4-5 2015 National Workshop on Trade Facilitation and the Implementation of

The Government of the Republic
of
the Union of Myanmar
National Workshop on Trade
Facilitation and the Implementation of
the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar
4-5 June 2015
The Government of the Republic
of
the Union of Myanmar
Trade
Facilitation
Implementation
& Challenges in
Asia-Pacific
by
Dr. Yann Duval,
Chief, Trade Facilitation Unit,
Trade and Investment Division, UN ESCAP
National Workshop on Trade Facilitation and the Implementation
of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, Nay Pyi Taw, 4-5 June 2015
* World Bank Doing Business Report: Ease of Trading Across Border
indicators
* Logistics Performance Index
* ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database
* ESCAP Survey on TF and paperless trade implementation
2013/14
* Common challenges to TF in Asia-Pacific
* Review of the trade process analyses conducted since 2010
* Concluding remarks
Ease of Trading across Border
(Doing Business Report 2015 vs. 2013)
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Vietnam
South-East Asia
Average
documents
for trade
5
9
6
10
4
8
7
3
5
7
7
6
DB2015
Average
time for
trade
17
23
22
25
10
21
15
5
14
27
21
18
Average
costs to
trade
738
863
609
1930
543
615
835
450
678
413
605
752
Average
documents
for trade
5
9
DB2013
Average
time for
trade
17
24
Percentage change
Average
costs to
trade
713
828
10
4
9
7
3
5
7
7
6
26
10
26
15
5
14
27
21
18
2133
428
665
623
448
668
413
605
752
Average
Average time Average
documents
for trade costs to trade
for trade
0%
0%
4%
0%
-4%
4%
0%
0%
-11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2%
-4%
0%
-19%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2%
-9%
27%
-8%
34%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Source: World Bank/IFC; www.doingbusiness.org
http://www.doingbusiness.org
* World Bank Doing Business Report: Ease of Trading Across Border
indicators
* Logistics Performance Index
* ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database
* ESCAP Survey on TF and paperless trade implementation
2013/14
* Common challenges to TF in Asia-Pacific
* Review of the trade process analyses conducted since 2010
* Concluding remarks
Logistics Performance of ASEAN countries –
2014
http://lpi.worldbank.org/
http://lpi.worldbank.org
Logistic Performance Index: 2010 VS 2014
Evolution of LPI Score, by Country
Evolution of LPI Score, by Region
EU-3
Developed Pacific Economies
East and North-East Asia
South-East Asia
2010
2014
South and South-West Asia
Pacific Islands Economies
North and Central Asia
Myanmar
1
2
3
4
5
Germany
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
France
Korea, Rep.
Malaysia
China
Thailand
Vietnam
India
Indonesia
Philippines
Pakistan
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Lao PDR
Myanmar
2010
2014
1
2
3
4
5
Note: scores are provided at a 1 (worst performance) to 5 (best performance)
scale
Source: UN ESCAP based on data from http://lpi.worldbank.org/
http://lpi.worldbank.org
* World Bank Doing Business Report: Ease of Trading Across Border
indicators
* Logistics Performance Index
* ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database
* ESCAP Survey on TF and paperless trade implementation
2013/14
* Common challenges to TF in Asia-Pacific
* Review of the trade process analyses conducted since 2010
* Concluding remarks
* Some cross-country indicators of TF and trade costs available
(e.g., WB Doing Business indicators) but none allowing for
measuring bilateral/intra-regional trade costs
* Intraregional (South-South) trade important for A-P countries to
continue growing at a time when developed markets
slowing/shrinking
* Development of a bilateral trade cost database to provide a
systematic and standardized way to evaluate trade costs in
developing countries
12
*For details and data, see: http://artnet.unescap.org/databases.html#first
* Captures all additional costs involved in trading goods
bilaterally relative to those involved in trading goods
domestically. It includes:
* International shipping and logistics costs
* Tariff and non-tariff costs, including indirect and direct costs associated
with trade procedures and regulations
* Costs from differences in language, culture, currencies…
* Based on the comprehensive trade costs measure proposed by
Jacks, Meissner and Novy (2009)
* Measure derived from the theory-consistent gravity equation, i.e., ratio
based essentially on Bilateral Trade data and Gross Output data
* “objective” measure of costs
*For details and data, see: http://artnet.unescap.org/databases.html#first
http://artnet.unescap.org/databases.html
* “All-inclusive” Bilateral trade costs for 178 countries
* Myanmar data NOT available
* For the period 1995-2012*
* Two macro-sectors covered
* Agriculture
* Manufacturing
* Underlying data on international trade (Xij, Xji) are relatively easy
to come by, but data on intranational trade (Xii, Xjj) are more
complicated…
* Intranational trade = Gross Output (from UN National Account statistics) –
export
*Linear interpolations applied to fill in missing trade costs observations
14
* All-inclusive trade costs more than an order of magnitude
higher than tariff rates
* Trade costs in developing countries much higher than in
developed countries, and falling more slowly
* Trade costs in agriculture much higher than trade costs in
manufacturing in all income groups, and static over time
* Very different levels of trade costs in different developing
regions
* Often cheaper for developing countries to trade with far-away
developed countries than to trade with neighbors
*Arvis, J.F., Y. Duval, B. Shepherd and C. Utoktham (Dec. 2012), Trade Cost in the Developing World, ARTNeT Working Paper, ESCAP.
http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/AWP%20No.%20121.pdf
15
300
250
200
150
East Asia and the Pacific
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
East Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central Asia
Latin America & Caribbean
Middle East & North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
2008
2009
*based on ESCAP-World Bank International Trade Cost Database; http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/trade-costs-dataset
*
Key factors in lowering trade costs –
Asia-Pacific Perspective
Tariff Trade
Costs
0-10%*
60-90%*
Policy-Related
Non-Tariff Trade
Costs
Natural Trade Costs
(Geographical and
Cultural Factors)
1%
Direct Behind- & At-the border Trade Costs
6-7%
Availability/use of ICT Services
6-7%
Business (Regulatory) Environment
16-18%
Maritime Connectivity/Services
52-57%
Other Trade Costs
•Indirect cost of trade procedures
•Currency fluctuation
•Other non-tariff barriers
10-30%*
18
* Illustrative based on casual observation of the data only. Natural trade costs for landlocked countries may be outside the range shown for natural trade cost
s. See Duval and Utoktham (2011) and Arvis et al. (2012) for details.
* World Bank Doing Business Report: Ease of Trading Across Border
indicators
* Logistics Performance Index
* ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database
* ESCAP Survey on TF and paperless trade implementation
2013/14
* Common challenges to TF in Asia-Pacific
* Review of the trade process analyses conducted since 2010
* Concluding remarks
* Survey conducted in conjunction with annual Asia-Pacific Trade
Facilitation Forums (APTFF)
* Started from APTFF 2012 in collaboration with ADB
* 2013/14 survey structure:
* 1) General trade facilitation measures;
* 2) Paperless trade facilitation measures;
* 3)Towards cross-border paperless trade;
* 4) Border agency cooperation;
* 5) transit facilitation;
* 6) trade-related information availability and
* 7) key challenges and recommendations
* Data collected from Sept.13 to Mar.14
* APTFF participants + UNNExT experts and secondary data
ESCAP Survey 2014/15 to be released
20 June 2015
Paperless Trade Facilitation
in Asia-Pacific
Electronic Single Window
System
Electronic/automated
Customs System
8
0
Internet connection
available to Customs and
other trade control
agencies at bordercrossings
10
0
9
12
11
20
17
available
under implementation
not implemented
23
Source: ESCAP 2013/14 Survey
Annual regional export gains : $36bn (for partial implementation) to
$257 bn (full implementation)
Export time reduction: 24% to 44%
Export cost reduction: 17% to 31%
Total direct cost savings across all trade: $1bn to $7bn annually
Source: http://www.unescap.org/resources/estimating-benefits-cross-border-paperless-trade
* World Bank Doing Business Report: Ease of Trading Across Border
indicators
* Logistics Performance Index
* ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database
* ESCAP Survey on TF and paperless trade implementation
2013/14
* Common challenges to TF in Asia-Pacific
* Review of the trade process analyses conducted since 2010
* Concluding remarks
No clearly designated
lead agency
3
Financial constraints
1
Limited human
resource capacity
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
Thailand
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
3
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
Republic of Korea
Sri Lanka
2
Russian Federation
2
Philippines
1
Nepal
3
Mongolia
Malaysia
Lao PDR
2
1
Others
Note:
1
Maldives
Lack of political will
Japan
1
Indonesia
3
India
Bhutan
Bangladesh
3
China
3
Cambodia
Lack of coordination
between government
agencies
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Key Challenges to TF
implementation
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
‘1’ indicates the most challenging factor
Source: ESCAP 2013 /14 Survey
* Document preparation takes most time, followed by
transport/handling issues
* Some procedures/regulations driven by industry associations to
prevent entry by new/small players
* Procedures between private parties are a big part of the overall
trade process
* Importance of port logistics confirmed
* Benefits from partial computerization/automation limited
* Large variations in time and cost across products (or product
usage), transport routes, destination, firm size,…
* Data collected needs to be carefully validated (e.g., through multistakeholder meetings) May be useful to develop SECTORAL trade
facilitation strategies/plans
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Asia-Pacific region is very diverse, but several of the world
leaders in TF are from this region
Most countries VERY ACTIVELY working on improving their TF
peformance
Review of cross-country performance indicators show that
Myanmar is lagging behind in this area, with a lot of room for
improvement in TF
Trade facilitation & paperless trade measure
implementation needs to translate into time and cost
reduction
Myanmar is part of ASEAN, one of the best performing world
regions in TF, so has a good opportunity to leverage experience
of its partners
Myanmar can use the indicators presented above to monitor its
progress
Thank you
Email: [email protected]
For more Information:
Asia-Pacific Research and Training
Network on Trade (ARTNeT):
http://artnet.unescap.org/
United Nations Network of Experts for
Paperless Trade in Asia and the
Pacific (UNNExT):
http://unnext.unescap.org/
ESCAP Trade Facilitation programme
http://www.unescap.org/our-work/tradeinvestment/trade-facilitation
*
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)
Database
•
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) measures the
level of domestic competitiveness in 144 economies
•
Index is based on 12 topics: institution, infrastructure,
macroeconomic environment, health and primary
education, higher education and training, goods
market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial
market development, technological readiness, market
size, business sophistication, and innovation
[http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/]
TOP Performers
TOP “Improvers”
Top 10 Performer
Economy
ISCC Rank
Country
ISCC 2012 Rank
Singapore
91.03
1
Hong Kong
85.96
2
Republic of Korea
78.87
3
China
75.46
4
Malaysia
71.88
5
France
71.49
6
Netherlands
68.57
7
United States of America
67.25
8
Germany
65.32
9
United Kingdom
65.23
10
Top 10 Progress
% Change 06/12
Country ISCC 2012 Growth (06/12)
Morocco
45.59
75.62
Belarus
30.00
71.39
Rwanda
17.10
68.31
Kyrgyzstan
21.79
66.36
Uzbekistan 18.80
59.06
Korea
78.87
58.25
Djibouti
33.43
54.16
Thailand
44.67
49.75
Kazakhstan 20.52
47.22
Georgia
34.51
43.53
Note: Ranking is based on 179 countries
Economy
ISCC
Source:
www.unescap.org/tid/artnet/iscci.asp
ISCC captures facilitation performance in terms of:
Subregional averages 2013
South-East Asia: 17 days (-7*)
South Asia: 26 days (-5*)
Central Asia: 54 days (-10*)
Pacific Islands: 24 days (-0*)
G-7: 9 days (-2*)
*since 2006