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
0
