Today, the UK is presenting a letter of application for CPTPP membership.

This thread is for those interested in the demands of membership.

It pulls text from our policy paper on accession, written by leading CPTPP experts @leemakiyama & Dr. Deborah Elms ( @ATradeCentre)
(1/28)

General points (tweet 3/28)
Services schedules (8/28)
Regulatory divergence (15/28)
SPS (18/28)
Regulatory coherence (22/28)
Dispute settlement (24/28)
GIs (27/28)

This is a tl;dr thread. Whole paper here: https://ifreetrade.org/publication/a_roadmap_for_uk_accession_to_cptpp (published 2018) (2/28)

*General points*

Once accession gets under way with a new member, the same informal rules [as were previously in place for prospective members] regarding texts & schedules are likely to hold, i.e. new members will not be permitted to reopen existing CPTPP legal texts. (3/28)

It might be possible to discuss additional rules or expanded trade rules beyond what currently exists. But most of the negotiating energy will be spent on new member scheduling and, potentially, side letters. (4/28)

Existing CPTPP members will not be revising their own schedules in the process of future expansion. In other words, the current CPTPP legal text and all CPTPP schedules for current members will not change. (5/28)

In effect, the conclusion from the unanimous CPTPP accession procedure is that direct, bilateral negotiations must be undertaken with each of the signatories of the CPTPP. It is important to stress that the gains of CPTPP (compared to, say, a network of bilateral FTAs)… (6/28)

…is not about any time-saving aspect of negotiating a regional trade agreement with multiple partners at once: it is foremost about the efficiency of managing several commitments within one framework applied to all members in a uniform manner. (7/28)

*Services schedules*

CPTPP uses “negative list” scheduling – just like the current UK services schedule, that is integrated in EU FTAs. Put simply, under CPTPP, every single service sector and subsector (all 160) are assumed to be opened now and into the future, unless.. (8/28)

..the member takes a reservation acceptable to all other members. The CPTPP bundles services and investment commitments together. The first set of reservations (Annex I) may change in the future, if member states make improved offers to other countries in new FTAs or... (9/28)

...other trade settings or even opt to make unilateral improvements in services or investment regulations covered by the reservation. (10/28)

The 2nd set of reservations (Annex II) will not be adjusted for CPTPP members. The UK will need to decide which types of services & investment laws, regulations & practices are likely to be out of alignment with CPTPP commitments & which could be considered in the future. (11/28)

These lists, of course, will be subject to negotiation. It is again worth noting that no FTA, including CPTPP, can negate promises made elsewhere. Instead, FTAs like the CPTPP provide additional benefits that go beyond existing schedules for members. (12/28)

These commitments are also under MFN – i.e. if the UK were to make a better schedule offer bilaterally to a non-CPTPP member (like the US), it would have to offer the same market access to the other CPTPP countries. But... (13/28)

...the MFN commitment has very little meaning in practice, as most services liberalisation take place through technical regulations (rather than schedules) (14/28)

*Regulatory divergence*

CPTPP and other FTAs do not contain provisions that actually set regulatory standards, but ensures the sovereigns regulate in the most non-discriminatory fashion possible. In other words… (15/28)

…CPTPP and other trade agreements voluntarily bind its members to refrain from certain, specific discriminatory practices, like a rulebook against discrimination in national legislation – but do not replace the national legislation itself. (16/28)

This is how CPTPP (& other FTA texts) deal with a complex matter like food safety in just 16 pages, while the national legislation often runs several hundred pages long (current UK law, implemented via EU regulation (Regulation No 882/2004) on feed & food runs 196 pages). (17/28)

*SPS*

What is clearly not covered in CPTPP are specific details about SPS regulations. There is nothing in the agreement to date about appropriate or inappropriate pesticide levels/ hormones/ other details covered exhaustively in EU agreements. CPTPP members are free... (18/28)

…to regulate for human, animal & plant life health, within the boundaries of the WTO SPS and CPTPP frameworks, as long as the regulations are not arbitrary or openly discriminatory for equal conditions. This leaves considerable room for domestic level policy space. (19/28)

This section, while critical, does not go substantially beyond WTO SPS commitments. But does clarify the conditions & remind members that SPS rules must not be made on an arbitrary basis where equal conditions prevail. Also, any risk assessment must be based on... (20/28)

...reasonably available and relevant scientific data. This is often contrasted with the EU’s “precautionary principle” approach [...] However, this is not a concern in the light of the CPTPP agreement, but the canon of international trade law. (21/28)

*Regulatory coherence*

The regulatory coherence chapter is largely about using good regulatory practices in drafting
new rules.

The extent and reach of regulatory convergence is not as high as originally planned. Over time, this is likely to change. (22/28)

Japan & Canada have regulatory coherence set-ups with EU, which do not precluded further cooperation w/ CPTPP.

[Since conclusion of the TCA, UK is in a different position. The boundaries of LPF commitments have not yet been tested. Area of interest for further analysis] (23/28)

*Dispute settlement*

The CPTPP has two types of dispute settlement. Most of the agreement is subject to government-to-government dispute settlement. There is no “standing” court system in the CPTPP. (24/28)

Instead, members are meant to work with a complicated committee structure across the CPTPP, culminating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. The Commission is made up of Ministers or other senior officials and meets regularly. (25/28)

The dispute settlement chapter (28), covers the provisions for handling disputes between members. While there is currently no standing body to review disputes, like the WTO, there are panels and procedures in place to handle disagreements between governments. (26/28)

The second form of dispute settlement embedded in the CPTPP is ISDS. Crucially, under the revisions from TPP to CPTPP, some governments have signed side letters to remove their investors from ISDS protections. (27/28)

*Geographical indications*

The one area of divergence that did prove more difficult for members involved in both EU FTAs and the TPP involved geographical indications (GIs). This was ultimately solved in the TPP by requiring the use of compound names […And] (28/28)

...a section (18:36) that explicitly provides for members that already use GIs to continue to do so. Therefore, the UK should be able to comply with this outcome. (29/28)