Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: Caribbean Basin Initiative

  • US Request for CBERA Waiver Extension Approved by WTO General Council

    US Request for CBERA Waiver Extension Approved by WTO General Council

    Alicia Nicholls

    The World Trade Organization (WTO)’s General Council on October 16, 2019 approved the request by the United States (US) for a further extension of the waiver for the trade preferences it extends to certain Caribbean countries pursuant to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) of 1983 and its subsequent amendments.

    The CBERA is a major legislative component of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, a unilateral preferential programme operated by the US since the 1980s which extends duty-free treatment for most goods from beneficiary countries entering the US with the view to promoting economic development in the beneficiary countries. The programme is non-reciprocal as these countries are not required to extend similar treatment to US goods.

    Initially, the programme also included the Dominican Republic and several Central American countries as well, but these ceased being beneficiaries after entering into free trade agreements (FTAs) with the US.

    Seventeen Caribbean countries and territories currently benefit from the programme. These are: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and the British Virgin Islands. Haiti also enjoys additional benefits under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006, the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008, and the Haitian Economic Lift Program Act of 2010.

    Because the US only extends this preferential treatment to a select group of countries, the programme would be in violation of the non-discrimination principles undergirding the WTO, most specifically, paragraph 1 of Article I of the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which speaks to Most Favoured Nation treatment. The US has, therefore, had to request waivers of its obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 in order to maintain the programme.

    The US first obtained a waiver under the GATT (precursor to the WTO) in 1985 and obtained subsequent waivers under the WTO. The previous waiver decision of May 5 2015 would have expired on December 31, 2019 . The current WTO waiver decision extends the waiver until September 2025.

    In the preamble to its decision, the General Council listed several factors it took into consideration. Among these were:

    • the exceptional situation of the CBERA and CBTPA beneficiary countries, and the stated objective of the CBERA as amended to assist the trade and economic development and recovery of Caribbean Basin countries by encouraging the expansion of productive capacity in those countries in response to more liberal access and to new trading opportunities;
    • the preferential treatment provided under the CBERA as amended will not alter benefits provided under the US Generalized System of Preferences to other developing countries; that the duty-free treatment provided under CBERA should not prejudice the interests of other Members not benefiting from such treatment, and that it is expected that the extension of such duty-free treatment will not cause a significant diversion of United States imports of products eligible under CBERA originating in Members who are not beneficiary countries;
    • assurances given by the United States that it will promptly enter into consultations, on request, with any interested Member with respect to any difficulty or matter that may arise as a result of the preferential treatment provided under the CBERA as amended.

    Under the waiver, the US is required to submit to the General Council an annual report on the implementation of the trade-related provisions of the CBERA with a view to facilitating the annual review provided for in paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO Agreement. It is also required to promptly notify the General Council of any trade-related measure taken under CBERA, in particular, any changes in the designation of beneficiary countries, as well as any modification being considered in the list of eligible products and the duty-free treatment provided. The US is also required to give the General Council all the information it may deem appropriate relating to such action. The United States is additionally required to consult with regard to any modification being considered in the list of eligible products

    In September, the US International Trade Commission recently released its biennial report on the programme’s operation. The report found that overall, the US’ total imports from CBERA countries grew from $5.8 billion in 2017 to $6.1 billion in 2018. This translates to an increase of 4.7 percent. Turning specifically to US imports under the CBERA programme, those grew from $1.5 billion in 2017 to $1.7 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.1 percent. US imports under CBERA accounted for 27.8 percent of all imports from CBERA beneficiaries.

    The waiver decision may be found on the WTO’s document’s portal.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.

  • US imports from Caribbean Basin Initiative beneficiaries grew in 2018

    US imports from Caribbean Basin Initiative beneficiaries grew in 2018

    The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has released its twenty-fourth biennial report entitled “Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on US Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries“.

    Seventeen Caribbean countries and territories currently benefit from duty-free access to the US market for many of their goods under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), one of the major pieces of legislation under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

    The 150-page report dated September 2019 covers the period 2017-2018, but focuses mainly on data and developments from 2018.

    Below are some of the key findings from the report:

    The report found that overall, the US’ total imports from CBERA countries grew from $5.8 billion in 2017 to $6.1 billion in 2018. This translates to an increase of 4.7 percent. Turning specifically to US imports under the CBERA programme, those grew from $1.5 billion in 2017 to $1.7 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.1 percent. US imports under CBERA accounted for 27.8 percent of all imports from CBERA beneficiaries.

    It should be noted, however, that these increases were primarily due to higher U.S. imports of methanol (mainly from Trinidad & Tobago) and of textiles and apparel (mainly from Haiti).

    The report found that the CBERA’s impact on the U.S. economy “generally was negligible in 2017–18 and is likely to remain so”. According to the report, this is primarily because U.S. imports under CBERA comprise just 0.07 percent of total U.S. imports from the world.

    By contrast, the report noted that CBERA “continues to have a positive impact on a number of Caribbean Basin countries”. It singles out in particular Haiti as the “the greatest beneficiary of CBERA trade preferences in recent years” due primarily to more flexible rules of origin for apparel that country enjoys compared to other beneficiaries.

    It also found that CBERA has encouraged the development of niche product manufacturing in several other countries. The examples of polystyrene from The Bahamas and fruit juice from Belize were cited.

    The full USITC report may be read here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.

  • Future CARICOM-US Trading Relations Beyond the Caribbean Basin Initiative

    Future CARICOM-US Trading Relations Beyond the Caribbean Basin Initiative

    Alicia Nicholls

    A bipartisan bill (HR 991) was recently introduced in the United States (US) House of Representatives proposing to extend the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), one of the key pieces of legislation comprising the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), to the year 2030. The benefits under the CBTPA are currently due to expire on September 30, 2020, unless extended by a subsequent Act of Congress.

    The CBI has generally been regarded by successive US administrations as being mutually beneficial to both the US and CBI beneficiary countries. However, the current US administration’s greater insistence on reciprocity in its dealings with external trading partners and the on-going re-examination of its current trading arrangements mean that the extension of the CBTPA should not be taken for granted as a fait accompli.

    While this article posits that CARICOM countries should indeed lobby for the CBTPA’s extension, it also proposes that, in the long-term, the region should think strategically beyond the CBI by considering a future CARICOM-US trading relationship which best enhances bilateral trade between the US and CARICOM to foster sustainable and inclusive development.

    The Status Quo: The Caribbean Basin Initiative

    Since 1983, preferential trade between CARICOM countries and the region’s largest trading partner, the US, has been governed largely by the CBI – a unilateral preference scheme of the US government which confers to eligible beneficiary countries non-reciprocal preferential access to the US market for a wide range of goods.

    The CBI was first announced by then US President Ronald Reagan during an address before the Organisation of American States (OAS) on February 24, 1982, to facilitate the economic development and export diversification of Caribbean Basin countries, while also advancing US strategic economic and geopolitical interests in its “backyard”.

    In 1983, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) was finally signed into law, coming into effect the following year. In 2000, after much lobbying by Caribbean countries, the CBTPA was passed and granted enhanced preferences for eligible textile and apparel from CBI countries on par with those enjoyed by Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While the CBERA was made permanent in 1990, the CBTPA is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2020.

    Seventeen Caribbean countries and territories are currently CBERA beneficiaries, while seven are eligible for the enhanced CBTPA preferences. Haiti also receives additional benefits for its apparel and textiles under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act of 2006, the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE II) Act of 2008, and the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP) Act of 2010, which are scheduled to expire in September 2025.

    Data in the United States Trade Representative’s Twelfth Report to Congress on the Operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (December 2017) illustrated that for the years 2012-2016, on average about half of US total imports from CBI countries entered the US market otherwise duty-free. This was followed by imports under CBI tariff preferences which accounted on average for less than a quarter of US total imports from CBI countries. Trinidad & Tobago, Haiti and Jamaica were the top three sources of total US imports from CBI countries.

    CBI: Possible Headwinds

    The USTR report noted a 24% decrease in US consumption imports from beneficiary countries in 2016 compared to 2015, and down 58% from 2006. This decline was attributed to lower petroleum prices and an increase in US domestic petroleum production. US imports from CBI countries declined from 0.5% of total US imports from the world in 2012 to 0.2% of total US imports from the world in 2016. Energy products accounted for 39.3% of US imports under CBI in 2016 and textiles and apparel (primarily Haitian apparel) accounted for 34.9%.

    In an article I wrote on this topic a couple of years ago, I outlined some of the structural deficiencies with the CBI as currently operated which I argued circumscribe its effectiveness at promoting economic development and diversification in beneficiary economies. One of those deficiencies is that the CBI preferences apply to goods only, which over time has arguably lessened its value given the increasing contribution of services trade to Caribbean economies.

    Besides the structural issues inherent in the CBI, its continuation faces some possible political headwinds. The CBERA’s incompatibility with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on non-discrimination and its ineligibility for the ‘enabling clause’ exception mean that the US must seek a waiver from the WTO which must be approved by WTO members. The US’ current WTO waiver for CBERA (inclusive of the CBPTA) is due to expire on December 31, 2019. Given this administration’s greater insistence on reciprocity with its trading partners, as articulated in the 2018 Trade Policy Agenda, it should not be taken for granted that the US will seek a new waiver for CBERA. Moreover, the strong opposition made by some developing WTO members the last time the US sought a waiver means that approval of yet another waiver by the WTO is also not a fait accompli.

    Additionally, the current mercantilist tenor of US trade policy has occasioned a greater insistence on reciprocity and enhanced scrutiny of its trade agreements with countries with which the US has a trade deficit. It is this policy shift which hastened the renegotiation of NAFTA and its renaming to the USMCA. While reports do not indicate that the CBI is under the microscope, the programme’s unilateral nature means that preferences thereunder may be unilaterally varied or ended at any time. This adds some uncertainty for Caribbean exporters.

    One element which might be keeping the CBI out of the current administration’s cross-hairs is that the CBI had immediately led to a spike in US domestic exports to CBI countries (then including other Caribbean Basin economies), peaking at $26 billion in 2005. Although US exports to CBI countries have declined since 2005, the US still enjoys a wide trade surplus with CBI countries – the total value of US exports to CBI countries in 2016 was $10.5 billion, while the total value of US imports to CBI countries in that same year was only $5.3 billion, leading to a US merchandise surplus with CBI countries of $5.1 billion in 2016.

    Indeed, in the statement released by US Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL), one of HR 991’s co-sponsors (the other is Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)), the congresswoman noted, inter alia, that “Extending the U.S. Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act will expand the United States’ trade with Caribbean basin countries and increase our nation’s economic growth”.

    CBI: Next Steps

    Let me note that even if the CBTPA is not extended, this does not necessarily affect other components of the CBI programme which in the case of the CBERA is currently ‘permanent’ and with regard to the Haiti-specific preferences are due to expire in September 2025.

    Nonetheless, this is not to diminish the importance of retaining the CBTPA tariff preferences, which still account for an important share of US imports from CBI countries. In 2016, the value of US imports under CBERA was $479 million and $252 million under the CBTPA. For this reason, the best immediate option is for CARICOM countries to step up their lobbying for an extension of the CBTPA. This lobbying effort should, of course, be done in collaboration with the regional private sector, the Caribbean diaspora and friends of the Caribbean in the US Congress. It is in this vein that the closure of the US-based Caribbean Central American Action (CCAA), which did excellent work on behalf of the region in the US, leaves a void which will need to be filled.

    Another issue will be finding ways to increase the rate of utilization by CBI exporters of the CBERA/CBTPA preferences. This is a catch-22, of course, as the current wide US surplus with the region is perhaps the reason why CBI has been outside of the current administration’s crosshairs.

    Nevertheless, US foreign policy has recognised that an economically prosperous Caribbean is in the US’ best interests. The Multi-Year US Strategy for Engagement in the Caribbean, pursuant to the US-Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act of 2016, recognizes this by outlining several broad proposals for improving the trade and investment climate between the US and Caribbean. The mechanism of the US-CARICOM Trade and Investment Council, as provided for under the Trade and Investment Framework, should be used as a forum to discuss the implementation of these proposals and ways to improve CBI beneficiaries’ utilization of the preferences with the view to enhancing their economic development.

    Let me hasten to say, however, that underutilization of the CBI is not simply a product of the structural problems of the initiative, but is symptomatic of the chronic under-utilisation by regional firms of current trade agreements in place between CARICOM and its trade partners. This speaks to wider structural issues prohibiting regional exporters from converting market access into market penetration. For one, navigating the myriad of requirements for exporting to the US under the CBI and other trade preference programmes is not easy for businesses, especially MSMEs which lack scale and have limited resources to interpret and meet the legal and other requirements under these arrangements.

    Beyond CBI: Options for Future CARICOM-US Trading Relations

    Given the CBI’s inherent structural problems and the possible political headwinds which may face the CBTPA’s renewal, CARICOM should seriously consider options beyond the CBI for its future trading relations with its most important partner.

    An appropriate policy response should be evidence-based, that is, backed by sound data, as well as broad-based stakeholder consultations on the way forward. However, at least four options are readily apparent.

    • Trading under WTO MFN conditions

    This is not an attractive (or real) option for CARICOM countries as it would result in regional exporters paying WTO Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rates for goods currently benefiting from CBI tariff preferences, thereby reducing what little margin of competitiveness they currently enjoy in the US market.

    • Trading under the US Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)

    The US GSP was created in 1974 and provides duty-free, non-reciprocal access to the US market for a number of goods from 131 designated beneficiary countries, including 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs). In March 2018 President Trump signed legislation to renew it to March 2020. Similar to the CBI, the GSP’s unilateral nature still adds an element of uncertainty for traders. The rules of origin under the GSP are also stricter than those under the CBI.

    While some US imports from CBI countries do enter the US market under the GSP, these are much less than those entering otherwise duty-free, under CBI and HOPE Act tariff preferences and under WTO Most Favoured Nation (MFN) terms. Additionally, not all CBI countries are GSP designated countries. For example, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago were graduated and are no longer eligible for preferences under the GSP.

    • Acceding to CAFTA-DR FTA

    Acceding to an existing US FTA, such as the CAFTA DR, may be another possible option. Under Article 22.6 (Accession) of the CAFTA-DR, any country or group of countries may accede to the Agreement “subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between such country or countries and the Commission and following approval in accordance with the applicable legal procedures of each Party and acceding country.”

    Acceding to CAFTA-DR would create market access openings for CARICOM exporters not only to the US, but to the other CAFTA-DR parties: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, as well as enhanced market access to the Dominican Republic (with which CARICOM already has an FTA).

    Conversely, there are considerations to be borne in mind. Are the commitments under the CAFTA-DR ones that CARICOM Member States are prepared to undertake and capable of implementing? What would be the possible impact of these market access openings on CARICOM’s most sensitive industries?

    There are also political considerations. With the USMCA signed (but still awaiting ratification by all three governments), the current administration is said to be looking closely at the CAFTA-DR, which means that a possible renegotiation of that agreement at some point cannot be ruled out.

    • Negotiation of a CARICOM-US Free Trade Agreement

    The fourth and perhaps best long-term scenario is the eventual conclusion of a CARICOM-US Free Trade Agreement. As noted in the latest USTR Report on CBERA, eight countries (including the Dominican Republic) are no longer CBERA beneficiaries due to being party to FTAs with the US. Indeed, the aim was for the US to conclude an FTA with CBERA beneficiaries as soon as possible.

    There are possible positives to concluding a CARICOM-US FTA, including gaining preferential access to the US market for CARICOM services providers, and the prospect of negotiating a mutually beneficial and binding trading agreement which provides certainty for exporters from both sides.

    However, there are also some potential downsides. An FTA is reciprocal and binding which means CARICOM Member States will be required to make market access concessions to the US as well. CARIFORUM countries are already struggling to implement commitments made under the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement which has been provisionally applied since 2008. Some CARICOM governments may also worry about the further erosion of tariff revenue.

    It is also doubtful whether the current US administration (or any future one) would agree to the generous level of special and differential treatment as CARIFORUM was able to negotiate with the European Union (EU) under the CARIFORUM-EU EPA. Negotiating a CARICOM-US FTA will also necessitate reconciling differing levels of ambition and competing interests among CARICOM Member States due to asymmetric development levels and capacity for undertaking commitments.

    Nonetheless, of the four future scenarios presented, this is likely to be the most beneficial option for CARICOM. Any post-CBI CARICOM-US trading arrangement should at the very least be reciprocal (not unilateral), provide for special and differential treatment and development assistance, include gender and environmentally sensitive provisions, include an investment chapter which incorporates recent best practices in investment treaty rule-making which seek to ensure a proper balance between investor rights and States’ regulatory rights, and mandate on-going review and monitoring of the agreement to ensure that it is achieving its objectives. These could be best captured in an FTA.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the best immediate option for CARICOM at this moment should be lobbying for the CBTPA’s extension. However, given the flaws inherent in the CBI and the possible headwinds facing the programme’s future continuation, CARICOM policymakers would be advised to keep one eye on lobbying for an extension of CBTPA with the other on a longer term view of what its next steps should be regarding the region’s future trading partnership with its most important trading partner.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

  • Has the Caribbean Basin Initiative Outlived its Usefulness to CARICOM countries?

    Alicia Nicholls

    This September the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) released its biennial report on the operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic and Recovery Act (CBERA), one of the components of the Caribbean Basin Initiative under which CARICOM countries currently enjoy non-reciprocal, preferential access to the US market for most merchandise exports.

    Three years ago I authored an article questioning whether the CBI was still relevant and beneficial to CARICOM countries. In that article I had highlighted that while the CBI still has relevance for CARICOM countries, its structure meant that CARICOM countries have benefited unequally and risk losing any margin of preference if its WTO waiver is not extended. I had concluded that a reform of the CBI would have been a preferred option but that a CARICOM-US FTA which had a trade and development focus could be more beneficial in the long term to CARICOM countries once it allows for special and differential treatment and capacity building assistance.

    The USITC reports that average CBERA utilisation rates fell in 2014 and that the impact, though positive, has been small and again limited to a few exports and a few countries. This prompts two questions: has the CBI outlived its usefulness and is it time for CARICOM countries to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US?

    Current CARICOM-US Trading Arrangements

    Most CARICOM countries currently enjoy non-reciprocal duty-free or reduced duty access for most merchandise exports (about 5,700 HTS 8-digit tariff lines) to the US market under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI is comprised of CBERA (non-expiring) and CBTPA (expiring September 30, 2020). Haiti also enjoys additional preferences under the HOPE Acts (Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Acts of 2006 (HOPE I) and of 2008 (HOPE II)) and the Haitian Economic Lift Program (HELP) Act of 2010 which give preferential treatment to Haitian apparel, textiles, and certain other goods.

    The stated goal of the CBI is to contribute to the economic growth and development of beneficiaries. The seventeen Caribbean beneficiary countries and territories are: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Though a CARICOM country, Suriname is not a CBERA beneficiary.

    In May 2013, CARICOM countries signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in Port of Spain, Trinidad following a meeting between CARICOM Heads of Government and US Vice President Joe Biden. The TIFA, an updated agreement to one signed in 1991, is not an FTA. While it outlines several objectives and goals, it does not create binding commitments or market access. It does however create a CARICOM-US Trade and Investment Council which will be charged with executing the agreement. An annex to the Agreement called the Initial Action Agenda sets out priority areas for action. Currently, Grenada, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago are the only CARICOM countries which currently have bilateral investment treaties in force with the US.

    Current Level of CARICOM-US Trade

    The US is CARICOM countries’ largest trading partner for goods and services trade and a major tourism source market for CARICOM countries. However, the $8.5 billion USD worth of total US exports from CBERA countries (with and without preferences) only accounted for 0.36% of total US’ imports from the world, and declined from $8.9 billion in 2013 and $12 billion in 2012 (USITC 2015).

    US product imports from CBERA countries are concentrated primarily in the energy and mining and manufacturing sectors (USITC 2015). Trinidad & Tobago, Haiti, The Bahamas, and Guyana jointly accounted for 89.1 percent of the value of US CBERA imports in 2014 (USITC 2015).

    The USITC 2015 reports that CBERA utilisation rates, that is, CBERA imports as a percentage of total US imports from that country, have fluctuated over the past five years and have varied by country. After rising to 26.5% in 2013, average CBERA utilisation rates fell to 23.1% in 2014, although a few countries saw an increase in their utilisation rates during this period. This means that of the CBERA countries’ exports to the US in 2014 ($8.5 billion), only 23.1% ($1.97 billion), or less than a quarter, were done under CBERA. Most CARICOM merchandise exports to the US are therefore not under the CBERA but are either under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) or under Most Favoured Nation (MFN) applied rates.

    According to the USITC Report, while Belize had the highest CBERA utilisation rate (62.5%) and was the fifth largest source of US imports under the CBERA in 2014, Trinidad & Tobago was the leading source of US imports under CBERA but registered the 6th highest CBERA utilisation rate for the same period. Trinidad & Tobago which has been the main beneficiary of CBERA due to its energy exports (mainly methanol and crude petroleum) has seen its total imports and utilisation rate decline due to declining US consumption, increased US production of crude oil and maintenance and shutdown of some factories in Trinidad (USITC 2015).

    CBERA is of less importance for smaller islands of the region whose economies are services-based, mostly tourism and financial services. St. Lucia’s utilisation rate dropped from 51.7% in 2010 to just 7.5% in 2014. While Barbados saw its utilisation rate increase from a mere 3.8% in 2013 to 10.6% in 2014, this still is down from its rate of 17% in 2010.

    The good news is that despite my prediction back in 2012, the WTO Council for Trade in Goods considered and approved the US’ waiver request for CBERA again and it is now up to the General Council to adopt it. Additionally, some of the products which are eligible for dutyfree access under the CBERA are not eligible under the GSP. However, more sobering is that the weaknesses of the CBI remain, including the exceptions in its product coverage, the lack of eligibility for services trade and certain stringent product eligibility requirements. Another problem is its unpredictability due to its unilateral nature. A beneficiary’s status may be revoked or the programme discontinued at any time. As an example, the US recently indicated it will suspend South Africa’s benefits under AGOA, a preferential programme for African countries, for allegedly failing to make continual progress towards eliminating barriers to U.S. trade and investment.

    Generalised System of Preferences

    Besides CBI, certain CARICOM countries also currently benefit under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), the oldest of the US’ trade preference programmes. Similar to the CBI, the GSP is a unilateral arrangement providing non-reciprocal duty-free access to eligible products originating in qualifying countries. Unlike the CBI which currently applies only to Caribbean countries, according to the USTR Report 2015, as of January 1, 2015, there were 122 designated GSP beneficiary developing countries, of which 43 were LDCs.

    Under the GSP less tariff categories and products benefit from preferences than under the CBERA. However, LDCs, such as Haiti, are entitled to additional product coverage.

    The only CARICOM countries currently eligible for benefits under the US GSP are Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Suriname, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Eligibility of a country for beneficiary status is subject to both economic and political considerations. Among other things, the US President is prohibited by statute from designating any communist countries (with exceptions) or countries which have expropriated, imposed taxes or other measures on US property as GSP beneficiaries.

    If he/she finds that a country is sufficiently competitive or developed, the President may withdraw, suspend or limit the GSP status of any beneficiary country. Antigua & Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, and Trinidad & Tobago are not currently GSP beneficiaries.

    The GSP expired on July 31 2013 and was renewed retroactively on June 29, 2015. It has been extended to December 31, 2017. The future of the GSP beyond December 2017 is uncertain. However, some in the US believe GSP benefits should only be extended to LDCs, in which case only Haiti would benefit among current CARICOM beneficiary countries. Some so-called import sensitive products for the US, especially those in which developing countries have a competitive advantage such as most textiles and apparel, are not eligible. GSP imports are also subject to more stringent rules of origin than those under CBERA.

    Would an FTA with the US be the answer?

    Several former CBERA beneficiaries have concluded FTAs with the US, including five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua) and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR in 2004) and Panama (US-Panama FTA in 2012). Given the issues outlined with both the CBI and the GSP, should CARICOM countries do the same?

    Since the failure of the CARICOM-Canada negotiations, CARICOM still only has one FTA with a developed partner (the Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU). CARIFORUM’s negotiation position during the EPA negotiations was strengthened by the presence of the Dominican Republic. Such would not be the case in FTA negotiations with the US.
    US FTAs, even those with developing countries such as CAFTA-DR and US-Panama, are generally light on development provisions and strong on those which provide protection for US investors and their investments, and for intellectual property rights.

    For a sense of the US’ negotiation prowess, just take into consideration that with just a few exceptions the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)’s investment chapter agreed to by 11 other negotiating partners is practically a carbon copy of the US’ Model BIT 2012. CARICOM countries will have to be strategic and clear on what they want to achieve and what are their deal breakers.

    Priorities for CARICOM would be recognition of CARICOM countries’ small size and economic vulnerability and asymmetry in the commitments. As such they would likely be lobbying for special and differential treatment, development cooperation provisions, including technical assistance and capacity building to assist them, especially CARICOM lesser developed countries, in taking advantage of the market access opportunities an FTA with the US would open. With regards to services trade, CARICOM countries would likely seek enhanced commitments from the US in regards to (Mode 4) temporary entry for CARICOM natural persons.

    Under the CBI, Caribbean countries are not required to extend duty-free treatment to like US imports into their territories. One of the main drawbacks to an FTA with the US will be the loss of tax revenues from the removal and reduction of tariffs on US imports as would be required under an FTA. One way to mitigate this would be lobbying for asymmetric and phased tariff removal, similar to what was committed to under the CARIFORUM-EPA with the EU. However, US FTAs, including CAFTA-DR are always ambitious in their scope in regards to liberalisation. Under the EPA, CARIFORUM was able to exclude a number of their most sensitive sectors from liberalisation. A deal breaker for any FTA with the US would be the extent to which CARICOM countries are able to protect nationally-important and sensitive industries from the stiff competition and possible death of these sectors and job losses if liberalised to competing US products too quickly. Civil society and industry consultations thus would be crucial to determining which sectors are most sensitive.

    While an FTA with the US will likely increase the volume of US goods into CARICOM, the reverse is not necessarily guaranteed. Most CARICOM merchandise goods exports are already competing with other countries’ exports under normal trade conditions (i.e. at the MFN applied rate), and not under preferences. Therefore, the margin of preference secured for some CARICOM goods under a trade agreement may be negligible.

    Investment treaty practice has evolved since the days when Grenada, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago signed their BITs with the US. The investor protections provided by a comprehensive investment chapter in a US-CARICOM FTA, coupled with robust investment promotion provisions, could serve as a signal for greater US investment to the region, while at the same time include development-friendly provisions and provisions which reinforce the right of the State to regulate.

    As CARICOM service providers enjoy no preferential access to the US market, they face competition from service providers of countries which already have FTAs with the US. However, even when market access is created under an FTA for cross border services trade, there will be the need for mutual recognition agreements and visa waiver agreements in order to translate market access into market penetration.

    The US will likely insist on a negative list approach to market access liberalisation of service sectors, the approach used in NAFTA and its subsequent FTAs. The negative list approach requires liberalisation of all sectors unless a reservation is specifically made in a country’s list of reservations. CARICOM countries and other developing countries have preferred to use the positive list approach used under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It is a more development friendly approach which means only sectors specifically listed in a country’s schedule of commitments are liberalised and thus allows for the gradual liberalisation of sectors in keeping with each country’s development goals.
    The US will also likely insist on no less favourable treatment than what CARICOM countries had agreed to with the EC under the EPA. CARICOM will also have to bear in mind that given a provision in the MFN clause in the EU-CARIFORUM EPA, the EU can insist on any more favourable treatment given to US than was given the EU under the EPA.

    US treaty practice typically includes binding commitments on non-trade issues, such as labour. It has an on-going claim against Guatemala before the CAFTA-DR dispute settlement body in which it claims Guatemala has failed to meet its obligations under the CAFTA-DR agreement relating to effective enforcement of labour laws.

    There are currently three main trade issues between the US and CARICOM countries which have to be addressed expeditiously even without an FTA. CARICOM rum exports are losing market share in the US market because of large subsidies given to rum producers in two US territories: the USVI and Puerto Rico. Secondly, the US/Antigua & Barbuda cross border gambling services dispute remains unresolved despite a WTO ruling in Antigua & Barbuda’s favour. An FTA will not necessarily resolve these issues as the DR which is a part of CAFTA-DR has complained about the rum issue as well.

    Thirdly, the US has for a long time criticised copyright protection and enforcement in the Caribbean, a possible issue which might trigger disputes under any future US-CARICOM FTA. Caribbean countries constantly feature on the US Watch Lists under its annual Special 301 Report. The 2015 Special 301 Report is no different.

    The Bottom Line

    CARICOM countries should continue to take advantage of the non-reciprocal duty-free access to the US market provided by the CBI for their goods while these benefits last. However, while I do not think the CBI has outlived its usefulness just yet, it has several deficiencies which means it should not be treated as a long term strategy for boosting CARICOM trade with the US.

    As mentioned, CBERA exports as a proportion of total CARICOM exports to the US are small and declining. The beneficial impact on regional exports has been unevenly spread and its unilateral nature, like the GSP, means benefits may be discontinued by the US at any time.

    For the short term, the updated TIFA presents the best opportunity for CARICOM through the US-CARICOM Trade Council to lobby for reform of the CBI, address the long-standing rum and internet gambling disputes, and to negotiate concrete frameworks for increasing trade and investment between the US and CARICOM countries. Success on this front will not be automatic and will require strong regional cooperation, as well as effort on the part of both CARICOM and the US to ensure that concrete initiatives and commitments come out of these efforts.

    However, given the importance of the US market for CARICOM and the growing importance of services-trade to regional economies, CARICOM will at some point  in the future have to consider, albeit cautiously, negotiating an FTA with the US as part of a long term plan to create a more predictable trade framework for US-CARICOM trade.

    I say in the future because negotiations are an expensive and human-resource intensive exercise and require extensive research and stakeholder consultations. At the moment CARICOM countries are still grappling with the lingering effects of the 2008/2009 crisis on their economies and are also still struggling to implement many of the commitments made to the EU under the EPA. Progress on deepening CARICOM integration itself has ground to a halt and it would be easier to formulate a consolidated negotiating position as a more integrated region. I say cautiously because based on its current treaty practice the US is unlikely to extend the same level of special and differential treatment or development assistance which CARIFORUM was able to secure from the EU.

    An interesting space to watch would be the on-going Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the US and EU. The EU is currently insisting on the inclusion of certain sustainable development provisions into the agreement. An example is its recently released proposed text for the investment chapter. It would be interesting to see whether these provisions make it into the final TTIP text and that could help make it easier for CARICOM to insist on some of the same provisions in any future FTA with the US.

    For my previous article on the relevance of the CBI, please click here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. Please note that the views expressed in this article are solely hers. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.