. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/W/531 
12 October 2005 
 (05-4654) 
Council for Trade in Goods Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES - REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS FOR THE 
CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC AND RECOVERY ACT (CBERA, AS AMENDED), 
THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT (AGOA), AND THE 
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT (ATPA, AS AMENDED) 
 
Replies of the United States to comments and questions from Brazil
 
  
A. C
ARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC AND RECOVERY ACT (CBERA AS AMENDED ) 
1. Document G/C/W/508 (“Request for Waiver”) stat es that the preferential treatment granted 
under the CBERA as amended will not alter the benefits provided under the US Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP). Document G/C/W/508/Add.1 stat es, however, that the program provides duty free 
access for some CBI exports which are not currently covered by the US GSP, which may lead to the 
impression that GSP coverage was redu ced in order to offer greater access to CBI exports. Could the 
United States provide us with more information so  as to demonstrate that the amended CBERA will 
not alter the benefits under GSP for third parties? 
The US GSP has never provided duty-free treat ment for all goods. The CBERA as amended 
provides duty-free treatment for certain goods that have not been eligible for duty-free treatment 
under GSP. Therefore, GSP benefits were not redu ced in order to benefit CBERA; instead, CBERA 
simply provides additional benefits not available under GSP.  
2. With regard to rules of origin, we have some doubts on the requirement laid down in 
Section 2703 (“Eligible articles”) letter ’B’ of the Caribbean Basin Economic and Recovery Act. The 
cited requirement conditions preferences for textil es and apparel products on the use of materials 
produced in the United States. As above mentioned,  the CBERA as amended is presented as a scheme 
that does not alter the benefits that the United States provides under its Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP) program to other developing coun tries. We would like to express our concern on 
the possibility that the existence of two different disp ositions on rules of origin – one for the GSP and 
the other for the CBERA – may, in practice, cause ne gative impacts for exports from third countries. 
The US GSP scheme excludes nearly all textile products; therefore, neither the CBTPA nor 
the ATPA makes any changes in resp ect of eligibility for preferences. 
B. ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCES ACT (ATPA AS AMENDED ) 
1. Document G/C/W/510 of the United States indicates that one of the goals of the Specific 
Policy Objections of the ATPDEA (ATPA as amended)  is the promotion of export diversification and 
broad-based economic development in the Andean region, by providing sustainable economic 
alternatives to drug-crop production. The waiver fr om US obligations und er paragraph 1 of GATT 
Article I was granted by the CONTRACTING PARTI ES of the GATT 1947 on 19 March 1992 for the 
period from 4 December 1991 until 4 December 2001.  Hence, the program was applied for 10 years. 
Could the United States inform if there was an expansion or reduction of narcotics crops in those G/C/W/531 
Page 2  
 
 [ATPA] countries and to which extent?  In case of reduction in crops, would it be possible to relate 
this reduction to the ATPA program?   
There has been a significant reduction in coca cultivation in the ATPA beneficiary countries 
over the course of the program. Coca cultivation le vels in those countries as of 2004 were at their 
lowest levels in over a decade. In the last eight  years alone, the number of hectares under cultivation 
was reduced by over 20 percent, to about 166,000 h ectares. Many other factors played a role - the 
ATPA program contributed to this progress as one pa rt of a broader counter narcotics strategy. The 
economic activity and the jobs created by the ATPA provided a cushion through alternative 
development for farmers who may have lost their liv elihood when they were fo rced to eradicate their 
illicit crops. 
The Colombian Government estimates that between 1992 and 1999, the ATPA generated 
$1.2 billion worth of output and more than 140,000 j obs in Colombia, and that cut flowers provided 
75,000 direct and 50,000 indirect jobs in Colombia. Such jobs often went to displaced persons or 
migrants who were fleeing the violence in drug-producing areas. They served as a source of employment for unskilled laborers who might have  been forced into illicit cultivation had they 
remained in the drug-producing areas.   
2. We would like to receive information on what were the criteria adopted in order to designate 
Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru and their su ccessor political entities as beneficiary countries 
under ATPDEA. Would it be possible for other Latin American countries where narcotics are produced to request to be included in the program? 
The US Congress designed the program as part of a counter narcotics strategy directed at the 
Andean region. Under the legislation Bolivia, Co lombia, Ecuador and Peru are the only countries 
potentially eligible for the program’s benefits. To  add other countries would require the US Congress 
to enact new legislation.   
3. As for the rules of origin adopted by the ATPD EA, we would like to express our concern for 
the possible negative impact that this provisi on may have. We would like to receive further 
information on the impact that those provisi ons may have for the market access of Members who 
produce fabric and apparel articles. In this context , we would reiterate our concerns presented above 
with regard to rules of origin in CBERA. 
To our knowledge, there is no source of the info rmation that Brazil is requesting within the 
United States Government. We know of no analysis on  the impact of CBERA rules of origin on other 
Members’ market access in specific products. 
__________