by 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the largest regional trade agreement in history, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. Following in the footsteps of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico, and Canada, the TPP expands upon this to establish new rules for global trade by eliminating 18,000 tariffs, promoting an open internet, disciplining state-owned enterprises, and establishing environmental and worker protection. Its aim is to increase Made-In-America exports, grow the US economy, support higher-paying US jobs, and strengthen the middle class.
You’ve probably heard references to the TPP in recent campaign coverage. It is the result of years of trade negotiations, and has been hailed as a hallmark victory for the Obama administration. However, the agreement is still in limbo, pending ratification by Congress–a delay that hardly comes as a surprise. And, both presidential candidates for the major parties have come out against the TPP. Given this, the future of the TPP is up in the air.
Supporters hope for a vote during the lame-duck session, but the TPP’s passage could very likely depend on the next presidential administration. In the meantime, we are left to consider the implications of passage of this agreement, as well as its impact on NAFTA, a pre-existing trade agreement of a similar nature.
The TPP is a piece of legislation I have been closely following, and recently had the opportunity to moderate a panel entitled, “The Impact of TPP on NAFTA: Opportunity for Strengthening Ties — Or Recipe for Disaster.” Panel members included Aristeo Lopez of the Mexican Embassy, Laura Sierra of Alston & Bird, Nicholas Guzman of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, and Greg Kanargelidis of Blake, Cassels & Graydon.
The American Bar Association Section of International sponsored this event with the intention of presenting US, Mexican, and Canadian standpoints on the TPP and the impact of its passage on NAFTA. What followed was a thoughtful and informative discussion, and although the topic is highly complex, I thought I’d share some highlights with you.
Ms. Sierra explained some of the political context surrounding the TPP, including that the US has historically been pro-trade, and this is the first time since 1992 that trade has been a significant issue in presidential election year politics. US FTAs are modeled after NAFTA. The agreement eliminates a significant number of tariffs that would be beneficial to US businesses, but there are dissenting voices. Some of the concerns include employment issues, the manipulation of currencies by various countries, and opposition in specific industries such as auto, segments of agriculture and pharmaceuticals and biologics whose concerns were not addressed in the agreement. For example, intellectual property protection for biologics is not included in the agreement.
Mr. Lopez pointed out the benefits of NAFTA–growth in trade between Mexico and the US, especially–and explained that the TPP is intended to expand upon this growth, with attention to subjects that were treated less comprehensively in NAFTA. Another goal of TPP, in Mr. Lopez’ view, is to strengthen Mexico’s ties to NAFTA and other FTA partners, allowing Mexican goods to reach new markets.
Mr. Kanargelidis noted that the TPP is not intended to replace or override NAFTA, but that the two agreements can co-exist. He pointed out US, Mexican, and Canadian businesses can operate under the clauses of whichever agreement is most favorable to them in a given transaction. For example, the “de minimis” value threshold is 10% under TPP, and only 7% under NAFTA.
An audience member posed the question of whether TPP shipments will be exempt from US Merchandise Processing Fees (MPF) like NAFTA shipments are. Mr. Guzman explained that even though TPP does away with “ad valorem” fees, US Customs might find another way to collect MPF that is compliant with the agreement. He also described the TPP’s “focused value” methodology for determining goods’ origin, which might be more stringent than NAFTA methods.
Opponents to the TPP often cite concerns about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, which outlines the mechanism by which agreement disputes can be settled. Mr. Lopez explained that the TPP’s ISDS provisions are more transparent than those found in NAFTA.
At the conclusion of the panel, Ms. Sierra suggested that a full renegotiation of the TPP is unlikely, given that the agreement was difficult to reach in the first place, and that several countries have already ratified it. However, we might see some side letters that result in alterations to the text pertaining to certain issues. Panelists agreed that the TPP will pass. It’s a matter of time and final form.
The TPP has been negotiated between 12 countries who together form about 40% of GDP, and 1/3 of world trade. The agreement is of an unprecedented scope, and the implications of this agreement are huge. We will soon know if it can pass during the lame-duck session before the election, which is fast approaching!
To learn more about the TPP, visit this site. The full text of the agreement can be found here.
Sources:
Granville, Kevin. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Explained.” The New York Times. 20 August 2016. Web. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Office of the United States Trade Representative. Executive Office of the President. 2016. Web.
