iv. fokus indonesia prioritas perundingan rcep dibandingkan tpp
TRANSCRIPT
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 171
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 172
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 173
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 kebijakan-
kebijakan 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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 174
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 negara-
negara 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 negara-
negara Amerika Latin dan Asia sebagai “spokes” nya. Walaupun di satu
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 175
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 176
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 177
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 178
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 179
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:
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 180
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 181
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 inter-
sessionally and at 3rd RCEP TNC meeting, as necessary.
4.2 Intellectual Property
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 182
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 non-
paper 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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 183
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 184
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 185
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 186
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 187
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 188
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 RCEP-
Trade 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, high-
quality 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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 189
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
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 190
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.
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 191
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;
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 192
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 Committee and
Implementing Arrangement;
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 193
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 semi-annually 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:
Hasil-Hasil Kesepakatan Perundingan Perdagangan Indonesia 2013
Direktorat Jenderal Kerja Sama Perdagangan Internasional 194
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.