IV. Fokus Indonesia Prioritas Perundingan RCEP dibandingkan TPP ...

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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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:



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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;



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;



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:



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.

IV. Fokus Indonesia Prioritas Perundingan RCEP dibandingkan TPP ...

Documents