Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support … › morocco › wp-content › uploads › sites › 2 › ...Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations

Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations of a DCFTA between the EU and Morocco Annexes - Final Report

Client: European Commission - DG TRADE

Rotterdam, 25 November 2013

Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations of a DCFTA between the EU and Morocco Annexes - Final Report

Client: European Commission - DG TRADE Rotterdam, 25 November 2013

About Ecorys

At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research, consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development. Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions. Ecorys’ remarkable history spans more than 80 years. Our expertise covers economy and competitiveness; regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social policy, education, health and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships. Our staff are dedicated experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices both within our company and with our partners internationally. Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard for environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy and practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff, purchasing carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on FSC or PEFC certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80% since 2007. ECORYS Nederland BV Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam The Netherlands T +31 (0)10 453 88 00 F +31 (0)10 453 07 68 E [email protected] Registration no. 24316726 W www.ecorys.nl

2

NL1026604

Table of contents

Annex A: Methodological note 5

Annex B: Quantitative Social Analysis 13

Annex C: Quantitative Environmental Analysis 21

Annex D: International Human Rights Treaties 31

Annex E: Detailed CGE results 41 1.1 Morocco – DCFTA liberalisation scenario 41 1.2 Morocco – October 2012 agreement liberalisation scenario 71

Annex F: Input from civil society 93

Annex G: SME survey results 110 Introduction to the survey 110 Survey results 110

Sector and size of Moroccan respondents 110 Competition in Morocco 111 The DCFTA 111 Trade barriers faced by European SMEs 111 Internationalisation support measures 111 Enterprise Europe Network 111 Implications 112

Survey questions 112

Annex H: Civil society workshop in Rabat minutes 123 Trade Impact Assessment of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the EU and Morocco 123 List of workshop participants 124 Workshop Agenda 125 Summary of the workshop 126

Introduction to the workshop 126 Opening address by the EC Delegation representative 126 Background of the DCFTA and Trade SIA 126 Main findings Interim Report-I: Macro results / sector results 129 Main findings Interim Report-II: Additional social and human rights analysis 131 Main findings Interim Report-III: Additional environmental analysis 132 Guest speaker 1: Mr. Chakri (WWF) 132 The impact of the DCFTA on specific sectors 134 Sector and horizontal issues selection / Q & A and round table 135 Wrap up and conclusions 136

Workshop presentation slides Ecorys (in French) 136 Presentation slides - Les défis de l’environnement au Maroc, Mr. Chakri Said, WWF/Groupe de travail 137

3

Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations of a DCFTA between the EU and Morocco

4


Annex A: Methodological note

This methodological note contains a proposal on the specifications of the CGE model that will be used for modelling the TSIAs. including a description of the liberalisation scenario and the underlying assumptions. Specifications of the CGE model

Country Selection As mentioned during the kick off meeting. we recommend to split out a maximum of ten countries from the CGE model. The following nine countries (or country groupings) will be split out for the CGE modelling results: 1. EU-28 (including Croatia); 2. Morocco; 3. Tunisia; 4. Egypt; 5. Rest of North Africa (Algeria. Libya); 6. Turkey; 7. Middle East excl. Gulf States and Iran (Iraq. Jordan. Lebanon. Palestine. Syria. Yemen. Israel); 8. Rest of Africa; 9. Rest Of World (ROW). Sector selection The list of sectors used in the trade modelling of the TSIAs EU – Morocco/Tunisia will be aggregated from the 57 GTAP sectors (Annex 1). Please find below the sector aggregation that will be applied in the quantitative CGE analysis. We still propose to keep the ‘other transport’ sectors separated. because the sectors differ in nature (one is manufacturing and the other is services) and we feel that ports could possible require further analysis (if they have bottlenecks the trade flow increases may be affected).

Nr. Abbrev. Sector content (57 sectors) Nr. Abbrev. Sector description (Trade SIA)

1 PDR Paddy rice 1 GRN Grains and crops

2 WHT Wheat

3 GRO Cereal grains nec

4 V_F Vegetables. fruit. nuts 2 VOS Veg. fruit & nuts

5 OSD Oil seeds 3 OCP Other crops

6 C_B Sugar cane. sugar beet

7 PFB Plant-based fibers

8 OCR Crops nec

9 CTL Bovine cattle. sheep and goats.

horses

4 ANP Animal products

10 OAP Animal products nec

11 RMK Raw milk

12 WOL Wool. silk-worm cocoons

13 FRS Forestry 5 FRS Forestry products

14 FSH Fishing 6 FSH Fish products

15 COA Coal 7 EGY Energy

5


Nr. Abbrev. Sector content (57 sectors) Nr. Abbrev. Sector description (Trade SIA)

16 OIL Oil

17 GAS Gas

18 OMN Minerals nec 8 OMN Other minerals

19 CMT Bovine meat products 9 MPT Livestock and Meat Products

20 OMT Meat products nec

21 VOL Vegetable oils and fats 10 VOL Vegetable oils and fats

22 MIL Dairy products 11 PRF Other processed food

23 PCR Processed rice

24 SGR Sugar

25 OFD Food products nec

26 B_T Beverages and tobacco products 12 B_T Beverages and tobacco

27 TEX Textiles 13 TEX Textiles

28 WAP Wearing apparel 14 WAP Wearing apparel

29 LEA Leather products 15 LEA Leather products

30 LUM Wood products 16 LUP Wood. paper. publishing

31 PPP Paper products. publishing

32 P_C Petroleum. coal products 17 P_C Petro-chemicals

33 CRP Chemical. rubber. plastic

products

18 CRP Chemical. rubber. plastic

products

34 NMM Mineral products nec 19 NMM Ceramics. cement. etc.

35 I_S Ferrous metals 20 MET Primary metals

36 NFM Metals nec

37 FMP Metal products 21 FMP Fabricated metals

38 MVH Motor vehicles and parts 22 MVH Motor vehicles

39 OTN Transport equipment nec 23 OTN Other transport

40 ELE Electronic equipment 24 ELE Electrical machinery

41 OME Machinery and equipment nec 25 OME Other machinery and equipment

42 OMF Manufactures nec 26 OMF Other manufacturing

43 ELY Electricity 27 UTI Utilities

44 GDT Gas manufacture. distribution

45 WTR Water

46 CNS Construction 28 CNS Construction

47 TRD Trade 29 TRD Trade

48 OTP Transport nec 30 OTP Other transport

49 WTP Water transport 31 WTP Water transport

50 ATP Air transport 32 ATP Air transport

51 CMN Communication 33 CMN Communications

52 OFI Financial services nec 34 FIS Finance and insurance1

53 ISR Insurance

54 OBS Business services nec 35 OBS Business and ICT

55 ROS Personal and recreational

services

36 ROS Personal and recreational

services

56 OSG Public Administration. Defence.

Education. Health

37 OSG Public and other services

57 DWE Dwellings

1 We will refer to this sector as financial services throughout this report, and this sector thus includes insurance services.

6


Base year The CGE model will be based on the GTAP 8 dataset. which includes figures until 2007. However, the base year will be brought forward using actual IMF figures on trade and growth (i.e. it is not a linear projection. but an adjusted actual projection). The latest complete data for all country groupings and sectors are available for 2011. which will be the base year in the CGE analysis. The 2011 projection includes the effect of the global economic crisis and includes the most reliable and accurate globally consistent data available to date. Baseline scenario The baseline scenario constitutes a very important element of the model specifications since it sets the benchmark based on which the impacts of the DCFTAs will be modelled. The baseline will include all FTAs until now. Since for both DCFTAs (Morocco and Tunisia) differ from each other with respect to the baseline scenario. in the following we shortly describe what the baseline scenario for Morocco and Tunisia look like. (i) Morocco:

• For the EU – Morocco scenario. a DCFTA between the EU – Tunisia will be included in the baseline since the effect of a DCFTA on Morocco cannot be viewed in isolation of the DCFTA with Tunisia (negotiated simultaneously);

• For the EU – Morocco DCFTA. two different baseline scenarios will be modelled. and from both baselines. one liberalisation scenario will be modelled: 1. 2011 baseline. depicting the situation before implementation of the October 2012

agricultural agreement. This scenario includes the negotiated Association Agreement (ratified in 2000) between the EU and Morocco;

2. Post-October 2012 baseline. which forms the baseline for modelling the DCFTA effects. This baseline includes the liberalisation measures negotiated in the 2012 agreement. so that the pure DCFTA effects can be measured.

• The 2011 baseline forms the basis for measuring the impacts of the October 2012 agreement and the October 2012 baseline forms the basis of measuring the ‘pure’ DCFTA effects;

• The reason for splitting the baseline scenarios based on the October 2012 agreement is to clearly distinguish between the sole effects of the DCFTA and the effects of the signing of the October 2012 agreement – especially important for the agricultural sectors. Taking only the baseline before the October 2012 agreement would not clearly show the true effects of a DCFTA with Morocco since the October 2012 agreement would be responsible for parts of the impacts. This approach is in line with email correspondence with the SC on this matter;

• The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) will not be included in either of both baselines.

(ii) Tunisia: • For the EU – Tunisia scenario. A DCFTA between the EU – Morocco will be included in

the baseline since the effect of a DCFTA on Tunisia cannot be viewed in isolation of the DCFTA with Morocco (negotiated simultaneously). Because the two DCFTAs cannot be seen in isolation. The October 2012 agreement for Morocco also matters for Tunisia. It matters not in terms of baseline tariffs. NTMs or services barriers. but the October 2012 agreement could have a small impact on the baseline trade flows for Tunisia – as a neighbouring country to Morocco;

• The Association Agreements (AA) with the EU (signed in 1998) is included in the baseline;

• The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is not included in the baseline.

7


Liberalisation scenario Since for Morocco we de facto consider two liberalisation scenarios. Namely the liberalisation towards the October 2012 agreement (with respect to the 2011 baseline) and the DCFTA liberalisation scenario. The scenarios for Morocco and Tunisia are explained separately below. In order to define liberalisation scenarios. three channels of liberalisation will be studied: (i) tariffs. (ii) services liberalisation and (iii) other NTMs: 1. Morocco – October 2012 liberalisation scenario

The liberalisation modelled for the October 2012 scenario only models the tariff liberalisations that have been agreed in the agreement2. Thus this liberalisation scenario consists of: (i) Tariffs

100% tariff reductions for the agricultural products and processed agricultural products. fish and fishery products. Save for the exceptions defined in articles 2 and 5 of the Agreement3, which will be modelled according to defined scenarios in the Agreement. The definitions of agricultural products and processed agricultural products. fish and fishery products are according to the Combined Nomenclature definition (chapters 1-24).

(ii) Services liberalisation No services liberalisation is modelled.

(iii) Other NTMs No other NTMs liberalisation is modelled; This allows us to define a new – Oct-2012 inclusive – baseline which forms the starting point for the DCFTA modelling.

2. Morocco – DCFTA liberalisation scenario

The liberalisation modelled for the DCFTA scenario consists of tariff. services NTM and other NTM liberalisations compared to a baseline that includes the October 2012 liberalisation scenario explained above. Hence, this liberalisation scenario takes the October 2012 liberalisation results as baseline and focuses on the differences (i.e. the pure DCFTA effects) compared to that baseline.

(i) Tariffs

The Steering Committee has indicated that the focus of the DCFTAs is on regulatory approximation and not on tariff reduction since the October 2012 agreement eliminated most actionable tariffs. Hence, no further tariff liberalisations will be modelled: • Tariff reduction EU into Morocco: 0% liberalisation for all sectors; • Tariff reduction Morocco into the EU: 0% liberalisation for all sectors. Please bear in mind that – as explained above – these 0% liberalisations are with respect to the October 2012 baseline, which already includes far going tariff liberalisation. Therefore, we will not model any further tariff liberalisations not for agricultural, nor for manufacturing sectors. For the DCFTA instead we focus on regulatory approximation. Calculating the exact tariffs left depends on the chosen sector aggregation (see table on the previous page) and will be done as part of the beginning of the modelling phase. They will be supplied in a separate Excel file to the Commission.

2 European Union, Official Journal of the European Union L241, Volume 55, 7 September 2012, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:241:FULL:EN:PDF.

3 See specific agreement (footnote 2).

8


(ii) Services liberalisation The modelling of service level NTMs for the DCFTA EU – Morocco is based on the methodology developed for previous TSIAs conducted by Ecorys notably for the TSIA of the DCFTAs between the EU and Georgia/Moldova and EU – Armenia. Liberalisation in the services sector is based on a percentage reduction in Trade Cost Equivalents (TCEs) for a particular sector. A TCE is in essence the calculation of a non-tariff barrier into a tariff (number) equivalent.

For the DCFTA between the EU and Morocco Ecorys will model a 13% reduction in TCEs for the services sectors 26 until 36 (as described in the sector aggregation table) from the Moroccan side and a 3% reduction in TCEs on the EU-side. This value has been agreed by the Steering Committee and is derived using the following methodology:

The modelling of service level NTMs for the TSIAs EU – Morocco and EU – Tunisia is based on the methodology developed for previous TSIAs and a large EU-US NTM study conducted by Ecorys. Please find below the highlights of this methodology: 1. First, the baseline presence of NTMs in the respective service sectors is determined in

terms of Trade Cost Equivalents (TCE). This value has been estimated as an average value for services by Prof. J. Francois based on OECD data by estimating an equation where import demand is a function of the size of the economy (GDP) and its income level (per-capita income). When this is adjusted by the import substitution elasticity on a national level, these coefficients provide an estimate of the existing barriers in services in terms of TCEs. Please see also the technical annex from Prof. Francois (Annex 2) with the more elaborate specifications regarding this estimation technique. This calculation results in an estimated presence of services NTMs of 40% for all sectors4;

2. Second, the level of services NTM reductions is estimated in coordination with the steering committee modelling experts and the consultant. For Morocco and Tunisia. The level of NTM reductions in services sectors is chosen to be 6% for the EU-side liberalisations and 13% and 8% for the Moroccan and Tunisian side liberalisations respectively. These values are based on: a. A benchmark with respect to the FTA between the EU and Ukraine and the DCFTA

with Armenia. In the Ukraine TSIA. NTMs in services were modelled to be reduced by 60% (in a limited scenario) and 100% (in an extended scenario). For Armenia. the ambitions for services sector liberalisation are lower and hence a liberalisation percentage of 7% was agreed;

b. A realistic comparison with WTO liberalisation ambitions described by the Most-Favoured-Nation clause;

c. Findings in the literature5 6; d. Input from the Steering Committee.

(iii) Other NTMs

For the modelling of liberalisation of other NTMs. we take into account the following assumptions: 1. The EU is focusing primarily on SPS and TBT approximation (based on information

KoM for Morocco/Tunisia);

4 Francois, J; Hoekman, B; Woerz, J, 2007, Does gravity apply to intangibles? Measuring openness in services. 5 Fontagné, L; Guillin, A; Mitaritonna, C, 2010, Estimations of tariff equivalents for the services sectors, CEPII, June 2010,

available at: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/5032.pdf. 6 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Risk Service (Morocco/Tunisia).

9


https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/5032.pdf

2. The standards of Morocco need to approximate those of the EU because the EU is not going to lower its standards in the fields of SPS and TBT – at least not to an average somewhere in between.

Based on the assumptions outlined below we propose to model a sector specific reduction in NTMs – but an asymmetric reduction (For Morocco twice the level of EU reductions). EU reductions are. However, not zero because regulatory approximation also means further access for EU firms. Even if EU standards are higher from the outset (with NTMs it is differences in standards that matter. not level of standards). The level of other NTM reductions for the economic sectors in Morocco and the EU are based on similar base figures as for the EU – Tunisia DCFTA. These liberalisation figures are presented below.

1. Tunisia – DCFTA liberalisation scenario

(i) Tariffs Tunisia did not conclude a similar agreement to the October 2012 agreement that Morocco concluded with the European Union. Hence for Tunisia, tariff reductions still make up an important share of overall liberalisation since Tunisia’s baseline includes only the AA with the EU. However, the October 2012 agreement with Morocco does – only to a limited extent – affect the Tunisian baseline trade flows so the October 2012 deal with Morocco is also in the baseline for Tunisia (indirectly). Keeping that in mind. The following tariff liberalisations are modelled: • Tariff reduction EU into Tunisia: 80% liberalisation for agricultural sectors; • Tariff reduction Tunisia into the EU: 95% liberalisation for agricultural sectors; • Tariff reduction EU into Tunisia: 100% liberalisation for all remaining sectors; • Tariff reduction Tunisia into the EU: 100% liberalisation for all remaining sectors. No specific TRQs will be modelled. The remaining tariff lines will be calculated as part of the start of the modelling and will be supplied in a separate Excel document to the Commission.

(ii) Services liberalisation

The modelling of service level NTMs for the DCFTA EU – Tunisia is also based on the methodology developed for previous TSIAs conducted by Ecorys and follows the same methodology as described for Morocco. For the DCFTA between the EU and Tunisia, Ecorys will also model an 8% reduction in TCEs for the services sectors 26 until 36 (as described in the sector aggregation table) for the Tunisian side liberalisation and a 3% reduction in TCEs from an EU-side liberalisation. These values has also been agreed by the Steering Committee.

(iii) Other NTMs

For the modelling of liberalisation of other NTMs. we take into account the following assumptions: 1. The EU is focusing primarily on SPS and TBT approximation (based on information

KoM for Morocco/Tunisia); 2. The standards of Tunisia need to approximate those of the EU because the EU is not

going to lower its standards in the fields of SPS and TBT – at least not to an average somewhere in between.

10


Based on the assumptions outlined below. We propose to model a sector specific reduction in NTMs – but an asymmetric reduction (For Tunisia twice the level of EU reductions). EU reductions are. However, not zero because regulatory approximation also means further access for EU firms. Even if EU standards are higher from the outset (with NTMs it is differences in standards that matter. not level of standards). Below the scenarios for Other NTM reductions are defined for both Tunisia and Morocco.

Methodology liberalisation figures Other NTMs for both Tunisia and Morocco Baseline values for Other NTMs As mentioned above. SPS and TBT are the focus in “other NTMs” alignment. Based on the Ecorys (2009) NTMs in EU – US Trade and Investment general equilibrium model and gravity modelling, baseline values for other NTMs in the sectors have been derived. The gravity results are recalculated into Trade Cost Equivalents. So these reflect the initial height of NTMs per sector. The baseline values can be found in Table 4.2 of the book publication7. Sector liberalisation figures for other NTMs In order to link the data to the reality of the Morocco/Tunisia negotiations. These baseline NTM values per sector are subjected to different liberalisation percentages. Using the extensive Ecorys (2009) database of NTMs (business survey with 5500 responses across the world). The importance of SPS and TBT issues in the overall NTMs is determined. The respondents of the business survey were asked for NTMs in their sector: (i) What weight they attach to the NTM in the sector (from no weight 1. to heavy weight 5); (ii) What the actionability (likelihood of removal) of the NTM is. Since the focus of ‘other NTMs’ in the TSIAs is on SPS/TBT. The number of times that “SPS” was mentioned out of the total of NTMs in the relevant sector is calculated as a percentage of the total. This percentage is then weighed with the ‘importance’ criteria (i) and (ii) in order to obtain a weighed percentage of how important SPS/TBT NTMs are with respect to the total amount of NTMs in the sector. In a next step. For every economic sector in Tunisia and Morocco (except for the services sectors. in which no Other NTM reductions are modelled) is determined whether they are heavily (high). Lightly (low) or not at all (no) influenced by SPS or TBT issues. The reality of the negotiations. i.e. whether SPS/TBT issues are actually actionable. acts as a ‘downgrade’ of the level of liberalisation possible in sectors affected by SPS/TBT issues. In case many SPS/TBT issues are identified in a certain sector. but the negotiators expect the likelihood of approximation to be low. then only a limited degree of liberalisation is realistic. According to the Kick off Meeting. Moroccan and Tunisian negotiators still need to indicate the sensitive sectors. The Steering Committee has been asked to indicate the actionability of SPS/TBT issues in the selected sectors from an EU perspective. whereas the EU Delegation in Morocco and Tunisia have been asked to indicate the actionability from the Moroccan/Tunisian perspective. The table below summarises these assumptions: Level of presence of NTMs

High Low No

Act

iona

bilit

y High Ambitious liberalisation Limited liberalisation No liberalisation

Low Limited liberalisation No liberalisation No liberalisation

7 Ecorys, 2009, Non Tariff Measures in EU US Trade and Investment.

11


This estimation technique leads to the following liberalisation figures for EU and Morocco/Tunisian-side liberalisation8: 1. Other NTMs from EU to Morocco/Tunisia:

a. 4% point reduction in TCE for the ambitious liberalisation scenario; b. 2% point reduction in TCE for the limited liberalisation scenario; c. 0% point reduction in TCE when there is no liberalisation foreseen; d. 2% point reduction in TCE for all agriculture & manufacturing sectors due to trade

facilitation9. 2. Other NTMs from Morocco/Tunisia to the EU10:

a. 16% point reduction in TCE for the ambitious liberalisation scenario – but 50% is taken off to compensate for higher production costs to meet the higher standard = de facto 8% point reduction;

b. 8% point reduction in TCE for the limited liberalisation scenario – but 50% is taken off to compensate for higher production costs to meet the higher standard = de facto 4% point reduction;

c. 0% reduction in TCE when there is no liberalisation foreseen; d. 2% point reduction in TCE for all agriculture & manufacturing sectors due to trade

facilitation11. 3. For other nations towards Morocco/Tunisia (exports and imports) we also model MFN spill-

overs worth 25% of the liberalisation level with the EU. Next to the Ecorys (2009) NTM data that has been used to estimate the above liberalisation percentages. The values have also been cross checked with a range of studies that the project team has done in the past on FTA modelling and barriers in trade and investment. Including Professor Joseph Francois academic work on this topic.

8 Based on literature used in the Ecorys (2009) study and expertise gathered in previous TSIASs. 9 The two percent point trade reduction figure has been agreed with and proposed by the Commission during the inception

phase of the EU – Georgia/Moldova TSIAS. It is considered a conservative estimate for NTMs and has been used in many past TSIAS reports conducted by Ecorys. Most importantly, the TSIAS EU – Georgia/Moldova, but also EU – India and EU – ASEAN.

10 For the EU, we sector experts will not be asked to rank SPS/TBT issues since the effects on EU sectors are expected to be small.

11 See footnote 5.

12


Annex B: Quantitative Social Analysis

The quantitative social analysis aims to assess the impact of the DCFTA on poverty and income inequality across households in Tunisia. For both poverty and inequality impacts, a central theme is the impact of price and wage changes on disposable income levels. We use total (consumption) expenditures as our measure of disposable income. This choice is mostly data driven as the household expenditure survey presents information on total expenditures and the composition of these expenditures. The remainder of this Annex will be structured in the following way. First, we explain how we model the impact of the DCFTA on disposable income. The next step introduces the various indicators that we use to compare poverty and inequality impacts to the baseline. The third part illustrates key assumptions that were needed when using variables from the household survey data and making them comparable to inputs provided by the CGE model. Finally, we provide the results for the poverty and income inequality impacts of the DCFTA at the household level. These results are intended as a robustness analysis of the DCFTA impacts at the person level provided in the main text. Methodology for micro-simulation of disposable income impacts

The analysis makes use of the 2010 micro-level household budget survey data kindly made available by the Tunisian statistical office (INS). The following potential channels can be identified through which the DCFTA impacts disposable incomes at the household or individual level: 1. Changes in prices affect disposable income, that is they change purchasing power of a given

income level; 2. Changes in prices affect disposable income levels of households as self-sufficient or surplus

production unit; 3. Changes in wages affect disposable income levels by changing labour income. The household survey data are directly concerned only with the first channel, dealing with the expenditure side of the household budget. The survey does not provide information on income generation, such as wage income or income from direct production. This implies that we do not have sufficient information to address the second channel. We address the wage income channel indirectly by making assumptions that are partly based on information about educational attainment available in the household survey data.

13


We simulate the effect of wage and price changes induced by the DCFTA on individual and household disposable income according to the following equation, taken from Chen and Ravallion (2003)12:

where, W stands for disposable income, pi – price of good i, qi – production of good i within the household, ci – consumption of good i, Lj – labour force of type j in the household, wj – wages of labour force type j. This equation expresses the impact of price and wage changes on a money metric measure of utility or welfare of the individual or household. Technically, the equation is derived by taking the differential equation of the utility function, assuming quantities are unchanged.13 The utility change due to a price or wage change is expressed in equivalent units of income that could be given to or taken from the consumer in a situation where prices are left unchanged. This interpretation of the change in utility follows neatly our indicator of disposable income. Hence, we can express the impact of the price and wages changes into an equivalent change in disposable income. This allows us to compute a “new” level of disposable income at the household and person level that reflects the impact of the DCFTA, much like the computation of the equivalent variation of a price change. These new income or expenditure levels feed into the calculation of the poverty and inequality indicators that summarize key social effects of the DCFTA. The first part of the equation describes changes in the welfare of the household caused by new prices in the economy. It can also be divided into two parts, as it covers two effects: change in expenditures due to new prices for goods produced by the household, and change in the income due to new prices for goods consumed by the household. The second part of the equation is a labour income effect due to new wages. So this approach implies modelling of: • consumption effect arising due to changes in prices on products consumed;

and • the income effect comprising changes in income due

to new prices on the goods produced and new remuneration in the economy. Indicators of poverty and income inequality

The analysis of social effects presents a set of indicators that measure various aspects of poverty and inequality. The value for each of the indicators in the current situation (baseline) is compared to the value in the short run and the long run upon implementation of the DCFTA.

12 Some comments on the methodology, in particular on the fact that it does not account for changes in consumption induced by relative price changes, are provided in De Janvry and Sadoulet (2008). As long as price changes are small, the first order approximation taken from Chen and Ravallion (2003) is accurate. Because the changes in consumption reflect changes in optimal choices by consumers, not taking these into account results in an overestimation (underestimation) of impacts of an increase (decrease) in consumption price changes on disposable income.

13 The model also allows to account for the demand and supply responses to price change by applying a second order Taylor expansion. However, the effects of price elasticities on consumption and production that determine changes in demand and supply structure are marginal compared to the first-order effect of price change on welfare and may be ignored.

14


Poverty estimation is based on a comparison of the total expenditures and the poverty line. This line can be set in absolute or relative terms, which determines the type of poverty that is calculated. The absolute poverty line we use is from the INS 2012 data called ‘seuilhaut’, (see INS, 2012). This poverty line is set as a measure of minimum expenditures needed for survival or basic needs coverage. The absolute poverty line has three different values, the highest one for urban areas and intermediate value for semi-urban areas and the lowest value for rural areas. We also use an absolute extreme poverty line in our study, the variable ‘seuilbas’ from the INS data (INS, 2012). This absolute extreme poverty line, just as the absolute poverty line has three values for the different area’s. The relative poverty line is set at 50% of the median total expenditures. Relative poverty shows the share of population which is significantly worse off compared to the median income. To a significant extent it can be thought of as an inequality indicator, as even growth of income among population does not necessarily affect relative poverty. The following poverty and inequality indicators are calculated and reported in the report: Poverty rate

where Y is a poverty line, yi – disposable income of individual i, n – is the sample size including all households or individuals whether poor or not. The poverty rate is a measure for the incidence of poverty among households or individuals. We use the poverty rate for households and for individuals. We compare the baseline poverty with the poverty in the short run, and the poverty in the long run. What we do is, if total expenditures in the baseline is a certain amount, then in the short run if you buy the same amount of goods and services, would you be better or worse of. In other words, would you still be in poverty? Poverty gap (depth of poverty)

To explicitly separate measurement of the incidence of poverty from the measurement of the depth of poverty, we only consider the people who are under the poverty line in calculating the poverty gap. Dispersion around the at-risk-of-poverty threshold is calculated as a percentage of persons, over the total population, with a disposable income below certain level (close to a poverty rate)14. Specifically, in this study we take the values of 80% and 120% of either the relative or absolute poverty line. Gini coefficient

14 See Eurostat (2010). Algorithms to Compute Social Inclusion Indicators based on EU-SILC adopted under the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), Doc. LC-ILC/39/09/EN-rev.1.

15


Decile (and quintile) dispersion ratio is calculated as the relationship of total income of the top 10% (20%) of the rich to total income of the bottom 10% (20%) of the poor:

where d1, d10 are, respectively, the first and the tenth decile, and q1, q5 – the first and the fifth quintile. Assumptions used in the analysis

The key research question in the quantitative social analysis is how changes in prices and wages affect welfare of population at risk of poverty. There are two approaches for this type of research: • Model the impact via a change of the poverty line due to the changes in prices; or • Model the welfare effect of new prices and wages for the whole sample of households and

relate it to the initial poverty line. We have mostly relied on the second approach, despite the fact that price changes affect purchasing power and hence the poverty line itself as well. Adjustment of the poverty line would require detailed information on composition of the consumption basket used for calculation of the line, as well as price changes of the corresponding products due to the DCFTA. The household survey data and CGE price changes provide insufficient information to do this. In our second approach to poverty rates, relying on the concept of relative poverty, the poverty line itself does change due to the DCFTA, as it is based on median incomes. Taken together, the impact on absolute poverty using a fixed (set of) poverty line(s) and the analysis of relative poverty provide a range of values for the impact of the DCFTA on poverty. This range of effects is deemed sufficient to overcome the shortcomings in each of the individual concepts of poverty and their calculation. Age classification “Provisional Guidelines on Standard international age classifications”, United Nations, New York 1982, Page 9-10. Education classification Classified in the INS data (10

classifications)

How we classified it (7

classifications)

Skill classification

Neant None Less skilled

Ecole coranique Koranic school

Primaire ancien regime Primary education, former system /

Basic education Enseign de base

Sencondaire ancien regime Secondary school (new and former

system) Secondaire nouv regime

Formation professionnelle Professional training More skilled

Superieur court Higher education (short and long)

Superieur long

Cours analphabetisme Illiteracy class Less skilled

16


Because the data used contained no information on methods of income (wages, sales, etc.), the total income of a household is assumed to consist of wages only. Furthermore, the total income in the baseline is set equal to total expenditures. Because no information on in-kind income was available, wages for households with in-kind income are overestimated. For changes in wages we used the less skilled and more skilled changes in wages from the CGE model. To classify the households as less skilled or more skilled, we used educational attainment. As not all people filled in their education, we used the highest skilled member of a household to classify that household as less skilled or more skilled. If no information on education was available for the household, we assume the average wage change applies. Regions For the classifications of the regions we used the same regions used in the data from the INS. Rural/Urban For the classification of rural, peri-urban and urban we used the same classifications as in the data from the INS, this is also used in the study ‘Mesure de la pauvreté des inégalités et de la polarisation en Tunisie 2000-2010’. Expenditures The 12 DPA’s are specified in the data from the INS, the correspondence between the DPA’s and the GTAP sectors from the CGE model are as followed in the below correspondence table. Classified in the INS data, HBS GTAP sectors

used

Price change short

run

Price change

long run

DPA_1 Produits alimentaires et

boissons non

alcoolisees

Grains and crops 5.70 6.32

Vegetables and

fruits

Other crops

Animal products

Fisheries

Processed meats

Vegetable oils

Other processed

foods

DPA_2 Boissons alcoolisees

tabac et stupifiants

Beverages and

tobacco

4.32 3.51

DPA_3 Habillement, articles

chaussures et effets

personnels

Textiles 0.23 -0.03

Wearing apparel

Leather goods

Other

manufactures

DPA_4 Depenses logement,

eau, gaz, electricite et

autres combustibles

Primary energy 0.65 0.65

Utilities

DPA_5 Meubles, articles de

menages et entretien

courant du foyer

Other

manufactures

-2.95 -3.17

17


Classified in the INS data, HBS GTAP sectors

used

Price change short

run

Price change

long run

DPA_6 Hygiene et soins Consumer

services

-0.22 -0.23

DPA_7 Transport Inland transport 4.36 3.70

DPA_8 Telecommunicatioms Communications 6.68 5.15

DPA_9 Loisirs et culture Consumer

services

-0.22 -0.23

DPA_10 Enseignement Public and other

services

7.46 8.95

DPA_11 Vacances, restaurants,

hotels et cafes

Consumer

services

-0.22 -0.23

DPA_12 Autres depenses Utilities 6.82 7.97

Public and other

services

To calculate the percentage change in the short run and the long run for the product groups in the household survey, we used value added shares to weigh DCFTA induced price changes for the GTAP sectors in the CGE model where relevant. The variable ‘conspc’ from the INS data is used as the total expenditures baseline. We assumed a DPA_13 as investments / savings. This is the difference between the total expenditures (conspc) and the total of the 12 DPA’s in the INS data. We assumed DPA_13 (investments / savings) to be unaffected by the DCFTA. Robustness results of DCFTA impacts on poverty and inequality: outcomes at the household level

The table below provides the results of running the simulations at the household level rather than person level for those aspects and breakdown variables that are available at this level. The results are qualitatively in line with the outcomes at the person level that are discussed in the main text of the report. Quantitative differences in the value of indicators for the baseline, as well as in terms of the DCFTA impacts, are limited. Table A.B.1 Social indicators at the household level: baseline and DCFTA effects

Baseline Short

run

(total)

Short

run:

Prices

Short

run:

Wages

Long

run:

(total)

Long

run:

Prices

Long

run:

Wages

Poverty rate

Absolute poverty line 13.30 12.1 14.67 10.93 11.05 14.73 10.10

Relative poverty line 14.50 14.7 14.59 14.52 14.69 14.64 14.52

Extreme absolute poverty line 3.80 3.40 4.26 3.06 3.10 4.29 2.81

Poverty gap

Absolute poverty line 25 24 25 24 20 27 18

Inequality indicators

Decile dispersion ratio 11.95 12.08 - - 12.10 - -

18


Baseline Short

run

(total)

Short

run:

Prices

Short

run:

Wages

Long

run:

(total)

Long

run:

Prices

Long

run:

Wages

Gini coefficient 38.6 38.8 38.7 38.6 38.8 38.8 38.6

Dispersion of poverty around poverty line

80% of the absolute line 7.30 6.50 7.85 5.85 5.96 7.90 5.40

120% of the absolute line 21.65 19.67 23.20 18.31 18.52 23.25 17.00

80% of the relative line 8.32 8.43 8.39 8.31 8.45 8.41 8.31

120% of the relative line 21.54 21.72 21.68 21.52 21.75 21.69 21.53

Poverty by place of residence (absolute poverty)

City (grandes villes) 7.63 6.54 8.47 5.63 5.74 8.58 5.13

Medium (moyennes communes) (peri-urban) 12.51 11.24 13.88 10.09 10.18 13.90 9.33

Rural (zones non-communal) 18.06 16.77 19.80 15.52 15.67 19.88 14.35

Poverty by geographical region (abs)

Grand Tunis (1) 7.39 6.33 7.94 5.28 5.33 8.04 4.78

Nord Est (2) 8.94 7.91 10.11 6.80 6.93 10.17 6.09

Nord Ouest (3) 19.58 18.09 21.57 16.68 16.87 21.64 15.90

Centre Est (4) 5.95 5.14 6.66 4.38 4.52 6.71 4.09

Centre Ouest (5) 26.02 24.39 28.65 22.81 22.75 28.71 21.35

Sud Est (6) 12.54 11.30 14.12 10.55 10.63 14.12 8.97

Sud Ouest (7) 16.09 14.48 17.44 13.29 13.55 17.53 12.19

19


Annex C: Quantitative Environmental Analysis

Our quantitative environmental analysis focused on the effect of DCFTAs on airborne pollutants and greenhouse gases (CO2). We used the methodology that has been applied in the Trade SIA of DCFTAs between the EU and respectively Georgia, Moldova and Armenia, which was introduced in the Trade SIA of an FTA between the EU and Russia15. In a nutshell this approach carefully combines: • results of the CGE modelling; • extrapolation of emissions based on emission intensities and decomposing of the estimated

change into a scale and sector composition effect; and • external costs assessment based on the impact pathway approach.16 Changes in the environmental quality

Quantitative modelling of DCFTA-induced environmental impacts is based on the analysis of the scale and composition effects. These two channels link changes in emissions directly to changes in economic activity. We abstract from changes in underlying technology that may reduce emission intensities per unit of output, since aspects of technological change are not explicitly modelled. We have used value added as indicator of economic activity. This indicator is preferred over gross output, as it is most directly linked to the economic activity performed within a sector itself. Using gross output values instead would run the risk of double counting: assigning too much weight to certain sectors based on their intermediate input use. The emissions resulting from the production of intermediate inputs should be assigned to the respective sectors producing these intermediates. Value added weighting of sectors ensures that this logic is followed. Scale effect The scale effect represents the changes in the emissions resulting from the increased scale of production. All things being equal, emissions are proportional to GDP and increase or decrease by the same factor as economic activity as a whole. The new level of airborne pollutant emission with the scale effect for a given scenario is equal to:

𝐸𝑖𝑆𝐶 = 𝑒𝑖0 ∙𝑌𝑆𝐶

𝑌0= 𝑒𝑖0 ∙ �1 + 𝑔𝑌𝑆𝐶� (1)

where 𝑒𝑖0 is emission of pollutant i in base year, Y is total value added, and 𝑔𝑌𝑆𝐶 is the change in percentages of total value added as compared with the base year. Since we use the changes in GDP as our proxy for the growth in total value added, our final formula for the scale effect is:

𝐸𝑖𝑆𝐶 = 𝑒𝑖0 ∙ (1 + ∆ 𝐺𝐷𝑃 𝑖𝑛 %) (2)

15 Dabrowski, M., Dyker, D., Emerson, M., Izryadnova, O., Jarocinska, E., Kudina, A., Maliszewska, M., Ščasný, M., Volkov, Y., Volovik, N. (2009), Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation Economic, Social and Environmental Implications. Report prepared by CASE for DG TRADE, European Commission. Maliszewska, M., Jarocińska, E., Ščasný, M. (2010), Modelling Economic, Social and Environmental Implications of a Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and The Russian Federation, No 93, CASE Network Reports.

16 EC (2003). External costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Preiss P, Friedrich R and Klotz V (2008). Report on the procedure and data to generate averaged/aggregated data. Deliverable n° 1.1 - RS 3a. R&D Project NEEDS – New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability. Prepared for DG Research.

21


Composition effect As a result of the DCFTA the economic structure of the country is expected to change with activities shifting to less or more pollution intensive sectors to some extent. Environmental impact analysis should take this composition effect into account. For a given scenario, the composition effect for a particular pollutant is:

𝐸𝑖𝑆𝐶 = ∑ �𝑒𝑘0 ∙𝑦𝑘𝑆𝐶 𝑌𝑆𝐶⁄𝑦𝑘0 𝑌0⁄ ∙ 𝑌

𝑆𝐶

𝑌0�𝑘 − ∑ �𝑒𝑘0 ∙

𝑌𝑆𝐶

𝑌0�𝑘 = 𝑌𝑆𝐶

𝑌0∙ ∑ 𝑒𝑘0 ∙ �

𝑦𝑘𝑆𝐶 𝑌𝑆𝐶⁄𝑦𝑘0 𝑌0⁄ − 1�𝑘 (3)

where k denotes a sector and y is value added per sector. In an ideal situation, to measure the composition effect with precision we would need emission data of airborne pollutants disaggregated into the same sectors as our CGE model. Given the limited availability of emission data as well as its level of the detail, we had to introduce new economic sectors for the environmental analysis based on the IPCC sources of pollution and aggregate economic and pollution data17. This exercise leaves us with four sectors (Agriculture, Industry, Transport and Utilities) plus a “Rest of Emissions” category assumed to be related to changes to GDP. Consult Table A.1 for the correspondence table between aggregated sectors, CGE model sectors and sources of pollution, as well as for comments and assumptions. Finally the total effect combines the scale and composition effects and demonstrates the net changes in the emissions of airborne pollutants:

𝐸𝑗𝑆𝐶 = ∑ �𝑒𝑘0 ∙ 𝑤𝑆𝐶

𝑤0 ∙ (1 + 𝑔𝑌𝑆𝐶)� 𝑘 (4)

where w is a sector share based on total value added. Since we use the change in GDP as a proxy for changes in total value added. our final equation is:

𝐸𝑗𝑆𝐶 = ∑ �𝑒𝑘0 ∙ 𝑤𝑆𝐶

𝑤0 ∙ (1 + ∆ 𝐺𝐷𝑃 𝑖𝑛 %)� 𝑘 (5)

Welfare impacts of air pollution

To assess the environmental damages related to the externalities, we quantify and monetize external costs induced by the changes of emissions of airborne pollutants. This exercise enables a quantitative comparison of environmental impacts with other economic and social impacts of the DCFTA. We use the external costs of air pollutants supplied by the projects within the NEEDS framework18. It provides external costs for several impact categories including health, loss of biodiversity, crops and building materials. However, because of the lack of data availability, we only measure health costs. We assume it is reasonable to proceed further with our analysis as human health costs are

17 Eurostat (2009), “Manual for Air Emissions Accounts” and Narayanan, B. et al. (2008), “Guide to the GTAP Data Base”. 18 The external costs of pollutants per tonne were derived using Impact Pathway method. For more information on the

method, consult Preiss, P. et al. (2008), ‘Report on the procedure and data to generate averaged/aggregated data’ Downloaded from http://www.needs-project.org/docs/RS3a%20D1.1.zip and other reports within WP1 of RS3a NEEDS project, http://www.needs-project.org.

22


http://www.needs-project.org/docs/RS3a%20D1.1.zip

http://www.needs-project.org/

by far the largest category, constituting around 90 percent of total costs.19 A similar approach was taken in the Trade SIA for Georgia.20 External cost of emission of a particular pollutant is a product of the health costs of that pollutant and the change in the emission as computed by equation (5). The total DCFTA-induced change in external costs is the sum of the products for each pollutant:

∑ �𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐶𝑇𝑝 ∙ 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑇𝑝�𝑝 (6)

where p denotes a pollutant. The health cost estimates reported in the NEEDS project are in EUR2000. To correct for this, we followed the recommendations in HEATCO 200621 and used the price adjuster based on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) to recalculate prices from EUR2000 to EUR2011. Data

Emission data comes from the Global Emissions EDGAR v4.2 database, which provides the datasets for all countries and regions (in total 234 entities)22. EDGAR was also consulted in a number of country reports within the project “Analysis for European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Countries and the Russian Federation on social and economic benefits of enhanced environmental protection”. The database provides the emission data for the following classic pollutants: • NOx; • SO2; • PM10. EDGAR reports emissions using a modelled approach based on publicly available sources such as EMEP statistics, national accounts and academic articles, and as such does not rely only on observed data. The latest available projections are for the year 2008 (latest update: November 2011). Emissions are reported in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source/sink categories. Consult Table A.2 for an overview of available IPCC source /sink categories and their short descriptions. Within the available IPCC categories, we distinguished three cases: 1. The source can be assigned to a specific sector – emissions are assigned to this sector; 2. The source cannot be assigned to a specific sector, but are related to economic activity in

general. In this case emissions were assumed to grow in the same rate as GDP; 3. The source can’t be assigned to a sector, and is unrelated to economic activity (like e.g.

savannah fires) – in this case emissions are not assigned to any sector; they are assumed to stay constant.

19 Van Breusegem,W. and Soulami, M. 2011. Analysis for European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Countries and the Russian Federation of social and economic benefits of enhanced environmental protection – Morocco Country Report, funded by the European Commission. Brussels, p. 70.

20 Ecorys and CASE, 2012. Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment in support of negotiations of a DCFTA between the EU and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. Final report. Funded by the European Commission, p. A62.

21 “General Issues in Costing Analysis: Units of account, Base years, and Currency conversion”, Annex B to HEATCO Deliverable 5Downloaded from http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/HEATCO_D5_Annex.zip.

22 The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR): http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=42.

23


http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=42

EDGAR reports emission of primary particulate matter as PM10 while NEEDS project provides health costs for PPMCo and PPM2.5 separately. Therefore, in order to use health costs within our analysis and following the assumptions in Van Breusegem and Soulami (2011) and Van Acoleyen and Baouendi (2011), we use a 62 percent share of PPM2.5 and 38 percent of PPMCo within PM10. To estimate the costs associated with climate change we rely on CO2 emissions from 2008 used in the CGE model and taken from United States Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). For the health costs per ton per pollutant we use values provided by the NEEDS framework23. Following the recommendations in Preiss et al. (2008), we use values for emission of unknown height of release. This approach reflects previous practices in the Trade SIA of DCFTAs between the EU and Georgia and Russia respectively. As our emission data is from 2008, but the general economic base year is 2011, we specify 2011 as the year of occurrence of the emission. Climate change externalities

For valuating CO2 costs, we rely on the concept of the marginal social cost (MSC) of carbon: this is the cost accruing to society due to the release of an additional unit of carbon emissions (and its impact on climate change). According to the Stern Review, the size of the impact “depends not only on the lifetime of the gas, but also on the size of the stock of greenhouse gases while it is in the atmosphere, and how uncertain climate-change impacts in the future are valued and discounted.”24 It also depends on the valuation of simultaneous impacts in different places. Following from this, estimates for the MSC of carbon depend on several key parameters: • Discount rate. Discounting is an approach to account for uncertainty about the future and how

economic subjects (= people) deal with it. Economic studies usually assume that people are risk averse, i.e. they are willing to give up part of their income in order to get a guaranteed income. Risk aversion also means that present income is preferred to future income, because the future income is uncertain. Social time preference is usually modelled using an annual real discount rate between 1 and 10%.25 The social cost over a specified time frame is then calculated as the net present value (NPV) of the costs occurring;

• Greenhouse gas emissions. The stock of greenhouse gases changes over time, where the change depends on economic activity and climate policy. Therefore estimates for the MSC of carbon in fact need to be dynamically adjusted to the development of GHG emissions, and they are different for different emission scenarios. Ambitious MSC of carbon estimates additionally take the inherent uncertainty of scenario results into account by using Monte Carlo simulations on the underlying climate impact models;26

• Equity weighting. Equity weighting takes into account the different effects climate change has on different world regions – in economic terms. “Economic theory assumes a declining marginal utility of consumption, i.e. the same absolute consumption change results in a smaller welfare change for a rich person than a poor person.”27 Equity weighting takes different income levels in different regions and at different times into account and usually leads to significantly larger estimates.

23 Specifically, the Excel file ExternalCosts_per_unit_emission_080821.xls available with the RS3a NEEDS project, D1.1 deliverable.

24 Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: University Press. 25 HM Treasury (2011). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: TSO. http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf. 26 See for example Anthoff, D. (2007). Report on marginal external damage costs inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.

NEEDS Delivery n 5.4 – RS 1b. 27 Anthoff, D., Hepburn, C., Tol, R. (2009). Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. In: Ecological

Economics 68:3, pp. 836–849.

24


http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf

This dependence of MSC estimates on key unknown and changing parameters helps explain the wide range shown in the literature. Tol (2005) collected 103 estimates from 28 published studies, arriving at a median of $14/t and a mean of $93/t (in 1995 US$).28 Anthoff (2007), in a study for the NEEDS report, uses scenario results from the FUND model to calculate MSC of carbon estimates for several emission years with different parameters.29 Depending on the rate of time preference equity weighting and the way of taking into account scenario uncertainties he arrives at values for emissions in the year 2005 ranging from -$34.0 (with a 3% rate of time preference and an equity weighting approach that normalizes to EU income levels) to $993.0 (with a 0% rate of time preference and the same equity weighting approach), each without uncertainty calculations. Given this large range of MSC of carbon estimates and their sensitivity to parameter assumptions, it seemed most reasonable to draw on median values and estimates used in previous reports in order to stay in line and ensure comparability with other results. Taking into account Tol’s median, adjusted to 2011 Euros (14$/t in 1995, equal to 15 € in 2011); the estimate used in the TSIA report for Georgia and Moldova (20 €/t in 2007, equal to 22 € in 2011); and the estimate used in the TSIA report for Russia (20$/t in 2004, equal to 19€/t in 2011), we assume a value of 20€/t (in 2011 Euros) for the marginal social cost of carbon in this report. Definition of sectors

IPCC source/sink categories do not allow mapping the emissions to the particular economic sectors with 100 percent precision. In many cases sectors overlap when considering different sources of pollution. Therefore it is necessary to make some assumptions and compromises regarding the precision of allocation. Table A.1 includes proposed economic sectors for the environmental analysis with their corresponding CGE and IPCC codes as well as comments. CGE sectors were linked to the IPCC codes by at first assigning IPCC codes to NACE 1.1 sectors. following the recommendations in the “Manual for Air Emissions Accounts” by Eurostat30. Then the “Guide to the GTAP Data Base” was consulted to match NACE 1.1 and CGE sectors. Table A.C.1 Correspondence between IPCC sectors and Trade SIA sectors

Sector in

envi IA

IPCC Trade SIA

sector

Model name Comments

Agriculture

4A.

4B.

4C.

4D1.

4F

GRN grains and crops We exclude the emissions from plants in

agriculture. forestry and aquaculture (1A4)

because of the limited data availability and

overlapping sectors. See page 145 of “Manual

for Air Emissions Accounts”.

VOS vegetables and fruit

OCP other crops

ANP animal products

FRS forestry products

FSH fisheries

Industry

1A1bc.

1A2.

1B1.

1B2.

2A.

2B.

EGY primary energy We exclude Utilities and Transport and Trade

(NACE 50) from 1B2 category.

OMN other minerals

MPT processed meats

VOL vegetable oils

PRF other processed foods

28 Tol, R. (2005). The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. In: Energy Policy 33, pp. 2064-2074.

29 Anthoff, D. (2007). Report on marginal external damage costs inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. NEEDS Delivery n 5.4 – RS 1b.

30 Eurostat (2009), “Manual for Air Emissions Accounts”, Annex 1. “Correspondence between SNAP97 (CRF/NFR) and NACE rev.1.1” and Annex 2. “Correspondence between 1996 IPCC source categories (CRF/NFR) and SNAP97”.

25


Sector in

envi IA

IPCC Trade SIA

sector

Model name Comments

2C.

2D.

2E.

3

B_T beverages and tobacco

TEX textiles

WAP wearing apparel

LEA leather goods

LUP lumber. paper

P_C petrochemicals

CRP chemicals. rubber. plastics

NMM non metallic mineral

products

MET metals

FMP fabricated metals

MVH motor vehicles

OTN other transport equipment

ELE electrical machinery

OME other machinery

OMF other manufactures

CNS construction

Utilities 1A1a

UTI utilities We assume that power plants operated by other

industries are recorded in their respective

industries (see p. 142 of “Manual for Air

Emissions Accounts”). Also. we exclude fugitive

emissions from solid fuels and oil and gas (IPCC

1B1 and 1B2. respectively) because we lack

detailed data. Also see p. 156 of “Manual for Air

Emissions Accounts”.

Transport

1A3a.

1A3c.

1A3d.

1A3e

OTP inland transport We include all reported emissions from road

transport without making any distinctions

between emissions from households and

economic sectors. We exclude stationary

combustion in residential. commercial and public

services. agriculture. forestry. fisheries and other

sectors (IPCC 1A4) because of the limited data

availability and overlapping sectors.

WTP water transport

ATP air transport

Rest of

emissions

1A4.

2F1.

2F2.

2F3.

2F4.

2F5.

2F7.

2F8.

2F9.

6A.

6B.

6C.

6D.

TRD trade We include IPCC 1A4 source Stationary

combustion in residential. commercial and public

services. agriculture. forestry. fisheries and other

sectors because it is not possible to match them

to particular sectors.

CMN communications

FIS finance and insurance

OBS ICT other business

services

ROS consumer services

OSG public and other services

Note: The level of detail feasible in this correspondence is driven by the level of aggregation in the EDGAR emission estimates database.

26


The table below provides detailed information on the IPCC emission sources by codes used. Table A.C.2 IPCC source /sink categories of air pollution

IPCC

code

Source name Description Comment

1. Energy: Fuel Combustion (1A) and Fugitive emissions from fuel (1B)

1A1a Public electricity and heat

production

Electricity and heat

production. petroleum

refining. fuel transformation

industry. manufacturing

industry

1A1bc Other energy industries

1A2 Manufacturing industries and

construction

1A3a Domestic aviation Domestic and international

aviation

1A3b Road transportation Road transport (including

evaporation).

1A3c Rail transportation Rail transport and other non-

specified non-road

transportation.

1A3d Domestic navigation Domestic and international

navigation

1A3e Other transportation Rail transport and other non-

specified non-road

transportation.

1A4 Residential and other sectors Stationary combustion in

residential. commercial and

public services. agriculture.

forestry. fisheries and other

sectors.

1B1 Fugitive emissions from solid fuels Production of coal. coke. gas

works and charcoal.

Production of oil and gas.

venting and flaring of gas.

transport and transmission.

oil refining. transport to fuel

stations.

1B2 Fugitive emissions from oil and gas

1C1 Memo: International aviation

1C2 Memo: International navigation

2. Industrial Processes (non-combustion) and 3. Product Use

2A Production of minerals Production of minerals.

chemicals. metals. pulp.

paper. food. Production of

halocarbons and SF6. Air

conditioning. foam blowing.

fire extinguishers. non-

energy use of

lubricants/waxes (CO2) and

solvents.

2B Production of chemicals

2C Production of metals

2D Production of pulp/paper/food/drink

2E Production of halocarbons and SF6

2F1 Refrigeration and air conditioning

2F2 Foam blowing

2F3 Fire extinguishers

2F4 Aerosols

2F5 F-gas as solvent

27


IPCC

code


2F7 Semiconductor/electronics

manufacture

Including FPDs and PV cells

2F8 Electrical equipment

2F9 Other F-gas use

2G Non-energy use of lubricants/waxes

(CO2)

3 Solvent and other product use

4. Agriculture (including Savanna burning)

4A Enteric fermentation Enteric fermentation. manure

management.

4B Manure management

4C Rice cultivation Rice cultivation.

4D1 Direct soil emissions Direct soil emissions. manure

in pasture/range/paddock.

indirect N2O from agriculture.

other direct soil emissions.

4D2 Manure in pasture/range/paddock Enteric fermentation. manure

management.

4D3 Indirect N2O from leaching/runoff in

agriculture

Direct soil emissions. manure

in pasture/range/paddock.

indirect N2O from agriculture.

other direct soil emissions.

4D4 Other direct soil emissions Including CO2 from urea

application and soil liming

4E Savanna burning Large scale biomass burning:

Savanna burning. forest fires.

peat fires. grassland fires.

other vegetation fires. Decay

of wetland/peatland and post

burn decay after forest fires.

Agricultural waste burning.

4F Agricultural waste burning

5. Land Use Change and Forestry

5A Forest fires Large scale biomass burning:

Savanna burning. forest fires.

peat fires. grassland fires.

other vegetation fires. Decay

of wetland/peatland and post

burn decay after forest fires.

Agricultural waste burning.

Including peat fires

5C Grassland fires

5D Decay of wetlands/peatlands Included in 5F2 Post-burn

decay

5F Other vegetation fires

5F2 Forest Fires-Post burn decay Incl. decomposition of

peatlands due to drainage

6. Waste

6A Solid waste disposal on land Solid waste disposal on land

and waste incineration

(without energy recovery).

6B Wastewater handling Emissions from wastewater

handling.

6C Waste incineration Solid waste disposal on land

and waste incineration

(without energy recovery).

6D Other waste handling Emissions from composting

28


IPCC

code


of waste and

processing/storage of

hazardous waste.

7. Other anthropogenic sources

7A Fossil fuel fires Fossil fuel fires. indirect N2O

from non-agricultural NOx.

indirect N2O from non-

agricultural NH3.

Includes underground coal

fires and Kuwait oil fires

7B Indirect N2O from non-agricultural

NOx

7C Indirect N2O from non-agricultural

NH3

7D Other anthropogenic sources

29


Annex D: International Human Rights Treaties

Table A.D.1 Status of Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties by Morocco

Treaty Signature Ratification,

Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Core Human Rights Treaties and their Optional Protocols

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, 16 December 1966 19 Jan 1977 3 May 1979

-Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, 16 December 1966 Not signed

-Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of

the death penalty. New York, 15 December 1989

Not signed

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York, 16 December 1966 19 Jan 1977 3 May 1979

-Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York, 10

December 2008

Not signed

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. New York, 18 December 1979 21 Jun 1993

-Amendment to Article 20 (1) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

New York, 22 December 1995

31 Mar 2010 a

-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. New

York, 6 October 1999

Not signed

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York, 10

December 1984

8 Jan 1986 21 Jun 1993

-Amendment to articles 17(7) and 18(5) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York, 8 September 1992

11 Sep 2012 a

-Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment. New York, 18 December 2002

Not signed

Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York, 20 November 1989 26 Jan 1990 21 Jun 1993

-Amendment to Article 43(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York, 12 December 1995 27 Jan 1997 a

-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

New York, 25 May 2000

8 Sep 2000 22 May 2002

-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child 8 Sep 2000 2 Oct 2001

31



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

pornography. New York, 25 May 2000

-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure. New York, 19

December 2011

28 Feb 2012

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.

New York, 18 December 1990

15 Aug 1991 21 Jun 1993

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. New York, 15 January 1992 18 Sep 1967 18 Dec 1970

-Amendment to Article 8 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

New York, 15 January 1992

Not signed

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, 13 December 2006 30 Mar 2007 8 Apr 2009

-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, 13 December 2006 8 Apr 2009 a

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. New York, 20

December 2006

6 Feb 2007

Other relevant international human rights treaties

War crimes and Crimes against Humanity

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Paris, 9 December 1948 24 Jan 1958 a

Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity. New York,

26 November 1968

Not signed

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Rome, 1998 (signatory but not a state party) 8 Sep 2000

Amendment to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Kampala, 2010 Not signed

Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Kampala, 2010 Not signed

Law of armed conflict

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,

1949

26 Jul 1956

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed

Forces at Sea, 1949

26 Jul 1956

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949 26 Jul 1956

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian persons in Time of War, 1949 26 Jul 1956

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of

international Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1977

3 Jun 2011

32



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of

Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 1977

3 Jun 2011

Refugee Law

Convention relating to the Status of refugees. Geneva, 1951 7 Nov 1956 d

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. New York, 1967 20 Apr 1971 a

Nationality, Statelessness and the Rights of Aliens

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. New York, 1954 Not signed

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, New York, 1961 Not signed

Women’s rights

Convention on the Political Rights of Women. New York, 1953 22 Nov 1976 a

Convention on the Nationality of Married Women. New York, 1957 Not signed

Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages. New York, 1962 Not signed

Children’s rights

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 9 Mar 2010 a 1 Jun 2010

Racial Discrimination

International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. New York, 10 December 1985 16 May 1986

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. New York, 30

November 1973

Not signed

Education

Convention against Discrimination in Education. Paris, 1960 30 Aug 1968

Terrorism and Human Rights

International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. New York, 1979 9 May 2007 a

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. New York, 1997 9 May 2007 a

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. New York, 1999 12 Oct 2001 19 Sep 2002

International Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. The Hague, 1970 24 Oct 1975

International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against International Protected Persons,

including Diplomatic Agents, 1973

9 Jan 2002a

International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. New York, 2005

19 Apr 2006 31 Mar 2010

33



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Human Trafficking

United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. New York, 2000 13 Dec 2000 19 Sep 2002

Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention

against Transnational Organised Crime. New York, 2000 (Smuggling protocol)

Not signed

Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children, supplementing

the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. New York, 2000 (Trafficking Protocol)

25 Apr 2011 a

Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others.

New York, 1950

17 Aug 1973 a

Slavery and Slavery-like Practices

Slavery Convention. Geneva, 1926 11 May 1959 s

Protocol Amending the Slavery Convention. New York, 1953 11 May 1959 a

Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to

Slavery. Geneva, 1956

11 May 1959 a

Corruption

United Nations Convention against Corruption. New York, 2003 9 Dec 2003 9 May 2007

UN Activities and Employees

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. New York, 1946 18 Mar 1957 a

Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel. New York, 1994 Not signed

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel. New York,

2005

Not signed

Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. New York, 2002 Not signed

ILO Conventions

Elimination of child labour and protection of children and young persons

ILO Convention No. 138, Minimum Age, 1973 (16 years) 06 Jan 2000 In force

ILO Convention No. 182, Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999 26 Jan 2001 In force

ILO Convention No. 77, Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1946 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 78, Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations), 1976 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 124, Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work) Convention, 1965

Not ratified

34



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Employment policy and promotion

ILO Convention No. 2, Unemployment Convention, 1919 14 Oct 1960 In force

ILO Convention No. 122, Employment Policy Convention, 1964 11 May 1979 In force

ILO Convention No. 115, Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 120, Hygiene (Commerce and Officers) Convention, 1964 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 139, Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 148, Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 155, Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 159, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 161, Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 167, Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 170, Chemicals Convention, 1990 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 174, Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 176, Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 181, Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 10 May 1999 In force

ILO Convention No. 184, Safety and Health in Agriculture, 2001 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 187, Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 Not ratified

Employment security

ILO Convention No. 97, Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 143, Migrant workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 158, Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 07 Oct 1993 In force

Equality of opportunity and treatment

ILO Convention No. 100, Equal Remuneration, 1951 11 May 1979 In force

ILO Convention No. 111, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 27 Mar 1963 In force

ILO Convention No. 156, Workers with Family Responsibilities, 1981 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 189, Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (entry into force 05 Sep.2013) Not ratified

Freedom of association, collective bargaining, and industrial relations

ILO Convention No. 141, Rural Workers’ Organisations, 1975 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 11, Right of Association (Agriculture), 1921 20 May 1957 In force

35



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

ILO Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organise, 1948 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949 20 May 1957 In force

ILO Convention No. 135, Workers’ Representatives, 1971 05 Apr 2002 In force

ILO Convention No. 151, Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 154, Collective Bargaining, 1981 03 Apr 2009 In force

Labour administration and inspection

ILO Convention No. 81, Labour Inspection, 1947 14 Mar 1958 In force

ILO Convention No. 129, Labour Inspection (Agriculture), 1969 11 May 1979 In force

ILO Convention No. 150, Labour Administration, 1978 03 Apr 2009 In force

ILO Convention No. 171, Night Work Convention, 1990 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 175, Part-Time Work, 1994 Not ratified

Tripartite consultation

ILO Convention No. 140, Paid Educational Leave, 1974 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 142, Human Resources Development, 1975 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 144, Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards), 1976 Not ratified

Vocational guidance and training

ILO Convention No. 102, Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 121, Employment Injury Benefits, 1964 (1980) Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 128, Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits, 1967 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 130, Medical Care and Sickness Benefits, 1969 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 157, Maintenance of Social Security Rights, 1982 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 168, Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment, 1988 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 142, Human Resources Development Convention, 1928 Not ratified

Indigenous Peoples

ILO Convention No. 169, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Not ratified

Wages

ILO Convention No. 26, Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 14 Mar 1958 In force

ILO Convention No. 94, Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 95, Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Not ratified

36



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

ILO Convention No. 99, Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) Convention, 1951 14 Oct 1960 In force

ILO Convention No. 131, Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 173, Protection of Workers’ Claims (Employer’s Insolvency) Convention, 1992 Not ratified

Working time

ILO Convention No. 14, Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 30, Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 22 Jul 1974 In force

ILO Convention No. 52, Holidays with Pay convention, 1936 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 89, Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (Protocol of 1990 ratified) Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 101, Holidays with Pay (Agriculture) Convention, 1952 14 Oct 1960 In force

ILO Convention No. 106, Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 22 Jul 1974 In force

ILO Convention No. 132, Holidays with Pay (Revised) Convention, 1970 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 110, Plantations Convention, 1958 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 149, Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 172, Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) Convention, 1991 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 177, Home Work Convention, 1996 Not ratified

Forced labour

ILO Convention No. 29, Forced Labour Convention, 1930 20 May 1957 In force

ILO Convention No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 01 Dec 1966 In force

Occupational safety and health

ILO Convention No.13, White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 13 Jun 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 45, Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 62, Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 Not ratified

ILO Convention No.119, Guarding of Machinery Convention, 1963 22 Jul 1974 In force

ILO Convention No. 120, Hygiene (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1964 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 127, Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 136, Benzene Convention, 1971 22 Jul 1974 In force

ILO Convention No. 162, Asbestos Convention, 1986 13 Apr 2011 In force

ILO Convention No. 174, Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents, 1993 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 176, Safety and Health in Mines, 1995 Not ratified

37



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Social security

ILO Convention No. 12, Workmen’s Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 17, Workmen’s Compensation (Accidents), 1925 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 18, Workmen’s Compensation (Occupational Diseases), 1925 20 Sep 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 19, Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention, 1925 13 Jun 1956 In force

ILO Convention No. 118, Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 accepted branches (a) to (g) and (i)

Not ratified

Maternity protection

ILO Convention 183, Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 13 Apr 2011 In force

Social policy

ILO Convention No. 117, Social Policy (Basic Arms and Standards) Convention, 1962 Not ratified

Seafarers

ILO Convention No. 8, Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 16,Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 23, Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 73, Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 Not ratified

ILO Convention No. 108, Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention, 1958 15 Oct 2001 In force

MLC – Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. In accordance with Standard A 4.5 (2) and (10), the Government has

specified the following branches of social security: sickness benefit; old-age benefit; employment injury benefit;

family benefit; maternity benefit; invalidity benefit and survivors’ benefit.

10 Sep 2012 In force

Final Articles Conventions

ILO Convention No. 116, Final Articles Revision Convention, 1961 14 Nov 1962 In force

Regional human rights instruments

European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome, 1950 Not signed

The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic

Violence, 2011

Not signed

African Regional Conventions – not member of the African Union

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 Not signed

Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969 Not signed

38



Accession (a),

Succession (d)

Entry into force

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa Not signed

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on

Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998

Not signed

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child Not signed

Protocol to the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, 2004 Not signed

OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, 1999 Not signed

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of Children, 1999 Not signed

39


Annex E: Detailed CGE results

1.1 Morocco – DCFTA liberalisation scenario

Macroeconomic indicators National Income. million €

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total goods

NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 831.9 37.9 -35.6 834.2 1402.9 54.4 -54.1 1403.2

Morocco 871.6 32.6 240.9 1145.1 969.1 43.0 288.2 1300.3

Tunisia -1.8 0.0 -0.6 -2.4 -2.0 0.0 -0.6 -2.7

Egypt -2.8 -0.2 5.1 2.1 -2.2 -0.2 2.3 -0.1

Turkey -13.5 0.2 7.9 -5.4 -5.3 -0.2 4.9 -0.6

Other Middle East -1.3 -0.3 2.2 0.6 0.5 -0.5 3.0 3.1

Other North Africa -0.5 -0.3 3.4 2.6 1.1 -0.3 4.0 4.9

Other Africa -6.8 -0.4 11.5 4.3 -6.6 -0.7 19.1 11.8

Rest of World -87.9 4.3 131.8 48.2 -118.7 -0.8 194.1 74.6

Equivalent variation. %

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 1.3 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.4 0.1 0.4 1.9

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other Middle East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other North Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GDP, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 0.9 0.1 0.3 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.4 1.6

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



41


GDP, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exports, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 13.2 0.5 1.6 15.3 13.2 0.5 1.6 15.3

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Imports, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 7.0 0.2 0.8 8.0 7.3 0.3 0.9 8.4

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Exports, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

Morocco exports to

EU, % change 22.6 0.7 0.3

22.5 0.7 0.3

EU exports to

Morocco, % change 18.5 0.8 -1.7

18.8 0.9 -1.6

42


Wages, more skilled %

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 1.3 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.9

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wages, less skilled %

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 1.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.3 1.6

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wages, average (skilled and unskilled) %

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 1.2 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.4 0.1 0.3 1.7

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

43


Terms of trade, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Change in emissions, million MT CO2

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union

Million MTC02 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6

Morocco Million MT

CO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

European Union % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

World Million MT 0.6 -0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 -0.1 0.3 0.9

World, % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Change in global shipping volumes

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

water 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

air 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

other transport 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Change in land use intensity, %

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Morocco 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3

44


Consumer prices, % change

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

European Union 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morocco 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.4

Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Other Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sectoral effects More skilled workers, Morocco (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

grains and crops 0.0 -2.3 0.1 -0.6 -2.8 -2.3 0.1 -0.6 -2.8

vegetables and fruit 0.0 3.6 0.1 0.4 4.0 3.6 0.0 0.3 4.0

other crops 0.0 -1.8 0.1 -0.2 -2.0 -1.8 0.1 -0.2 -1.9

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

forestry products 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.3 -1.2 -0.8 0.0 -0.2 -1.0

fisheries 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2

primary energy 0.0 -0.7 0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -0.7 0.2 -0.4 -0.9

other minerals 0.0 -1.0 0.1 0.1 -0.8 -0.9 0.1 0.1 -0.7

processed meats 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.2

vegetable oils 0.0 4.1 0.3 -1.6 2.8 3.9 0.3 -1.7 2.5

other processed foods 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.3

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 -0.6 0.1 -0.1 -0.6 -0.7 0.1 -0.1 -0.8

textiles 0.0 -2.5 0.2 -0.6 -2.9 -2.7 0.2 -0.7 -3.1

wearing apparel 0.0 1.0 0.2 -0.2 1.0 0.9 0.2 -0.3 0.8

leather goods 0.0 -3.2 0.2 -0.7 -3.7 -3.3 0.1 -0.8 -4.0

lumber, paper 0.0 -3.3 0.1 -0.3 -3.5 -3.3 0.1 -0.3 -3.5

petrochemicals 0.0 -2.4 -0.1 0.2 -2.3 -2.6 -0.1 0.1 -2.5

chemicals, rubber,

plastics 0.0 -1.2 0.2 0.2 -0.7 -1.2 0.2 0.2 -0.9

non metallic mineral

products 0.0 -1.5 0.1 -0.3 -1.6 -1.3 0.1 -0.2 -1.4

metals 0.0 0.1 0.5 -0.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 -0.6 0.0

fabricated metals 0.0 -2.4 0.3 -0.6 -2.7 -2.3 0.3 -0.5 -2.5

motor vehicles 0.0 2.4 0.2 -0.7 1.9 2.5 0.2 -0.7 2.0

other transport 0.0 -0.3 0.2 -0.5 -0.6 -0.4 0.2 -0.5 -0.7

45


More skilled workers, Morocco (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

equipment

electrical machinery 0.0 -3.1 0.5 -0.2 -2.8 -2.9 0.5 -0.1 -2.6

other machinery 0.0 7.2 0.4 -0.4 7.3 7.3 0.4 -0.4 7.4

other manufactures 0.0 -1.4 0.1 -0.1 -1.4 -1.4 0.1 -0.1 -1.4

utilities 0.0 -0.3 -1.2 0.0 -1.5 -0.4 -1.2 0.0 -1.6

construction 0.1 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

trade 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0

inland transport 0.0 -0.7 0.1 0.0 -0.7 -0.8 0.1 -0.1 -0.8

water transport 0.0 -0.9 0.0 -0.1 -0.9 -1.0 0.0 -0.2 -1.2

air transport 0.0 -1.7 -0.3 -0.1 -2.1 -1.8 -0.3 -0.2 -2.3

communications 0.0 -1.7 0.1 -0.2 -1.8 -1.8 0.1 -0.2 -1.9

finance and insurance 0.0 -0.5 -0.2 -0.3 -1.0 -0.5 -0.2 -0.3 -0.9

ICT other business

services 0.0 -1.4 -0.6 -0.3 -2.3 -1.4 -0.6 -0.3 -2.3

consumer services 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2

public and other

services 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4

% displacement

(standard deviation) 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.9 0.3 0.2 1.1

Less skilled workers, Morocco (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs spillovers total

goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 0.1 -2.3 0.1 -0.5 -2.7 -2.3 0.1 -0.5 -2.8

vegetables and

fruit 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.4 4.1 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.0

other crops 0.0 -1.8 0.0 -0.2 -1.9 -1.7 0.1 -0.2 -1.9

animal products 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

forestry

products 0.0 -0.9 0.0 -0.3 -1.2 -0.8 0.0 -0.2 -0.9

fisheries 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2

primary energy 0.0 -0.7 0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -0.7 0.2 -0.4 -0.8

other minerals 0.0 -1.0 0.1 0.1 -0.8 -0.9 0.1 0.1 -0.7

processed

meats 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 0.0 4.3 0.2 -1.5 3.1 4.1 0.2 -1.6 2.8

other processed

foods 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.2 1.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 1.5

46



baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


beverages and

tobacco 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.6

textiles 0.0 -2.3 0.2 -0.5 -2.6 -2.5 0.2 -0.5 -2.9

wearing apparel 0.0 1.3 0.1 -0.1 1.3 1.1 0.1 -0.2 1.0

leather goods 0.0 -3.0 0.1 -0.6 -3.5 -3.1 0.1 -0.7 -3.7

lumber, paper 0.0 -3.1 0.1 -0.2 -3.3 -3.1 0.1 -0.2 -3.2

petrochemicals 0.0 -2.2 -0.1 0.3 -2.0 -2.4 -0.1 0.2 -2.3

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 -0.9 0.1 0.4 -0.4 -1.0 0.1 0.3 -0.6

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 -1.3 0.1 -0.1 -1.4 -1.1 0.1 -0.1 -1.1

metals 0.0 0.3 0.5 -0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 -0.5 0.3

fabricated

metals 0.0 -2.2 0.2 -0.4 -2.4 -2.1 0.2 -0.4 -2.3

motor vehicles 0.0 2.7 0.1 -0.6 2.2 2.7 0.1 -0.6 2.3

other transport

equipment 0.0 -0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 -0.4 -0.4

electrical

machinery 0.0 -2.8 0.4 -0.1 -2.5 -2.7 0.4 0.0 -2.3

other machinery 0.0 7.5 0.4 -0.3 7.6 7.6 0.4 -0.2 7.7

other

manufactures 0.0 -1.2 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.2 0.0 0.0 -1.1

utilities 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 0.1 -1.2 -0.2 -1.2 0.1 -1.4

construction 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

trade 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3

inland transport 0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.1 -0.3 -0.5 0.0 0.1 -0.5

water transport 0.0 -0.6 -0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 -0.9

air transport 0.0 -1.4 -0.4 0.0 -1.8 -1.6 -0.4 0.0 -2.0

communications 0.0 -1.5 0.1 -0.1 -1.5 -1.6 0.1 -0.1 -1.7

finance and

insurance 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.7 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.7

ICT other

business

services

0.0 -1.2 -0.6 -0.2 -2.0 -1.2 -0.6 -0.2 -2.1

consumer

services 0.0 0.3 -0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.3 0.0 0.1

public and other

services 0.1 0.5 -0.1 0.2 0.7 0.5 -0.1 0.2 0.7

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

0.0 2.2 0.3 0.2 1.0 2.2 0.3 0.2 1.1

47


More skilled workers, EU (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

grains and

crops 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4

other crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry

products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

other processed

foods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

48



baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

trade 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

inland transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

water transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Less skilled workers, EU (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4

other crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry

products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

other processed

foods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

49



baseline

shares

(based

on wage

bill)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


textiles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


water transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

50


Changes in value added, Morocco (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

grains and

crops 0.1 -2.2 0.1 -0.5 -2.7 -2.2 0.1 -0.5 -2.7

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.0

other crops 0.0 -1.8 0.0 -0.2 -1.9 -1.7 0.1 -0.1 -1.8

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

forestry

products 0.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.9 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.7

fisheries 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2

primary energy 0.0 -0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.3

other minerals 0.0 -0.8 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.7 0.1 0.1 -0.5

processed

meats 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4

vegetable oils 0.0 4.5 0.3 -1.6 3.2 4.6 0.3 -1.6 3.3

other processed

foods 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.2 1.7 1.5 0.1 0.3 1.9

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 -0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.1 0.1 -0.2

textiles 0.0 -2.5 0.2 -0.5 -2.7 -2.4 0.2 -0.5 -2.7

wearing apparel 0.0 1.3 0.1 -0.1 1.3 1.3 0.1 -0.1 1.3

leather goods 0.0 -3.1 0.1 -0.7 -3.6 -3.1 0.1 -0.7 -3.6

lumber, paper 0.0 -3.2 0.1 -0.3 -3.4 -3.0 0.1 -0.2 -3.1

petrochemicals 0.0 -2.4 -0.1 0.3 -2.2 -2.2 0.0 0.4 -1.9

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 -1.0 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.9 0.2 0.4 -0.2

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 -1.4 0.1 -0.2 -1.5 -1.0 0.1 0.0 -0.8

metals 0.0 0.3 0.5 -0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 -0.4 0.7

fabricated

metals 0.0 -2.3 0.3 -0.5 -2.6 -2.0 0.3 -0.4 -2.1

motor vehicles 0.0 2.7 0.2 -0.7 2.2 3.0 0.2 -0.5 2.7

other transport

equipment 0.0 -0.1 0.2 -0.5 -0.4 -0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.3

electrical

machinery 0.0 -3.0 0.5 -0.1 -2.7 -2.7 0.5 0.1 -2.1

other machinery 0.0 7.9 0.4 -0.3 8.0 8.2 0.5 -0.2 8.5

other

manufactures 0.0 -1.3 0.1 0.0 -1.2 -1.1 0.1 0.1 -0.9

utilities 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 0.1 -1.3 0.1 -1.2 0.2 -0.9

construction 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.6

51



baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

trade 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7


water transport 0.0 -0.7 0.0 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 0.0 0.1 -0.5

air transport 0.0 -1.5 -0.4 0.0 -1.9 -1.4 -0.4 0.1 -1.7

communications 0.0 -1.7 0.1 -0.1 -1.7 -1.5 0.2 -0.1 -1.4

finance and

insurance 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5

ICT other

business

services

0.0 -1.3 -0.6 -0.3 -2.2 -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 -1.8

consumer

services 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.4

public and other

services 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.9

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0

0.0

0.0

Changes in value added, EU (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4

other crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry

products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

other processed

foods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

52



baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


tobacco

textiles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


water transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0

0.0

0.0

53


Changes in output, EU (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4

other crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry

products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

other processed

foods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

54



baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


construction 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


water transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0

0.0

0.0

Changes in output, Morocco (% change)

baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

grains and crops 0.1 -2.2 0.1 -0.5 -2.7 -2.2 0.1 -0.5 -2.6

vegetables and

fruit 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.1 3.6 0.0 0.4 4.1

other crops 0.0 -1.7 0.0 -0.2 -1.9 -1.7 0.1 -0.1 -1.8

animal products 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

forestry products 0.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.9 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.6

fisheries 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3

primary energy 0.0 -0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.3

other minerals 0.0 -0.8 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.7 0.1 0.1 -0.5

processed meats 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4

vegetable oils 0.0 4.6 0.3 -1.6 3.4 4.7 0.3 -1.5 3.4

other processed

foods 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.2 1.8 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0

beverages and

tobacco 0.0 -0.4 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.1

55



baseline

shares

(based

on total

value

added)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services

NTBs


NTBs

services

NTBs

spillovers total

textiles 0.0 -2.4 0.2 -0.5 -2.6 -2.3 0.2 -0.5 -2.6

wearing apparel 0.0 1.4 0.1 -0.1 1.4 1.4 0.1 -0.1 1.4

leather goods 0.0 -3.1 0.1 -0.7 -3.6 -3.1 0.1 -0.7 -3.6

lumber, paper 0.0 -3.2 0.1 -0.2 -3.3 -3.0 0.1 -0.1 -3.0

petrochemicals 0.0 -2.3 -0.1 0.4 -2.0 -2.1 0.0 0.4 -1.7

chemicals, rubber,

plastics 0.0 -0.9 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.8 0.2 0.4 -0.1

non metallic

mineral products 0.0 -1.3 0.1 -0.2 -1.4 -0.9 0.2 0.0 -0.7

metals 0.0 0.4 0.5 -0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 -0.4 0.9

fabricated metals 0.0 -2.2 0.3 -0.5 -2.4 -1.9 0.3 -0.3 -2.0

motor vehicles 0.0 3.0 0.2 -0.6 2.5 3.3 0.2 -0.5 3.0

other transport

equipment 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.4 0.0

electrical

machinery 0.0 -2.9 0.5 -0.1 -2.5 -2.6 0.5 0.1 -2.0

other machinery 0.0 8.1 0.4 -0.3 8.2 8.4 0.5 -0.1 8.7

other

manufactures 0.0 -1.2 0.1 0.0 -1.1 -1.0 0.1 0.1 -0.8

utilities 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 0.1 -1.2 0.2 -1.2 0.2 -0.8

construction 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.7

trade 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.8

inland transport 0.1 -0.5 0.1 0.1 -0.3 -0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0

water transport 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.1 -0.4

air transport 0.0 -1.5 -0.4 0.0 -1.8 -1.3 -0.4 0.1 -1.6

communications 0.0 -1.6 0.1 -0.1 -1.6 -1.5 0.2 0.0 -1.3

finance and

insurance 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.8 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5

ICT other

business services 0.0 -1.3 -0.6 -0.2 -2.2 -1.0 -0.6 -0.1 -1.7

consumer

services 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.5

public and other

services 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.0

% displacement

(standard

deviation)

1.0

0.0

0.0

56


Changes in total imports, EU (% change)

Gross

value

c.i.f.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 20927.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetables and

fruit 41482.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

other crops 20778.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 12632.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

forestry

products 6136.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 7944.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

primary energy 301670.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 47405.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 40278.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 18152.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

other processed

foods 146204.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

beverages and

tobacco 40934.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 101735.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 92583.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

leather goods 53274.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 185143.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 161393.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 631215.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

56452.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 280773.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 118274.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 445632.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 104089.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

electrical

machinery 277706.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 607026.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

other

manufactures 80213.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 38254.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 28314.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 110355.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

57



Gross

value

c.i.f.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services



water transport 36017.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 84985.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 47897.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 122409.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

344394.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 54940.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 42302.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Changes in total imports, Morocco (% change)

Gross

value

c.i.f.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 1799.8 7.5 0.0 1.4 8.8 7.7 0.0 1.5 9.2

vegetables and

fruit 140.5 13.2 0.0 1.4 14.6 13.5 0.0 1.6 15.0

other crops 290.0 10.4 -0.1 1.6 11.8 10.6 -0.1 1.7 12.3

animal products 140.1 18.5 0.0 0.8 19.2 18.8 0.0 0.9 19.8

forestry

products 156.3 4.1 0.0 0.8 4.9 5.4 0.1 1.4 7.0

fisheries 118.8 5.5 0.0 0.6 6.1 5.6 0.0 0.7 6.4

primary energy 3904.8 -2.0 -0.2 -0.1 -2.3 -1.8 -0.2 0.0 -2.0

other minerals 353.7 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 1.7

processed

meats 63.4 28.6 -0.5 5.4 33.5 28.6 -0.5 5.4 33.5

vegetable oils 513.6 3.0 -0.1 1.2 4.1 3.1 -0.1 1.2 4.3

other processed

foods 1053.4 10.5 -0.2 1.9 12.2 10.6 -0.2 2.0 12.5

beverages and

tobacco 95.4 5.1 -0.1 0.5 5.5 5.2 0.0 0.5 5.7

textiles 2322.4 4.6 0.0 0.2 4.8 4.7 0.0 0.2 5.0

wearing apparel 685.2 8.6 -0.1 1.4 9.9 8.8 -0.1 1.5 10.2

leather goods 527.6 10.5 -0.1 1.6 12.0 10.7 0.0 1.7 12.4

lumber, paper 1431.8 7.2 -0.3 0.6 7.6 7.6 -0.2 0.8 8.1

58



Gross

value

c.i.f.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


petrochemicals 2436.5 3.2 -0.1 -0.3 2.7 3.3 -0.1 -0.2 3.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 3743.6 12.8 -0.1 1.6 14.3 13.0 -0.1 1.7 14.7

non metallic

mineral

products

544.6 12.0 -0.4 1.0 12.6 12.4 -0.4 1.2 13.2

metals 2429.5 7.0 0.1 0.4 7.5 7.3 0.2 0.6 8.0

fabricated

metals 847.8 14.6 -0.2 0.8 15.2 15.0 -0.1 1.0 15.8

motor vehicles 2741.4 3.2 0.0 -0.4 2.8 3.6 0.0 -0.2 3.4

other transport

equipment 970.8 8.5 -0.1 0.3 8.8 8.9 0.0 0.5 9.3

electrical

machinery 1866.0 7.2 -0.4 2.1 8.9 7.6 -0.4 2.3 9.5

other machinery 5212.1 11.8 -0.2 0.7 12.3 12.3 -0.2 0.9 12.9

other

manufactures 259.6 15.8 -0.2 2.2 17.7 16.1 -0.2 2.3 18.3

utilities 241.2 5.8 13.5 0.4 19.7 5.5 13.4 0.3 19.3

construction 13.4 3.3 3.7 1.7 8.7 3.8 3.8 1.9 9.5

trade 151.9 6.2 4.4 2.0 12.6 6.4 4.4 2.1 13.0


water transport 43.6 2.7 3.2 1.1 7.0 2.8 3.2 1.2 7.2

air transport 487.3 2.5 1.8 0.8 5.1 2.7 1.8 0.8 5.3

communications 78.1 5.1 4.3 1.6 11.0 5.2 4.3 1.6 11.2

finance and

insurance 132.3 5.8 3.9 1.6 11.2 6.1 3.9 1.7 11.7

ICT other

business

services

955.0 4.2 4.0 1.1 9.3 4.4 4.1 1.1 9.6

consumer

services 117.5 5.5 3.9 1.8 11.2 5.6 3.9 1.9 11.4

public and other

services 623.2 5.0 3.0 2.3 10.3 5.2 3.0 2.4 10.6

59


Changes in domestic producer prices, EU (% change)

Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 100.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2

vegetables and

fruit 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other crops 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry

products 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fisheries 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 100.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

other minerals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other processed

foods 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


60



Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


water transport 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

consumer

services 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Changes in domestic producer prices, Morocco (% change)

Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 100.0 2.4 0.2 -0.2 2.4 2.6 0.3 -0.1 2.7

vegetables and

fruit 100.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.2 2.0

other crops 100.0 1.9 -0.1 0.2 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 2.3

animal products 100.0 1.7 -0.1 0.1 1.7 1.4 -0.1 0.0 1.3

forestry

products 100.0 -3.0 0.4 0.4 -2.2 -2.4 0.5 0.6 -1.2

fisheries 100.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1

primary energy 100.0 1.8 0.0 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.1 2.0

other minerals 100.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1

processed

meats 100.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.1 1.4

vegetable oils 100.0 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.4

other processed

foods 100.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.0

beverages and

tobacco 100.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.5

textiles 100.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.8

wearing apparel 100.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.1 1.4

leather goods 100.0 0.8 0.0 -0.1 0.6 0.8 0.0 -0.1 0.7

lumber, paper 100.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0

petrochemicals 100.0 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.9

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 100.0 0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.4

non metallic

mineral 100.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8

61



Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


products

metals 100.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

fabricated

metals 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.7 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.7

motor vehicles 100.0 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.3

other transport

equipment 100.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5

electrical

machinery 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.6 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.6

other machinery 100.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

other

manufactures 100.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.2

utilities 100.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.3 -1.1 -0.7 0.0 -0.3 -1.1

construction 100.0 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.7 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.7

trade 100.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.2

inland transport 100.0 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

water transport 100.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6

air transport 100.0 0.9 -0.1 -0.1 0.8 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.6

communications 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.8

finance and

insurance 100.0 1.4 -0.1 0.1 1.4 1.4 -0.1 0.1 1.4

ICT other

business

services

100.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1

consumer

services 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.6 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.6

public and other

services 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.7 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.6

Changes in total exports, EU (% change)

Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 18217.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

vegetables and

fruit 30321.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.4

other crops 16911.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

animal products 13876.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

forestry

products 4633.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

fisheries 5831.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

62



Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


primary energy 26231.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 29489.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 39570.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 11622.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other processed

foods 145088.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 58866.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 73972.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

wearing apparel 54963.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 37832.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

lumber, paper 197500.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 104454.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 641952.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

60143.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

metals 217721.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

fabricated

metals 122164.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

motor vehicles 504012.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 121055.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

electrical

machinery 174945.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

other machinery 763851.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 64804.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 24694.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

construction 40303.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 117968.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


water transport 43041.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

air transport 95256.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 41997.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 168459.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

394424.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

63



Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


consumer

services 60130.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 54079.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Changes in total exports, Morocco (% change)

Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro0

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and crops 53.1 4.7 0.1 3.1 7.9 4.6 0.1 3.0 7.6

vegetables and

fruit 1545.0 12.7 0.0 1.1 13.8 12.6 0.0 1.0 13.7

other crops 61.9 10.6 0.1 2.2 12.9 10.4 0.1 2.1 12.6

animal products 114.1 16.3 0.0 0.8 17.1 16.2 0.0 0.7 16.9

forestry products 6.1 11.8 0.1 2.6 14.4 10.7 -0.1 2.1 12.8

fisheries 146.1 5.4 0.0 1.0 6.4 5.4 0.0 1.0 6.4

primary energy 0.0 2.3 0.6 11.8 14.7 2.2 0.5 11.8 14.5

other minerals 1349.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4

processed

meats 67.9 19.6 0.4 4.9 24.9 19.8 0.4 5.0 25.1

vegetable oils 68.5 37.8 0.4 3.6 41.9 37.8 0.4 3.6 41.8

other processed

foods 1741.1 13.1 0.2 2.0 15.2 13.1 0.2 2.0 15.2

beverages and

tobacco 19.7 2.7 0.1 0.9 3.6 2.7 0.1 0.9 3.7

textiles 647.8 8.3 0.2 0.5 9.0 8.2 0.2 0.5 8.9

wearing apparel 2219.3 5.7 0.2 0.3 6.1 5.7 0.1 0.2 6.0

leather goods 473.5 3.9 0.1 0.0 4.1 3.7 0.1 0.0 3.8

lumber, paper 233.2 1.2 0.3 1.0 2.5 1.2 0.3 1.0 2.4

petrochemicals 398.4 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.7 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.7

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 1771.7 24.3 0.2 5.7 30.3 24.3 0.2 5.7 30.3

non metallic

mineral products 73.8 21.6 0.4 2.4 24.4 21.7 0.4 2.4 24.5

metals 501.6 19.1 0.4 4.7 24.2 19.1 0.4 4.7 24.3

fabricated

metals 98.7 25.0 0.4 3.3 28.7 25.0 0.4 3.2 28.7

motor vehicles 287.8 47.4 0.2 2.8 50.4 47.4 0.2 2.8 50.3

other transport

equipment 120.5 86.6 0.4 2.6 89.5 86.2 0.3 2.4 89.0

64



Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro0

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


electrical

machinery 534.0 10.0 0.8 8.5 19.4 10.1 0.8 8.5 19.4

other machinery 1929.1 67.8 0.7 2.3 70.8 67.9 0.7 2.4 70.9

other

manufactures 82.5 11.6 0.2 4.8 16.6 11.5 0.2 4.8 16.5

utilities 10.2 -4.3 2.2 0.8 -1.2 -3.9 2.3 1.1 -0.5

construction 20.7 -2.3 1.0 0.4 -0.9 -2.3 1.0 0.4 -0.9

trade 188.4 -3.7 1.1 0.1 -2.5 -3.7 1.1 0.1 -2.5


water transport 78.6 -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0

air transport 748.3 -1.9 0.9 0.5 -0.5 -1.9 0.9 0.5 -0.5

communications 343.9 -3.6 1.6 0.0 -2.0 -3.5 1.6 0.1 -1.9

finance and

insurance 135.7 -3.6 0.8 0.3 -2.6 -3.7 0.8 0.2 -2.7

ICT other

business

services

1077.9 -3.2 1.4 0.2 -1.6 -3.1 1.4 0.2 -1.4

consumer

services 76.8 -3.3 1.2 0.2 -1.9 -3.2 1.2 0.2 -1.8

public and other

services 1537.9 -2.9 0.9 0.3 -1.7 -2.9 0.9 0.3 -1.8

Changes in EU exports to Morocco (% change)

Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 477.7 17.0 0.0 -0.9 16.1 17.3 0.0 -0.8 16.5

vegetables and

fruit 48.8 23.0 0.0 0.5 23.4 23.3 0.0 0.6 23.9

other crops 112.3 21.0 -0.1 -0.8 20.1 21.3 -0.1 -0.6 20.6

animal products 117.3 20.1 0.0 0.4 20.5 20.4 0.0 0.5 21.0

forestry

products 34.9 13.7 0.0 -1.5 12.1 15.2 0.1 -0.9 14.4

fisheries 113.7 5.6 0.0 0.6 6.2 5.7 0.0 0.7 6.4

primary energy 0.8 24.0 -0.2 -6.7 17.0 24.2 -0.2 -6.6 17.4

other minerals 100.1 1.3 0.2 0.3 1.9 1.6 0.2 0.5 2.3

processed

meats 8.6 132.0 -1.2 1.4 132.1 131.8 -1.2 1.4 132.0

vegetable oils 21.1 30.2 -0.1 -4.9 25.3 30.4 -0.1 -4.8 25.6

65



Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


other processed

foods 326.8 23.5 -0.2 -0.3 23.0 23.7 -0.2 -0.2 23.3

beverages and

tobacco 56.1 7.1 -0.1 0.0 7.0 7.2 -0.1 0.1 7.2

textiles 1063.2 10.7 0.0 -1.3 9.4 10.8 0.0 -1.3 9.6

wearing apparel 209.6 17.0 -0.1 -0.6 16.4 17.3 -0.1 -0.5 16.7

leather goods 172.6 19.7 -0.1 -0.6 19.1 20.0 0.0 -0.4 19.5

lumber, paper 754.5 11.3 -0.3 -0.3 10.7 11.7 -0.2 -0.2 11.3

petrochemicals 1226.2 8.1 -0.1 -1.5 6.4 8.2 -0.1 -1.5 6.6

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 2012.8 25.3 -0.1 -1.2 24.0 25.5 -0.1 -1.1 24.4

non metallic

mineral

products

271.8 18.5 -0.5 -0.5 17.6 19.0 -0.4 -0.3 18.2

metals 887.1 21.5 0.1 -3.1 18.5 21.8 0.2 -2.9 19.1

fabricated

metals 449.7 25.5 -0.2 -1.7 23.6 25.9 -0.1 -1.5 24.2

motor vehicles 1299.7 15.0 0.0 -3.4 11.6 15.4 0.0 -3.2 12.3

other transport

equipment 651.1 20.5 -0.1 -2.6 17.8 20.8 0.0 -2.4 18.4

electrical

machinery 559.8 29.4 -0.4 -3.2 25.7 29.9 -0.4 -3.1 26.4

other machinery 3041.6 26.5 -0.2 -2.8 23.5 27.0 -0.2 -2.6 24.2

other

manufactures 129.4 27.2 -0.2 -0.4 26.5 27.5 -0.2 -0.3 27.1

utilities 203.6 5.9 16.4 -0.3 22.0 5.6 16.3 -0.4 21.5

construction 4.9 3.4 10.6 0.0 14.0 3.9 10.7 0.2 14.9

trade 64.5 6.3 10.8 0.5 17.5 6.6 10.8 0.6 18.0


water transport 18.5 2.7 9.3 -0.4 11.7 2.9 9.4 -0.3 12.0

air transport 200.8 2.6 8.0 -0.8 9.8 2.8 8.0 -0.7 10.1

communications 36.8 5.2 10.1 0.2 15.5 5.3 10.1 0.2 15.6

finance and

insurance 57.8 5.9 10.0 0.1 16.0 6.3 10.1 0.2 16.6

ICT other

business

services

514.2 4.3 9.0 -0.2 13.1 4.4 9.0 -0.1 13.4

consumer

services 48.6 5.6 10.3 0.3 16.2 5.7 10.3 0.4 16.4

public and other

services 187.3 5.1 10.7 0.4 16.2 5.3 10.7 0.5 16.6

66


Changes in Morocco exports to EU (% change)

Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 23.6 15.7 0.1 0.2 16.0 15.5 0.1 0.1 15.6

vegetables and

fruit 1161.9 15.6 0.0 -0.2 15.4 15.5 0.0 -0.3 15.3

other crops 38.7 18.9 0.1 0.0 19.0 18.6 0.1 -0.1 18.6

animal products 96.5 18.4 0.0 -0.1 18.3 18.2 0.0 -0.2 18.0

forestry

products 4.0 18.1 0.1 1.3 19.5 16.7 -0.1 0.7 17.3

fisheries 79.3 9.9 0.0 -0.5 9.4 9.9 0.0 -0.5 9.4

primary energy 0.0 29.8 0.7 7.1 37.6 29.5 0.7 7.0 37.2

other minerals 623.5 0.5 0.0 -0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 -0.2 0.2

processed

meats 36.3 43.3 0.5 -0.8 43.1 43.6 0.5 -0.7 43.4

vegetable oils 45.9 56.6 0.6 0.9 58.2 56.5 0.6 0.9 58.0

other processed

foods 1150.8 20.3 0.2 0.0 20.6 20.3 0.2 0.0 20.5

beverages and

tobacco 8.7 6.3 0.1 0.0 6.4 6.4 0.1 0.0 6.5

textiles 617.3 8.3 0.2 0.5 9.0 8.2 0.2 0.4 8.8

wearing apparel 2078.6 5.6 0.2 0.1 5.8 5.5 0.2 0.1 5.7

leather goods 435.8 3.7 0.2 -0.2 3.6 3.5 0.1 -0.3 3.3

lumber, paper 118.0 5.2 0.4 0.0 5.6 5.2 0.4 0.0 5.5

petrochemicals 250.7 4.7 0.1 1.7 6.4 4.8 0.1 1.7 6.5

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 905.3 49.4 0.3 0.1 49.8 49.4 0.3 0.1 49.8

non metallic

mineral

products

52.8 30.5 0.5 0.3 31.3 30.6 0.5 0.3 31.5

metals 268.2 36.4 0.5 1.2 38.2 36.6 0.5 1.2 38.3

fabricated

metals 68.2 36.8 0.5 1.0 38.3 36.7 0.5 0.9 38.2

motor vehicles 259.8 53.3 0.2 2.2 55.8 53.3 0.2 2.2 55.7

other transport

equipment 113.3 92.9 0.4 1.7 95.1 92.5 0.4 1.6 94.5

electrical

machinery 146.6 44.2 1.0 1.1 46.3 44.2 1.0 1.1 46.3

other machinery 1769.3 73.7 0.8 1.4 75.9 73.8 0.8 1.4 76.1

other

manufactures 36.0 31.1 0.3 0.2 31.6 31.0 0.3 0.1 31.4

utilities 4.8 -5.2 4.4 0.4 -0.4 -4.7 4.5 0.6 0.4

construction 6.9 -3.2 2.6 0.0 -0.5 -3.2 2.6 0.0 -0.5

trade 72.8 -5.0 2.6 -0.3 -2.7 -5.1 2.6 -0.3 -2.8

67



Gross

value

f.o.b.

(million

euro)

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services



water transport 35.1 -2.9 2.7 0.1 0.0 -2.8 2.8 0.2 0.1

air transport 271.4 -2.9 2.6 0.2 -0.1 -2.9 2.6 0.2 0.0

communications 201.0 -4.9 2.7 -0.3 -2.6 -4.8 2.7 -0.2 -2.4

finance and

insurance 29.3 -4.9 2.7 -0.3 -2.5 -5.0 2.7 -0.3 -2.6

ICT other

business

services

501.8 -4.4 2.8 -0.2 -1.8 -4.2 2.8 -0.1 -1.5

consumer

services 30.7 -4.4 2.7 -0.2 -2.0 -4.4 2.7 -0.2 -1.9

public and other

services 452.4 -3.9 2.6 -0.2 -1.5 -3.9 2.6 -0.2 -1.5

Changes in Morocco Consumer prices (% change)

Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 100.0 0.4 0.0 -0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 -0.2 0.2

vegetables and

fruit 100.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.7

other crops 100.0 0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.0

animal products 100.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9

forestry

products 100.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.2

fisheries 100.0 -1.2 0.0 0.1 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 0.1 -1.0

primary energy 100.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5

other minerals 100.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.4

processed

meats 100.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

vegetable oils 100.0 0.1 0.0 -0.6 -0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.6 -0.5

other processed

foods 100.0 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.4

beverages and

tobacco 100.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.4

textiles 100.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.6 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.6

wearing apparel 100.0 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.3

leather goods 100.0 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.6

lumber, paper 100.0 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.1

petrochemicals 100.0 -0.8 0.0 -0.4 -1.2 -0.8 0.0 -0.4 -1.2

chemicals, 100.0 -1.1 0.0 -0.3 -1.4 -1.1 0.0 -0.3 -1.4

68



Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


rubber, plastics

non metallic

mineral

products

100.0 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.1

metals 100.0 -1.2 0.0 -0.5 -1.7 -1.2 0.0 -0.5 -1.7

fabricated

metals 100.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.3

motor vehicles 100.0 -2.0 0.0 -0.6 -2.6 -2.0 0.0 -0.6 -2.6

other transport

equipment 100.0 -2.8 0.0 -0.3 -3.1 -2.8 0.0 -0.3 -3.1

electrical

machinery 100.0 -0.6 0.0 -0.4 -1.1 -0.6 0.0 -0.4 -1.1

other machinery 100.0 -2.1 0.0 -0.4 -2.5 -2.1 0.0 -0.4 -2.5

other

manufactures 100.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1

utilities 100.0 0.8 -0.4 -0.1 0.4 0.8 -0.4 -0.1 0.2

construction 100.0 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.8

trade 100.0 1.3 -0.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 -0.1 0.1 1.3

inland transport 100.0 1.0 -0.1 0.0 0.8 1.0 -0.1 0.0 0.8

water transport 100.0 0.7 -0.2 -0.1 0.4 0.7 -0.2 -0.1 0.4

air transport 100.0 0.3 -0.9 -0.3 -1.0 0.3 -0.9 -0.3 -1.0

communications 100.0 1.1 -0.3 0.0 0.8 1.1 -0.3 0.0 0.8

finance and

insurance 100.0 1.0 -0.5 -0.1 0.5 1.0 -0.5 -0.1 0.5

ICT other

business

services

100.0 0.8 -0.7 -0.1 0.1 0.8 -0.7 -0.1 0.0

consumer

services 100.0 1.1 -0.2 0.0 0.9 1.1 -0.2 0.0 0.8

public and other

services 100.0 1.0 -0.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 -0.1 0.0 1.0

Total 100.0 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0.4

Changes in EU Consumer prices (% change)

Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


grains and

crops 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetables and

fruit 100.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

other crops 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

animal products 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

forestry 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

69



Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


products

fisheries 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

primary energy 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other minerals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

processed

meats 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

vegetable oils 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other processed

foods 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

beverages and

tobacco 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

textiles 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wearing apparel 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

leather goods 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

chemicals,

rubber, plastics 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

non metallic

mineral

products

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

metals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

fabricated

metals 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other transport

equipment 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

electrical

machinery 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other machinery 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

other

manufactures 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

utilities 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

construction 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

trade 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


water transport 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

air transport 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

communications 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

finance and

insurance 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ICT other

business

services

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

70



Base

index

short-run long-run

goods

NTBs

services


goods

NTBs

services


consumer

services 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

public and other

services 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 Morocco – October 2012 agreement liberalisation scenario

Macroeconomic indicators National Income, million €

short-run long-run

October 2012 agreement October 2012 agreement

European Union 441.6 632.9

Morocco 251.5 473.1

Tunisia -2.4 -2.5

Egypt -10.6 -5.7

Turkey -16.0 -11.3

Other Middle East -2.0 -3.0

Other North Africa -0.3 0.9

Other Africa -2.1 -6.3

Rest of World 76.4 -16.5

Equivalent variation, %

short-run long-run



Morocco 0.4 0.7

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0

Other Middle East 0.0 0.0

Other North Africa 0.0 0.0

Other Africa 0.0 0.0

Rest of World 0.0 0.0

71


GDP, % change

short-run long-run



Morocco 0.7 1.2

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





Exports, % change

short-run long-run



Morocco 4.9 4.8

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt -0.1 -0.1

Turkey -0.1 0.0





Imports, % change

short-run long-run



Morocco 2.0 2.7

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt -0.1 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





Exports, % change

short-run long-run


Morocco exports to EU, % change 7.3 7.2

EU exports to Morocco, % change 13.3 14.0

72


Wages, more skilled %

short-run long-run



Morocco 0.3 0.6

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





Wages, less skilled %

short-run long-run



Morocco 0.4 0.8

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





Wages, average (skilled and unskilled) %

short-run long-run



Morocco 0.3 0.7

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0






short-run long-run



Morocco -0.6 -0.6

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

73



short-run long-run


Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





Change in emissions, million MT CO2

short-run long-run


European Union Million MTC02 0.2 0.3

Morocco Million MT CO2 0.0 0.0

European Union % 0.0 0.0

Morocco % 0.0 0.0

World Million MT 0.1 0.3

World, % 0.0 0.0

Change in global shipping volumes

short-run long-run


water 0.1 0.1

air 0.0 0.0

other transport 0.0 0.0

Change in land use intensity, %

short-run long-run


European Union -0.1 0.0

Morocco 1.0 1.1

Consumer prices, % change

short-run long-run



Morocco -0.6 -0.6

Tunisia 0.0 0.0

Egypt 0.0 0.0

Turkey 0.0 0.0





74


Sectoral effects More skilled workers, Morocco (% change)

short-run long-run


grains and crops -0.4 -0.5

vegetables and fruit 4.5 4.4

other crops -0.8 -0.7

animal products 0.2 0.3

forestry products -0.1 0.3

fisheries -0.7 -0.7

primary energy 0.7 0.7

other minerals -0.7 -0.6

processed meats 0.4 0.3

vegetable oils 25.3 24.8

other processed foods 0.9 0.6

beverages and tobacco 0.0 -0.3

textiles 0.4 0.0

wearing apparel 1.6 1.2

leather goods 0.3 -0.1

lumber, paper -0.5 -0.4

petrochemicals -2.1 -2.5

chemicals, rubber, plastics -2.3 -2.5

non metallic mineral products -0.8 -0.4

metals -1.3 -1.2

fabricated metals -2.0 -1.7

motor vehicles -1.1 -0.8

other transport equipment -4.3 -4.4

electrical machinery 0.5 0.8

other machinery -2.8 -2.6

other manufactures -0.8 -0.8

utilities -1.4 -1.6

construction -0.1 0.5

trade -0.1 -0.1

inland transport 0.2 0.0

water transport 0.4 -0.1

air transport 0.4 0.1

communications 0.1 0.0

finance and insurance -0.6 -0.5

ICT other business services -0.5 -0.6

consumer services -0.2 -0.2

public and other services 0.2 0.2

% displacement (standard deviation) 1.0 1.0

75



short-run long-run







fisheries -0.7 -0.7






beverages and tobacco -0.1 -0.4

textiles 0.3 -0.1


leather goods 0.2 -0.2





metals -1.4 -1.4







utilities -1.5 -1.7


trade -0.2 -0.3

inland transport 0.0 -0.2

water transport 0.2 -0.2

air transport 0.2 -0.1

communications 0.0 -0.2






76



short-run long-run


grains and crops 0.0 0.0

vegetables and fruit -0.3 -0.3

other crops 0.0 0.0


forestry products 0.0 0.0

fisheries 0.0 0.0


other minerals 0.0 0.0


vegetable oils -0.2 -0.2


beverages and tobacco 0.0 0.0

textiles 0.0 0.0


leather goods 0.0 0.0

lumber, paper 0.0 0.0

petrochemicals 0.0 0.0

chemicals, rubber, plastics 0.0 0.0

non metallic mineral products 0.0 0.0

metals 0.0 0.0

fabricated metals 0.0 0.0

motor vehicles 0.0 0.0

other transport equipment 0.0 0.0


other machinery 0.0 0.0

other manufactures 0.0 0.0

utilities 0.0 0.0

construction 0.0 0.0

trade 0.0 0.0


water transport 0.0 0.0



finance and insurance 0.0 0.0

ICT other business services 0.0 0.0

consumer services 0.0 0.0



77



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0










78



short-run long-run







fisheries -0.5 -0.5







textiles 0.4 0.4



lumber, paper -0.5 0.0



non metallic mineral products -0.9 0.1

metals -1.4 -0.7







utilities -1.4 -0.8


trade -0.1 0.5






ICT other business services -0.5 0.1

consumer services -0.2 0.3


79



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0









80



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0









81



short-run long-run







fisheries -0.6 -0.5







textiles 0.4 0.4



lumber, paper -0.5 0.0



non metallic mineral products -0.8 0.1

metals -1.3 -0.6







utilities -1.4 -0.8


trade -0.1 0.5






ICT other business services -0.5 0.1

consumer services -0.1 0.3


82



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0









83



short-run long-run




other crops 4.0 4.6



fisheries 1.7 2.1

primary energy -2.2 -1.7



vegetable oils -0.2 0.1



textiles 1.4 1.7







metals -1.4 -0.8







utilities 11.2 10.6


trade 2.6 3.2









84



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0

primary energy -0.1 -0.1






textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0









85



short-run long-run



vegetables and fruit -0.3 0.1

other crops -0.3 0.0

animal products -0.5 -1.0

forestry products -3.4 -2.1

fisheries -0.1 0.0



processed meats -0.1 0.1

vegetable oils -0.6 0.0

other processed foods -1.0 -1.0


textiles -1.0 -0.9

wearing apparel -0.4 -0.4

leather goods -0.4 -0.4





metals -0.4 -0.3




electrical machinery -0.6 -0.7



utilities -1.6 -1.6

construction -1.7 -1.6

trade -0.9 -0.9

inland transport -1.1 -1.1

water transport -0.7 -0.7

air transport -0.4 -0.6

communications -0.7 -0.7




public and other services -0.6 -0.6

86



short-run long-run




other crops 0.1 0.1



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.1 0.1







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.1 0.1


trade 0.0 0.0









87



short-run long-run




other crops 2.0 1.6



fisheries 1.2 1.1







textiles 3.3 3.2







metals 6.3 6.4







utilities 2.0 3.0


trade 1.4 1.3









88



short-run long-run




other crops 14.0 14.8



fisheries 1.8 2.1







textiles 7.5 7.7







metals 12.5 13.3







utilities 14.1 13.4


trade 8.9 9.5









89



short-run long-run




other crops 2.9 2.3



fisheries 2.2 2.1







textiles 3.9 3.7







metals 7.8 8.0







utilities 2.5 3.7


trade 1.9 1.8









90



short-run long-run





animal products -0.4 -0.3

forestry products -0.6 -0.3

fisheries -2.3 -2.2



processed meats -0.4 -0.5


other processed foods -0.6 -0.6


textiles -0.7 -0.7

wearing apparel -0.4 -0.4

leather goods -0.4 -0.4





metals -1.3 -1.3




electrical machinery -1.1 -1.1



utilities -0.7 -0.9

construction -0.7 -0.7

trade -0.5 -0.5

inland transport -0.5 -0.5

water transport -0.8 -0.8

air transport -1.1 -1.2

communications -0.7 -0.7




public and other services -0.7 -0.6

Total -0.6 -0.6

91



short-run long-run




other crops 0.0 0.0



fisheries 0.0 0.0







textiles 0.0 0.0







metals 0.0 0.0







utilities 0.0 0.0


trade 0.0 0.0









Total 0.0 0.0

92


Annex F: Input from civil society

Table A.F.1 Input from civil society via electronic communication

Name Organisati

on

Comment Ecorys response

Mr.

Abdel

aziz

Directeur

de la

Planificatio

n

Haut

Commissari

at au Plan

Vous avez mentionné lors de la réunion à Bruxelles,

d’experts marocains avec leurs homologues européens

dans le cadre du groupe d’étude “relations commerciales

UE-Maroc”, que l’impact macroéconomique de l’Accord de

libre-échange approfondi et global (ALEAG) sur

l’économie marocaine sera positif et que les gains

potentiels du Maroc seraient de près de 1,15 milliard

d’euros par an.

Je vous serai grée Monsieur Berden de bien vouloir

m’envoyer plus de détaille sur l’approche méthodologique

ainsi que sur les résultats de l’étude pour pouvoir les

intégrés dans les travaux de réflexion prospective mené

par le Haut Commissariat au Plan.

Nous vous prions de

noter que toutes les

informations relatives

aux résultats obtenus à

ce jour ainsi que sur

l'approche

méthodologique sont

mentionnées dans les

rapports y relatifs et

disponibles sur le site

web www.trade-

sia.com/marocco. Les

rapports principaux sont

en langue anglaise et les

résumés analytiques en

langue française.

Ms.

Eyck

mans

Western

Sahara

Resource

Watch

1. We recommend ECORYS to devote due attention to the

situation of Western Sahara, as the draft interim technical

report is in some places linguistically and factually

deficient in treating the matter.

2. We recommend ECORYS to clearly state whether or

not their assessment extends to the part of Western

Sahara that is under Moroccan occupation.

3. We recommend ECORYS to specifically appraise

whether negotiating a trade deal with Morocco that will

apply to Western Sahara without seeking the consent of

the Saharawi people is in itself in violation of their human

rights.

4. We recommend ECORYS to assess the legal and

related economic risk for the European Union of extending

a free trade agreement into the occupied areas of Western

Sahara.

5. WSRW recommends a differentiation between the

territories of Morocco and Western Sahara be employed in

the human rights assessment.

6. We recommend ECORYS to consider how Morocco’s

subsidising and military spending in the territory of

Western Sahara will affect the DCFTA.

7. WSRW recommends a more inclusive approach vis-à-

vis the Saharawi people, and that Saharawi associations

will be included as stakeholders to the further assessment

process

Kindly note that Ecorys

follows the United

Nations position on

Western Sahara,

considered by the United

Nations "non-self-

governing territory" with

Morocco as its de facto

administering power. The

DCFTA does not extend

to the Western Sahara,

but the existing

Association Agreement,

of which the DCFTA will

be part, already includes

the Western Sahara.

In this context, we are

not in a position to take

into consideration most

of the issues you raised

in your letter as this is a

matter of sovereignty

which does not fall in our

ambit. Indeed, we can

not take sides on the

issue of sovereignty on

Western Sahara as this

93


Name Organisati

on


has been dealt with by

the UN General

Assembly which binds all

its members, including

Morocco.

As duly mentioned in the

Inception report, the

ToRs covers Morocco

and Western Sahara.

With respect to the

DCFTA, this agreement

includes conditionality

with reference to the

upholding of Human

Rights in all territories

under de facto or de jure

control of Morocco,

whatever their status (ref.

UN General Assembly

Resolution) as

mentioned in the

technical report and will

be mentioned in the final

report.

Mr.

Naim

Journaliste

marocain

dans un

quotidien

nommé

LES ECO

J’ai lu dans la presse récemment que : “ L’Accord de libre-

échange approfondi et global (ALEAG) en cours de

négociation entre le Maroc et l’UE permettra à long terme

un gain en PIB de 1,3 milliard d’euros par an pour le

Maroc contre 1,4 milliard d’euros pour l’UE, selon l’expert

européen, Koen Berden. Les résultats préliminaires de

l’étude d’impact de l’ALEAG montrent, qu’à court terme,

les gains potentiels du Maroc seraient de près de 1,15

milliard d’euros par an, contre 834 millions d’euros pour

l’UE, a ajouté Berden, expert à l’ECORYS, un organisme

de consulting chargé par la Commission européenne

d’élaborer l’étude d’impact de développement durable

pour l’ALEAG.”

Pouvez vous me confirmer ces informations et me fournir

ce qui peut être divulgué à ce stade de l’étude.

Nous vous prions de

noter que toutes les

informations concernant

cette étude sont

disponibles sur le site

internet suivant:

http://www.trade-

sia.com/morocco/?lang=f

r

Nous vous prions de

noter par ailleurs qu'un

communiqué de presse

concernant cette étude

vous sera envoyé vers la

mi-juin.

Ms.

Kauch

er

European

Services

Strategy

Unit

It needs to be made public which Mode 4 categories are

being included.

The quantitative model

used in this Trade SIA

study relies on Balance

of Payments statistics

and only covers Mode

1.2 and 3 trade flows.

Therefore the economic

model cannot take mode

4 into account. but this

issue will be dealt with

94


http://www.trade-sia.com/morocco/?lang=fr%20



Name Organisati

on


qualitatively in the study.

There needs to be full impact assessment of the effects of

Mode 4 offers both in terms of the employment effects on

host Member State countries. and the potential security

effects relating to Moslem extremist terrorism. When

would the above aspects be publicly available?

The Trade SIA includes

an elaborate assessment

of sectoral employment

effects (including in

services sectors) on the

EU-28 Member States as

a region and on

Morocco. including the

effects of employment

changes in skilled and

unskilled labour.

However. As explained

above, these results do

not take into account

Mode 4 (see response

above). The security

effects related to Muslim

terrorism need to be

assessed more

qualitatively. The study

team will take this into

account for the Interim

Technical Report and

report if relevant impacts

are found. The Interim

Technical report will be

publicly available on 6

June 2013 (conditional

on approval by the

Commission).

Mr.

Caba

nne

Eurogroup

for Animals

(…) The trade relation between Morocco and EU is

characterized by a high level of illegal trade. Unfortunately,

the highest number of illegal wildlife trades to the

European Union comes from Africa with Morocco as

primary exporters (e.g. macaques. reptiles). We would like

this still important issue to be reflected in your report.

Since regular trade has an impact on illegal trade (e.g.

offering opportunities to hide the trade of illegal species

and products issued of wildlife).

Thank you for pointing

this topic out to us. Even

though including this

topic is not possible in

the CGE model (see

response to next

comment). We will be

able to devote attention

to this topic in the

additional analyses that

support the CGE impact

analysis. It will thus be

addressed in the interim

report.

Please note that you can use EU TWIX database. EU

TWIX has been developed to assist national law

enforcement agencies. In their task of detecting, analysing

and monitoring illegal activities related to trade in fauna

Thank you for the

information on this

specific database and we

will study it as part of the

95


Name Organisati

on


and flora covered by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.

The main section of the database is designed to become a

unique source of centralised data on seizures and

offences reported by all 27 EU Member States. It includes

a section with information on technical, scientific,

economic and other fields to help with the identification of

confiscated specimens. The purposes of EU-TWIX are to

assist with strategic analyses and with carrying out field

investigations. EU TWIX is mainly funded by the European

Union and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture. Nature and

Food industry.

Interim Technical Report.

At the same time. We

would like to point out

that the quantitative part

of our impact

assessment is based on

a Computable General

Equilibrium model that

includes data on

standardised indicators

from all countries in the

world. Data from a

European database can

unfortunately not be

included in the CGE

modelling exercise since

we do not have this

information for all

countries in the world

and moreover indicators

are likely not to match

the CGE indicators

either. However, these

data will still be very

useful for analysing this

topic in our report as part

of the supporting

additional analyses.

Can you please include the name of the expert below?

D.P. Daan van Uhm MA. PhD candidate Criminology.

From the Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law. Faculty

of Law. Economy and Governance - University of Utrecht |

Boothstraat 6. 3512 BW Utrecht. The Netherlands. (T +31

6 24594077 [email protected] |www.uu.nl/strafrecht).

Thank you for both his

coordinates and for

informing on his work on

Barbary Macaque. In

case we would need

more information. We will

not hesitate to contact

him.

Ms.

Knott

nerus

Centre for

Research

on

Multination

al

Corporation

s (SOMO) /

Transnation

al Institute

1. An overarching question relates to the critical

perspective of the TSIA research. Will there be room in the

TSIAs for drawing conclusions that trade and investment

liberalisation (in certain sectors) may not necessarily be

the best option for the DCFTA partners. Or does the study

operate from the premise that ‘liberalisation of

substantially all trade’ (the EU’s standard agenda for trade

negotiations) is a given?

This is an independent

study. We will analyse

the likely impact of the

DCFTA based on likely

outcomes of the

negotiations. We will

analyse the expected

effects, which may be

either positive or

negative, depending on

what the results of the

analyses show. Based

on the expected effects

96


Name Organisati

on


of the DCFTA. We will

provide

recommendations to

enhance the positive

effects and to mitigate

negative effects. The

ToR for this study

provides more

information on the

specific objectives of the

study.

2. With regard to the scope of the assessment: Will the

TSIAs with Morocco and Tunisia look specifically at

investment policy as a new competence in the EU’s trade

policy since the coming into effect of the Lisbon Treaty

and take into account the growing critical debate on the

parameters of the current framework for investment

protection, including within vested institutions such as

UNCTAD the ILO and the OECD?

Investment policy will be

looked at to the extent

that it will be covered

under the DCFTA and

how it will change the

current situation as the

aim of the study is to

compare a situation with

and without a DCFTA. It

should be mentioned that

the CGE model used

does not cover FDI. But

investment may be

covered as a horizontal

issue in the second

phase of the study. If it

would be selected for

further analysis.

In relation to investment issues. We would like to bring the

attention of the research team among others. The Model

International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable

Development of the International Institute for Sustainable

Development (www.iisd.org). As well as the

aforementioned publication by Olivier de Schutter et al.

‘Foreign Direct Investment and Human Development: The

law and economics of international investment

agreements’. Routledge. 2013.

Thank you for this

information. We will study

it and use it where

relevant.

3. On the approach to human rights: Will the TSIAs take

into account the UN Global Compact and the Guiding

Principles for the Implementation of the UN "Protect.

Respect and Remedy" Framework. As well as the

recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the

Right to Food. Olivier De Schutter in relation to

sustainable development and the need for ex ante and ex

post HR impact assessments?

The HR impact


the EC Communication

“Operational Guidance

on Fundamental Rights

in Commission Impact

Assessments”. Human

rights impact assessment

work done by Simon

Walker and previous

TSIA experience. We will

97


Name Organisati

on


study the sources you

provide to see if we can

also use these in our

analysis.

4. The proposed social quantitative analysis in the TSIAs

seems very narrow as does the environmental quantitative

approach. Other social and environmental aspects are

approached through a qualitative analysis which will rest

heavily on inputs from civil society stakeholders. The

inception reports speak of consultation with relevant

stakeholders, particularly in relation to the key pillar of

qualitative analysis of social and environmental impacts.

The question remains how it is to be determined who are

relevant stakeholders and whether a sufficiently

representative cross-section of society has been included?

It is correct that the

quantitative social and

environmental analyses

can only address certain

issues due to the lack of

data and solid

methodologies to assess

the impact of other

aspects.

Next to literature

research. Consultations

are indeed important. We

have used a wide range

of sources to include

relevant stakeholders

(see Chapter 4). But if

you have suggestions to

include other

organisations. Please let

us know.

There is a preliminary list of relevant stakeholders

included in Annex A of both Inception Reports. Here,

private sector and business organisations seem very well

represented. The same goes for governmental institutions.

We note with concern that there is no representation of EU

civil society with a critical perspective on trade. nor of

institutions with a broader critical analysis, such as IISD

(civil society level) or UNCTAD (institutional level). This

also raises questions with us as regards the

representativeness of the range of Moroccan civil society

organisations listed.

See also our comment

above. We aim to have a

balanced list of

stakeholders. And if you

feel important

stakeholders are

missing. We would be

happy to include these.

Your concrete

suggestions have been

added to the list.

However, the broader the range of civil society consulted.

The more likely the emergence of conflicting interests. The

related question is: How will civil society stakeholder

inputs be treated and weighed against each other? The

relative advantage of private sector stakeholders was

noted previously. While the draft Inception Report for

Morocco for example already pinpoints the contrasting

weakness of trade union movement.

There may indeed be

conflicting interests. In

this study. We aim to

identify these possible

conflicts and analyse

how the issues raised by

various parties may

affect the impacts of a

DCFTA.

The meaningful involvement of civil society features as a

key element in the draft inception report. At the same time

civil society in Europe was given very short notice to

respond to the draft inception report which was presented

The inception report was

publicly available on 29

March. although

unfortunately there have

98


Name Organisati

on


at a DG Trade Civil Society Dialogue meeting on 9 April.

with comments to be submitted before 20 April. This

seems to contradict the assurance in the inception report

that efforts will be made to overcome capacity constraints

of civil society to engage in the TSIA debate, including the

statement that ‘we will send information to relevant

stakeholders as early as possible to give them sufficient

time to digest the information and prepare a response’. (p.

43. Draft Inception Report for Morocco) It also begs the

question how the release and the possibility to comment

on the draft Inception Reports communicated to civil

society in Morocco and Tunisia and according to which

time frame?

been some problems in

communication on the

new websites where

these reports could be

found.

The report contains a

clear time schedule,

which shows when next

reports will be published,

which allow stakeholders

to plan ahead as well.

Through the website,

newsletters and

Facebook we alert

stakeholders in the EU.

Tunisia and Morocco

when new reports are

published and also

actively ask for their

feedback.

Finally. Please note that

many of your comments

we can still take on board

also after finalising the

inception phase.

Ms.

Eyck

mans

Western

Sahara

Resource

Watch

1. WSRW recommends ECORYS to include Saharawi

organisations representative of the wishes of the Saharawi

people - both those living in the territory occupied by

Morocco. As well as those living in the refugee camps in

Algeria - into the list of stakeholders.

We have included your

organisation into the list

of stakeholders. And we

will include Saharawi

representative

organisation also.

2. WSRW recommends ECORYS to undertake an

assessment of the DCFTA’s potential effects on the

human rights situation in Western Sahara and to

specifically appraise whether negotiating a trade deal with

Morocco that will apply to Western Sahara without seeking

the consent of the Saharawi people is in itself in violation

of their human rights.

We would like to draw

your attention to the

Terms of Reference and

Inception Report where

the pre-condition to look

at Morocco and Western

Sahara together is

specified. We are – as

part of the TSIA –

conducting an HR

analysis that could look

at potential DCFTA

effects also for HR in

Western Sahara.

3. WSRW recommends ECORYS to make the distinction Western Sahara is

99


Name Organisati

on


between the territory of Morocco and the territory of

Western Sahara in the assessment it has set out to do.

included in the scope of

the DCFTA of the

European Union. As a

result. Our study on the

impact of the DCFTA

also includes Western

Sahara. In this respect.

Your comments and

input to the process are

very much appreciated

since it helps us

understanding the

context.

Mr.

Cerm

ak

CNCD-

11.11.11

Le délai accordé par Ecorys pour commenter les premiers

rapports n’a pas été suffisant. vu les capacités limitées en

temps et en personnes de la société civile. pour en faire

une analyse complète.

The publication of the

reports were on time. but

not well communicated

(see also earlier

comment). Please note

that many of your

comments we can still

take on board also after

finalising the inception

phase.

L’étude d’impact ne se penche que sur l’analyse ex-ante

des nouvelles mesures que l’UE souhaite inclure aux

ALECA. et n’inclut pas l’analyse ex-post des différentes

mesures de libéralisation inclues dans les accords

d’association en vigueur depuis de nombreuses années (à

l’exception de l’accord d’octobre 2012 avec le Maroc sur

les produits agricoles).

That is correct. the

objective of the study is

only to assess the impact

of the DCFTA. An ex-

post impact analysis

might be useful. but

would require other

studies.

l’absence de quelques acteurs qui travaillent pourtant

activement sur le sujet de la politique commerciale dans la

région. Par exemple: Arab NGO Network for

Development. les organisations RAID/ATTAC/CADTM

Tunisie et ATTAC/CADTM Maroc.

We have added these

organisations to the list

of stakeholders. If you

have any further

additions. Please let us

know.

le processus ne prévoit qu’une analyse ex-ante des

impacts des ALECA et pas de suivi des impacts réels à

long terme. une fois l’accord en vigueur.

The aim of the study is to

look at the impact of the

DCFTA after the DCFTA

has been implemented.

Indirect effects are taken

into account to the extent

possible and secondary

effects are included in

the CGE modelling.

Les rapports préliminaires d’Ecorys. ainsi que les termes

de références de l’étude d’impact. identifient la nécessité

de conduire un maximum de consultations en français.

Our website. Facebook

and newsletters are and

will be available in both

100


Name Organisati

on


English and French.

Executive summaries of

the reports will be

translated into French

and Arabic.

Mr.

Hanss

ens

La

Confédérati

on des

Syndicats

Chrétiens

(CSC)

Le délai accordé par Ecorys pour commenter les premiers

rapports n’a pas été suffisant. vu les capacités limitées en

temps et en personnes de la société civile. pour en faire

une analyse complète. Le délai. forcément lié à

l’empressement de la Commission à concrétiser son

agenda commercial sans prendre le temps nécessaire à

une analyse sérieuse. nous semble inapproprié.

We regret that the

publication of the reports

were on time. but not

well communicated (see

also earlier comment).

Please note that many of

your comments we can

still take on board also

after finalising the

inception phase.

En termes d’approche. il est regrettable que l’étude

d’impact ne se penche que sur l’analyse ex-ante des

nouvelles mesures que l’UE souhaite inclure aux ALECA.

et n’inclut pas l’analyse ex-post des différentes mesures

de libéralisation inclues dans les accords d’association en

vigueur depuis de nombreuses années (à l’exception de

l’accord d’octobre 2012 avec le Maroc sur les produits

agricoles). Au vu des conclusions de l’étude d’impact

conduite à l’époque pour la Commission. qui envisageait

des pertes d’emploi et baisses de salaires. et vu les

inquiétudes exprimées ci-dessus et ailleurs. et encore si la

Commission souhaite réellement rendre ces accords

acceptables pour le plus grand nombre. il serait

indispensable d’analyser d’abord les impacts réels des

accords passés. et de les corriger s’ils sont effectivement

négatifs. avant de les approfondir.

That is correct. the

objective of the study is

only to assess the impact

of the DCFTA. Although

analysing the impact of

previous agreements

might be interesting. this

would require other

studies.

De plus. on peut déplorer que le processus ne prévoit

qu’une analyse ex-ante des impacts des ALECA et pas de

suivi des impacts réels à long terme. une fois l’accord en

vigueur. Sur ce point et sur d’autres. il serait utile de

s’inspirer davantage des Principes directeurs applicables

aux études de l’impact des accords de commerce et

d’investissement sur les droits de l’homme. Rapport du

Rapporteur spécial des Nations Unies sur le droit à

l’alimentation. Olivier De Schutter. En effet ils proposent

des mécanismes praticables d’étude d’impact et de

participation avant. pendant et après les négociations.

The aim of the study is to

look at the impact of the

DCFTA after the DCFTA

has been implemented.

Indirect effects are taken

into account to the extent

possible.

We aim to study the

suggestions related to

the HR impact

assessment (see also

response to earlier

comment).

Mr.

Sherr

y

ANND 1. The Trade SIA does not take into account the

regulatory areas negotiated under the framework of the

DCFTA. The impact assessment, in its qualitative and

quantitative dimensions, falls short of demonstrating the

The regulatory

approximation process

has to some extent been

taken into account in the

101


Name Organisati

on


link between the regulatory provisions and commitments

under the agreement and their impact on policy space

needed for Moroccan authority in addressing development

challenges. For instance, regulatory provisions and

binding commitments related to the liberalization of public

procurement, competition policy and investment and

investor protection, need to be assessed taking into

consideration the ‘ability to regulate the national economy

as well as the human-rights based dimension, especially

that Morocco has lost a number of cases of international

arbitration, including two known cases filed against it in the

International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes

(ICSID).

liberalisation of NTMs for

goods and services. For

many regulatory areas,

however, no proper data

or methodologies exist to

fully capture their effects.

It is correct that a free

trade agreements will

always reduce policy

space to some extent. It

is however difficult to

analyse this reduced

policy space in general

terms. If one of the areas

of regulatory

approximation would

have been selected for

the in-depth analysis, we

could have dealt with the

issue of policy space

more explicitly. We will

take this into account in

the next TSIA under this

project, on the DCFTAs

of the EU with

respectively Jordan and

Egypt.

ANND 2. Under the Screening and Scoping Analysis; the

first pillar based on which the methodology is applied, the

report mentions that at the end of the current phase

(Phase 1) there will be a selection of specific sectors and

horizontal issues. The Initial importance of sectors for the

economy is assessed using the following indicators: sector

share in total value added; sector share in total (un)skilled

employment; and sector share in total export and exports

to the EU. Although the 3 adopted criteria are important,

they are insufficient to answer core questions related to

national labor force, and national productive capacities.

The indicators are more useful if they can capture the

implications on productivity gains over the long-term owing

to expanded capacity of indigenous factors of production,

rather than an expansion of foreign presence (companies,

foreign labour etc.).

The indicators used in

the first criteria of the

screening and scoping

exercise are chosen to

capture both the status

quo regarding the

national labour force as

well as economic power

(through GDP and trade).

The ANND suggest to

also capture long term

productivity gains

through expanded

capacity of indigenous

factors of production.

However, choosing to

take into account such

dynamics into the impact

assessment would not be

in line with the overall

objective of the study - to

merely study the impact

102


Name Organisati

on


of the DCFTA on the EU

and Moroccan economy -

, which needs to be done

without taking into

account any other

ongoing national

initiatives. As such, this

impact assessment

compares the

development of the EU

and Moroccan economy

with and without the

DCFTA.

ANND The Expected economic impact of the DCFTA on the

sectoral level, based on the Computable General

Equilibrium (CGE) modelling results, will help identify the

relevant sectors to be analyzed. In this context, positive

results are associated with a number of indicators in the

long run, including enhanced employment and value-

added in public and other services sector which in turn is

signified to be the most impacted sector as a result of the

DCFTA. Yet, the quantitative results, although positive, do

not clearly account for country specific . For instance,

while the DCFTA enhances employment at both the skilled

and un-skilled labour dimensions, the extent to which

Moroccan nationals in the labour force are controlled for in

the model is not clear.

The Trade SIA overall

economic analysis does

indeed not cover

indicators that distinguish

between the effects for

Moroccan nationals and

non-nationals in the

Moroccan economy. In

addition the data that

feed the economic model

do not distinguish

between the generation

of value added by

nationals or non-

nationals, such that

taking this issue into

account in an integrated

and general equilibrium

manner is not possible. It

is however possible to

take these effects into

account in a more

qualitative manner in the

in-depth analysis of

sectors or horizontal

issues. Thus, we

encourage the ANND to

highlight specific

economic sectors where

this issue us particularly

significant as early as

possible in the next

Trade SIA (Egypt,

Jordan) so that these

effects could be taken

into account in the in-

103


Name Organisati

on


depth assessment of the

TSIA.

ANND The report indicates the services sector as one which will

bring positive economic results following a DCFTA.

However, it is important to note that the Services sector is

characterized by rapid changes in terms of size and scope

which is exhibited in the emergence of new services as a

result of technical advancements on one hand, and on the

other changes in demand occurring in other sectors. The

report should control for a new set of services possibly

entering the market, and examine their impact on inclusive

development, including the accumulation of added value,

provision of decent jobs as well as contribution to the

support of other productive sectors.

Ecorys appreciates the

suggestion of the focus

on new type of services,

which should according

to the ANND be included

in the impact

assessment. However,

the model used to

estimate the impacts on

growth and development

is based on actual and

historical data and thus

only takes into account

existing services types.

To an extent, the

offshoring sector analysis

includes an assessment

of new type of services to

be developed in

morocco.

ANND The indicators used for poverty and inequality are highly

distorting of the reality of the situation. While extreme

poverty is defined by the report (as per the World Bank’s

definition) as less than USD 2 per day, the study highly

underestimates the true level of poverty when it excludes

people living on a few cents above USD 2 per day. As for

inequality, it is controlled for by the GINI coefficient, which

is overwhelmed with flaws due to its simplicity and

measuring only relative wealth while disregarding any

absolute income or wealth.

For Morocco no

quantitative analysis was

conducted on poverty

and inequality, as we did

not have sufficient

household budget data

for this. For Tunisia, we

did conduct a

quantitative analysis.

There we did not just

look at the poverty line,

we also analysed the

depth of poverty and the

dispersion of the poverty

headcount around the

poverty line. In addition,

we have studied both

absolute poverty and

relative poverty,

analysing various

indicators, not just the

Gini coefficient.

ANND The report acknowledges that DCFTA can breach human

rights in practice. The report also recognizes that more

pressure would be put on human rights than the model

states, given that the CGE model assumes labour mobility

between sectors (which is difficult in reality) and no

As can be read in the

report, the human rights


the approach developed

together with the steering

104


Name Organisati

on


informal economy (which already exists). As a civil society

organization concerned with Human Rights, ANND

recommends that a more rights-based impact assessment

of a DCFTA be considered in the following phase of the

study through adopting the Office of the Commissioner for

Human Rights’s (OHCHR) conceptualization of qualitative

and quantitative indicators , including on the impact on

Universality; Inalienability; Interrelatedness;

Interdependency; and Indivisibility of rights.

committee for previous

TSIA and inspired on the

work of Simon Walker.

This is believed to be a

comprehensive method

for assessing human

rights impacts of FTAs.

We have recognised the

importance of the work of

the OHCHR for the

human rights

assessment and used

some of their work in our

current assessment. For

the next two TSIAs, we

will consider to include

the indicators more

explicitly.

ANND In addition, the report addresses the need to investigate

the effects of the market approach in practice and its

impact on human rights through engaging with civil society

and key stakeholders. This is a welcome step by ANND.

However, what type of civil society will be engaged? In

other words, how can the report ensure effectiveness of

the designated civil society organizations in contributing to

the appropriate framework for human rights protection

under a DCFTA?

Throughout the study

(started in January

2013), consultations with

civil society have been

an important element of

the study. We have listed

the identified civil society

organizations in the

annex of the inception

report. In the margins of

the local workshop in

Morocco, we have also

interacted with more

local stakeholders not

listed in the annex.

Various HR

organisations have also

been included in our

mailing list, and have

received our draft reports

with the invitation to

comment on them.

Mr.

Caba

nne

Eurogroup

for Animals

We suggest to include, in the report, a clear reference to

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1976 (date of

entry into force). This element is important to add since

there are references to the convention CITES in other

sections of the report, in particular in the

recommendations for the environmental pillar (table 0.4).

Reference has been

included in the body of

the text.

We would appreciate if the report could include in the

footnote the reference of briefing note we sent to Ecorys

The reference has been

included n the list of

105


Name Organisati

on


on 10 April 2013. The document can be found on the web

:

http://eurogroupforanimals.org/files/policies/downloads/10

8/note_eu-morocco_fta_15_02_2012.pdf

This reference can be alternatively add in the section

References used in the social and environmental analysis,

page 213.

“References used in the

social and environmental

analysis” in the

References section.

106


Table A.F.2 Inputs from civil society received during the public meeting (Brussels, April 2013)

Organisation Comment Ecorys response

European

Peace

building

Liaison Office

(EPLO)

• Enquired about how the analysis on the

civil society landscape for both Morocco

and Tunisia was conducted. In addition,

what sources have been used for this

analysis?

• Could civil society make suggestions for

topics, issues and participants for the

workshops that will be organized in both

countries?

• And would the workshops be aimed at

specific sectors?

• This has been done based on existing

literature, interviews with the EC

delegation in both countries and input

from the local consultants that are part of

the project team. The assessment of civil

society landscape is available online.

Ecorys invites anyone who would like to

comment on the civil society landscape to

provide feedback through the website or

via email;

• Ecorys is very interested to hear about

any suggestions and/or feedback with

respect to stakeholders and topics to

discuss. However, Ecorys notes that

participation of all companies or

institutions are not guaranteed since it is

important to have a fair representation of

all types of organizations and places are

limited;

• The workshops will have some sector

focus applied, but will also cover general

topics. The final selection of sectors that

will be studied in more detail will be made

at the end of Phase 1. It is therefore not

possible for Ecorys to name the sectors

at this stage.

European

Peace

building

Liaison Office

(EPLO)

Address the issue on the distribution of

welfare effect in both countries, did Ecorys

already identify those groups that will be

mostly affected by the DCFTA? In any case,

how does Ecorys intend to address this

issue?

Different communication channels have

already been put in place together with the

local partners in order to also involve the

people affected most by the DCFTA. From

experience, the most practical way of

involving them is through their representative

organisations, or other organisations that

work with these people frequently. These

organisations are generally a bit more easily

accessible and have a better understanding

of the issues related to the DCFTA. But we

may also include these people directly, as we

did in some previous TSIA studies.

European

Economic

and Social

Committee

• Is glad to see that ‘sustainability impact’ is

the main focus of this study. However,

would the issues of land concentration

and ownership be taken into account in

the analysis?

• Addresses the issue of the analysis on

the impacts on non-sensitive agricultural

products in the context of the October

2012 agriculture agreement. For

example, production of olive oil is

• Ecorys responds that an initial

assessment of the environmental and

social conditions is currently being

conducted and thanks ECOSOC for this

input. This will help in focusing the

analysis on the right issues;

• Ecorys responds that it is difficult to

analyse the DCFTA without looking at the

complete picture. However, in the CGE

model only a certain level of aggregation

107



expected to expand significantly in

Morocco but it is not a sensitive product

(yet).

is possible since otherwise the output is

too large. The 37 sectors selected could

be too aggregate to single out the effect

on olive oils, but it could be a product that

could receive more attention in Phase 2

of the analysis.

International

Federation

for Human

Rights

Raises a question about the identified risks in

terms of attendance of stakeholders and

freedom of expressions during the workshops

for example.

Ecorys mentions that they recognize the risks

to the stakeholder consultations as identified,

but since we have years of experience in

these studies Ecorys is confident in

addressing them. Firstly, there are different

tools for engaging the stakeholders

electronically. In addition, bilateral

conversations are also scheduled to

complement this part of the study. Civil

society participation during the workshops

receives most attention since it is the ultimate

opportunity to voice their concerns. Working

with local consultants is also important to

facilitate communication.

Eurogroup for

Animals

Address the issue of wild life trade between

the EU and the rest of Africa, since Morocco

is the main corridor of wild life trade between

the EU and the rest of Africa. Did Ecorys

consider including wild life trade in the study?

We are in the possession of data for this

purpose, so you could include this in the

model.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to address

wildlife trade as a separate sector in the

quantitative model since there is no separate

sector on these products in the GTAP

database. Since the model is a general

equilibrium model, one needs similar data for

a lengthy period of time for all countries in the

world. However, it is interesting to include in

the environmental analysis. We therefore

welcome any relevant information on this

issue related to the DCFTA. Still, please note

that the sectors for in-depth analysis have not

been selected yet and it is therefore difficult

for us to address the issue into much detail at

this stage.

Regarding the stakeholders involved in this

process, Ecorys invites the Eurogroup to

have a look at the list of organisations

identified in the inception report and make

recommendations. Academics from the EU

and Morocco are very much invited to join the

discussion.

108



109


Annex G: SME survey results

Introduction to the survey

To obtain more knowledge about SMEs in Morocco and Tunisia and to analyse the impact of the DCFTA on SMEs in Morocco, Tunisia and the EU, we conducted an online SME survey. In total, 72 respondents filled out the survey, of which 51 from Tunisia, 9 from Morocco, 4 from Belgium, 3 from France, 3 from Italy, 1 from Poland and 1 from Spain. The link to the online survey was disseminated via the SME Panel network of DG Enterprise & Industry, the project website www.trade-sia.com/tunisia and the TSIA Newsletter. Here we present a full report on the survey, including the survey questions as approved by the European Commission. The representativeness of the survey results for Morocco is relatively low due to the limited response. However, the results are similar to the results for Tunisia, where the response rate was much higher. Survey results

Sector and size of Moroccan respondents When looking in particular at Morocco, nine Moroccan respondents filled out the survey.31 As shown in Figure F.1, the survey respondents represented six sectors from agriculture and industry. Figure F.1 Distribution of Moroccan survey respondents across sectors

When looking at the size of the responding companies in terms of employees and turnover, we see that most respondents represented an SME company according to the official EU SME definition, as shown in Table F.1. Table F.1 Company size of Moroccan respondents

Category Number of employees Respondents Annual turnover Respondents

Micro 0-9 1 EUR 0-2 million 1

Small 10-49 2 EUR 2-10 million 2

Medium 50-249 3 EUR 10-50 million 1

Large More than 250 1 More than EUR 50 million 2

31 It should be noted that not all respondents completed the survey therefore the numbers presented here do not always add up to 9.

110


Competition in Morocco The three survey respondents from Morocco that answered questions on competition are divided in how they see the competitiveness of larger companies. At least it turns out that larger companies are equally or more competitive and do have larger market shares compared to SMEs. When looking at foreign companies, two respondents see them as equally or more competitive, while the other respondent says that foreign competitors are less competitive. The DCFTA Two respondents from Morocco answered questions on international trade. They both know that the EU and Morocco have now started to negotiate a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. One of them is not involved in international trade. The other one exports its products (Electronics, computers). His share of exports as a percentage of your total turnover is between 75% and 100%. Of these exports, 75% to 100% flows to the EU (Czech Republic, France, Germany, and Spain). This company faces the following barriers to trade when exporting to the EU: • Access to finance (including trade finance); • Access to raw materials; • Custom procedures at the border; • Lack of information on the foreign market. According to this company, the following three priority topics should be covered by DCFTA: 1. Technical regulations/standards; 2. Freedom of opening a company and investment and capital movements and payments; 3. Public procurement – call for tenders. Furthermore, he expects that there will be both positive and negative impacts from the DCFTA for his company. Positive factors are i) more output/employment due to higher exports, ii) cheaper production costs through cheaper imports, and iii) technology transfer. Negative impacts are expected from increased competition. Trade barriers faced by European SMEs One SME from France indicated that 0-25% of his exports go to Morocco. This company from the Grains and Crops sector faces the following barriers to trade when exporting to Morocco: access to finance, administrative requirements, Moroccan import duties, and TBT requirements. The topics “Customs” and “Environmental and social sustainable development” are seen by this company as priorities to be included in the DCFTA. Internationalisation support measures According to one respondent, the Government of Morocco needs to increase its export promotion activities after the DCFTA. This company would need more: • financial support to export (e.g. insurance, export credits, subsidies); • information on exporting to the EU/information on these local markets (e.g. by trainings,

websites, brochures); • support in meeting potential buyers of our products/services (e.g. through matchmaking events,

trade fairs, etc.). Enterprise Europe Network Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) could play an important role for companies in Morocco for doing business in the European Union. However, none of the respondents from Morocco have ever been in contact with EEN, simply because they do not know EEN (80% of answers). One respondent mentions that there is no local office of EEN.

111


Implications The number of respondents from Morocco is limited and only one company reached the final end of the survey. This is not a representative sample from the entire population of Moroccan SMEs and therefore we cannot draw strong conclusions from the above. However, we could say that there is scope for the Moroccan government to improve or create new internationalisation support services for SMEs to maximise the benefits from the DCFTA. The same holds for the local partners of Enterprise Europe Network. Survey questions

Language selection options: English, French, Arabic

About the study and purpose of this survey The European Union (EU), Morocco and Tunisia are currently negotiating (or preparing the negotiations in the case of Tunisia) a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between the EU and Morocco and Tunisia respectively. The aim of these future agreements is to lower barriers to trade between the countries involved and thereby increase trade and investment. Specifically for your business, this could imply a lowering of import tariffs that foreign companies have to pay on your export products, or a lowering of tariffs on the products you import. It could also mean that you have to adjust your production process according to EU health and safety requirements. The European Commission requested Ecorys to carry out a Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (TSIA) to analyse what the effects of concluding this agreement might be for the EU and Moroccan and Tunisian economies. This study will serve as input for the negotiations. Specifically, part of the study focuses on the impact of the DCFTA on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The input of SMEs with experience or interest in the EU-28, Morocco and/or Tunisia is of vital importance for this analysis. Therefore we would like to ask you to share your opinions and experiences by filling out this survey tool. It will take some 10 minutes to fill out the survey. The information will be treated as strictly confidential and anonymous. Information will be used for the analysis, but no reference to the interviewee will be made in reports. We would like to ask you to be as specific as possible in your answers. In case anything is unclear to you or you would like to receive additional information, please contact Corine Besseling ([email protected]). Please send back the answers before 1st of August 2013. We thank you in advance for filling out the survey.

A. Introduction 1. In which country is your company located? Scroll down menu with Morocco, Tunisia and the EU-28 Member States. 2. In what sector does your company operate? 3. Company size: what was the number of employees in your company in 2012? 0-9 10-49

112


mailto:[email protected]

50-249 250-499 More than 500 4. Company size: what was the annual turnover of your company in 2012? Tick the box list that appears depends on the country that is selected in Q1: EU: EUR 0-2 million EUR 2-10 million EUR 10-50 million More than EUR 50 million

Morocco: MAD 0-22 million MAD 22-111 million MAD 111-555 million More than MAD 555 million

Tunisia: TND 0-4.3 million TND 4.3-21.4 million TND 21.4-107.1 million More than TND 107.1 million

5. Have you been in contact with Enterprise Europe Network? If yes, the following question will appear: 5.1 How do you know Enterprise Europe Network?

I have received information about Enterprise Europe Network. Enterprise Europe Network has found a potential business partner. Enterprise Europe Network has provided financial support. Other:

If no, the following question will appear: 5.2 Why not?

I do not know what it is. There is no local office. I do not see the benefits of Enterprise Europe Network.

Other:

B. Current situation 6. How do you experience the competition in your domestic market from companies that are larger

than your company? They are much more competitive and have a larger market share than your company. They are a bit more competitive and have a somewhat higher market share than your company. They are equally competitive as your company and market shares are fairly equally distributed among market players. They are somewhat less competitive, but still have a larger market share compared to your company. They are somewhat less competitive and have a lower market share compared to your company.

7. How do you experience competition from foreign competitors?

113


They are more competitive and their imports/sales of local affiliates constitute an important share of the market in my sector. They are equally competitive. They are less competitive.

C. The EU-Morocco Free Trade Area / The EU-Tunisia Free Trade Area, an opportunity for growth? 10. Did you know that the EU and Morocco / EU and Tunisia have now started to negotiate (or

preparing the negotiations in the case of Tunisia) a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area? Yes No 11. Are you currently involved in trading internationally? (A1) Yes, we export products/services. (A2) Yes, we import intermediary products/services. (A3) Yes, we export products/services and import intermediary/final products/services. (A4) Yes, we import final products/services. (A5) No. If answer to Q11 is A2, A4 or A5, these questions will follow: 11.1 Are you planning to export in the near future? Scroll down menu with options “yes” and “no”. If answer to Q11.1 is “no”, this question will follow: 11.1.1 Why not? We have not enough production capacity. There is no demand abroad for our products/services. The foreign competition is too fierce. Other:

If answer to Q11.1 is “yes”, these questions will follow: 11.1.2 To which countries are you planning to export?

“Tick the box” with multiple answers possible: Morocco, Tunisia, EU28 Member States, Other. When selecting the latter, an empty text field appears so that they can fill it out themselves.

11.1.3 Please indicate in the table below: a) which barriers you are expecting to face during the export process, and b) for these existing barriers, do you think that these might be addressed by the

Free Trade Area? Please only tick those boxes that are relevant in your view.

Potential barrier Existing? Barrier addressed by DCFTA?

Access to finance (including trade finance)

Access to raw materials

Administrative requirements (e.g. licences, other

114



formalities)

Corruption/lack of law enforcement

Custom procedures at the border

Import duties of the export destination country

Infrastructure in your country

Intellectual property rights

Internal conflict/regional insecurity in export

destination country

Lack of information on the foreign market

Language/culture of export destination country

Other rules/regulations

Reliability of representatives/distributors in the

export destination country

Restrictive government procurement in export

destination country

Rules of origin

SPS – the health and safety standards to which you

need to comply

Taxation system in your country

TBT – the safety and product requirements you

would need to fulfil before exporting

Unfair competition (monopolies, etc.) in export

destination country

11.1.4 Which of the following topics should be covered by the Deep and Comprehensive

Free Trade Area according to you (tick max. 3 topics reflecting priority issues)? Tick the box: Technical regulations/standards

Sanitary measures for agricultural products

Freedom of opening a company and investment and capital movements and payments

Public procurement-call for tenders

Fair competition


Customs

Environmental and social sustainable development

Transparency of regulations

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures

Energy pricing

Cooperation between national administrations

Other (fill out)

If answer to Q11 is A1 or A3, these questions will follow: (When location Morocco/Tunisia is selected in Q1, then the next question appears): 11.2.1. What is the share of exports as a percentage of your total turnover? 0-25% 25-50% 50-75%

115


75-100% 11.2.2 What share of your exports goes to the EU? (A11.2.2.1) 0% (my company only exports to other countries) (A11.2.2.2) 0-25% (A11.2.2.3) 25-50% (A11.2.2.4) 50-75% (A11.2.2.5) 75-100% If A11.2.2.1, the next question appears: 11.2.2.1 To which other countries do you export?

If A11.2.2.2-A11.2.2.5, the next questions appear: 11.2.3 To which country/countries in the EU do you export? Tick the box (all EU-28 Member States).

11.2.4 Please indicate in the table below: a) which barriers are you facing when exporting to the EU, and b) for these existing barriers, do you think that these might be addressed by the

Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area? Please only tick those boxes that are relevant in your view.





formalities)







destination country







destination country

Rules of origin


need to comply





116



destination country






Fair competition


Customs




Energy pricing


(When location one of EU countries is selected in Q1, then the next question appears): 11.2.6 What is the share of exports as a percentage of your total turnover? 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% 11.2.7 Are you exporting to Morocco? Yes No If no, go to questions 11.2.11. 11.2.8 What share of your exports go to Morocco? 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

11.2.9 Please indicate in the table below: a) which barriers are you facing when exporting to Morocco, and b) for these existing barriers, do you think that these might be addressed by the






formalities)

117









destination country







destination country

Rules of origin


need to comply





destination country






Fair competition


Customs




Energy pricing


11.2.11 Are you exporting to Tunisia? Yes No 11.2.12 What share of your exports go to the Tunisia? 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

118


11.2.13 Please indicate in the table below: a) which barriers are you facing when exporting to Tunisia, and b) for these existing barriers, do you think that these might be addressed by the






formalities)







destination country







destination country

Rules of origin


need to comply





destination country


Free Trade Area according to you (tick max. 3 topics reflecting priority issues)? Tick the box:

Technical regulations/standards




Fair competition


Customs




Energy pricing

119



If answer to Q11 is A2 or A4, these questions will follow: 11.3.1 From which countries do you import?

Tick the box exercise with Morocco, Tunisia, EU28 Member States, Other. When selecting the latter, an empty text field appears so that they can fill it out themselves.

11.3.2 Please indicate in the table below: a) which barriers are you facing during the import process, and b) for these existing barriers, do you think that these might be addressed by the

Free Trade Area? Please only tick those boxes that are relevant in your view.

Potential import barrier Existing? Barrier addressed by DCFTA?




formalities)



Import duties in your country

Infrastructure in the country of origin


Internal conflict/regional insecurity in country of

origin


Language/culture of country of origin



country of origin

Restrictive government procurement in country of

origin

Rules of origin


need to comply

Taxation system in country of origin



Unfair competition (monopolies, etc.) in your

country

12. Do you think the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area can help your company expand? A12.1 Yes A12.2 No A12.3 There will be both positive and costs/negative impacts of the DCFTA A12.4 Do not know If the answer to Q12 is A12.1, A12.3 and A12.4, this question will follow:

120


12.1 The potential benefits resulting from the DCFTA for my company are in the field of: More output/employment due to higher exports; Cheaper production costs through cheaper imports;

Adjusting my standards more to EU requirements will also increase exports to other countries; Technology transfer; Possibility to move from lower to higher value added products/services; Other benefits:

If the answer to Q12 is A12.2 and A12.3, this question will follow:

12.2 The potential costs/negative impacts resulting for my company relate to:

Increased competition for my products/services.

Increased production costs related to comply with new rules and regulations as part of

the DCFTA.

Other:

13. Would the Government of Morocco/Government of Tunisia need to increase its export

promotion activities as a result of the DCFTA? No, sufficient export promotion services are provided. No, more export promotion services would be needed but this can be provided by commercial companies. Yes, we would especially need more financial support to export (e.g. insurance, export credits, subsidies). Yes, we would especially need information on exporting to the EU/Tunisia/Morocco/information on these local markets (e.g. trainings, websites, brochures). Yes, we would especially need more support in meeting potential buyers of our products/services (e.g. through matchmaking events, trade fairs, etc.)

Yes, other:

D. Your opinion on the DCFTA 14. If you would like to make any further comments on opportunities and barriers you face in

international trade that are relevant to the DCFTA negotiations, or on this survey, you can indicate them below (EN/FR only).

121


E. Thank you! Thank you for filling out this questionnaire. Your answers are very much appreciated. To receive further information on the developments on the DCFTA, please contact [email protected] or fill out your contact details below (not obligatory): Name company: Name contact person: E-mail address

122



Annex H: Civil society workshop in Rabat minutes

Trade Impact Assessment of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the EU and Morocco

Civil society workshop in Rabat, Morocco Please note that the reporting of the workshop minutes is the sole responsibility of the consultants. Date: 27 June 2013 Location: Hotel Le Diwan, Place de l'unité Africaine, Rabat 10005,

Kingdom of Morocco Ecorys Marie-José Char (team leader), Paul Baker, Jurgen Vermeulen,

Stéphanie Ah Tchou FIDUNION Islem Ridane EU Delegation to Morocco: Monique Marquinon, Fatiha Hassouni, Gerhard Krause

Trade Impact Assessment of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the EU and Morocco 123 List of workshop participants 124 Workshop Agenda 125 Summary of the workshop 126

Introduction to the workshop 126 Opening address by the EC Delegation representative 126 Background of the DCFTA and Trade SIA 126 Main findings Interim Report-I: Macro results / sector results 129 Main findings Interim Report-II: Additional social and human rights analysis 131 Main findings Interim Report-III: Additional environmental analysis 132 Guest speaker 1: Mr. Chakri (WWF) 132 The impact of the DCFTA on specific sectors 134 Sector and horizontal issues selection / Q & A and round table 135 Wrap up and conclusions 136

Workshop presentation slides Ecorys (in French) 136 Presentation slides - Les défis de l’environnement au Maroc, Mr. Chakri Said, WWF/Groupe de travail 137

123


List of workshop participants

First name Surname Organisation

Soumiya El Idrissi CNCE

orna Ennaji CNCE

Hmamou Khadija CNCE

Najib Layachi FIFEL

Ute Brockmann Eurocham/AHK

Fatima Idammad Bureau International du Travail

Fatih Hassouni DUE – Rabat

Jan Pierre Chauffour World Bank

Aziza Bahloul CESE

Bachir Rachdi CESE

Larbi Belarbi CESE

Jeanine Hamar FECAM

Saltani Zakaria FECAM

Maria De Lope GDT/PEV Maroc (WWF)

Meriame Filali CGEM

Nathalie Barbe FENAGRI

Said Tbel Espace Associatif

Hassomi Laila CCISC

Laila Raji CCISC

Mohamed Amaiz FEDIC

Hafid Aounzou FEDIC

Mustapha Bouhadou Espace Associatif

Ouamimi Driss GDT/PEV/WWF

S.K. Cheusi ESPOD

Hakim Barrakum CGEM

Said Chakri GDT/WWF

R. Nessati Academia

124


Workshop Agenda

Time: 27 June 2013, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Venue: Hotel Le Diwan, Place de l'unité Africaine, Rabat 10005, Kingdom of Morocco Section Time Programme Who

9:00- 9:30 Registration / coffee & tea

1.1.1 9:30-9:35 Introduction to the workshop Ms. Char, project Team Leader

1.1.2 9:35-9:50 Opening address Mr. Joy (Ambassador/Head of

the EU Delegation to Morocco)

1.1.3 9:50-10:30 Background study – approach, methodology, process Mr. Vermeulen

1.1.4 10:30-11:15 Main findings Interim Report – I

Macro results / sector results

Mr. Vermeulen

11:15-11:30 Coffee & Tea

1.1.5 11:30-11:45 Main findings Interim Report – II Mr. Vermeulen

11:45-12:15 Additional social and human rights analysis

12:15-13:15 Lunch

1.1.6 13:30-13:45 Main findings Interim Report – III Ms. Ah Tchou

Additional environmental analysis

1.1.7 13:45-14:30 Guest speaker 1: Environmental issues in Morocco Mr. Chakri (WWF)

14:30-14:45 Coffee & Tea

1.1.8 14:45-15:45 The impact of the DCFTA on specific sectors

Guest speaker 2: Fruits and vegetables Mr. Layachi Najib Fiffel

Guest speaker 3: Leather sector Mr. Mohamed Amaiz

1.1.9 15:45-16:15 Sector and horizontal issues selection Ms. Char / Mr. Baker

16:15-16:45 Q & A and Round Table Ms. Char / Mr. Baker

1.1.10 16:45-17:00 Wrap up and closure Ms. Char

125


Summary of the workshop

At this first consultation workshop conducted in Morocco, which was led by the project Team Leader, Ms. Marie-Jose Char, 27 participants from the Moroccan civil society took part. It is organised around the 10 topics described in the agenda, and each topic was followed by a question and answer (Q&A) session moderated by the Team Leader. Introduction to the workshop Ms. Marie-José Char opens the workshop and welcomes all participants to the venue. Ms. Char introduces the Trade Impact Assessment study and gives a short background about the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between the EU and Morocco. She also explains the scope and objectives of today’s consultation workshop. She invites all participants to actively participate in the workshop and hopes for a fruitful exchange of ideas and information. She wishes all participants an enjoyable day and passes the floor to Ambassador Mr. Rupert Joy, Head of the EU Delegation to Morocco, to provide the opening speech.

Opening address by the EC Delegation representative Mr. Rupert Joy, explains the purpose of the workshop and thanks all participants for their interest in the study, conducted by the independent consulting firm Ecorys, and participation to the consultation workshop. Mr. Joy then outlines the historic and current relations between the EU and Morocco: • The 2nd round of the EU-Morocco DCFTA negotiations are taking place at this moment in

Brussels. As the workshop and report of Ecorys will show, the agreement under negotiation is for the mutual benefit of both the EU and Morocco. However, it is fully appropriate that both the EU and Morocco consult with each other on the benefits or potential hazards of the agreement.

• The DCFTA will contribute to job creation in both the EU and in Morocco, something which is desirable in a period of high stakes.

• The DCFTA is a win-win situation for both parties and does not only tackle trade in goods and the simple tariff elements of trade. It also covers customs facilitation, Intellectual Property Rights, transparency and public procurement to name a few elements.

• Beyond the obvious benefits of closer integration between the EU and Morocco, the DCFTA contributes to the overall objective of a higher welfare and a higher societal value.

• Mr. Joy ends his speech by mentioning that a civil society dialogue has always been an instrumental part of the TSIAs conducted so far. He places the workshop at the forefront of these important consultations with civil society.

Background of the DCFTA and Trade SIA During this first session, the Ecorys team presents the background of the DCFTA and the Trade SIA study, its methodology and approach according to the slides included in this document (see section2). The team then fielded questions from the workshop participants. Questions and answers on ‘the background of the DCFTA and Trade SIA’ session Q: What is the difference between the short and the long run in the model?

Ecorys: The difference between the short and the long run in the model is the time that is needed for investments (capital) to reallocate between sectors in the economy. The time that is needed for the investments to move from sector to sector within the Moroccan and European economy is the long run and depends very much on the economy of the country. If these processes go very smooth, it could be as short as five years, but it could

126


also take much longer than that. As a rule of thumb, we often use more or less 10 years as a benchmark.

Q: Regarding the Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) in trade, e.g. in tomatoes and citrus fruits, you talked about asymmetry in approximation. Does this mean that Morocco should exert all efforts to meet European standards? And if this is the case, you need to understand that this will take a lot of time and resources and the study should take this into account.

Ecorys: Non-Tariff Measures are differences in standards. Since the DCFTA is between the EU and Morocco and due to the assumption about the negotiations, Moroccan exporters are expected to move towards the EU system of standards in order to export. The standards of the EU are currently believed to be sufficient for entering into the Moroccan market. This is why the approximation process might be considered asymmetric. However, most of the Moroccan products are already well aligned, especially regarding food products. Still, as you rightfully point out, there are costs involved in complying with EU standards. We have taken these costs into account and assumed these equal to 50% of the overall gains from NTM alignment with the EU. The approximation of standards could indeed take some time, which means that for some sectors (with high NTMs) the effects of the DCFTA will only be noticeable in the long run.

Q: Ecorys mentioned that they have included the October 2012 agreement in the model, except for some sensitive products. What are those sensitive products and why are they not included? For us, the most important impact from the DCFTA would come from these sensitive products. They are some of the most important export products for us.

Ecorys: We have included the October 2012 in the baseline situation of the economic model. That means it is included in our starting point of the analysis. We have done this, because we are only interested in the impact of the DCFTA. We have modelled the October 2012 agreement as accurately as possible, which means that we had to exclude some products from tariff liberalisations as they were not included in the actual agreement. However, we are very much interested to hear from you what these products are and what barriers you face.

Q: What was the type of consultation that has been conducted in this study? Did it include institutional parties that are also involved in the negotiations? Did it include any social partners? Did you consult the documents from the International Labour Office (ILO)? We would like some clarifications on the social impacts: what are the impacts on Human Rights and on labour rights in particular?

Ecorys: In the inception phase of the study, we have developed a detailed stakeholder landscape and tried to identify all stakeholders to the study. Various types of stakeholders are included, such as NGOs, think tanks, representatives from the public and private sectors, trade unions, etc. We have also conducted a literature review and analysed most important ILO documents. The social and human rights impacts of the DCFTA will be presented later.

Q: Has a preliminary evaluation of other FTAs been done before starting this assignment? Ecorys talked only shortly about Human Rights and the social impacts and you spent more time about the environmental impacts. However, the first two are of prime importance.

Ecorys: We have not conducted full-fletched ex post impact assessments as this is not included in the scope of this study. . Concerning the social and human rights question, we fully support the importance and significance of this aspect, which will be discussed in detail during the session scheduled for these questions. They are also documented in a detailed manner in the report.

127


Q: This DCFTA will be difficult to understand for us. Until now, we have only noticed negative aspects of liberalising trade with the EU (in previous agreements). For instance, some citrus fruits producers suffer from the reduction in their export opportunities. Also, the Barcelona process did not answer social issues. Do you expect them to be put on the table today?

Ecorys: We find it difficult to comment on what is going to be included in the negotiations and what is not. This is difficult to estimate for us too. However, within the in depth sector analyses, we are able to look into some issues in much more detail, so please provide your input concerning the issues in the citrus sector.

Q: If we evaluate the previous free-trade agreements and compare the results to the projections made in 2000 we would see important differences. For example, after the agreement the trade balance worsened without any impact on attractiveness of foreign direct investments (FDI) that was planned as an element of compensation. Q: We agree with Ecorys that an analysis of what already exists and their results are extremely important. However, the expected outputs of the analysis are based on the fact that the DCFTA involves asymmetric liberalisations. Regulatory approximations are a condition to be able to fully take advantage of the European market. This has a true cost for Morocco. For instance in your presentation, you showed for services barriers are lowered by 13% for EU firms and by 3% for Morocco. The danger lies in this sector, as this is the sector where Morocco still has a positive balance of trade with the EU. When the services are liberalised in this manner, we risk worsening of this balance and a more positive result for the EU.

Ecorys: The DCFTA will bring benefits to both the EU and Morocco. The next slides will show that both Morocco and the EU gain from services liberalisation and both more or less with the same share. However, based on the reality of the negotiations, the ambition of services liberalisation is higher on the Moroccan side than on the European side. More globally, the realisation of these overall benefits from the DCFTA will arise from the exploitation of comparative advantages in specific sectors. We are interested to hear from you where you see specific gains or potential losses from the DCFTA in some services subsectors.

Q: In this study, hypotheses must be checked against their actual relevance. We have conducted a social study ourselves and are worried by the first results we see. While the interest is in development, we cannot accept development without a worsening of the social and economic situation in Morocco. Morocco has to be pulled up by the EU in terms of social and environmental conditions. Q: Ecorys mentioned a national GDP growth for Morocco of 2% but this is not the case! We currently have some 4.7 GDP growth in Morocco. So your model does not show the true potential.

Ecorys: The model has used the most recent and comprehensive data, on which the results are based. The model thus includes the correct GDP growth figures for Morocco. The 2% GDP growth was an example to show that the model only focuses on the impact of the DCFTA, not on predicting the GDP growth of Morocco itself. We would also appreciate if you could share with us the social study you have conducted, so we will be able to analyse and benchmark results.

Q: I expected a presentation of the results with arguments. We have now only seen some explanations on how the study was conducted. Moreover, what is the importance of this workshop since negotiations have already started? We are going to be too late with giving our input. The relationship between the EU and Morocco seems unbalanced to us: Morocco won 3 billion dirhams, the EU won 9 billion. We have to take social responsibility into account.

128


Ecorys: Indeed, we have only presented the methodology so far. We will present the results in the next session. However, as the preliminary results will show, both the EU and Morocco will gain a similar amount, which is relatively more important for Morocco. EU Delegation: Just to inform workshop participants that the current round of negotiations is the second one. Nothing has been decided yet and we will mostly have around five rounds of negotiations. Moreover, the study has shown that the impact for the EU is minimal and that the benefits for Morocco are substantial. Ecorys: Your input to the study and the negotiations are thus very welcome and very relevant.

Main findings Interim Report-I: Macro results / sector results The Ecorys team presents the main findings on macroeconomic and sector level based on the information on the slides included in Section 2 of this document. The team then fielded questions from the workshop participants. Questions and answers on the ‘main findings of the interim report-I’ session Q: Ecorys has presented clear and intuitive results. The impacts for the EU are around 1.4 billion euros and around 1.3 billion euros for Morocco. This translates into an additional GDP growth of 1.6%. This implies that the conditions to achieve this growth percentage are there, but the feasibility is left with a big question mark. How likely is it that we will reach this 1.6% growth? In addition, the Moroccan economy grows according to the governmental strategies put in place and not only according to the DCFTA. The influences of domestic policies have to be taken into account in the study Q: Regarding added value, we noticed a very big bubble for public services. Does this include public companies? What is this sector composed of? At any case, it does not really look like an ideal scenario for Morocco. We do not want to develop unskilled labour at the expense of skilled labour. Still, Ecorys predicts a trend towards more unskilled labour use. This seems undesirable. What is the social model we want to go for? Q: What society do we want for Morocco? If the impact of the DCFTA will transform the entire society, we will seriously have to review the objectives of the DCFTA. The biggest concern, though, is that some booming sectors in Morocco are not visible on the map. Sectors such as offshoring, aeronautics and energy are growing sectors but not reported on. On what data was the analysis based?

Ecorys responds to the various questions: - First, all sectors of the economy are included in the model, but not all have been shown in the graphs, because it would make the graph unreadable. We have only plotted the six sectors that will expand and contract most as predicted by our model. The effects on the remaining sectors are included in the interim report. Since we have an aggregate of 37 sectors included in the model, the graphs would look very blurry. Regarding the source of data, the model is based on data from 2011 and thus includes the effects of the financial crisis on all countries in the world (it is a global dataset). - The public services sector includes a variety of economic activities. Indeed, the public services (government) are included here and the salaries paid to officials are included. Other activities that are included are waste management, education, social security etc. It is common to see that this sector is large, it is the case for many countries and thus not a specific result for Morocco. - The model does not predict any employment effects, so the model also does not predict increases or decreases in skilled or unskilled labour. It is simply that the sectors that use more unskilled labour are expect to be more significantly impacted than sectors with more skilled labour.

129


- Domestic policies are very important to the Moroccan development. However, they are not important for our model as we are only interested in finding the true value added of the DCFTA only. If the Moroccan economy will grow by 2% due to domestic policies (for example), the DCFTA will always bring an additional 1.6% growth in GDP (whatever the domestic policy is).

Q: I believe that the findings Ecorys has presented are very optimistic. Exports will increase faster than imports. However in reality we often see that exports to the EU are blocked and with regards to imports, European countries push a lot and more and more imports flow into Morocco. Thus, my problem is that the model does not take the realistic and true scenario into account. There is a foreseeable risk of flood of European products to Morocco. Regarding the predicted transfer of labour to the fruit and vegetables sector, it has to be noted that we can only export to the EU when the requirements are met. We can only meet the requirements when we have skilled labour in our employment force that produces products that are in line with the standards. Only then can we attract more unskilled labour. The model needs to take this refinement into account. Q: Ecorys mentioned that they have refined the model with the experiences they gathered from previous assignments. However, Morocco is a very different case and we have signed many other agreements in the meantime that need to be taken into account. The economy at large did not really benefit from signing these agreements, so we need to understand the assumptions of your model. Q: I think it is best to discuss the hypotheses sector by sector. With respect to spill over effects, we are now liberalising the public services sector. What will be the expected effects? With regard the labour force that will move from one sector to another, this does not happen in practice! Workers find themselves without jobs and need to look for a job elsewhere in Europe. They often face that migration is more and more secured in the EU and these workers thus fall in no man’s land. So we hope that the DCFTA will include a clause on migration and how to make it easier. Q: Regarding the leather sector that Ecorys presented, is it the industrial sector or handicraft art? Because if you refer to industrial leather production, then we surely have a lot of skilled labour in the sector (contrary to what you say). If the sector is really going to decline as you presented it, we will have a huge problem in Morocco as the leather sector is the eight biggest sector in Morocco.

Ecorys responds to the questions: - First, as mentioned the model does not predict any rise or decline in employment. We assume full employment, which is equal to 4% unemployment overtime. We only refer to people moving from one sector to another within Morocco (labour mobility). Sectors that gain will logically also attract workers due to higher wages. This does not mean that employment will grow or decline as a result of the DCFTA, it is just that the model does not predict that. On the contrary, we actually expect that overall employment will increase because economic activity will increase (GDP will increase by 1.6%). As a result, we can expect employment to grow. - Regarding the question on leather, the sector indeed includes the industrial sector, ie. tanning and dressing of leather, luggage and handbag products, perhaps very little on handicraft. However, regarding the labour skill question it is good to understand that ‘unskilled workers’ does not mean that they do not have any skills. It only means that they have less education/skills than high skilled workers. Unskilled workers often have had special trainings on operating machinery etc.. - As mentioned before, the model indeed only looks at the current DCFTA and not at other agreements. However, all agreements that Morocco has currently concluded are included in the model in the sense that the global dataset that is used for the analysis is based on 2011 data. These data thus reflect trade flows that have (or have not) been affected by

130


trade agreements with Morocco.. Even the recent October 2012 agreement has been included by Ecorys. . - Lastly, the economic model does not give any prediction for what will happen with migration. However, your points on the expected changes in migration are noted, are important and will be further analysed in the study.. - Regarding the assumptions of the model, the dynamic CGE model that is used takes as a starting point international trade, which arises due to comparative advantages. The main question here is how productive Morocco is in certain sector compared to the EU and others in this sector? It takes this productivity and removes barriers to trade, the model will simulate what happens when these sectors are opened up to international competition. The most productive sectors will only be able to expand more (due to lower trade costs), but the less productive sectors will face increased competition.

Q: How we can use a model that does not take into account job creation or destruction? This should be the first criteria that should be analysed. The social implications from job creation or generation are nowadays most important! Secondly, there are some missing elements that weaken the model. The model, for example, ignores jobs creation and leaves out entire industrial sectors. Lastly, it does not take into account other policies that Morocco is putting in place, so how can we use these results and put them in the hands of the negotiators?

Ecorys: The model that has been used in the study has continuously improved over all TSIAs conducted and is currently one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated trade models to use. The concerns you address have all to do with conscious choices. - First, some assumptions need to be made in order to make results meaningful. The full employment assumption is merely a choice that has been discussed with the European Commission. We have the choice to let either wages or employment adjust. In this case, we choose for wages for a variety of reasons. Thus, this does not mean that there will be no increase in employment. We have taken your point on interest in employment figures with great interest and will take this into consideration during the next phase of the study. - Secondly, as mentioned before, we have not omitted any economic sector from the model, but have chosen not to present them all in today’s presentation. This would make the presentation unclear. We invite you to read the interim report to analyse the results more closely. - Lastly, the study only looks at the sole impact of the DCFTA on the Moroccan and European respective economy. This is the objective of the study. The model is robust to any changes in domestic policies as the model predicts the effect of the DCFTA in addition to these domestic policies. If other agreements or policies will be implemented, then only the baseline situation for Morocco will change. The additional gains for Morocco of the DCFTA will still be 1.6%.

Main findings Interim Report-II: Additional social and human rights analysis The Ecorys team presents the main findings from the additional social and human rights analysis based on the information in the presentation slides. The input from civil society on this topic is asked and discussed based on the following comments and contributions made by the participants. Questions and answers on ‘main findings interim report-II – Social and HR issues’ session Participant’s comments and contributions The discussion on labour rights in Morocco is a fragmented issue as we have varying opposing views in the country. However, for me, the fact that only 30% of the labour force benefits from social protection (which is especially low in the agriculture sector) – which is thus also an indication of the high informal employment present in Morocco – is clearly an issue and a need to be addressed. The Labour Rights Charter has not yet been adopted. In the call centres for instance,

131


there is no possibility to have a labour organisation or trade unions thus labour situations might be bad sometimes. The project team should be attentive to the potential impact of the DCFTA on this social issue. Also, I would like to add that dire social protection situation is especially pressing for the vulnerable layers of society. As such, I think it is important for Morocco to comply with the different worker’s rights stipulated by the ILO. Regarding the gender equality pillar that you discussed, I can say that there has not been much progress in Morocco yet and I think we will need to work more on this issue. The previous open policies introduced a lot of flexibility with positive but more negative effects. The process of deindustrialisation is happening while employment was tightly linked to specific industrial sectors. Attention should be paid to jobs destruction and to jobs creation in the informal sector. In my opinion, the issue of employment is the most important one for the social dimension of the study. For example in the agricultural sector, some 70% of employment is informal. Of course, the issue of informal unemployment is a precarious issue but the type of employment that is involved in sectors affected by the DCFTA is important Referring back to the gender equality issue, the study suggests that the DCFTA might significantly impact gender equality in the sense that some sectors that employ relatively more women, might also be particularly affected (such as the textiles industry). In addition, unemployment seems to be increasing recently and particularly women seem to be affected. In combination with the fact that social security is a problem, there might be some important effects. Ecorys regards the comments made as very valuable information and thanks the participants for this important input. Main findings Interim Report-III: Additional environmental analysis The Ecorys team presents the quantitative and the qualitative results from the additional environmental analysis. After presenting the preliminary findings from the report, Mr. Chakri from the Groupe Du Travail / WWF is given the floor for his presentation (See Annex 2 of this document). Here below are summarised the most important environmental issues currently faced by Morocco. Guest speaker 1: Mr. Chakri (WWF) • The environmental capital is becoming more and more important in Morocco. Some 2.3 million

tonnes of CO2 are emitted in Morocco per year and per capita. • Crucial for the environmental issues in Morocco is that 95% of Morocco’s energy needs has to

be imported from abroad. The energy requirements from Morocco are often at the centre of the policy and business processes and as a result these also receive our attention nowadays.

• The most pressing question is whether the environment will block Morocco’s development. Morocco has an important environmental capital, which is the basis of all social and economic development. If Morocco loses its environmental capital, the other aspects will be lost as well. According to the World Bank the current costs for environment degradation amounts to 3.7% of the GDP.

• Morocco faces challenges in the environmental sphere. The most important are: - The creation of a green justice: environmental conservation cannot be made without a legal

framework that guides and preserves this environment. The next problem is that there are no instruments to enforce the law and thus implementation is often problematic. The related difficulty is that we need to make investors understand that they need to respect

132


environmental laws. Morocco has some important natural resources, but the environmental pressures should not be forgotten.

- The involvement of civil society: consultations with government are often too limited in space and time.

- Good governance, through territorial councils and elected representatives: local and regional committees need to follow the state of the environment.

- Education and training are of utmost importance to Moroccan development. The King sent a personal message for education on environmental issues to be implemented by the civil society.

- Our scientific research base has to be strengthened; we need to better understand certain issues in order to make evidence-based policy.

- Elaborate an environmental taxation built around the polluter-payer principle. The main challenge would be how to tackle this issue best.

- International cooperation for sustainable development and for respect of the environment is needed.

• In conclusion: the environment is an unknown capital. It is therefore important to have an integrated approach where environment is not a luxury but an axis for development. How to reconcile environment conservation and real development? Not a development that consumes resources but a sustainable development? These are the crucial questions that Morocco needs to tackle.

Q: A question related to Ecorys presentation was asked as follows: Does Ecorys think that climate change in the future will increase? Ecorys namely presents in their model that climate change will be reduced. However, in 15-20 years’ time the climate change situation might have worsened significantly globally and in Morocco

Ecorys: We do not think that climate change will be reduced in the future. Our model does not make any predictions concerning the overall development of climate change in the future. However, what our model does predict is that purely negotiating a DCFTA between Morocco and the EU is likely to make a positive contribution to climate change (overall emissions of all air pollutants will decline). The overall climate change situation in Morocco and the world might worsen in the next 20 years, but we predict that the DCFTA will make a positive contribution to this trend in the sense that the DCFTA is likely to reduce net emissions. An interesting debate followed a question asked by the team concerning the most relevant environmental challenges in Morocco in light of the opportunities posed by the DCFTA.

Comment: In our view, common interest is key here. Morocco is always losing when it comes to environment. We cannot quantify the exact costs of these losses, but it is of major concern because we will lose our environmental assets. We will then lose all economic resources for development. Laws are violated because of the fear of poverty. What can we do to make Morocco preserve its environment, without being afraid for a loss of social and economic benefits? At the moment, the priority for Moroccans is to find a job and food, even when this comes at the expense of the environment. How can we accompany Morocco to make environmental issues a national priority? These are very important questions for us, but, currently, we do not feel a strong will in favour of environmental protection and conservation. Comment: In our view, the fundamental element is the legal and normative side of the environmental development and pressures. It is important to first get these aspects agreed on at the national level. As such environmental issues should be included in all concluded clauses; it should also be taken into account in all the negotiations.

133


The impact of the DCFTA on specific sectors In this part of the workshop, Ecorys invited guest speakers to present on the structure and (trade) issues at play in selected sectors. After the presentations of the sectors, a discussion was held and moderated by Ecorys on the barriers and opportunities of the DCFTA for these and other specific sectors. Guest speaker 2: Fruits and Vegetables (Mr. Layachi Najib Fiffel) • The fruits and vegetables sector in Morocco both produces final products and products as input

to the food processing industry. The industry can thus be thought of as a line of business. • In the fresh fruits and vegetables sector, some 500.000 people are directly employed and some

3.000.000 Moroccans are indirectly employed by this sector. • In the entire sector, we produce some 10 million tonnes of products: 7 million tonnes of

vegetables and 3 million tonnes of fruits. Fruits can often be conserved longer. • Morocco exports around 10 to 12 percent of its entire production: in total around 1,2 million

tonnes. The local market consumes the remainder of the products. - From the 1.2 million of export products, some 75% of the total goes to the EU. However, the

trend is towards an ever lower share of the European Union in total exports. We notice that other markets in the world are paying higher prices with less restrictive conditions (e.g. Russia).

- We strongly doubt whether DCFTA will change anything to these trends and situation. We sincerely hope, however, that the DCFTA will strengthen the export potential of Moroccan producers in Europe.

• Moreover, sometimes the local market is more interesting (due to higher prices and the impact of Green Morocco Plan). The purchasing power in Morocco is rising and the dietary habits are changing also towards eating more fresh fruits and vegetables. Thus, the local potential is large.

• The impact of the DCFTA might be biased towards larger companies as they have the knowledge and the information of what standards to adhere to and how to meet these standards. In this respect, there is a danger for small farmers because they are not aware of related rules and standards; they could become employees instead of entrepreneurs.

• The standards in Morocco are not the same as the standards in Europe. Thus, the regulatory approximations will cost time and money. Who will support the implementation of this process? During this transition period, we fear that Morocco will become a dumpsite for European products with lower costs of production due to significant economies of scale in Southern Mediterranean countries. It should be also noted that apples and bananas not produced in Europe but passing through Europe are a threat to domestic competition.

• We notice a trend that the EU market is increasingly closing its market. Several barriers still exist, such as entry prices, standards and regulations that need to be dealt with. We do not expect the DCFTA to improve this situation. Europeans should be aware that there should be a transition period and costs.

• Thus, we need the European Commission help during this transition period. In addition, the sensitive products that are left out in the October 2012 agreement are for us exactly the high potential products! Particular attention should be paid to that too.

Guest speaker 3: Leather goods (Mr. Mohamed Amaiz) • The leather sector is the 8th largest sector in terms of value added production in Morocco and

therefore a crucial sector to the economy. • Some 350 businesses are actives in the sector and the sector employs some 300.000 people

(also informally). In terms of type of business, the transformation of leather is not an important line of business in Morocco.

134


• The leather sector does not face stringent environmental pressures. Waste is the biggest challenge, but overall the leather sector is not a big polluter. The total wastes are actively managed; there is e.g. a project in an industrial zone in the Fes region with a water treatment plant.

• In terms of export products, we mainly export shoes which represent some 50-70 per cent of total exports.

• The competitive advantages of the sector are: its geographical situation (close to the EU), raw material quality, work force quality (skilled workers) and adherence to sector standards.. Lastly, this sector benefits strongly from ancient know-how, a traditionally strong sector. Many international well-known brands select Morocco as their production destination. Thus, the sector is attractive for investors.

• In terms of main export markets, these are Italy(27%), France(26%), Spain(14%), Turkey (10%) , China and others(23% )).

• Help and assistance are needed after the DCFTA to help very small enterprises to also benefit from standards alignment and reap the benefits of the DCFTA.

• In conclusion: the leather sector is a sector with high growth potential, with a strong and skilled labour force. However, the predicted decline in the sector is worrying; how can these skilled workers move to other sectors? This will not work. In general, the sector does not face many export barriers or does not face problems with standards. The main problem faced by the sector is the financial crisis. Lastly, the potential of the sector is evidenced by the creation of own Moroccan brands such as Benson or Rêve d’un jour.

Discussion Ms. Marie-José Char thanks the sector specific speakers on Fruits and Vegetables for their high-quality interventions and opens the floor for questions. Question from Ecorys: Mr. Layachi Najib Fiffel mentioned that the price of exported products is often lower abroad than the price of the same final products in Morocco. Could you explain this difference?

Answer: Yes, take for example citrus fruits, which are historically produced in large quantities. Oranges then at some point lost their preference to « easy peelers » (e.g. clementine). Some countries, including Morocco started to give up on orange production, focusing on the more profitable products that international consumers were asking for. As a result, today we have a situation whereby oranges have a local demand that is nearly higher than the supply of oranges, which results in high prices. On the international market, the situation is different as some countries such as for instance Egypt, which is an important competitor for oranges, chose to focus on oranges; this explains the fact that international prices for oranges are lower than local prices sometimes.

Sector and horizontal issues selection / Q & A and round table Ecorys continues by hosting a question and answer session and round table in order to gauge the opinions of the civil society representatives on the choice of sectors and/or horizontal issues. Members of the civil society are asked to give their ideas and opinions for the selection of sectors and/or issues that should receive more attention in the second phase of the study: • One issue that was specifically mentioned was the social effects of the DCFTA on the informal

sector should be taken into effect as a large number of firms operate in the informal sector (See above, the social section of the study, for more details).

• A part the fruit & vegetables and the textile & leather sectors, services in general, and the tourism sector in particular are brought forward. The tourism sector should receive a closer look in the next phase of the study as this is an important sector In Morocco and it has a close

135


relation with development and environment. Environmental pressures (such as swimming pools that contain increasingly polluted water) play an important roleThis, among others, raises the concern that economic growth should not come at the expense of the environment.

• Environmental issues need to be targeted in the study as they are likely to receive important impacts from the DCFTA. The WWF/Groupe du Travail mentions that from the environmental issues, water pollution and scarcity is a cross-cutting issue that needs to be looked at in more details. Secondly, energy as input to production processes is a sensitive issue as Morocco is very dependent on imports (more than 95% of energy consumption is imported). The DCFTA might influence this trend. Lastly, climate change as overall topic remains important and the study should be extended to include a more systematic analysis of climate change.

• According to one participant, the transfer of technology is one of the important impacts of the DCFTA that needs to be included in the report as a dimension of analysis. The improved trade climate needs to be promoted as a two-way trade deal as Morocco definitely has specialisations too. Thus, the transfer of technology and knowledge is mutually beneficial.

• One particular concern raised by a participant is their worry that the leather industry does not respect international environmental standards. It is a costly and long process to decontaminate the waste that the sector is producing. In the DCFTA framework, it is thus necessary to take into account the heterogeneity of the companies, such as the large number of very small companies in the leather sector that might not adhere to international standards.

• Lastly, the importance of the commitments on human rights is an aspect that surely should be paid particular attention to. - Ecorys values the comments made during the round table and will take them into account in

the analysis and study. Wrap up and conclusions The discussion during the workshop on the trade impact assessment of the DCFTA between the EU and Morocco is summarised and concluded by Ms Marie-José Char. She thanks all participants for their input and for the fruitful and insightful discussions. She values the quality of the contributions and invites all stakeholders to continue to provide inputs through www.trade-sia.com/morocco, [email protected] and the Facebook page.

Workshop presentation slides Ecorys (in French)

The Ecorys workshop presentation slides are accessible via the following link.

136


http://www.trade-sia.com/morocco

http://www.trade-sia.com/morocco


http://www.trade-sia.com/morocco/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/07/Workshop-Presentation_small.pdf

Presentation slides - Les défis de l’environnement au Maroc, Mr. Chakri Said, WWF/Groupe de travail

The presentation slides from guest speaker Mr. Said are accessible via the following link.

137


http://www.trade-sia.com/morocco/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/07/Workshop-Presentation_small.pdf

P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Watermanweg 44

3067 GG Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68

E [email protected]

W www.ecorys.nl

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – HUNGARY – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SOUTH AFRICA – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM