This document discusses trends in regional integration and preferential trade agreements (PTAs) between Europe, Latin America, and other regions from 1994 to 2013. Some key points: - Nearly three-quarters of PTAs are bilateral, with 40 countries averaging 4 agreements each. Half of bilateral agreements are between Latin American countries. - 15 regional blocs and bloc-bloc agreements have formed, starting in the 1990s with EU-EFTA and NAFTA. - 18 regional bloc-country agreements also exist, starting with EU-Mexico. The EU, EFTA, ASEAN, and Central America each have several such agreements. - The EU has been highly active in forming trade agreements, both

1. REGIONAL INTEGRATION: EUROPEAN AND LATIN AMERICAN UNCERTAINTIES
REGIONALISM BETWEEN THE EU
AND LATIN AMERICA: INTENSE BUT
HETEROGENEOUS
Marcel Vaillant (Paris III/UdelaR)
SECOND EUROPE–LATIN AMERICA ECONOMIC
FORUM
Europe and Latin America in the wake of global
paradigm shifts and new trends in the world
economy

2. ORGANIZATION
• Growth in deep regionalism
• EU and LA
• Final remarks

3. GROWTH IN PTA+
• Spaghetti bowls: is a metaphor of chaos and confusion
(more than 3 hundred PTAs)
• Some regular pattern in the way trade agreements are
developed: new rules for new trade
• Focus: more deep trade agreements with good &
services and disciplines
• WTO/RTA data base- in force year of service agreement.
• All agreements in services (+disciplines) are also in goods
• CU&EIA/FTA&EIA in WTO/RTA lexica- 119 PTA+
• Structure and evolution by type: Bilateral; Blocs; Blocs-country.

4. EVOLUTION 1994-2013
(numbers of PTAs)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bilaterals Regional Blocs Bloc-country

5. PTA+ BY TYPE
• Bilateral-
– near ¾ are bilateral PTA+ (86/119), with 172
participations (86*2)
– Only 40 countries signs PTAs with an average of 4
agreement each. 21 countries with 4 or + bilateral PTA+
explains almost 90% of bilaterals
• Half of them are LA countries (10)
• Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs-
– 15 RB or B-B (7 with the EU)
– Starts in middle of 90 with EU-EFTA/EU15 and NAFTA
• Regional Blocs-Country-
– Starts with EU-Mexico
– EU (7); EFTA (7); ASEAN (2) and CA (2)

6. Structure by type of PTA+ in force in
2013 (%)
72
13
15
Bilaterals Regional Blocs Bloc-country

7. Bilaterals by regions
Participation Countries Average
NORTH AMERICA 25 3 8
CENTRAL AMERICA 33 6 6
SOUTH AMERICA 30 4 8
OTHER EUROPE 5 5 1
EAST ASIA+ 56 13 4
AUTRALIA-NZ 12 2 6
SOUTH ASIA 6 2 3
NEAR EAST 4 4 1
AFRICA 1 1 1
Total 172 40 4

8. Bilaterals by country
Country Total Share (%)
Chile 15 8,7
Japan 12 7,0
Panama 11 6,4
Singapore 11 6,4
US 11 6,4
Mexico 10 5,8
Peru 10 5,8
China 8 4,7
Costa Rica 6 3,5
Australia 6 3,5
New Zealand 6 3,5
Malaysia 5 2,9
Korea 5 2,9
Taiwan 5 2,9
Guatemala 4 2,3
Nicaragua 4 2,3
El Salvador 4 2,3
Honduras 4 2,3
Canada 4 2,3
Colombia 4 2,3
India 4 2,3
Sub Total 149 86,6
Total 172 100,0

9. PTA+ BY TYPE
• Bilateral-
– near ¾ are bilateral PTA+ (86/119), with 172
participations (86*2)
– Only 40 countries signs PTAs with an average of 4
agreement each. 21 countries with 4 or + bilateral PTA+
explains almost 90% of bilaterals
• Half of them are LA countries (10)
• Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs-
– 15 RB or B-B (7 with the EU)
– Starts in middle of 90 with EU-EFTA/EU15 and NAFTA
• Regional Blocs-Country-
– Starts with EU-Mexico
– EU (7); EFTA (7); ASEAN (2) and CA (2)

10. Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs
BLOC Year
NAFTA 1994
EU-EFTA (EEA) 1994
EU15 1995
EFTA 2002
CARICOM 2002
EU25 2004
MERCOSUR 2005
CAFTADR 2006
TPP 2006
EU27 2007
EU-CARIFORUM 2008
ASEAN- Australia New Zealand 2010
EAC 2010
EU28 2013
EU-CENTRAL AMERICA 2013

11. PTA+ BY TYPE
• Bilateral-
– near ¾ are bilateral PTA+ (86/119), with 172
participations (86*2)
– Only 40 countries signs PTAs with an average of 4
agreement each. 21 countries with 4 or + bilateral PTA+
explains almost 90% of bilaterals
• Half of them are LA countries (10)
• Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs-
– 15 RB or B-B (7 with the EU)
– Starts in middle of 90 with EU-EFTA/EU15 and NAFTA
• Regional Blocs-Country-
– Starts with EU-Mexico
– EU (7); EFTA (7); ASEAN (2) and CA (2)

12. Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs
BLOC Year
NAFTA 1994
EU-EFTA (EEA) 1994
EU15 1995
EFTA 2002
CARICOM 2002
EU25 2004
MERCOSUR 2005
CAFTADR 2006
TPP 2006
EU27 2007
EU-CARIFORUM 2008
ASEAN- Australia New Zealand 2010
EAC 2010
EU28 2013
EU-CENTRAL AMERICA 2013

13. PTA+ BY TYPE
• Bilateral-
– near ¾ are bilateral PTA+ (86/119), with 172
participations (86*2)
– Only 40 countries signs PTAs with an average of 4
agreement each. 21 countries with 4 or + bilateral PTA+
explains almost 90% of bilaterals
• Half of them are LA countries (10)
• Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs-
– 15 RB or B-B (7 with the EU)
– Starts in middle of 90 with EU-EFTA/EU15 and NAFTA
• Regional Blocs-Country-
– Starts with EU-Mexico
– EU (7); EFTA (7); ASEAN (2) and CA (2)

14. Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs
BLOC Year
NAFTA 1994
EU-EFTA (EEA) 1994
EU15 1995
EFTA 2002
CARICOM 2002
EU25 2004
MERCOSUR 2005
CAFTADR 2006
TPP 2006
EU27 2007
EU-CARIFORUM 2008
ASEAN- Australia New Zealand 2010
EAC 2010
EU28 2013
EU-CENTRAL AMERICA 2013

15. PTA+ BY TYPE
• Bilateral-
– near ¾ are bilateral PTA+ (86/119), with 172
participations (86*2)
– Only 40 countries signs PTAs with an average of 4
agreement each. 21 countries with 4 or + bilateral PTA+
explains almost 90% of bilaterals
• Half of them are LA countries (10)
• Regional Blocs and Blocs-Blocs-
– 15 RB or B-B (7 with the EU)
– Starts in middle of 90 with EU-EFTA/EU15 and NAFTA
• Regional Blocs-Country-
– Starts with EU-Mexico
– EU (7); EFTA (7); ASEAN (2) and CA (2)

16. REGIONAL BLOCS-COUNTRY
Before 2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2013 Total
EU 1 2 2 2 7
Albania 1 1
Chile 1 1
Colombia and Peru 1 1
Korea, Republic of 1 1
Mexico 1 1
Montenegro 1 1
Republic of Macedonia 1 1
EFTA 3 1 3 7
Chile 1 1
Colombia 1 1
Hong Kong, China 1 1
Korea, Republic of 1 1
Mexico 1 1
Singapore 1 1
Ukraine 1 1
CENTRAL AMERICA 1 1 2
Colombia 1 1
Dominic Republic 1 1
ASEAN 2 2
China 1 1
Korea, Republic of 1 1
Total general 1 6 6 5 18

17. EU A MACHINE OF TRADE
AGREEMENTS
• Enlargement EU- From 15, 25, 27 and 28
• CU- Andorra, San Marino and Turkey
• FTA (goods)
– Intraregionales North Africa and Near East
– Extraregionals African Countries
• FTA&EIA (goods&services&disciplines)
– Intraregionals (EFTA and Balkans countries)
– Extraregionals LA (Mexico, Chile, CARICOM, Centro
America, Colombia and Peru) +Korea

18. EU a machine of PTA
Before 1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2013 Total
EU Enlargment 1 2 1 4
CU 2 1 3
FTA (goods) 1 6 7 1 16
Intraregion 1 5 4 11
Extraregion 1 3 1 5
FTA & EIA 3 6 5 14
Intraregion 3 3 1 7
Extraregion 3 4 7
Total 1 11 14 6 37

19. LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES
• LA countries higher than average in PTA+ participation but high
heterogeneity
• Pacific side of the sub continent México (10Bi+2); CA countries
(Panama 11Bi+1, rest CA 4Bi+2); SA: Chile (15Bi+1), Perú
(10Bi+1) and Colombia (Bi4+1).
• MERCOSUR countries plus Bolivia and Ecuador non trade
agreement relationship with third markets. Brazilian leadership.
• Intraregional trade- Centro America more 30% and in South
America 15%.
– Positive effects CAFTA And EU-Central America in Central America
economic integration process

20. MERCOSUR TRADE AGREEMENTS
RTA Name Coverage Type Notification
Date of entry into
force
Status
Southern
Common Market
(MERCOSUR)
Goods &
Services
CU & EIA
Enabling Clause
& GATS Art. V
29-Nov-1991(G)
In Force
07-Dec-2005(S)
MERCOSUR -
India
Goods PSA Enabling Clause 01-jun-09 In Force
Mexico - Uruguay
Goods &
Services
FTA & EIA
GATT Art. XXIV
& GATS Art. V
15-jul-04 In Force

21. INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA
• Two stages:
– Until 2000-
• gradual economic integration with increasing deeper
agreements at subregional level (AC and MERCOSUR).
• developing of common infrastructure at South America
level; effort to institutionalize the process (IIRSA)
– From 2003 until now reversion in the orientation.
• Leadership disputes (Brazil vis a vis Venezuela-Argentina)
change in the objective and the method of the integration
process
– From trade integration to administrative trade policies
– From developing transport infrastructure to complementarities in
energy sources and energy security
– From an infrastructure agenda to a huge agenda with
asymmetries and developing issues (education, health, income
distribution), defense and security, etc, IIRSA to UNASUR.

22. LOW PERFORMANCE OF SA
• Intraregional trade (less 15%)
• Difference in trade agreements outside region
– Chile, Peru and Colombia
– Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia
and Ecuador
• Fulfillment of the agreement, trade disputes and
controversies, credibility and uncertainties
– Protection and trade administration
• Increasing portfolio of megaproject with state
control
– without any result (GASUR, Banco del Sur, …)

23. EU-MERCOSUR
• Guinness record- Period of negotiation length. 1995-
Framework agreement with three pillars: cooperation, political
and trade.
• Two stages of trade negotiations
– 2000-2004 13 Trade Rounds of BTC
– 2010-2014 10 Trade Rounds
• Until now there are no liberalizations offers. Many
problems.
– EU a deep agreements in services and disciplines,
manufacturers goods
– MERCOSUR liberalization demand in agricultural products
– MERCOSUR is not a Custom Union/ Trade policy EU.
– Bilateral agreements and/or less ambitious in its objectives

24. FINAL REMARKS
• Spaghettis bowl is not full when more mature
type of PTAs are considered (services and
complementary matters)
– Another filter could be applied by scope of disciplines
PTA+, enforcement and performance.
– Few deep PTA+ are relevant
• Main Hubs EU, USA and ASEAN (+5) countries:Three
standards PTA+. So the problem of convergence could be
more easy to administrate
– new tendency
• Megablocs (EU-CA/EU-CARICOM; ASEAN-AUS-NZ; US-TPP)
• Blocs-country (EU, ASEAN, EFTA, EU-USA?)
• Plurilaterals (TISA)

25. • PTA+
– EU machine of trade agreements
– LA – intense participation
• integration space for USA and EU. Domino effect.
• heterogeneity. Atlantic Side outside.
• Evaluate the effect trade agreements EU-LA
– Trade and IED determinants: markets size; geography;
agreements;…. By sectors and type of trade
– Structural gravity substantial improvements in models
and methods.
– New empirical evidence
• Cost for MERCOSUR countries to be outside this EU-LA space.

26. Thank you
marcel@decon.edu.uy

27. Intra and Extraregionals in three main
Hubs
Before 1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2013
EU 18 4 8 6
Enlargment 4 1 2 1
Intra 7 3 3 1
Extra 7 3 4
USA 13 2 8 3
Intra 2 1 1
Extra 11 1 7 3
East Asia 45 37 8
Intra 21 8
Extra 16
Total 119 1 9 84 25