Janaka Wijayasiri
Shihana Samad
Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka
1


Identify non-reciprocal preference programmes of major developed countries and assess their importance to SA

Identify countries in SA vulnerable to preference erosion

Summarise results of various simulation exercises in which the impact of preference erosion has been estimated

Discuss possible solutions (trade and non-trade related) to the problem
2


Define what is meant by preference erosion

Background to the problem of preference erosion

Overview of GSP schemes, namely EU and US GSP schemes and assess their importance to SA

Indicators to assess vulnerability to preference erosion

Assess SAs vulnerability to preference erosion in EU and US and sectors/products using a set of indicators

Overview of measures to address preference erosion
3

Refers to a decline in competitive advantage that preferential beneficiaries enjoy in foreign markets as a result of loss of preferential trade treatment…this can happen when preferences granting countries:
1) eliminate preferences
2) expand the no. of preference beneficiaries
3) lower their Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff without proportionately lowering their preferential tariffs
4


Erosion of preference is an important issue in efforts to negotiate a multilateral trade round

Tariff reductions under agriculture and NAMA negotiations are expected to lead to lowering of MFN tariffs…adversely affecting beneficiaries of preferential arrangements

In HK Ministerial Declaration preference erosion was identified as an issue that needs to be addressed on a priority basis
5


Preference erosion has become a divisive issue among developing countries in the WTO - between those who are beneficiaries of preferential treatment
(ie) LDCs, ACP group and those who have less preferential access to markets abroad

Currently most developing countries enjoy preferential access to markets in industrialised countries under the various non-reciprocal trade preference schemes, namely the Generalised System of Preference (GSP) scheme

Preferential schemes have had beneficial effects (investment, job creation, poverty reduction) but they can also have perverse effects and suffer from a number of shortcomings

… but they remain valuable for recipient countries

Preference erosion is not a new concern…
6


but it has become a sensitive issue following the granting of duty free and quota free market access by industrialised countries under schemes such as EBA, AGOA, etc

Canada, EU, NZ, Norway, Switzerland grant duty free and quota free mkt access to almost all products from LDCs

Japan offers duty free access to about 63% of imports

US offers duty free access for all products from some LDCs from
Africa and Caribbean under AGOA and CBI

A number proposals have been submitted to address the issue – one being Aid for Trade (A4T)
7


In 1968, UNCTAD recommended the setting up of a ‘Generalised
System of Tariff Preferences’ (GSP)

Overall objectives were to



Increase export earnings of developing countries
Promote industrialisation
Accelerate economic growth

Basic principles:



Generality – common scheme to be applied by all preference giving countries
Non-discrimination – all developing countries should be covered and treated equally
Non-reciprocity – beneficiaries do not have to make corresponding concessions
8







Covers 178 countries
Most generous of all GSP schemes in place
First to implement a GSP scheme in 1971
Implemented for a ten year period, with the most recent being adopted in
June 2005 and implemented on 01/01/06
Objectives: max. benefits to the most disadvantaged countries and provide a clearer graduation mechanism
3 types of arrangements:
1) General scheme for all developing countries (IN, PK)
duty free for 3300 non-sensitive products
- duty reduction of 3.5 percentage points from MFN rate for 3900 sensitive products
- textile and textile articles 20 percent duty reduction rate
2) GSP-plus scheme (SL)
- duty free for 7200 products
3) Everything but Arms (EBA) for LDCs (BG, NP)
- duty free for 9800 products
9


First implemented in 1976 under the Trade Act of 1974

Been in operation initially for two 10 year periods and thereafter renewed every one or two years, with the most recent renewal in
2002 under the Trade Act of 2002

139 countries are eligible for GSP benefits (98 developing countries,
41 LDCs)

Approx. 4,600 articles are eligible for duty-free treatment, and in
1997, LDCs became eligible for an additional 1,783 articles

Products excluded: textiles, watches, footwear, handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, other leather apparel and import sensitive articles (steel, glass, electronic equipment)
10

South Asia’s exports to the world and the QUAD, 2004
Country
Total exports
% to
US
% to
EU
Bangladesh 5,796,910 25.63
58.38
India
Nepal
79,846,398
658,942
16.51
23.70
20.85
19.19
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
13,379,015 23.34
29.33
5,485,135 34.03
31.59
% to
Japan
1.02
2.51
1.15
1.20
2.82
% to
Canada
3.51
0.22
1.72
1.33
1.31
% to
QUAD
88.54
40.09
45.75
55.19
69.76
11

Imports into the US (% of total imports), HS section-wise, 2004
12
13
14
15
16
07
08
09
10
11
17
18
19
20
21
04
05
06
Code Description
01
02
03
Live animals & products
Vegetable products
Fats and oils
Prepared foodstuffs,beverages,etc.
Mineral products
Chemical products
Plastics & rubber
Hides and skins, leather, etc.
Wood & articles of wood
Pulp of wood, paper, books, etc.
Textile & textile articles
Footwear, headgear, umbrellas,etc.
Articles of stone, cement, etc.
Precious stones, etc
Base metals & products
Machinery & electrical equipment
Transport equipment
Optical & precision instruments
Arms and ammunition
Miscellaneous manufact. articles
Works of art, etc
4.74
0.15
0
0.01
0.02
0.32
0.08
0.02
0
86.43
0
0.01
0.24
0
0.03
BG
7.3
0.02
0
0.23
0.01
0.38
0.12
0.39
0.55
0.88
0.19
0.13
3.01
0.03
0.05
88.89
0.06
1.15
0.19
2.68
0.08
PK
0.1
1.05
0
0.42
0.01
0.02
0.42
0.02
1.76
0.32
0.36
0.21
0.49
0.13
0.6
93.42
N/A
0.06
0.01
0.25
1.19
NP
N/A
0.13
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.86
2.23
27.8
9.61
6.56
1.84
1.72
0.28
0.29
25.73
2.12
1.03
0.02
2.4
0.13
IN
2.53
3.69
0.61
0.93
1.87
6.99
0.98
0.77
2.75
0.09
1.37
7.41
0.27
0.21
0.02
81.69
0.05
0.05
0
0.9
0.01
SL
0.9
1.3
0
0.1
0.08
0.55
12

Imports into the EU (% of total imports), HS section-wise, 2004
12
13
14
15
16
07
08
09
10
11
17
18
19
20
21
04
05
06
Code Description
01
02
03
Live animals & products
Vegetable products
Fats and oils
Prepared foodstuffs,beverages,etc.
Mineral products
Chemical products
Plastics & rubber
Hides and skins, leather, etc.
Wood & articles of wood
Pulp of wood, paper, books, etc.
Textile & textile articles
Footwear, headgear, umbrellas,etc.
Articles of stone, cement, etc.
Precious stones, etc
Base metals & products
Machinery & electrical equipment
Transport equipment
Optical & precision instruments
Arms and ammunition
Miscellaneous manufact. articles
Works of art, etc
1.45
0.4
0
0.06
0.07
0.13
1.37
0.05
0.02
91.42
0.41
0.02
N/A
0.07
0
BG
3.65
0.28
0
0.33
0
0.26
4.41
1.82
10.79
9.08
8.78
2.15
5.2
0.34
0.47
28.04
3.8
0.76
0.02
2.45
0.01
IN
2.23
4.66
0.93
0.91
4.27
8.9
1.21
1.12
11.88
0.65
3.73
11.37
0.83
0.5
0.76
52.33
1.15
0.52
N/A
2.37
0.01
SL
1.9
6.31
0.01
2.79
0.2
0.36
1.2
0.19
0.39
1.19
0.9
2.19
8.85
0.02
0.06
71.47
0.15
1.45
0.01
4.17
0.01
PK
1.43
2.51
0
3.43
0.18
0.19
1.23
0.24
2.5
0.91
1.48
0.03
2.54
0.32
3.22
80.49
0.01
0.29
0
0.5
0.29
NP
0.06
0.43
0
5.05
0.01
0.42
13

Market access to the US (by tariff lines)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MFN duty free access Duty free preference No preferential access
14

Market access to the EU (by tariff lines)
15


Product coverage = value of imports eligible for preferences value of dutiable imports

Utilization rate = value of imports receiving pref. treat.
value of imports eligible for preferences

Utility rate = value of imports receiving pref. treatment value of dutiable imports

Beneficiaries/sectors with high utilisation & utility rates are more vulnerable to preference erosion and vice versa
16

EU received imports from South Asia worth some USD 30 bn in 2004 of which 14bn of imports entered under the GSP scheme
Nepal
1%
Pakistan
16%
Sri Lanka
4%
India
57%
Bangladesh
22%
17

Coverage, utilisation & utility rates for South Asia under EU GSP scheme, 2004
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bangladesh India Pakistan Nepal Sri Lanka South Asia
Potential Coverage Rate Utilization Rate Utility Rate
18

Vulnerability of South Asia to preference Erosion in the EU
(country-wise)
100
50
0
0
High vulnerablity
Bangladesh
Nepal
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Low vulnerablity
50
Utilisation
100
19

Sectors vulnerable to preference erosion* under the EU GSP scheme, 2004
Description
01 Live animals & products
02 Vegetable products
03 Fats and oils
04 Prepared foodstuffs, beverages, etc.
05 Mineral products
06 Chemical products
07 Plastics & rubber
08 Hides and skins, leather, etc.
BG
X
X
X
X
X
X
09
Wood & articles of wood
10 Pulp of wood, paper, books, etc.
11 Textile & textile articles
12 Footwear, headgear, umbrellas,etc.
X
X
13 Articles of stone, cement, etc.
14 Precious stones, etc
15 Base metals & products
16 Machinery & electrical equipment
17 Transport equipment
X
18 Optical & precision instruments
19 Arms and ammunition
20 Miscellaneous manufact. Articles
X
X
21 Works of art, etc
Note: * Utilisation and utility rates over 60 percent
X account for 5 percent or more of total exports
IN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20

In 2004, US imported goods worth approx. US$ 24 billion, of which only US$3bn were imported under GSP scheme
Pakistan
3%
Nepal
0.1
Sri Lanka
4% Bangladesh
1%
India
92%
21

Coverage, utilisation & utility rates for South Asia under US GSP scheme, 2004
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bangladesh India
Potential Coverage Rate
Pakistan Nepal Sri Lanka
Utilization Rate
South Asia
Utility Rate
22

Vulnerability of South Asia to preference Erosion in the US
(country-wise)
100
High vulnerablity
50
0
0
India
Low vulnerablity
50
Utilization
Nepal Bangladesh Sri Lanka
Pakistan
100
23

Sectors vulnerable to preference erosion* under the US GSP scheme, 2004
NP PK Description
01 Live animals & products
02 Vegetable products
03 Fats and oils
04 Prepared foodstuffs, beverages, etc.
05 Mineral products
06 Chemical products
07 Plastics & rubber
08 Hides and skins, leather, etc.
09 Wood & articles of wood
10 Pulp of wood, paper, books, etc.
11 Textile & textile articles
12 Footwear, headgear, umbrellas,etc.
BG
X
X
X
X
13
Articles of stone, cement, etc.
14 Precious stones, etc
15 Base metals & products
16 Machinery & electrical equipment
X
X
17 Transport equipment
18 Optical & precision instruments
19 Arms and ammunition
X
20 Miscellaneous manufact. Articles X
21 Works of art, etc
Note: *
Utilisation and utility rates over 60 percent
X account for 5 percent or more of total exports
IN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
24


Reduction in tariff rates by US is unlikely to lead to a significant erosion of preferences for South Asia due to limited coverage of products of export interest … some sectors are vulnerable but they do not account for significant share of exports except for a few important sectors in IN and SL

Tariff reductions by the US are most likely to result in gains for South Asia in the form of lower tariffs for its major exports sector (ie) textile and textile articles, which are not covered under US scheme

Compared to the US, the EU scheme is more generous in providing market access to countries in the region

…. SA is likely to be more exposed to preference erosion in the EU than in the US….
25




26




Increase preference utilisation



Extend product coverage of preferential schemes
Extend preferences in other markets
Protect preference dependent countries
27


Number of factors affecting utilisation of trade preferences:





 lack of security of access insufficient coverage lack of understanding/awareness of preferences available lack of capacity to supply non-trade related conditions stringent rules of origin (RoO)

Measures to improve utilization of preferences :




 relax RoO increase predictability of preferential trade arrangements. harmonizationise requirements of various preferential schemes improve understanding/awareness of the preferences available address supply side capacity constraints
28


Negative consequences of preference erosion could be partially addressed through efforts to provide duty free and quota free market access to products of interests to
LDCs

There are number of ‘sensitive’ products of interest to LDCs such as textiles and clothing and agricultural products that still attract relatively high tariffs and currently are partially or not covered by preference schemes

In the case of the US, there is still great scope to extend duty free treatment to BG and NP - about 27 percent of the tariff lines do not receive any preferential treatment… but the prospects of this happening is unlikely

The scope to extend similar treatment in the EU is very limited as it already extends duty free and quota free market access to both BG and NP under EBA initiative

Extend scope of preferences beyond trade in goods to services (ie) mode 4 which will have larger positive effects than preferences for goods
29


Part of a solution to preference erosion from MFN liberalization could be addressed by obtaining preferential treatment in other markets (ie) Southsouth trade

In the case of Bangladesh, this is not promising with over 80 percent of exports directed to the QUAD countries and to a lesser degree in the case of Sri Lanka (70 percent)

In the case of India, Nepal(?) and Pakistan, a substantial of portion of their exports goes to countries other than the QUAD, so there is a possibility of addressing the problem by entering into preferential agreements with these countries or strengthening existing ones

Possibility of addressing the problem within the region remains doubtful given the past track record
30


Delaying liberalization of sensitive sectors and accelerating liberalization of goods that beneficiary countries of preferential arrangements have a comparative advantage

No convergence on this issue…countries which are non-beneficiary of nonpreferential agreements, having graduated from these schemes are unlikely to support such a move

… and it will involve a substantial welfare loss from a global perspective

A more pragmatic solution woul address the problem of preference erosion while adhering to the overall purpose of trade round – that is to liberalize trade by bringing down trade barriers…

… which seems to be offered under A4T
31


Not a new concept… but became a part of international discourse only in
2005

A4T was officially put on the WTO agenda at HK ministerial in Dec. 2005:
... Aid for Trade should aim to help developing countries, particularly need to assist them to implement and benefit from WTO agreements and more broadly to expand their trade…’
’
LDCs to build supply capacity and trade-related infrastructure that they

In showing their support for A4T, the EU, Japan and the US all announced increases in resources for A4T prior to and at and after Hong Kong
32







Trade policy and regulations - to help countries negotiate, reform and prepare for closer integration in multilateral trading system
Trade development - to help enterprises engage in trade, reinforce business support structures and develop the business climate
Infrastructure - trade related infrastructure such as transport, communications, energy.
Building productive capacity – improve capacity of a country to produce goods and services
Trade related adjustment
Other trade related needs
33


Significant scaling up of trade-related technical assistance and capacity building to developing countries since 2001

Volume of trade related commitments for
and
rose by 50 percent during 2001-2004 to reach USD3bn in 2004

In 2004, about 4.4 percent of total worldwide aid budget was devoted to trade-capacity building, with infrastructure accounting for a 25 percent share.
34

Trade policy & regulation, USD mn
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Oceania
Global programmes
Europe
South Asia
Asia*
America
Africa
2001 2002 2003 2004
- Assistance to South Asia has fallen in absolute and relative terms between 2001-2004
- Assistance to South Asia in 2004 amounted to USD 22mn
35

12%
0%
14%
Trade policy & regulations, South Asia, 2001-2004
20%
4%
50%
Trade mainstreaming
Technical standards
Trade facilitation
RTAs
Multilateral trade negotiaions and agreements
Trade education/training
Trade policy & regulations, 2001-2004
Sri Lanka
9%
Pakistan
12%
Nepal
1%
Bangladesh
38%
India
40%
36

Trade development, USD Mn
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Oceania
Global programmes
Europe
South Asia
Asia
America
Africa
2001 2002 2003 2004
- Assistance to South Asia has fallen in absolute and relative terms between 2001-2004
- Assistance to South Asia in 2004 amounted to USD 39mn
37

24%
Trade development, South Asia, 2001-2004
7%
16%
6%
1%
Business support services and institutions
Public-private sector netw orking
E-commerce
Trade finance
46%
Trade promotion strategy and implementation
Market analysis and development
Trade development, 2001-2004
Sri Lanka
9%
Pakistan
30%
Nepal
4%
Bangladesh
21%
India
36%
38

Infrastructure, USD Mn.
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Oceania
Global programmes
Europe
South Asia
Asia*
America
Africa
2001 2002 2003 2004
- Assistance to South Asia has increased in absolute and relative terms between 2001-04
- Assistance to South Asia in 2004 amounted to USD 1.8bn
39

Infrastructure, South Asia, 2001-2004
44%
54%
2%
Infrastructure, 2001-2004
Sri Lanka
17%
Pakistan
6%
Nepal
4%
Bangladesh
22%
India
51%
Transport & Storage
Communications
Energy
40


A4T (in a narrow sense) is currently delivered through:

Bilateral donor programmes

Multilateral/multi-donor funded programmes


Individual international organisation programmes
Regional organisations and regional financial institutions

Determining effectiveness and impact of trade related assistance is difficult … but where it was possible, the impact was mixed
41


Identified shortcomings of existing trade related assistance:






Unsystematic/incomplete needs assessment
Weak project management
Fragmented trade related assistance with insufficient links to broader development assistance programmes
Weak linkages to poverty reduction
Insufficient donor coordination
Inadequate internal communications and donor expertise on trade related matters

Will A4T be additional, adequate, predictable, recipient driven, coherent, free of conditions?
42


Some form of trade and aid based solutions to the problem…

Trade solutions would address the problem in the short run by providing foot hold in markets abroad before multilateral tariff liberalisation is complete

…while aid solution (A4T) would provide a long term solution to the problem if delivered effectively

Aid solution is considered a better approach to deal with preference erosion than any trade based solutions, as it does not further discriminate countries within the multilateral system (and thus welfare reducing)… but the record on trade related assistance has been mixed so far…
43