tradoc_156103.pptx

Civil Society Dialogue
25/09/2017
Mid-Term Evaluation the EU’s GSP
This Project is funded by the EU
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE EU’S GSP:
REVIEW OF FINAL INTERIM REPORT
Presented by : Dr. Willem van der Geest, Team Leader
Monday, September 25, 2017

25/09/2017
I. Progress to date
 Economic analysis
 Social and human rights analysis
 Environmental analysis
 Stakeholder consultation process
 Main challenges and mitigation
II. Preliminary findings
 Economic impact
 Social and human rights impact
 Environmental impact
 Case studies
III. Project timeline
 Next steps
Contents

25/09/2017
I. PROGRESS TO DATE

25/09/2017
1. Identification of policy changes
 Changes in the number of beneficiary countries
 Country-sector combination of graduation or re-instatement of trade preferences
 Changes in the GSP tariffs
 Changes in the rules of origin (RoO)
2. Descriptive and diagnostic analysis
 Analysis of the structure of the EU’s tariff regime: MFN, GSP, other PTAs
 Utilisation rate: preferential imports as a percentage of GSP eligible imports
 Coverage rate: GSP eligible imports as a percentage of total imports
 Preference margins: difference between GSP tariffs and MFN tariffs
 Analysis of diversification by number of product lines traded and Herfindahl Index
3. Econometric modelling (Bilateral Gravity Model at Product Level)
 Analysis of EU imports at HS 8-digit product level to :
(i) assess the impact of GSP reform on the exports of GSP eligible countries; and
(ii) assess the associated impacts on the exports of those countries that are no
longer eligible.
Economic analysis

25/09/2017
 Graduated countries before entrance into force of EC Regulation 978/2012
 Graduated countries from 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2016
 Reinstated countries from 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2016
GSP reform & beneficiary countries
32 countries
(OCTs of EU member states)
Alternative trade arrangements for accessing the
EU market
8 countries
High-income countries/territory according to World
Bank classification
12 countries
Upper-middle income countries according to World
Bank classification
34 countries Countries with preferential trade agreements
7 countries: Fiji, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Tonga ,
Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan
Upper-middle income countries according to World
Bank classification
4 countries: China, Ecuador, Maldives, Thailand
Substantial share of GSP imports represented by
those countries
7 countries : Peru, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador
Preferential market access arrangements
1 country: Myanmar/Burma
Violations of ILO convention no longer considered to
be ‘serious and systematic’
8 countries: Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji,
Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Swaziland
Ceased to benefit from PTA – reinstated as GSP
eligible

25/09/2017
1. General impact analysis
 Literature review
 Application of the GSP Regulation
 Ratification and implementation of UN and ILO conventions
 Stakeholder consultation: interviews and meetings
2. Case studies on Bolivia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ethiopia
 In-depth analysis of social and human rights indicators, including HDI, employment,
labour rights, education, health, political and civil liberties, corruption
 Ratification and implementation of UN and ILO conventions by Bolivia and Pakistan
 Stakeholder consultation: workshops, interviews and meetings
Social and human rights analyses

25/09/2017
 Increased support for sustainable development and good governance
 Revision of the temporary withdrawal mechanism – in Chapter V of 978/2012
 Conditions preferences to adherence of international conventions
“serious and systemic violation of principles laid down in the conventions[…]”
 Simplified entrance mechanism for GSP+
 Enhanced adherence to social and human rights in GSP+
 Status upon ratification of GSP+ covered conventions – “effective implementation”
 Revision of the monitoring procedure
 Bi-annual reports on the status of the ratification of the conventions in the GSP+
beneficiaries
 Increased monitoring and dialogues
 Commission scorecards – allowing long-term track record
GSP reform & social and human rights

25/09/2017
1. General impact analysis
 Literature review
 Ratification and implementation of UN conventions
 Impact of main export sections under GSP: textile and clothing
 Stakeholder consultation: interviews and meetings
2. Case studies on Bolivia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ethiopia
 In-depth analysis of environmental indicators, including climate change vulnerability
and readiness, CO2 , greenhouse gas emissions and ND-Gain Index.
 Ratification and implementation of UN conventions by Bolivia and Pakistan
 Stakeholder consultation: workshops, interviews and meetings
Environmental analysis

25/09/2017
1. Stakeholder outreach activities
 Comprehensive, balanced, timely and tailored strategy
 Dedicated project website
 Social media channels: LinkedIn, Twitter
2. Interviews and meetings with stakeholders in the EU and case study countries
(until end of September 2017)
 Government, business associations (including SME associations), trade unions,
human rights associations, women's groups and other civil society organizations
 Stakeholder invitations to date: 450
 Total interviews and meetings conducted: 26 ; Upcoming interviews: 7
 Written contributions received: 10; Pending contributions: 11
3. 1st Civil Society Dialogue in Brussels
 On the Draft Inception Report on January 19, 2017
4. Local workshops in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Bolivia and Pakistan
5. 12-week Online Public Consultation
Stakeholder consultation process

25/09/2017
 12-week consultation between 17 March and 9 June 2017
 Featured and promoted through different channels: websites, email, social media
 Stakeholder responses
 961 responses in total
 High sectoral and geographical concentration
 Almost 96% of responses from Italian businesses
 Vast majority associated with the EU rice industry
Online Public Consultation
918
19
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
6
1
1
ITALY BELGIUM SPAIN FRANCE GERMANY GREECE PORTUGAL
ROMANIA CZECH REPUBLIC THE NETHERLANDS THE PHILIPPINES PAKISTAN BANGLADESH

25/09/2017
 Large sectoral participation from agri-food sector
 854 responses – 89%
 Low response rate from textile and clothing sector and machinery sector: 5 responses from
the textile and clothing sector; 1 response from the machinery sector
 Negative feedback on the GSP’s safeguard mechanism
 The existing safeguard mechanism does not protect the EU rice sector
 Rice imports under EBA from Cambodia and Myanmar disrupt the European rice sector
 815 respondents (85%) issued the following statement :
 “After 2009, rice has not been considered as a ‘sensitive’ product by European Commission and for rice there
is not an automatic clause of safeguard like other sectors.”
 Negative feedback on the poverty reduction objective
 Perception that current arrangements benefit large industries and not small businesses

25/09/2017
 Positive feedback on the impact of GSP+ and EBA on development
 Perception that these arrangements contribute to the product competitiveness that
ultimately promote economic development in these countries .
 Low response rate from non-business stakeholders
 3 responses from trade unions
 21 from trade associations
 8 responses from governmental authorities in Italy; 5 from the Philippines; 1 from the Czech
Republic; 1 from Belgium
 2 responses from international organizations in Italy
 1 response from an NGO in the Netherlands
 2 responses from academia in Pakistan and Bangladesh

25/09/2017
 Stakeholder outreach workshop on the EBA in Bangladesh
 Held at the Le Meridien Dhaka Hotel on February 7, 2017
 Gathered 70 participants from government, industry and civil society
 Main findings of the workshop
 Overall positive impact of the EBA in Bangladesh
 Majority of gains concentrated in the ready-made garment industry
 Evidence of declining poverty rates, increased infrastructure development and
enhanced productivity in the industrial sector
 Reform of RoO contributed to the increase
of exports, especially of woven products
 Need for further improvement in trade
union registrations, minimum wage,
supply side capacities and the balance
between environmental mitigation and
economic growth
Local workshop in Bangladesh

25/09/2017
 Stakeholder outreach workshop on the EBA in Ethiopia
 Held at the Capital Hotel and Spa in Addis Ababa on March 7, 2017
 The EBA overall has had a positive impact in terms of economic growth, export
performance, employment and poverty reduction
 The EBA has supported the rapid development of the horticulture sector
 There is increasing awareness about the need for sustainable development
 The EBA is not fully utilised by exporters due
to high standards, stringent RoO, lack of
awareness, preference erosion and supply
side constraints
 Exporters are more keen on utilizing
non-reciprocal trade preferences under the
US African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
Local workshop in Ethiopia

25/09/2017
 Stakeholder outreach workshop on the GSP+ in Bolivia
 Held at the Camino Real Hotel in La Paz on April 25, 2017
 There are considerable improvements in social conditions and in the Government’s
efforts to implement the 27 conventions covered by the GSP+
 Exporters are not quite familiar with the EU market (‘non-traditional market’)
 Non-tariff barriers significantly hinder the growth of Bolivia’s exports to the EU
 Exporters prefer to use the EU-Andean
Community FTA over the GSP
 Low utilisation of preferences because
exports are concentrated on mineral
products under MFN=0
Local workshop in Bolivia

25/09/2017
 Stakeholder outreach workshop on the GSP+ in Pakistan
 Held at the Islamabad Marriott Hotel on May 16, 2017
 Exports to the EU have significantly increased since 2014, while global exports declined
 Stakeholders are concerned that the GSP+ has led to trade diversion instead of
creation
 Only a positive and sizeable impact on the formal export sector (textile and apparel)
 Government considered to be fully
committed to GSP+ obligations, they
consider it as part of their constitutional
obligation
 Civil society organisations and trade unions
request to be more integrally involved in
GSP+ monitoring
Local workshop in Pakistan

25/09/2017
 Late availability of trade data for 2016
 Approach: Analysed 2011-2015 data and updated when 2016 data became
available
 Lack of up-to-date social, environmental and human rights indicators
 Approach: Complementary in-depth qualitative analysis in case studies
 Restricted involvement of stakeholders in local workshops
 Approach: Bilateral meetings with civil society and business associations in
workshop countries
 Low response rate initially to the Online Public Consultation
 Approach: Active promotion through online outreach, workshops, emails and calls
 Large number of stakeholder consultation activities
 Approach: Invitation sent to 450 stakeholders from Europe, Bangladesh, Bolivia,
Pakistan, Ethiopia, and other beneficiary countries to participate in meetings and
interviews.
Main challenges and mitigation strategies

25/09/2017
II. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

25/09/2017
 Majority of imports in EU market enter under MFN arrangements. In 2016,
82.2% under MFN; 4.1% under GSP; and 12.8% under FTAs/PTAs.
 Share of EU imports under GSP+ and EBA have increased post-regulation
by 0.18 and 0.03 percentage points, while it has decreased by 2.16
percentage points under the Standard GSP.
 An assessment of compositional changes reveals that for the 80
beneficiary countries under investigation, 49 EBA countries and 8 GSP+
countries increased their exports substantially in the post-regulation
period; while marginal increase in exports from 23 Standard GSP
countries.
Economic impact – Import shares

25/09/2017
Compositional changes

25/09/2017
EBA Countries
MFN = 0 MFN > 0 EBA = 0 EBA > 0 Other Total
Pre-Regulation 53.04% 9.39% 27.84% 6.25% 3.49% 100.00%
Post-Regulation 37.72% 2.56% 56.66% 0.00% 3.06% 100.00%
GSP+ Countries
MFN = 0 MFN > 0 GSP+ = 0 GSP+ > 0 Other Total
Pre-Regulation 80.21% 6.44% 10.57% 1.50% 1.29% 100.00%
Post-Regulation 49.02% 5.81% 31.64% 0.73% 12.80% 100.00%
Standard GSP Countries
MFN = 0 MFN > 0 GSP = 0 GSP > 0 Other Total
Pre-Regulation 66.46% 21.59% 4.23% 3.62% 4.10% 100.00%
Post-Regulation 55.34% 23.25% 7.64% 10.48% 3.28% 100.00%
Percentage share of imports by regime

25/09/2017
 No major changes in the distribution of tariffs across regime type, which is in
keeping with the 2012 .
 Changes only for 19 tariff lines where duty-free access was granted for Standard
GSP countries; and 4 tariff lines where similar access was granted for GSP+
countries.
 No major changes in preference margins:
 Preference margins are highest for foodstuffs, textiles, clothing and footwear
 Slow but constant preference erosion through increased number of PTAs and
expansion of MFN= 0 tariffs
 Preference erosion occurred for 7 out of 21 sections across all three schemes,
leaving the greater margin of EBA and GSP+ largely unchanged
Economic impact – Tariffs and margins

25/09/2017
Preference margins by HS section compared to MFN tariffs
HS Section Description
2011 2014 Change
(adv):
EBA
(adv):
GSP+
(adv):
GSP
(adv):
EBA
(adv):
GSP+
(adv):
GSP
(adv):
EBA
(adv):
GSP+
(adv):
GSP
Section I Live Animals; animal products 5.85% 5.83% 2.95% 6.61% 6.59% 3.34% 0.76% 0.76% 0.38%
Section II Vegetable products 4.09% 4.09% 2.09% 4.19% 4.19% 2.08% 0.09% 0.09% -0.01%
Section III Animal or Vegetable fats and oils 5.64% 5.64% 2.85% 5.49% 5.49% 2.78% -0.15% -0.15% -0.06%
Section IV Prepared foodstuffs 10.08% 10.08% 3.56% 10.41% 10.41% 3.69% 0.32% 0.32% 0.13%
Section V Mineral products 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.77% 0.77% 0.77% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Section VI Products of the chem. & allied inds 4.27% 4.27% 3.79% 4.28% 4.28% 3.80% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%
Section VII Plastics and Articles thereof 4.63% 4.63% 3.93% 4.63% 4.63% 3.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Section VIII Raw hides and skins, leather, furskins 2.98% 2.98% 2.25% 3.17% 3.17% 2.35% 0.19% 0.19% 0.10%
Section IX Wood and articles of wood 2.41% 2.41% 1.79% 2.39% 2.39% 1.76% -0.02% -0.02% -0.03%
Section X Pulp of wood or other fibrous… 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Section XI Textiles 8.01% 8.01% 1.62% 8.01% 8.01% 1.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Section XII Footwear, headgear, umbrellas… 8.02% 8.02% 3.66% 8.17% 8.17% 3.68% 0.15% 0.15% 0.02%
Section XIII Articles of stone, plaster, cement… 4.04% 4.04% 2.64% 4.00% 4.00% 2.63% -0.04% -0.04% -0.01%
Section XIV Pearls, precious, semi-precious stones 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Section XV Base metals and articles of base metal 1.84% 1.84% 1.52% 1.84% 1.84% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% -0.01%
Section XVI Machinery and mechanical appliances 2.35% 2.35% 2.07% 2.32% 2.32% 2.06% -0.03% -0.03% 0.00%
Section XVII Vehicles, aircraft, vessels, transport 4.90% 4.90% 3.05% 4.88% 4.88% 3.05% -0.02% -0.02% 0.00%
Section XVIII Optical, photographic... Instruments 2.45% 2.45% 2.30% 2.43% 2.43% 2.28% -0.02% -0.02% -0.02%
Section XIX Arms and ammunition 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Section XX Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2.60% 2.60% 2.49% 2.59% 2.59% 2.48% -0.01% -0.01% -0.01%
Section XXI Works Of Art, collectors' Pieces... 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25/09/2017
 Main product sections imported under the GSP are textiles, footwear and machinery
and mechanical appliances
 Textiles moved from 23% of GSP imports in the pre-regulation period to 47% in post
regulation period
 Footwear moved from 3% to 9%
 Machinery and mechanical appliances moved from 7.5% to 8%
 While the value of overall GSP imports declined since 2014, the value of textile
imports continues to grow
 Between 2014-2016, textile imports under GSP increased by 24.5%, compared to 6.5%
between 2011-2013.
Economic impact – Trade flows

25/09/2017
 Increased use of preferential duty-free treatment under all three arrangements
 Biggest increase for EBA countries– from 25.80% of traded value in 2011 to 65.36% in 2016
 On average, EBA beneficiaries have a higher utilisation rate than other GSP
beneficiaries post-reform
 Average utilisation rates increased for GSP+ and EBA beneficiaries
 Average utilisation rates declined for standard GSP countries (possibly caused by
compositional changes)
 Highest utilisation rates: Solomon Islands (99.2%), Laos (96.9%), Senegal (97%), Bangladesh
(96.6%) and Sudan (96.3%)

25/09/2017
 Analysing diversification by number of non-zero tariff lines traded
 Number of tariff lines traded are highest for EBA beneficiaries
 Number of tariff lines traded decreased considerably at all sector levels for Standard GSP
beneficiaries
 Number of tariff lines decreased for all GSP+ countries combined, but no clear pattern at
sectoral level
 Analysis of export diversification using Herfindahl Index:
 Of all three arrangements, EBA has least diversified export portfolio at both the product and
sectoral levels.
 Unlike EBA countries, Standard GSP countries with highly diversified portfolios at the
product level were similarly diversified at the sectoral level.
 The majority of GSP+ countries reflected only minor changes in export diversification.

25/09/2017
Economic impact – Gravity model results
 Results of bilateral gravity model at product level vary depending on the
regression technique utilized: OLS vs Fixed Effects Model
 Fixed effects model is preferred to the standard OLS model as it controls for time
invariant variables and focuses on year-to-year changes.
 Preliminary results reveal the following:
 Positive relationship between a country’s world exports at the sectoral level and specific
product exports to the EU.
 Results also reveal that those countries that exited the EBA scheme (The Maldives) as
well as those that exited the Standard GSP arrangement (i.e. over 80 countries) exported
less to the EU in comparison to non-GSP and non-FTA countries.

25/09/2017
Economic impact – Gravity model results
 Results also reveal that:
 Countries that entered into and exited the GSP+ arrangement had positive coefficients,
indicating that they exported more to the EU more in comparison with countries that
did not belong to any specific grouping.
 Countries that have entered into FTAs as well as all those which collectively exited the
GSP Scheme post-2013 (i.e. countries that were previously EBA, Standard GSP and GSP+
beneficiaries), have all increased their exports in comparison to countries that did not
participate in the GSP scheme or an FTA arrangement.

25/09/2017
 Legal conditionality through the temporary withdrawal mechanism incentivises
beneficiaries to adhere to fundamental rights
 EU leverage depends on importance of the EU market, export value and GSP utilisation
 Inconsistently applied, i.e. Cambodia and Myanmar
 Structural dialogue preferred over withdrawal of preferences
 GSP+ has a positive impact on the promotion of fundamental rights
 Promotes implementation and adherence to obligations under international
conventions by GSP+ beneficiaries
 Facilitates cooperation and dialogue with beneficiary countries
 Incentivises ratification of fundamental conventions by Standard GSP beneficiaries, i.e.
Pakistan, Ecuador and Tajikistan
Social and human rights impact

25/09/2017
 GSP can be a facilitator for social development and poverty reduction through
increased economic growth and resources
 Impact is dependent on domestic priorities and policies
 Overall increased awareness about the need for sustainable development
 Other domestic and international factors can also influence social development and
adherence to fundamental rights
 Increased export opportunities and growth can also have negative impacts on
fundamental labour and human rights
 Cases of land grabbing in Cambodia and Ethiopia to facilitate businesses
 Violation of labour rights in Bangladesh to facilitate cheap production
Social and human rights impact

25/09/2017
 No legal conditionality through the temporary withdrawal mechanism for
Standard GSP and EBA beneficiaries to adhere to environmental protection
 GSP+ has a positive impact on the promotion of environmental protection
 Promotes implementation and adherence to obligations under international
conventions by GSP+ beneficiaries
 Facilitates cooperation and dialogue with beneficiary countries
 Incentivises ratification of fundamental conventions by Standard GSP beneficiaries,
i.e. Tajikistan
 Potential positive impact as not all eligible Standard GSP beneficiaries have ratified and
implemented the conventions on environmental protection and climate change
Environmental impact

25/09/2017
 GSP can be a facilitator for environmental protection and sustainable
development through increased economic growth and available resources
 Impact is dependent on domestic priorities and policies
 Increased awareness about the need for sustainable development, yet environmental
protection is often not a priority for developing countries
 Increased export opportunities and growth can also have negative impacts on
the environment
 Production of textile and clothing has a detrimental effect on water, soil and air quality
through intensive use of energy, chemicals and water
 The negative impact can be mitigated with effective waste and resource management
measures
Environmental impact

25/09/2017
Environmental impact – ND- Gain Index
 The majority of GSP countries are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and
lack capacity to take advantage of investments to convert them into adaptation
actions.
 In 2015, the best performers were found amongst the GSP+ countries.
 Armenia had the most impressive score, ranking 64th out of 181 countries.
 The only exceptions were Bolivia and Pakistan, who ranked amongst the lowest of all
GSP countries.
 The EBA countries ranked the lowest of all three beneficiary countries
 The Central African Republic was ranked in the 181st position.
 Modest environmental improvements in the case-study countries
 In 2015, Pakistan was the highest in rank of the four countries, placing 125th out of 181
countries.
 Ethiopia revealed the highest year-on- year changes since 2010
 Bangladesh and Bolivia have shown modest improvements since 2010.

25/09/2017
 Textiles and clothing (S-11a and S-11b) are the main import sections under GSP
 Section’s share increased from 22% of total GSP imports in 2013 to 50% in 2016
 Between 2014-2016 imports increased by 25.3% compared to 2.6% between
2011-2013
 EBA beneficiaries have steadily increased their exports, especially Bangladesh
 GSP+ beneficiaries have rapidly increased their exports, especially Pakistan
Impact of GSP on textile sector
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Textile imports under GSP in million EUR
Standard GSP GSP+ EBA

25/09/2017
 There are significant differences in preference utilisation per arrangement
 Standard GSP beneficiaries export 56% of textile and clothing imports under GSP
 GSP+ and EBA beneficiaries export more than 90% under GSP
 Average preference margin for EBA and GSP+ beneficiaries is 8.01% compared to
1.62% for Standard GSP beneficiaries
 Reduction in beneficiary countries has created opportunities for beneficiaries
 Imports from EBA beneficiaries have significantly increased between 2011-2016
 Pakistan and Bangladesh have managed to utilise the increased export opportunities
 The impact of the scheme on the EU textile and clothing industry is diverse
 Some companies benefit from cheap imports under the GSP
 Other companies face increased competition from imports under the GSP
 Stakeholders argue that the thresholds of the safeguard mechanism are too high
Impact of GSP on textile sector

25/09/2017
 Machinery (S-16) is the third largest import product under the GSP
 The section’s share fluctuated between 7% and 9% of total GSP imports
 Between 2014-2016 imports decreased by 14.5% compared to a 9.9% increase
between 2011-2013
 Large decrease as a result of the reduction in number of beneficiaries
 Mostly imports from Standard GSP beneficiaries – only 4.8% imported under GSP+ and
only 0.1% under EBA
Impact of GSP on machinery
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Machinery imports under GSP in million EUR
Standard GSP GSP+ EBA

25/09/2017
 There is a low utilisation of GSP preferences
 Standard GSP beneficiaries export less than 20% of their products under GSP
 GSP+ and EBA beneficiaries export less than 10% under GSP
 Presumably because it is difficult for local companies that only assemble components
produced in other countries to meet the RoO
 Average preference margin is low – 2.32% for GSP+ and EBA beneficiaries
compared to 2.06% for Standard GSP
 The GSP reform has created limited opportunities for beneficiaries
 Beneficiaries continue to mainly export under MFN
 Some beneficiaries rapidly increased their exports while utilising MFN instead of GSP
 The impact of the scheme on the EU machinery industry is limited
 Only 1.2% of machinery imports enters the EU market under GSP
 Reduction of beneficiaries has had limited effect due to high utilisation of MFN
 EU industry mainly faces competition from China, which was already excluded from
the GSP for machinery since 2005
Impact of GSP on machinery

25/09/2017
 Exports to the EU increased by 32.9% between 2011-2013 and by 1.2%
between 2014-2016
 EU as the fourth largest export destination
 Limited export diversification: Mainly ores, slag and ashes under MFN and cereals,
beverages, spirits and preparations of vegetables and fruits under GSP+
 Decreasing utilisation rate: 94% in 2016
Impact of GSP+ in Bolivia
92.17%
95.52%
97.40%
95.78% 95.75%
94.03%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
In
percentages
In
Mio
EUR
GSP+ eligible exports to the EU Exports under GSP+ Utilisation rate

25/09/2017
 Positive development on a number of social indicators
 Steady improvement through numerous social policy reforms
 Decline in poverty rates – from 45.1% in 2011 to 38.6% in 2015
 Human development index increased by 0.71% per year between 2011-2015
 Mixed results on environmental indicators
 Increased CO2 emissions
 Increased deforestation
 Detrimental impact of mining and agriculture, i.e. water and soil degradation
 Mixed results on the effective implementation of the GSP+ conventions
 Failure to meet all reporting obligations
 Several shortcomings identified in the implementation of the conventions by the UN
and ILO monitoring bodies
Impact of GSP+ in Bolivia

25/09/2017
 Exports to the EU decreased by 1.4% between 2011-2013 and increased by
14.7% between 2014-2016
 EU as the main export destination
 Limited export diversification: Mainly textiles and clothing under GSP+
 High average utilisation rate: 95.8% in 2016
Impact of GSP+ in Pakistan
94.08% 92.91%
68.47%
95.45% 96.07% 95.75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
In
Percentages
In
Mio
EUR
GSP+ eligible exports Total exports under GSP+ Utilisation rate

25/09/2017
 Pakistan Vision 2025 aims to improve education, health, employment, poverty and
human rights
 Human development index increased by 0.95% per year between 2011-2015
 Textile industry provides important employment opportunities for skilled and unskilled
workers and women
 Stable CO2 emissions despite economic growth
 Increased deforestation and pollution
 Detrimental impact of textile industry, i.e. air, water and soil pollution
 Positive impact on the effective implementation of the GSP+ conventions
 Ratification of conventions and withdrawal of reservations to become eligible for GSP+
 GSP+ task force and national and regional treaty implementation cells
 Improved adherence to reporting obligations since 2014
 Several shortcomings identified in the implementation of the conventions by the UN
and ILO monitoring bodies
Impact of GSP+ in Pakistan

25/09/2017
 Exports to the EU increased by 20.2% between 2011-2013 and by 32% between
2014-2016
 Limited export diversification: Mainly textiles and clothing under EBA
 High average utilisation rate: 96.4% in 2016
Impact of EBA in Bangladesh
94.59%
95.64% 95.70%
96.06%
97.50%
96.35%
93%
94%
94%
95%
95%
96%
96%
97%
97%
98%
98%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
In
percentages
In
Mio
EUR
EBA eligible exports Total exports under EBA Utilisation rate

25/09/2017
 Human development index improved by 3.95% between 2011-2015
 Decline in poverty rates
 Textile industry has a positive and negative social impact
 Provides important employment opportunities – employs 4.2 million workers
 Provides opportunities for women – 80% of the workforce is female
 Detrimental effect by restricting fundamental labour rights, i.e. restricted trade
union membership, unsafe working conditions
 Increased CO2 emissions
 Increased pollution through increased production
 Textile industry has a negative environmental impact
 Lack of sufficient waste management measures
 Detrimental effect on air, water and soil quality through processing methods and
waste generations
Impact of EBA in Bangladesh

25/09/2017
 Exports to the EU decreased by 24.5% between 2011-2013 and increased by
29.2% between 2014-2016
 Limited export diversification: Mainly coffee under MFN and flowers under EBA
 Volatile utilisation rate: 61.2% in 2016
Impact of EBA in Ethiopia
97.14% 97.25% 98.02% 98.62%
76.84%
61.26%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
in
percentages
In
Mio
EUR
EBA eligible exports Total exports under EBA Utilisation rate

25/09/2017
 Ethiopian producers face difficulties in accessing the EU market
 Limited awareness of GSP compared to US’ AGOA
 Stringent RoO and high standards
 Eroding preference margins
 Human development index increased by 1.71 per cent between 2010-2015
 Declining poverty rates
 Expanding horticulture sector provides employment opportunities for young workers
and women
 Negative human rights impact in the form of land grabbing
 Reallocation of land to foreign investors, including in agriculture and horticulture
 Increased deforestation
 Increased pollution of soil, air and water
 Detrimental effect of horticulture and agriculture on soil and water quality
Impact of EBA in Ethiopia

25/09/2017
III. PROJECT TIMELINE

25/09/2017
 Presentation of the Draft Final Report in October 2017;
 Publication of Final Report in November 2017.
Next steps
.s
.
Local workshop
in Ethiopia
.
.
.
Online Public
Consultation
ends
September 2017
.s
Civil Society
Dialogue,
Brussels
September 2017
.
Final Interim
Report online
November
2017
.Final Report
online
19 January 2017
Civil Society
Dialogue,
Brussels
Local workshop
in Bangladesh
7 February 2017
7 March 2017
Online Public
Consultation
begins
17 March 2017
Local workshop
in Bolivia
25 April 2017
Final Inception
Report online
April 2017
Local workshop
in Pakistan
16 May 2017
9 June 2017

25/09/2017
 Presentation of the Draft Final Report in October 2017;
 Publication of Final Report in November 2017.
Next steps
19 January 2017
.s
Civil Society
Dialogue,
Brussels
7 February 2017
.
Local workshop
in Bangladesh
7 March 2017
.
Local workshop
in Ethiopia
17 March 2017
.
Online Public
Consultation
25 April 2017
.
Local workshop
in Bolivia
April 2017
.
Final Inception
Report online
16 May 2017
.
Local workshop
in Pakistan
September 2017
.s
Civil Society
Dialogue,
Brussels
September 2017
.
Final Interim
Report online
November
2017
.Final Report
online
10 January 2017
.
Online Public
Consultation

25/09/2017
WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK
Thank you for your attention!
1. What is the economic/social/human rights/environmental impact of the EU’s GSP?
2. What is the impact of the EU’s GSP on poverty reduction?
3. What is the impact of the EU’s GSP on the distribution of gains?
4. Are there any unintended consequences of the EU’s GSP?
comments@gspevaluation.com
www.GSPevaluation.com
@GSPEvaluation
GSP Evaluation

tradoc_156103.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to tradoc_156103.pptx

Similar to tradoc_156103.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

tradoc_156103.pptx