Cooperation under the RCEP shall be built beyond and not be overlapping with the existing economic cooperation arrangements under the ASEAN + 1 FTAs to achieve the objective of the RCEP. IV. Principles 1. The Economic and Technical Cooperation under the RCEP will recognize ASEAN centrality in the emerging regional economic architecture and the interests of ASEAN's FTA Partners in Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

189


supporting and contributing to equitable economic development and strengthening Economic and Technical Cooperation among the participating countries. 2. The Economic and Technical Cooperation shall be transparent and consistent with provisions of all sections/chapters of the RCEP Agreement in achieving the objective of the Economic and Technical Cooperation. 3. The Economic and Technical Cooperation shall take into consideration the different levels of development of the participating countries, in the forms of appropriate flexibility to developing participating countries, and additional assistance to the least-developed participating countries. 4. The Economic and Technical Cooperation shall pursue active partnership and engagement of all parties based on open communication, mutual respect and trust. V. Strategic Approach The Agreement Establishing the RCEP shall include a specific chapter on Economic and Technical Cooperation which states, inter alia, that the RCEP participating countries reaffirm the importance of ongoing economic and technical cooperation initiatives among RCEP participating countries, and agree to complement and enhance their existing economic partnership in areas where the RCEP participating countries have mutual interests, taking into account the different levels of development of the RCEP participating countries. For this, the Economic and Technical Cooperation shall ensure that the cooperation is pursued between the developed, developing and the least-developed RCEP participating countries based on region-wide cooperation approach. Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

190


VI. Key Elements The RCEP Economic and Technical Cooperation Chapter shall comprise the following key elements: a. Objective: The objective of the economic and technical cooperation under the RCEP is to support the implementation and utilization of the agreement and promote a stronger regional production network among participating countries in order to provide participating countries more equitable benefits and equitable access to the RCEP. The Economic and Technical Cooperation will focus on:  enhancing the capacity of the RCEP developing and least developing participating countries;  enhancing business awareness, capacity, and participation;  building a region-wide network among the institutions and business sectors. b. Scope To ensure the accessibility to the market provided under the RCEP, the scope of Economic and Technical Cooperation shall be focused on, but not limited to:  Upgrading Value Chain;  SMEs Development;  Standard, SPS & Certification;  Trade and Investment Promotion;  Other Areas/Sectoral Cooperation. c. Forms of Economic Cooperation:  Technical Assistance, including capacity building initiatives; Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

191


 Policy dialogue, including confidence building to government institution and business sectors;  Strategic cooperation initiatives, including private sector engagement and business matching/facilitation;  Other forms of economic cooperation. d. Sources of Support:  Funding will be provided by contributing countries and budgeting mechanism will be set-up to ensure effective and efficient allocation of resources  Contributions are related to levels of development of contributing countries  Other external sources of support may be sought as and when appropriate e. Work Program: components and further details; f.

Working Mechanism: Implementing Implementing Arrangement;


Committee

and

192


g. Monitoring and Evaluation:  For the purpose monitoring and evaluation, the performance indicators – which translate the project objectives -- shall be set up for each project  Monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken semiannually during the project implementation stage  The settings of monitoring and evaluation are provided in the diagram below.

VII. The Establishment of RCEP-Working Group on Economic and Technical Cooperation The RCEP-WG on Economic and Technical Cooperation will be established by the RCEP-TNC. The RCEP-WG on Economic and Technical Cooperation shall further develop its Terms of Reference (TOR) which consists of: Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional

193


1. background 2. objective 3. composition and chairmanship 4. scope of work 5. working group 6. meeting schedule 7. decision making 8. reporting mechanism 9. working language 10. secretariat support 11. treatment of documents 12. amendment As an alternative, the RCEP-WG on Economic and Technical Cooperation’s TOR may follow the RCEP-TNC’s TOR as applied to other RCEP Working Groups (WG on Trade in Goods, WG on Trade in Services, and WG on Investment). VIII. Way Forward This non-paper may further be developed as a Scoping Paper for the RCEP-WG on Economic and Technical Cooperation. To commence substantive discussions on Economic and Technical Cooperation, the RCEP Working Group on Economic and Technical Cooperation may further follow up the recommendations provided by APWG-EC, in particular on conducting an in-depth study to identify the development gaps and capacity building needs, and subsequently, the relevant activities for the Work Program.


194

IV. Fokus Indonesia : Prioritas Perundingan RCEP dibandingkan TPP

Recommend Documents