Mode 4: current regimes

Julia Nielson / Olivier CattaneoTrade DirectorateOECD

Current regimes

Country case studies US and Australia

best data, well-developed schemestransparency of information

focus on general lessons/insightsTreatment of labour mobility in RTAs

different models detail distributed, focus on general

patterns

Country case studies

GATS schedules set out commitments BUT may not reflect current regime don’t mention visa categories

Need to look at actual temporary entry systems operated by migration authorities sense of scale of entry terms, conditions and means of entry

But this requires some “mapping” of mode 4 coverage….

Country case studies

Different systems, different policy communities -migration and trade (mode 4) categories not the same information required not always the same

Some interpretations involved level of detail not always sufficient to

judge extent of mode 4 coverage

Country studies - issues

Migration categories do separate between temporary and permanent and often between short-term visit and

longer term (but still temporary) presence Within temporary entrants, also

distinguish type of occupation (skill level or perhaps

sector or specific profession - e.g., medical) country of origin

Country studies - issuesMigration categories do NOT generally

distinguish between service and non-service activities

e.g., business visitors or “company managers” etc could involve service and non-service sector activities

Not always clear what might be a servicee.g., temporary agricultural workers OR suppliers of

fruit-picking services

Even where service sector indicated, may not correspond to W/120 categories

Country studies - issuesAlso not always clear the extent to

which an activity is commerciale.g., amateur and professional athletes

Some activities are also “mixed modes”e.g., industrial/occupational trainees (mode 2

consumption or mode 4?)exchange programs - students (mode 2) and

lecturers (mode 4)?Working Holiday Makers - mode 2 tourists or

mode 4 service suppliers?

Country studies - issuesDefinition question

foreign workers working on contract for domestic companies vs as employees of domestic companieslanguage of GATS vs members’ commitments

But are issuescan be difficult to know type of contractnot a migration distinctionhave included them without prejudice to

determination on this point

Country study - findingsTemporary entry increasing General requirement for a certain level of

skills or education Sponsored workers required to be paid

the same rates as nationals and same working conditions

All subject to general visa conditions regarding e.g, good health and character

families often included

Country study - findings Periods of stay vary according to type of

entrantextensions generally (but not always) possible

and subject to a maximum limit

Detailed breakdown by category provide good data on numbers and country of origin of key entrants e.g., temporary visitors for business, intra-

corporate transferees and specialty occupation workers in the US; business visitors, medical and educational in Australia

Country study - findingsSpecific regimes in areas of particular

intereste.g., sport, entertainment, medicallinked to mode 3 - investors or intra-corporate

transferees/regional headquarters agreementsGATS - “service sellers” visa in Australia

Attempts to minimise any negative impacts on nationals (e.g., labour market testing)

Special facilitation schemes for certain nationals, including on the basis of RTAs.

RTAsWide variety - from total freedom of labour

to facilitation of existing access only reflects, e.g., geographical proximity; levels of

development, cultural and historical ties. while GATS is limited to temporary movement

of service suppliers, some RTAs go beyond thisfree movement of labour or limited movement, but beyond service suppliers

RTAs RTAs not providing full labour or service

supplier mobility tend to use GATS-type carve outsexclude permanent migration and access to

labour marketdon’t impinge on right to regulate entry and stay

of individuals

Most RTAs are subject to general immigration legislationparties retain discretion to grant, refuse and

administer residence permits

RTAs

Symbiotic relationship between RTAs and the GATS NAFTA provided model for GATS other RTAs use GATS model (e.g., EU-

Mexico, US-Jordan)RTAs also feed off each other

Latin American agreements; proposals in FTAA resemble NAFTA and EU-Mexico

RTAsSome cover movement only under mode 4

in services chapter e.g., MERCOSUR, US-Jordan

Some group all mobility separately e.g, Group of Three, Japan-Singapore

others include reference to mobility of key personnel in investment provisions

e.g., ASEAN, proposals in draft FTAA

or sectoral chapterse.g., EU-Mexico in financial services

RTAsFacilitated movement of people does not

always equal right to provide specific services need to read in conjunction with liberalisation

commitments on particular service sectors for all types of agreement agreements can exclude certain service sectors

from coverage; apply special rules to certain sectors

professions remain governed by national regulations on licensing and qualifications

RTAs

Need to be careful comparing RTAs (apples and oranges) some restrictions are unnecessary when the

RTA doesn’t offer a certain kind of accesse.g., EU specification that certain jobs reserved

for nationals only required in context broad mobility

some RTAs offer broad mobility, but exclude some sectors; others cover all sectors but limit mobility to certain defined groups.

RTAs

Paper creates number of broad groupings based on text, not implementation full mobility of labour

EU, EEA, EFTA, COMESA, Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement

market access for certain groups, including beyond service suppliers and/or agreements grouping all mobility in a separate chapterCARICOM, NAFTA, Canada-Chile, Europe

Agreements, Japan-Singapore, Group of Three

RTAs Agreements using GATS model with some

additional elementsUS-Jordan, EU-Mexico, AFTA, Euro-Med (Morocco,

Tunisia), New Zealand-Singapore

Agreements using the GATS modelMERCOSUR

Agreements providing no market access but facilitated entryAPEC, SAARC

No provisions or works in progress CEFTA and FTAA, SADC respectively

RTAs

Additionally, some RTAs create special visa schemes or other types of managed entry

Trade NAFTA visasAPEC Business Travel Card

Experience might be interesting for GATSindicates that the more diverse the

membership, more scope allowed for existing regimes

administrative capacity a major issue

Conclusion

Both RTAs and country case studies underline range of options for access, calibrated to

national needs need for close policy coordination and

dialogue between migration and trade authorities

need to consider how to implement commitments and administrative capacity required

Thank you