Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Print this page

Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived document may not work.

Africa: NGOs Urge Reform in U.S. Trade Policy
Date Distributed (ymd): 950815

The U.S. administration is obligated by the new GATT treaty
and by 1994 legislation mandating "a comprehensive trade and
development policy for the countries of Africa" to find ways
to adjust the existing "General System of Preferences" to
create more opportunities for African countries.  Although the
administration has been slow to act, the office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR) is currently drafting a policy
initiative, to be ready in September.

One of the groups taking the lead in urging a more responsive
policy is the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.  The
documents below include a letter from EESI and other groups to
the USTR, and a short position paper prepared by EESI.  For
more detailed information, please contact:

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)
122 C St. NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 628-1400 Fax: (202) 628-1825
Email: eesi@igc.org

************************************************************

Letter to the U.S. Trade Representative

July 13, 1995

The Honorable Michael Kantor
United States Trade Representative
600 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20506

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

The United States must help African countries dramatically
expand and diversify their exports if such countries are to
achieve long-term, sustainable development.  However, U.S.
trade policy now makes it difficult for many African countries
to export manufactures and many processed commodities.  In
response to this situation, last December Congress passed
legislation (H.R. 5110) requiring the President to implement
a "comprehensive trade and development policy for Africa."
Initial indications are that this policy is not being
implemented as vigorously as necessary.  (Please see
attachment [available from EESI]).

As representatives of a diverse group of U.S.-based non-
governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations
with humanitarian and economic interests in Africa, we are
writing: 1) to urge you to ensure that the Administration
fulfills its Congressionally enacted mandate to improve U.S.
trade policy toward Africa through reform of the Generalized
System of Preferences program (GSP) and other means, and 2) to
offer the following recommendations for meeting this
imperative.

a. Regarding establishment of the inter-agency working group
and private sector advisory committee

The perception that the inter-agency working group is not
fulfilling its mandate as vigorously as possible is based
partly on the fact that the group has made no attempt to
consult with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) since its
inception five months ago.  If the working group is to fulfill
its Congressionally given mandate to reform U.S. trade policy
toward Africa over the next five years, it must consult with
NGOs.  With their unique expertise and access to information,
NGOs can contribute substantially to efforts of the working
group.  Moreover, USTR is bound by legal and other commitments
to ensure NGO participation in working group efforts.

Thus, we ask you to continue your impressive efforts to
promote openness in trade policy by ensuring that all
proceedings of the working group and its private sector
advisory committee are transparent and open to meaningful
public input.

Specifically, with respect to the inter-agency committee, we
suggest that all documents which are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) be made available to the public,
immediately upon their release, through the USTR reading room
and other appropriate channels.  We also suggest that most
documents relating to inter-agency deliberations (i.e.,
documents which are not necessarily subject to FOIA) be made
available to the public unless a compelling need exists for
them not to be.  In cases where some confidentiality is
warranted, we urge that documents be derestricted and made
available to the public as soon as possible.

Further, we urge the chairman of the inter-agency committee to
follow the example of USTR's Office of Environment and Natural
Resources by offering regular public briefings.  The purpose
of these briefings should be to inform the public of
proceedings in the working group and to request input,
including written comments, for distribution to all members of
the working group.

With respect to the private sector advisory committee, we
first note application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) to this committee.  As you know, FACA guarantees open
meetings, timely public access to documents, and the
opportunity to submit comments to most advisory committees of
the federal government.

Further, we request information about the process USTR is
undertaking to nominate and appoint members to the advisory
committee.  This process should be transparent, it should
proceed quickly, and it should ensure that the committee fully
represents the full diversity of non-governmental
organizations, private voluntary organizations, academics, and
business representatives which have an interest in reforming
U.S. trade policy toward Africa.  Regarding the last point, we
would be happy to submit names of individuals and
organizations that would be qualified to serve on the
committee.

By establishing transparent processes for and public
involvement in the inter-agency working group and private
sector advisory committee, USTR will obtain much more useful
input on and support for its efforts to reform Africa trade
policy.

b. Regarding reauthorization of GSP

In his Statement of Administrative Action accompanying H.R.
5110, President Clinton indicated that he would establish a
new trade and development policy for Africa through, among
other things, enhancements in the GSP program.  However,
according to GSP Office Director Dan Shepherdson, USTR
officials responsible for developing the new Africa trade
policy provided no input to those parties responsible for
developing this year's GSP renewal legislation, which would
extend the program five years, and the legislation includes no
improvements for African countries.  This situation is
troubling, for not only does this year's GSP renewal represent
an important opportunity to reform U.S. trade policy toward
Africa -- an opportunity which should be taken advantage of --
but also USTR's failure thus far to take advantage of the
opportunity suggests a serious lack of commitment to fulfill
Congress' mandate.

Thus, we strongly urge the administration to develop
amendments to the current GSP program which will expand
benefits for African countries as part of this year's
reauthorization of the program.

Specifically, we recommend that all statutory product
exemptions be waived for exports coming from "low human
development" countries as designated annually by the United
Nations.  Most low human development countries are in Africa,
and most Sub-Saharan African countries are considered to have
low human development.  The category includes "least-developed
countries," plus other countries which, besides being
impoverished, suffer from short life expectancies and
illiteracy.  According to the U.N. Development Programme, "low
human development" is a more appropriate classification than
"least developed" for identifying countries in dire need of
economic improvement, since it relies on appropriate measures
besides per capita GDP to identify lack of development.
Implementing this recommendation would satisfy GATT's call for
the United States' to expand benefits for least-developed
countries, as well as Congress' mandate to improve trade with
Africa.

We recognize that this proposal is likely to generate cries of
opposition from some U.S. industries that avoid competition by
hiding behind protectionist trade policies.  However, because
most low human development countries export an extremely small
amount of GSP-exempted products, including textile and apparel
products, to the United States, most such countries could
increase their exports of such products to the United States
by large percentages without harming U.S. producers or
workers.  For the few cases in which domestic injury or threat
of injury might result from the provision of GSP treatment to
a particular article from a particular low human development
country, a safeguard mechanism could be established for
limiting GSP treatment for that article with respect to that
country.  Such a mechanism clearly would be more efficient,
and produce more benefits to the United States and Africa,
than continuing to exempt major categories of goods from GSP
treatment across the board, and offering U.S. consumers access
to a wider variety of products at lower prices, as this
proposal would do, would clearly benefit the United States.
_________________________

Again we strongly support the mandate which Congress has given
the President to improve U.S. trade policy toward Africa
through reform of the Generalized System of Preferences and
other means.  This mandate represents an important opportunity
to promote the United States' interest in improving economic
conditions in Africa while benefitting U.S. consumers and not
spending taxpayer dollars at a time when many policymakers are
advocating "trade not aid" policies.

We look forward to your response to this letter and to working
together to reform our trade policy toward Africa.

Sincerely,

Ken Murphy
Executive Director
Environmental and Energy Study Institute

On behalf of:

David Beckmann
President
Bread for the World

Maura Browne
Executive Director
Africa Faith and Justice Network

Imani Countess
Executive Director
Washington Office on Africa

Melvin Foote
Executive Director
Constituency for Africa

Vivian Lowery-Derryck
President
African American Institute

*******************************************************
EESI

Reforming GSP to Benefit Sub-Saharan Africa:
A Position Paper

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was created to
help developing countries diversity their economies away from
commodity exports by giving them more opportunity to export
manufactured goods.  However, the least developed countries
have derived virtually no benefits from the program: only one-
tenth of one percent of the imports given duty-free treatment
under the GSP have been from the least developed countries.
One major reason is that the existing law excluded those
manufactured products which very poor countries, just
beginning to industrialize, are most likely to be able to
export, such as textiles and apparel products and leather
products.  This exclusion ignores the fact that most of the
poorest countries in the world could increase their exports of
currently exempted products by very large percentages without
harming U.S. producers.

The administration's new Africa trade policy initiative must
include recommendations for changes in the existing GSP
legislation that would provide additional benefits to the
poorest countries, the vast majority of which are in Sub-
Saharan Africa.

Specifically, we urge that the following changes be included
in the administration's plan:

1. Waive the statutory product exemptions for countries that
are defined by the United Nations as "low human development
countries," provided that if the President determines that
domestic injury or threat of injury would result from the
provision of GSP treatment to a particular article from a
particular "low human development country" he may withdraw GSP
treatment for that article with respect to that country.

There are 62 "low human development countries" as defined by
the United Nations Development Program's Human Development
Index, of which 41 are Sub-Saharan African countries.  Only
South Africa, Botswana and Mauritius, among the Sub-Saharan
African countries, are classified as "medium human development
countries."  Among the low human development countries, only
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt are likely to export
import-sensitive goods that would have any substantial impact
on the U.S. market.  Those countries would be denied special
benefits if the President determines that there would be
injury to a domestic industry.

2. Make it easier for Sub-Saharan African countries to take
advantage of duty-free treatment for their exports by waiving
for low human development countries the complicated
requirements for designating an article for GSP treatment.  At
present, in order to be accepted for consideration by USTR,
petitions must contain a great deal of detailed information,
which many of the least developed countries do not have the
resources at present to provide.  As a result, there is reason
to believe that most Sub-Saharan African countries have not
taken advantage of benefits that are currently available to
them under the GSP.  Low human development countries should be
allowed automatic GSP treatment for their goods unless and
until the import of the good from that country is found to
cause domestic injury.


*******************************************************
This material is being reposted for wider distribution
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's
primary objective is to widen the policy debate in the
United States around African issues and the U.S. role
in Africa, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a
wide range of groups and individuals.  APIC is
affiliated with the Washington Office on Africa (WOA),
a not-for-profit church, trade union and civil rights
group supported organization that works with Congress
on Africa-related legislation.

*******************************************************