Análisis del Tratado Transatlántico de Comercio e Inversiones entre la U.E. y EE.UU (Parte II) (página 3)
Enviado por Ricardo Lomoro
? The study allows for intermediate goods sectors and interlinkages without invoking micro-level scale economies that could lead to overestimation of the potential results;
? The study has included the element of regulatory compatibility in its scenarios.
Overview of global value chain relationships
In Figure 4.2, we present the overview of how we will map a specific sector under investigation in relation to the GVCs in which it is active. The percentages shown in the figure are illustrative of the kind of descriptive account that we will provide of the EU sector from a global value chain perspective. We have taken the example of the automotive industry, where the value chain of producing a car (a final good) serves as the reference point of analysis. It could also be that a selected sector is an intermediary goods sector in which your starting "perspective" is different.
Using the data from the WIOD database, we will establish the relative importance of different intermediate goods and services in the production of a final good as well as the intermediate global linkages, as follows:
? We will select approximately 10 goods and services industries that are important (read provide inputs) in the value chain of a specific sector, based on their share of the total production costs of the final product (as a % of total output in the sector). Note that an exact match of the different value chain activities cannot be made with WIOD data and a proxy of types of goods and services is used 36F36F40. This is done both from the EU and the US perspective, which means that we will provide the overview of the relevant cost shares for intermediate inputs in both the EU and US, thus allowing us to identify possible divergences in costs of different goods and services for the production of a given final good;
? In turn, for each intermediate input, we will analyse the share of EU-28, US and rest of the world sourcing; in Figure 4.2 this is presented by the dark blue and red arrows (EU and US sourcing), by the purple rectangles (sourcing from within the EU-28 or from the US), and in the brown/yellow box arrows at the edges of the picture (intermediate inputs sourced from the rest of the world). Thus we will provide insight into the significance of the EU-US links in the value chain of the sector being assessed;
? In the next step we will consider the trade and trade-related provisions that could be subject of the TTIP negotiations. We will focus on those trade barriers (tariff and non-tariff barrier) that hamper trade in intermediate goods/services and in final products/services. We will take into account the fact that intermediate goods and services may cross the ocean multiple times before a final good is sold either in the EU or in the US. By focusing on trade barriers from a GVC perspective, a number of trade barriers could play a role in hampering trade in final goods:
– Trade barriers on trade in final goods and services in the sector (as identified in step 2);
– Trade barriers on trade in intermediate products from interrelated sectors (as identified in step 2 in case the interrelated sector is also chosen for in-depth analysis).
? Since we know the importance of the EU US links of intermediary and final products (as compared to domestic or RoW sourcing as explained above), we can also infer the importance of a specific trade barrier identified. Trade barriers on trade in less-frequently traded goods or services should have less of an impact than trade barriers identified in more-frequently traded products. This allows us to assess and estimate the effects of such barriers on the competitiveness of the sector from a value chain perspective (in step 4). It is unrealistic to take into account all trade barriers affecting the value chain in the EU. We will thus only select the most significant trade barriers to study in more detail in the impact assessment (step 4).
4.3.4 Step 4: Sustainability Impact Assessment
The preparatory work performed in steps 1 to 2 (or 337F37F41) will enable us to perform an impact assessment, using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Having established the baseline of the sector on economic, social and environmental grounds (step 1) and having created the inventory of market access issues (step 2) allows us to assess the potential impact of removing certain trade barriers or adopting trade-related provisions in the TTIP. In the fourth step of the analysis, all results (economic, social and environmental) from the CEPR (2013) impact assessment at sector level, as well as other available data, will be thoroughly analysed and evaluated in order to establish the sustainability impact assessment. The analyses performed as part of steps 1-3 above will provide additional insights into the expected impacts of TTIP at sector level and will either provide further clarification about the CEPR (2013) sectoral results or explain expected deviations from the results based on our in-depth analysis. Secondly, the results from the sustainability impact assessment, together with the competitiveness baseline established in step 1 and the optional GVC analysis conducted in step 3, will be used to also produce a competitiveness impact assessment of TTIP on the sector under investigation.
Sustainability impact assessment
Economic impact assessment
The economic impact assessment will largely be based on the combination of two strands of analyses. Firstly, an analysis and critical review of the predicted economic effects by the CGE analysis provided in CEPR (2013) (as well as potentially other studies): the impact of the predicted change in trade flows, change in value added, change in employment and other indicators available in the CEPR (2013) assessment for the overall performance of the EU sector. Secondly, using Causal Chain Analysis on the most significant trade barriers identified in the sector in step 2, prioritised either by civil society input, sector expert input and/or the GVC analysis, the economic analysis also establishes the economic impacts beyond the quantitative indications given by the CEPR (2013) model. Depending on the type of trade barriers removed, the impact of the TTIP on (production) cost structures, innovative capacity, quality of products, competition, trade and related indicators will be established. The SME Survey will also be used to better understand the impact of the TTIP on SMEs in the EU. Also the potential effects on increased or reduced amount of investments through the incremental effect that TTIP could have on the investment decision will be assessed as part of this pillar of analysis (together with the concomitant indirect effects on social and environmental indicators, where relevant).
Social impact assessment
The impact assessment viewed from the social perspective focuses on the expected impacts from the identification of the potential removal of trade barriers (from step 2 and/or step 3) and the associated impacts on social indicators, including (but not limited to) employment, skills, labour mobility, labour conditions, human rights, consumer protection and health and safety standards.
The expected social impacts at sector level are likely to be largely indirect in nature since the direct effect of TTIP will work through the removal of trade barriers at sector level. The social impact assessment will focus on the identification of social issues that are directly related to changes in the EU market place due to the removal of trade barriers in a certain sector. Particular attention will be paid to the more "intangible" impacts on health and consumer welfare that relate to approximation of standards or regulation. While comprehensive quantification of these effects is unlikely to be possible, taken the issues into consideration in a more qualitative manner in the synopsis of the impact assessment is important to provide the full picture on the expected sustainability impacts at sector level.
Environmental impact assessment
The environmental impact assessment will benefit from the additional overall analysis performed using the E3ME model and by the additional overall qualitative analysis, as well as some of the environmental output indicators generated by the CEPR (2013) model and other CGE models (if relevant), such as CO2 emissions.
Similar to the social impact assessment at sector level, the environmental impacts from trade barrier reduction are indirect (unless a trade barrier is an environmental measure) and could potentially also have an opposite effect to the economic impact at sector level. In the environmental impact assessment, the sectoral outcomes from the E3ME modelling will be evaluated critically against the trade barrier assessment from steps 1-3 and additional environmental pressures from addressing trade barriers identified in step 2 or from stakeholder input will be taken into account in the environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessment will also identify where relevant pressures or impact on environmental indicators that can only be assessed qualitatively such as soil degradation, biodiversity, animal welfare and .if not possible quantitatively-waste generation and water quality pressures.
A summary of indicators resulting from the overall impact assessments (economic, social and environmental) that can be studied is listed in the table below. We have explicitly included the input from civil society or stakeholders since there might be additional indicators that are relevant to include and can be brought up during consultations.
The final part of the impact assessment synthesizes the expected economic, environmental and social impacts from the sustainability impact assessment above with the competiveness baseline established in step 1 and, if relevant, the GVC analysis conducted in step 3. Even though the most likely factors that might drive a change in the competitive position of the EU sector from the TTIP are the removal of trade barriers, certain social or environmental provisions included might also change the competitive position of the EU industry. The outcomes of the impact assessment will be screened for their impact on the competitive impact of the sector (or in more detail of the GVC if step 3 is provided).
Though indirectly the effect of the removal of certain trade barriers in the TTIP is already included in the CGE assessment of e.g. CEPR on sectoral level38F38F42, the in-depth analysis conducted in this Trade SIA might give more detailed information on a sectoral level which warrants a further competitiveness analysis. In order to do so, we developed a framework to study in more detail the effect of addressing non-tariff barriers on the competitive position of a sector.
After the assessment of the relevant trade barriers (step 2), the products provided in the sector can be classified based on a competitiveness framework developed in the Ecorys study (2010) "Non-tariff measures in EU-US Trade investment: An economic analysis". The overview and knowledge of the EU GVC provides additional insight since the different activities performed in the value chain could be classified using the framework as well. The framework provides a simplified structure for analysis based on the categorisation of sectors according to "relevant trade characteristics" and "product(ion) characteristics", as follows:
1. Trade characteristics:
a. Goods and services traded at distance: location of "production" is unimportant. Development, production, and distribution of products in close proximity to the market is not necessary (significant) commercial presence within the market is not a pre-requisite for trade39F39F43;
b. Goods and services traded at (geographical) proximity: location of "production" is important. Development, production, and distribution can require being close to the market (e.g. transport costs, speed of delivery, and interaction with the client can be important). By implication, commercial presence within the market is required for trade to take place.
2. Product(ion) characteristics:
a. Standardised/scalable goods and services: products are standardised (i.e. demand / product characteristics are the same across markets) and/or production processes are characterised by high level of fixed/sunk costs (e.g. large capital or R&D investment). Competition is focussed mainly on price (i.e. low costs / production efficiency are key drivers of competitiveness);
b. Customised/non scalable goods and services: products are non-standard or customised (i.e. demand / product characteristics are segmented) and/or production processes are characterised by high intensity of specific assets (e.g. knowledge, skills, technology). Competition is focussed mainly on product "quality" (i.e. innovation / product effectiveness are key drivers of competitiveness).
From the above, a simple typology of sectors from a trade / investment and competition / competitiveness perspective can be derived. This typology is presented in Table 4.8 below.
This competitiveness categorisation will help us determine the impact on the change in competitiveness of the sector due to TTIP. For each of the "types", we can establish basic working hypotheses of the (a priori) outcomes of reduction in "type-relevant" trade barriers in terms of shifts in the location of production and between producers/firms, as follows:
1. Type I: removal of trade barriers favours the relative competitive position of lower cost production locations (i.e. increased geographical concentration of international production) resulting in increased cross-border movements of products. Increased investment in low cost production locations aimed at exploiting location-specific production efficiency;
2. Type II: removal of trade barriers favours the relative competitive position of producers/firms with lower cost production process (i.e. increased firm concentration of production within international markets) and promotes the expansion of (foreign) commercial presence. Increased investment in international markets aimed at exploiting producer/firm-specific production efficiency;
3. Type III: removal of trade barriers favours locations with higher "quality" production attributes (e.g. innovation, technology, design capacity). Tendency towards production location specialisation and fragmentation of international production resulting in increased cross-border movements of products. Increased investment in high "quality" production locations aimed at exploiting location-specific production effectiveness;
4. Type IV: removal of trade barriers favours producers/firms with higher "quality" production processes (e.g. innovation, technology, design capacity). Tendency towards firm specialisation and fragmentation of international production and expansion of (foreign) commercial presence. Increased investment in international markets aimed at exploiting production/firm-specific production effectiveness.
Using the input from stakeholders, additional interviews with external sector experts and sector experts as part of the study team, we will apply causal chain analysis and the frameworks outlined above to arrive at the impacts on competitiveness of expected changes in trade and trade-related provisions.
4.3.5 ESSA Step V: Synthesis and policy recommendations
In conclusion, there are multiple aspects of the TTIP -with various economic, social, environmental objectives- that could impact on competitiveness of EU sectors. This impact could take the form of enhancing / diminishing relative competitive situation of EU vis-à-vis US (or vice versa). But it may well play out between respectively the EU and the US vis-à-vis third countries.
The ESSA analysis performed in steps 1-4 above provides a solid basis for a broad and comprehensive understanding of the most important issues that could be impacted by TTIP. Since the economic impacts (e.g. on firms or in terms of consumer prices) do not always have to be in line with the social or environmental effects (which could be negative, while economic effects are positive), it is important to provide a synthesis and concluding section on the possible trade-offs involved in removing trade or trade-related barriers in sectors through the TTIP. In this way, policy makers are able to make evidence based decisions, based on identified impacts across all sustainability dimensions.
It is important to note that the sustainable competitiveness dimension could also be used as a very rough classification of standards potentially included in the TTIP. Policy objectives can also be classified in economic, social and environmental dimensions. From the sector-specific analysis in general and competitiveness analysis in particular, we will draw policy recommendations for the negotiations and if warranted for flanking measures.
Autor:
Ricardo Lomoro
| Página siguiente |