Preferential trade agreements (EPZs) in Asia-Pacific have grown rapidly over the past five years. These PTAs include both regional trade agreements (ATRs) and bilateral trade agreements.2 Although PTAs were commonplace elsewhere until the late 1990s, there were few ATPs in Asia and the Pacific3. In the late 1990s, the situation changed rapidly, with many countries in Asia and the Pacific announcing their intention to conclude bilateral and regional trade agreements. It remains unclear how the current format of ASEAN-3 financial cooperation could lead to the creation of an East Asian trading bloc. The convergence of the various ASEAN-1 initiatives may lead to such a trade bloc, but these initiatives have been negotiated independently and differ on many important points. The rest of the document is organized as follows. Section II outlines the development and models of trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region, while Section III outlines the scope and implementation of the agreements. Section IV contains some evaluations of these EPAs focusing on the quality of the agreements and their potential effects in the near future. Section V closes the document.
The Asia-Pacific region has benefited in the past from multilateral liberalization, but the recent increase in ATPs reflects strong interest in regionalism. Over the past two decades, multilateral and unilateral trade liberalization has resulted in a relatively open trading system and a rapid process of trade integration in the region. However, the delay in multilateral trade negotiations, the failure of APEC to implement the STSV, the Asian financial crisis and certain strategic and political considerations contributed to a wave of regionalism in the late 1990s. Efforts to close the development gap and expand trade among ASEAN members are essential elements of the political debate. According to a 2008 research mandate published by the World Bank as part of its „Trade Costs and Relief“ project,[11] ASEAN members have the potential to reap significant benefits from investment in new trade facilitation reforms, as a result of the important customs reform already implemented by the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Administrative complications could have a significant impact on the potential benefits of ATPs and further increase trade diversion. What was originally seen as a pragmatic approach to liberalization could lead to serious administrative complications in practice. Given that different bilateral agreements are negotiated within and beyond regional agreements, one country can negotiate at the same time as another under various framework agreements32.32 A particularly important problem is the possible emergence of overlapping rules of origin that are not in place in the region over the next decade. Compliance with different rules of origin could be costly and increase the risk of trade diversion, particularly when institutional capacity to implement these rules is limited.