WT/TPR/M/347 20 January 2017 (17-0379) Page
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WT/TPR/M/347 20 January 2017 (17-0379) Page: 1/32 Trade Policy Review Body 1 and 3 November 2016 TRADE POLICY REVIEW SRI LANKA MINUTES OF THE MEETING Chairperson: Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China) CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON ....................................................... 2 2 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SRI LANKA .................................. 4 3 STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT ................................................................................ 8 4 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS ........................................................................................ 12 5 REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SRI LANKA AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 29 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON ......................................................... 32 Note: Advance written questions and additional questions by WTO Members, and the replies provided by Sri Lanka are reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/347/Add.1 and will be available online at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm. WT/TPR/M/347 • Sri Lanka - 2 - 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 1.1. The fourth Trade Policy Review of Sri Lanka was held on 1 and 3 November 2016. The Chairperson, Ms. Irene Young (Hong Kong, China), welcomed the delegation of Sri Lanka headed by H.E. Mr. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce; the delegation from Sri Lanka; and the discussant, H.E. Ambassador Dr Stephen Ndungu Karau (Kenya). 1.2. The Chairperson recalled the purpose of the Trade Policy Reviews and the main elements of the procedures for the meeting. The report by Sri Lanka was contained in document WT/TPR/G/347 and that of the WTO Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/347. 1.3. Questions by the following delegations had been submitted in writing before the deadline: European Union; Canada; Australia; Turkey; New Zealand; Chinese Taipei; Brazil; Singapore and Republic of Korea. The following delegations submitted written questions after the deadline: China; United States and Malaysia. 1.4. Members were also pleased to have with them the United Nations Industrial Development Organization which – as agreed by Members earlier – was attending this meeting as observer on an ad hoc basis. 1.5. At the previous TPR in 2010, Members had commended Sri Lanka for its solid economic performance despite a myriad of adverse factors. During the current review period, the country's economy had shown resilience and had continued to grow at an average annual growth rate of 6%. However, the fiscal position was weak and seemed to be getting worse, with public debt rising to 76% of GDP last year. In their advance questions, the Chairperson noticed that some Members had asked how this problem was to be addressed. Members knew that the Government had started pursuing fiscal consolidation through structural reforms which, among other things, sought to increase tax revenues and improved the operations of state-owned enterprises. In fact, Members had already stressed the importance of introducing tax and SoE reforms in the last TPR. The Chairperson believed they would like to learn more about the development on these fronts. 1.6. Last time, Members saw the need for Sri Lanka to deepen its regulatory reform and improve the business environment. In this TPR, Members raised again questions about the restrictions and incentives for foreign investment. Enactment of the Underutilised Assets Act in 2011 had also prompted some Members to ask about the new expropriation policy for companies and their assets. As Sri Lanka's FDI inflow ran low and attracting foreign investment became a matter of priority, it was useful to know how the Government intended to address Members' concerns in this regard. 1.7. In 2010, noting that Sri Lanka's exports were concentrated in certain markets and products, Members encouraged the country to step up its diversification efforts. While some progress had been made, agriculture and clothing still accounted for over 70% of exports, and clothing was highly reliant on two major export markets. Given that export diversification was an area identified by Sri Lanka for Aid-for-Trade assistance, Members wished to have more information on the Government's action plan. 1.8. With regard to specific trade measures, Members were pleased to note that, since the last TPR, Sri Lanka had implemented a customs single window and had accepted the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. It had also reduced the number of tariff bands from four to three. However, some of the concerns that Members had raised six years ago, about Sri Lanka's tariff regime, remained unaddressed. For instance, Members still saw a large number of levies and charges in addition to the tariffs, and indeed more tariff lines where the MFN rate exceeded the bound rate. It would be useful to know how these issues would be addressed. 1.9. The previous review had also raised certain questions regarding: the use of domestic preferences in government procurement; enforcement of intellectual property rights; and adoption of competition policy legislation. Six years on, it seemed that Sri Lanka had continued to use price preferences in procurement and had not yet introduced any substantial changes to its IP and competition regimes. If there was more updated information, the Chairperson hoped it could be shared with the Members in this TPR. WT/TPR/M/347 • Sri Lanka - 3 - 1.10. The Chairperson encouraged Members to make use of this opportunity to discuss in greater detail, not only the key issues identified above, but also other issues of interest to them and of systemic importance to the multilateral trading system. WT/TPR/M/347 • Sri Lanka - 4 - 2 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SRI LANKA (H.E. MR. RISHAD BATHIUDEEN) 2.1. At the outset, let me thank the WTO Trade Policy Review team for their comprehensive report on Sri Lanka, also to you, Madam Chair, for your introductory remarks. We appreciate the role played by His Excellency Dr. Stephen Ndungu Karau as the discussant. 2.2. My delegation wishes to thank all the Members who made written questions to us. We have received around 138 questions from 12 Member countries. We have already submitted written responses to most of the questions and the questions received late would be answered shortly. 2.3. I consider that the fourth Trade Policy Review of Sri Lanka at the WTO is taking place at a historic moment of my country mainly for two reasons. 2.4. Firstly, it takes place under the National Unity Government of Sri Lanka. The National Unity Government was established for the first time in the history in January 2015 by the coalition of the two main political parties in the country. The two main political parties have agreed to work together on a national development agenda upholding democracy and good governance, although the two parties have differences in their political ideology. The main objective in forming a National Government is to provide a common platform to deliver long term social economic solutions that can solve the key problems of the country. 2.5. The National Unity Government is in the process of introducing transformative reforms to the economy to further align it with the global economic direction while concentrating achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals declared in the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Summit held in 2015. 2.6. Secondly, this Trade Policy Review is focusing on the developments in the country after ending prolonged civil conflict against terrorism of 30 years in 2009. During the conflict one-third of the country has not been in a position to effectively contribute to GDP growth in the country. After the defeat of terrorism from the country in June 2009, my Government encountered enormous challenges in rehabilitating, resettling and guaranteeing sustainable livelihood for the conflict affected people in the North and the East of the country. 2.7. I myself was a victim of this ruthless terrorism in the country. Although we peacefully lived in the northern part of the country, as Muslims we were given ultimatum by the terrorists to leave the Northern Province within 24 hours. We had to abandon all what we earned and the businesses that we ran for many years. We left the Northern Province with a shopping bag of material that we can carry. My family lived in many years in refugee camps and I managed to represent them to reach the Parliament as a member. 2.8. The rehabilitation and rebuilding process in my country cost the Government dearly both in capital and recurrent expenditure which have substantially increased and the Government had to rely on debts from international sources. We are thankful to all those who generously assisted Sri Lanka in this exercise. At the same time, the Government had to continue its infrastructure developments in the country to create conducive business environment. 2.9. Developing its infrastructure to increase its economic potential has resulted in Sri Lanka's reliance on foreign debt. The official estimate of what Sri Lanka currently owes its financiers is US$65 billion. The country's debt-to-GDP currently stands around 75% and significant portion of all government revenue is currently going towards debt repayment. 2.10. As a result of the above, the Government started experiencing fiscal difficulties to meet with country's both development and rehabilitating needs. The fiscal deficit to GDP has increased from 6.5% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2015. In the light of the above, the Government is making every effort to consolidate its fiscal position. 2.11. We will give priority to enabling an increase in earnings through a policy of minimizing regressive taxes, increase the ratio of direct and indirect income tax generation in the medium term from 80%: 20% to 60%: 40%, strengthening the tax management processes while removing tax holidays and benefits. WT/TPR/M/347 • Sri Lanka - 5 - 2.12.