Mode 4: current regimes
Julia Nielson / Olivier
Cattaneo
Trade Directorate
OECD
Current regimes
Country case studies
US and Australia
best data, well-developed schemes
transparency of information
focus on general lessons/insights
Treatment 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 - issues
Migration categories do NOT generally
distinguish between service and nonservice activities
e.g., business visitors or “company managers” etc
could involve service and non-service sector
activities
Not always clear what might be a service
e.g., temporary agricultural workers OR suppliers
of fruit-picking services
Even where service sector indicated, may not
correspond to W/120 categories
Country studies - issues
Also not always clear the extent to which
an activity is commercial
e.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 - issues
Definition question
foreign workers working on contract for
domestic companies vs as employees of
domestic companies
language of GATS vs members’ commitments
But are issues
can be difficult to know type of contract
not a migration distinction
have included them without prejudice to
determination on this point
Country study - findings
Temporary 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
entrant
extensions 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, intracorporate transferees and specialty occupation
workers in the US; business visitors, medical and
educational in Australia
Country study - findings
Specific regimes in areas of particular
interest
e.g., sport, entertainment, medical
linked to mode 3 - investors or intra-corporate
transferees/regional headquarters agreements
GATS - “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.
RTAs
Wide 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 this
free 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
outs
exclude permanent migration and access to
labour market
don’t impinge on right to regulate entry and stay
of individuals
Most RTAs are subject to general immigration
legislation
parties 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., EUMexico, US-Jordan)
RTAs also feed off each other
Latin American agreements; proposals in
FTAA resemble NAFTA and EU-Mexico
RTAs
Some 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 chapters
e.g., EU-Mexico in financial services
RTAs
Facilitated 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 access
e.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 chapter
CARICOM, NAFTA, Canada-Chile, Europe
Agreements, Japan-Singapore, Group of Three
RTAs
Agreements using GATS model with some
additional elements
US-Jordan, EU-Mexico, AFTA, Euro-Med (Morocco,
Tunisia), New Zealand-Singapore
Agreements using the GATS model
MERCOSUR
Agreements providing no market access but
facilitated entry
APEC, 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 visas
APEC Business Travel Card
Experience might be interesting for GATS
indicates 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