JOINT REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences covering the period 2020-2022
Date: 2023-11-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU market, common commercial policy, developing countries, development aid, generalised preferences, human rights, international convention, least-developed country, sustainable development, tariff preference

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Brussels, 21.11.2023  JOIN(2023) 34 final  JOINT REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences covering the period 2020-2022     {SWD(2023) 359 final} - {SWD(2023) 360 final} - {SWD(2023) 361 final} - {SWD(2023) 362 final} - {SWD(2023) 363 final} - {SWD(2023) 364 final} - {SWD(2023) 365 final} - {SWD(2023) 366 final} - {SWD(2023) 367 final} - {SWD(2023) 368 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  EU’s  Generalised  Scheme  of  Preferences  (GSP)  unilaterally  provides  preferential 
access to the Union market through reduced or removed EU import tariffs, to foster the 
sustainable  development  of  lower  income  countries  and  to  reduce  poverty  through 
international  trade.  GSP  benefits  are  linked  to  beneficiary  countries’  respect  of 
international standards on human rights, labour rights, environment and climate, and good 
governance.  

This  report  is  a  key  part  of  the  regular  monitoring  and  reporting  activities  on  the 
implementation of the GSP to the European Parliament and the Council, as provided for in 
the GSP Regulation (1). It covers the implementation and impact of the GSP over the 2020 
to 2022 period (the “reporting period”) across its three arrangements: Everything But Arms 
(EBA)  applying  to  least  developed  countries  (LDCs),  standard  GSP,  and  the  special 
incentive arrangement for sustainable development (GSP+). As was the case for the latest 
such GSP report from 2020 (2), the current report is accompanied by ten Staff Working 
Documents  (SWDs):  one  for  each  of  the  nine  GSP+  beneficiaries  during  the  reporting 
period, and one for the three EBA beneficiaries under enhanced engagement.  

The present report covers a longer period than the usual two-year reporting cycle, due to 
the challenges to implementation and monitoring resulting from the impact of COVID-19 
and the related restrictions in 2020 and 2021. GSP engagement and monitoring continued 
remotely in written and virtual forms despite these challenges. The report also reflects the 
monitoring missions to beneficiary countries which were possible again  as of late 2021 
and developments in the beneficiary countries enabled by loosening restrictions and freed 
up resources after the height of the pandemic.  

The report is based on the engagement with beneficiary countries, civil society, business 
communities, and UN monitoring bodies and other international organisations through the 
work  of  the  European  Commission  Services  and  the  European  External  Action  Service 
(EEAS), including in EU Delegations. Moreover, a dedicated civil society dialogue took 
place on 6 September 2022 to further support the report’s preparation.  

This report is also significant in view of the expiry of the current GSP Regulation at the 
end of 2023. It assesses the longer-term impact of the GSP, with respect to both economic 
effects  and  sustainable  development,  and  how  to  ensure  continued  engagement  in  the 
scheme among GSP beneficiaries. The legislative procedure to adopt a new revised GSP 
Regulation is still ongoing; in the meantime, a proposal for a prolongation of the current 
rules  until  the  end  of  2027  has  been  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  to  ensure 
continuity  and  legal  certainty  (3).  The  report  and  its  accompanying  SWDs  also  provide 
valuable information and recommendations for current GSP+ beneficiaries – in light of a 
potential requirement to reapply to benefit from the GSP+ arrangement under the new GSP 
Regulation.  

(1)   Regulation  (EU)  No 978/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 October  2012 
applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. 
(2)   Report on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences covering the period 2018-2019, JOIN(2020) 3 final. 
(3)  At the time of finalization of the GSP report, the European Parliament and the Council have voted in 

favour of the prolongation of the current rules. The legislative procedure is still ongoing.   

 
 
 
2.  HIGHLIGHTS 

The GSP is an important trade tool for the EU to support sustainable development in lower 
income countries. Its structure with three distinct arrangements (4) constitutes an objective 
and transparent  framework  to  address  the specific development  needs  and  ambitions  of 
different beneficiary countries.  

The GSP is economically valuable for beneficiaries (5), as substantiated also in part 4.1 of 
this  report.  Between  2014  and  2019,  i.e.,  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  EU27  total 
preferential imports from current GSP beneficiaries increased by 56%, at three times the 
pace of its overall imports from third countries; this contributes also to faster growth in the 
GSP countries than would have been the case without the preferences offered by the GSP. 
Moreover,  despite  less  dynamic  exports  during  and  after  the  pandemic,  beneficiary 
countries’  continued  exports  to  the  EU  benefitting  from  GSP  play  a  crucial  role  for 
economic stability, particularly at times of crisis. Overall, increased international trade and 
participation  in  global value chains  have  supported  the socio-economic development  of 
GSP beneficiaries. Testimonies to that are several countries’ improvements in the World 
Bank  income  classification,  as  well  as  graduations  from  LDC  status  based  on  United 
Nations’  (UN)  decisions  (with  the  corresponding  changes  to  the  preferences  under  the 
GSP).  

A series of crises have been threatening the global economy in recent years (6) from the 
COVID-19  pandemic  –  and  its  negative  impacts  not  only  on  health,  but  also  on 
sustainability,  economic  activity,  and  trade  –  to  the  broader  impacts  of  Russia’s 
unprovoked military aggression against Ukraine and the  related energy, debt, food, and 
cost  of  living  crises  that  accelerated  in  2022.  In  this  difficult  context,  the  continued 
availability of tariff-free exports to the EU, the world’s largest trading bloc (7), provides a 
fundamental  element  of  stability  for  fragile  economies.  While  some  beneficiaries’ 
economies  have  shown  strong  resilience,  the  United  Nations  Development  Programme 
(UNDP) has warned that at least 54 developing economies have been suffering from severe 
debt problems (8). In the UN, decisions about previously planned LDC graduations have 
been  postponed,  reflecting  these  challenges (9).  The  same  applied  to  the  World  Bank 
income status of other GSP beneficiaries, which stalled or downgraded because of their 
affected economies, including trade, as well as some foreign investments and remittances.  

The  GSP+,  with  its  additional  benefits  and  obligations,  has  remained  attractive  to 
beneficiaries (10). As the analysis of the implementation of the GSP+ in the accompanying 
SWDs  shows,  this  arrangement  has  proven  a  successful  incentive  for  the  effective 

(4)  Everything But Arms (EBA), standard GSP and GSP+ arrangement.  
(5)  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/analysis-and-assessment/impact-assessments_en  

All links provided in this report were up to date as of 20 October 2023. 

(6)  A 2022 World Bank report estimated that in 2020 alone, the number of people living below the extreme 
poverty  line had  risen  by  over  70  million.  That  is  the  largest  one-year  increase  since  global  poverty 
monitoring began in 1990. Income losses of the poorest 40% of world’s population were twice as high 
as  those  of  the richest  20%. Global  median  income  declined  by  4%  in  2020  -  the  first decline  since 
measurements  of  median  income  began  in  1990.  https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-
and-shared-prosperity  

(7)   https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/eu-position-world-trade_en  
(8)  https://www.undp.org/publications/dfs-avoiding-too-little-too-late-international-debt-relief  
(9)   https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/triennial-reviews-and-graduation-decisions  
(10)  GSP+ eligible countries need to apply for the scheme to gain access. They must be considered vulnerable 
due to a lack of export diversification and insufficient integration within the international trading system. 
Additionally, they should have ratified the 27 GSP-relevant conventions and show no serious failure of 
implementing them.  

Page | 2 

 
 
implementation of international standards in the areas of human and labour rights, climate 
and environmental protection, and good governance by offering additional access to the 
EU market compared to the standard GSP arrangement. The attractiveness of the GSP+ is 
further  testified  by  the  fact  that  a  new  GSP+  beneficiary  (Uzbekistan)  joined  the 
arrangement during the reporting period, Tajikistan formally applied to join the GSP+ in 
April  2023  and  other  countries  continue  to  show  interest  to  do  so.  Current  GSP+ 
beneficiaries have expressed their commitment to maintain the preferences under the EU’s 
new GSP framework. Several current EBA beneficiaries which are expected to graduate 
from LDC status are actively considering paths towards joining the GSP+ arrangement, in 
order to benefit from the more preferential tariffs than the standard GSP once they leave 
the EBA arrangement.  

The GSP encourages GSP beneficiary countries to integrate into multilateral governance 
structures through the need to abide by the principles of international conventions, and for 
GSP+, the conditionality to ratify and effectively implement such conventions. Ratification 
efforts of GSP beneficiaries go beyond the relevant conventions listed in the current GSP 
Regulation  – for example,  all  nine GSP+  beneficiaries under review in  this report have 
ratified the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the Paris Agreement. 
GSP  beneficiaries  are  also  advancing  in  the  ratification  of  the  newly  established 
fundamental International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions relating to occupational 
safety and health, as well as other ILO conventions, for example on labour inspections and 
tripartite consultation. 

During  the  reporting  period,  many  GSP  beneficiaries  have  shown  important  progress 
related to the implementation and respect of international standards (11), even if on some 
fronts  they  continue  to  face  challenges  in  complying  with  them.  Typical  areas  of 
backtracking  or  insufficient  progress  in  certain  beneficiary  countries  include  increasing 
pressure on the freedom of expression and civil society space, the rights of women and 
children and protection against domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well 
as the fight against corruption and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. The global 
crises mentioned above occurring during this reporting period have put a strain on labour 
markets and on workers. In this context, the EU GSP monitoring and implementation work 
help to ensure that core international ILO standards on workers’ rights are respected.  

Furthermore, and notably in relation to the international environmental standards, many 
lower  income  countries  are  facing  very  significant  negative  consequences  of  climate 
change,  have  undertaken  ambitious  commitments  and  have  called  for  common  action 
across the international community to address climate change and its impacts. However, 
capacity  and  resource  constraints  often  limit  their  ability  to  move  from  ambition  to 
domestic implementation. 

The GSP brings important benefits to the EU, in addition to the economic and sustainability 
benefits for beneficiaries. First, it helps to strengthen economic and political partnerships 
with beneficiary countries, based on shared values and goals, and hence it helps to promote 
the  international  sustainability  and  development  agenda.  GSP  monitoring  fosters  direct 
contacts between institutions and civil society in the EU and in beneficiary countries. The 
EU’s  investors  and  importing  companies  can  also  promote  sustainable  practices  and 
international  standards  in  GSP  countries  with  respect  to  human  rights,  labour  rights, 
climate  and  environment,  and  good  governance.  In  economic  terms,  the  GSP  helps  to 
improve choice and affordability for EU companies and consumers of the goods traded 
under the GSP. In addition, EU companies gain more diversified and efficient access to 

(11)  As highlighted in section 4.2 below and also in the country specific SWDs accompanying the present 

report. 

Page | 3 

 
 
supplies. For example, preferential  tariffs  granted under the GSP allowed companies in 
total around €6.2 billion of savings in import duties in 2022.  

Reaping  the  full  benefits  from  the  GSP  –  in  terms  of  poverty  reduction,  economic 
diversification,  and  sustainable  development  –  requires  strong  and  continuous  reform 
efforts by authorities and stakeholders in all GSP countries, as the benefits on the ground 
cannot  be  achieved  and  do  not  occur  immediately  or  automatically.  The  EU  remains 
committed to continue supporting such efforts via capacity building and other measures. 

3.  LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD 

3.1.  Developments in implementation 

The  Commission  adopted  several  legal  acts  relating  to  the  implementation  of  the  GSP 
Regulation during the reporting period:  

•  Country  graduation  from  GSP:  Nauru,  Samoa,  and  Tonga  reached  Upper  Middle-
Income  status  as  classified  by  the  World  Bank  for  three  consecutive  years  and, 
therefore, do not benefit from standard GSP since 1 January 2021 (12). For the same 
reason, Armenia no longer benefits from GSP+ (nor standard GSP) since 1 January 
2022.  The  EU-Vietnam  preferential  Free  Trade  Agreement  (FTA)  applies  since  1 
August 2020 and, therefore, Vietnam graduated from standard GSP as of 1 January 
2023 (13). 

•  Transition  from  EBA  to  standard  GSP:  Vanuatu  graduated  from  LDC  status  on  4 
December 2020 based on a UN decision. Following a three-year transition period and 
taking  into  account  procedural  and  statistical  considerations,  Vanuatu  will  cease  to 
benefit from EBA and transition to standard GSP as of 1 January 2025 (14).  

•  Transition from standard GSP to GSP+: Uzbekistan joined GSP+ in April 2021 (15), 

after formally applying for the scheme in June 2020. 

•  Product graduation: standard GSP tariff preferences were suspended for the year 2023 
for  several  products  imported  from  India,  Indonesia,  and  Kenya  after  attaining  the 
relevant import thresholds (16).  

(12)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/128  of  25  November  2019  amending  Annex  II  to 
Regulation  (EU)  No  978/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  applying  a  scheme  of 
generalised tariff preferences. 

(13)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/114 of 25 September 2020 amending Annexes II and III 
to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Armenia and 
Vietnam. 

(14)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/2127  of  29  September  2021  amending  Annex  IV  to 
Regulation  (EU)  No  978/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  applying  a  scheme  of 
generalised tariff preferences. 

(15)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/576  of  30 November  2020  amending  Annex  III  to 
Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 to include the Republic of Uzbekistan among the countries benefiting 
from tariff preferences under the GSP+. 

(16)  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2022/1039  of  29  June  2022  laying  down  rules  for  the 
application of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
the  suspension  for  the  year  2023  of  certain  tariff  preferences  granted  to  certain  GSP  beneficiary 
countries. 

Page | 4 

 
 
Several of the current EBA beneficiaries are scheduled to graduate from LDC status in the 
coming years, although the UN has revised this schedule to account for the impact of the 
COVID-19  pandemic  and  its  broad  economic  implications.  Nonetheless,  Bhutan  is 
preliminarily scheduled for LDC graduation in 2023 and Angola, São Tomé and Príncipe, 
and the Solomon Islands – in 2024. These countries would, therefore, graduate from EBA 
and,  depending  on  their  income  classification,  could  move  to  the  standard  GSP 
arrangement following a three-year transition period after their LDC graduation. Five other 
EBA beneficiaries have been recommended for LDC graduation by the UN: Bangladesh, 
Lao PDR and Nepal (expected 2026), as well as Tuvalu and Kiribati (no date indicated 
yet). 

Some of the countries graduating from LDC status have expressed interest in joining GSP+ 
to preserve a higher degree of preferential access to the EU market than under the standard 
GSP arrangement after losing the generous EBA preferences. During the reporting period 
Tajikistan,  which  currently  benefits  from  standard  GSP,  engaged  in  pre-application 
discussions with the Commission and the High Representative and in April 2023 submitted 
a formal application to join the GSP+.  

3.2.  GSP after 2023 

The current GSP Regulation will expire at the end of 2023. On 22 September 2021, the 
Commission  adopted  a  legislative  proposal (17)  for  the  EU’s  Generalised  Scheme  of 
Preferences for the period 2024-2033. The Commission proposed to continue the GSP as 
a pillar of the EU’s trade and sustainable development agenda, while improving some of 
the features of the current scheme. The aim is notably to ensure the continuity of GSP, 
respond to the evolving needs and challenges of GSP beneficiaries, and to strengthen the 
scheme’s social, environmental and climate and good governance aspects.  

The Commission’s proposal is based on the 2018 Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) (18) of the 
GSP  Regulation,  the  Commission’s  Impact  Assessment (19)  supported  by  an  external 
study, and the 2020 open public consultation (20); all of which confirmed the relevance and 
achievements  of  the  GSP  so  far,  but  also  pointed  to  the  need  for  targeted  changes  to 
improve it. These studies show that the EU’s GSP is delivering on its main objectives of 
contributing  to  poverty  eradication  and  sustainable  development  in  GSP  beneficiary 
countries, while ensuring adequate protection for EU producers. 

Negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council on the Commission’s proposal 
are  ongoing.  Pending  an  agreement  between  the  co-legislators,  the  Commission  has 
proposed to amend the Regulation currently in force by prolonging its expiry date to ensure 
legal  certainty  and  stability (21).  Such  prolongation  requires  an  ordinary  legislative 
procedure which should be concluded before the end of 2023.  

(17)  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-proposes-new-eu-generalised-scheme-preferences-

promote-sustainable-development-low-income-2021-09-22_en  

(18)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5638e809-ebfb-11ea-b3c6-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

(19)  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/analysis-and-assessment/impact-assessments_en  
(20)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2136-Towards-the-future-
Generalised-Scheme-of-Preferences-legal-framework-granting-trade-advantages-to-developing-
countries/public-consultation_en  

(21)  Commission  legislative  proposal  of  4  July  2023:  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-

register/detail?ref=COM(2023)426&lang=en 

Page | 5 

 
 
4. 

IMPACT OF THE GSP 

The  impact  of  the  GSP  should  be  considered  against  its  general  objectives,  namely,  to 
foster sustainable development of lower income countries and to reduce poverty through 
international  trade.  This  report,  like  its  previous  three  editions,  focuses  on  objective 
measures such as the evolution of trade and the utilisation of GSP preferences during the 
reporting  period.  Wider  impacts  on  poverty  reduction  and  sustainability  and  causal 
linkages are difficult to establish and assess, given the complex set of factors impacting 
not only international trade and the global economy, but also the evolution of sustainable 
development in specific countries. Confounding factors during the reporting period include 
the COVID-19 pandemic, and volatile economic and political developments both globally 
and in specific GSP beneficiary countries. 

This  section  (see  4.2)  also  includes  a  medium-term  perspective  to  better  assess  the 
evolution  of  the  impact  of  the  GSP  over  time,  including  qualitative  assessments  with 
respect  to  sustainable development  in GSP beneficiary countries, based on UN and EU 
monitoring.  The  country-specific  Staff  Working  Documents  accompanying  this  report 
provide further information in this respect. 

4.1.  Trade Impacts 2020-2022 (22) 

2.500

3.000

2.000

2.804

1.791

imports 

Figure 1: EU27 imports from GSP countries (2019-
2022, € billion) 

EU 
from  GSP  beneficiary 
countries were negatively impacted by the 
COVID-19 pandemic but recovered since 
2021  (see  Figure  1).  They  were  hit 
substantially in 2020, decreasing by 13.4% 
from €157.3 billion (8.8% of total imports 
from  third  countries)  to  €136.2  billion 
(8.5%) but rebounded strongly in 2021 and 
2022 to €256.7 billion (9.2%) - an increase 
of 88% compared to 2020, and 63% higher 
than in 2019. EU imports of goods using 
the  GSP  preferences  were  affected  even 
more  by  the  pandemic,  decreasing  by 
15.4% from €62.1 billion in 2019 to €52.6 
billion  in  2020.  Recovery  in  2021  and 
especially 2022 was strong, with GSP preferential imports reaching €80.6 billion in 2022, 
almost 30% above 2019 levels.  

Total imports from third countries

Imports from GSP countries

8.5%
136

8.8%
157

8.6%
168

9.2%
257

1.605

1.957

1.500

1.000

2021

2022

2020

2019

500

0

(22)  Source  for  all  statistics:  Eurostat,  own  calculations,  data  as  of  September  2023.  Due  to  the 
aforementioned difficulties to fully isolate the impact of the simultaneous unfolding of the COVID-19 
pandemic from other developments, all such data have to be interpreted with caution. 

Page | 6 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Share of GSP preferential imports in total 
extra-EU imports 

4,0%
3,5%
3,0%
2,5%
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%

0,5%

1,6%

0,5%

1,5%

0,5%

1,2%

0,5%

1,1%

1,4%

1,3%

1,1%

1,3%

2019

2020

2021

2022

GSP - EBA

GSP - standard

GSP - plus

Figure  2  shows  that  only  imports  from 
GSP+  countries  maintained  their  share 
(0.5%) in overall EU imports since 2019, 
whereas duty-free quota-free imports from 
EBA  countries  decreased  from  1.4%  to 
1.1% in 2021 and then recovered again to 
1.3%,  and  preferential 
imports  from 
standard  GSP  countries  decreased  from 
1.6%  to  1.1%.  Possible  explanations  are 
of  EBA 
vulnerability 
the 
beneficiaries  to  economic  shocks  on  one 
hand, and the higher integration of GSP+ 
tariff  preferences  in  the  export  strategies 
of beneficiaries on the other.  

higher 

Whereas the EU has been a major export destination for several GSP beneficiaries, imports 
from those GSP beneficiaries have represented a small portion of total EU imports. 

Figure  3:  Preferential  and  duty  free  imports  from 
GSP countries in total extra-EU imports, 2019-2022 

Furthermore, between 2019 and 2022 the share of EU imports using GSP preferences has 
decreased by 0.6 percentage points while with other preferential schemes such as FTAs 
and  zero  most-favoured  nation  (MFN) 
tariffs, there  was  an increase (see Figure 
3).  For  standard  GSP  countries,  this 
decline is primarily the result of a switch 
from  using  GSP  preferences  towards 
preferential trade under FTAs with the EU 
(notably Vietnam, see below), indicating 
a  more  mature  and  closer  bilateral  trade 
and  economic  relationship.  For  EBA 
beneficiaries,  the  decline  indicates  the 
higher vulnerability to external shocks, as 
noted above. 

0,4%

3,9%

2,9%

0,3%

4,1%

3,5%

3,3%

2,9%

0,1%

0,2%

4,1%

4,7%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

5,0%

6,0%

7,0%

8,0%

0,0%

2019

2020

2021

2022

GSP

MFN zero

Other Preferences

The  key  reason  for  lower  preferential 
imports  under  the  standard  GSP  is  the 
increasing  importance  of  EU  FTAs  with 
GSP  countries:  in  the  period  2019-2022,  the  share  of  preferential  imports  from  GSP 
countries under FTAs in total EU imports has increased from 0.1% to 0.4% (see Figure 3). 
In absolute terms, this was a more than sixfold increase from € 1.7 billion to € 11.0 billion, 
largely explaining the reduction of GSP preference shares. This is also an effect of the FTA 
with  Vietnam  in  particular.  It  is  moreover  visible  that  EU  imports  of  goods  from  GSP 
beneficiaries that have a zero MFN tariff have increased compared to their pre-pandemic 
share  in  total  EU  imports,  reaching  4.7%  in  2022.  The  share  of  EU  imports  from  GSP 
countries that benefitted from reduced or zero tariffs remained almost constant over the 
reporting period and was 87% both in 2019 and 2022.  

Preference utilisation for imports from standard GSP beneficiaries declined between 2019 
and 2022 (Figure 4). This led to an increase of the relative share of preferential imports 
from GSP+ and EBA countries among all GSP beneficiaries (Figure 5). The decline in the 
utilisation  of standard GSP preferences  is  largely explained by the availability of MFN 
zero duties or other preferences than GSP for products which are also eligible for standard 
GSP preferences, such as the transition to FTAs, by which the EU steps up its engagement 
with the beneficiary country. The use of preferences by other GSP beneficiaries remained 
stable over the same period.  

Page | 7 

 
 
 
Figure 4: GSP preferences utilisation by 
arrangement, 2019-2022 (%) 

Figure 5: GSP preferential imports by 
arrangement, 2019-2022 ( € billion and share in 
total GSP imports) 

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

93,5

84,1
84,2

77,5

94,1

85,2

82,1

72,8

92,1

84,7

76,0

63,2

92,4

84,6

74,5

58,9

2019

2020

2021

2022

GSP - EBA

GSP - plus

GSP - standard

 All GSPs

90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

13.6%
8,5

46.0%
28,7

40.4%
25,2

14.7%
7,8

44.9%
23,7

40.4%
21,3

17.1%
9,6

43.2%
24,2

39.7%
22,3

16.5%
13,3

39.6%
32,0

43.9%
35,4

2019

2020

2021

2022

GSP EBA

GSP General

GSP Plus

Most EU imports from GSP beneficiaries come from a limited number of countries, and 
performance since 2019 has been heterogeneous across beneficiary group and beneficiaries 
(Figure 6). There are large differences between beneficiary countries regarding EU imports 
for  which  GSP  preferences  were  effectively  used  between  2019  and  2022.  Some  saw 
substantial  contractions  in  EU  GSP  imports (23),  whereas  others  managed  to  increase 
yearly by double digits. This was in particular the case for EBA countries such as Liberia 
(+183%),  Madagascar  (+149%),  and  Zambia  (+49%),  and  the  new  GSP+  beneficiary 
Uzbekistan  (+69%),  although  starting  from  a  low  base  in  the  case  of  Liberia  and 
Madagascar.  

Figure 6: GSP preferential imports by supplier, 2019 and 2022 (€ million and % of total GSP imports) 

Some of the largest exporters among GSP beneficiaries have already left or are expected 
to leave the scheme as they have or will have negotiated preferential trade agreements with 

(23)  In the case of Vietnam (standard GSP), this decline by about 15% per year on average is due to the entry 
into force of the country’s FTA with the EU on 1 August 2020. For some part of its exports to the EU, 
Vietnam used FTA preferences rather than GSP preferences in the transition period lasting until the end 
of 2022. Vietnam’s total exports to the EU under all preferences have actually increased from €8.7 billion 
to €14.4 billion between 2019 and 2022. 

Page | 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  EU  (Vietnam)  or  are  in  the  process  of  negotiating  such  agreements  (India  and 
Indonesia). 

Apparel and clothing products continue to be the most significant sector in EU imports 
from GSP beneficiaries, but the relative importance of other sectors is shifting (Figure 7). 
In 2021, machinery and equipment for the first time became the second most significant 
sector,  reaching  a  preferential  import  value  of  €6.4  billion  in  2022  (8.0%  of  the  total). 
Machinery overtook footwear, which decreased from €7.4 billion in 2019 to €6.1 billion 
in  2022  (7.6%  of  the  total).  This  decrease  is  mostly  the  result  of  decreasing  footwear 
imports from Vietnam under the standard GSP, as Vietnam has started to increasingly use 
the FTA preferences (meaning that the total EU import value of footwear from Vietnam 
decreased much less – from €3.9 billion in 2019 to €3.5 billion in 2021). 

Figure 7: Preferential GSP imports by section, 2019 and 2022 (€ million and % of total GSP imports (24) 

The  evolution  of  trade  with  GSP  beneficiaries  during  the  reporting  period  is  further 
detailed in Section 5 of this report, and its specific subsections on each of the three GSP 
arrangements (standard GSP, GSP+ and EBA). 

4.2.  Long-Term view: 10 years since the 2012 GSP reform 

Bilateral trade with GSP beneficiaries 

Trade statistics  over  the  course of implementation of the current  GSP Regulation  since 
2014 show GSP’s positive impact on beneficiary countries’ exports to the EU.  

Data also  show that since 2014  beneficiaries  of the GSP+ and EBA arrangements used 
most  of  the  preferences,  with  some  beneficiary  countries  accounting  for  most  of  the 
preferences  used.  Moreover,  all  GSP  beneficiary  countries  (standard  GSP,  GSP+  and 
EBA) tend to concentrate their exports on specific products. The strongest positive impact 
of  GSP  has  been  its  contribution  to  growth  and  trade  diversification  through  EBA 
preferences.  During  the preparation of the Commission’s impact  assessment (25) for the 

(24)  The  category  Agri-food  in  Figure  7  contains  preparations  of  fish  (but  not  fresh  fish,  which  is  in  the 
orange  category).  Cereals,  including  rice,  are  about  7% of the  agri-food  category  and  about  0.5%  of 
overall GSP imports in value terms. 

(25)  SWD(2021) 266. 

Page | 9 

 
 
 
 
Commission proposal for a post-2023 GSP regulation, a model-based analysis was carried 
out based on a computable general equilibrium model (CGE). The results showed that, if 
preferences were lost, exports from GSP+ beneficiaries to the EU could drop by up to 25% 
(for  Pakistan)  and  the  GDP  of  GSP+  beneficiary  countries  could  be  reduced  by  up  to 
0.3% (26).  In  terms  of  absolute  values,  the  GDP  loss  would  be  about  €6.6 billion (27). 
Losses for EBA beneficiaries, where preferences are even more generous, have not been 
simulated in the study and would have to be added on top of the projected losses of €1.6 
billion for GSP+ beneficiaries and €5 billion for standard GSP beneficiaries.  

Between  2014  and  2019,  i.e.,  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  EU27  total  preferential 
imports from current GSP beneficiaries using any of the three arrangements increased by 
56%, whereas  overall imports from all third countries increased by  17% over the same 
period.  Imports  under  the  EBA  arrangement  outperformed  even  more,  with  an  81% 
increase over this period (from €13.9 billion in 2014 to €25.2 billion in 2019). During the 
same time, the share of imports from LDCs using EBA preferences in total EU imports 
from  LDCs  increased  from  less  than  50%  to  over  66%.  This  suggests  a  diversification 
away from fossil fuels and other items for which EBA preferences do not give additional 
advantages (e.g., because the EU’s MFN import duties are already zero). 

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the exit of Vietnam and other beneficiaries 
from the GSP scheme between 2019 and 2022 as discussed above, the longer-term trend 
remains positive, in particular for GSP+ and EBA beneficiaries, and to a certain extent also 
for countries under the standard GSP arrangement. In fact, imports from the current GSP 
beneficiaries reached an all-time high in 2022, at €80.6 billion (Figure 8). 

Figure 8: GSP preferential imports by arrangement, 2014-2022 (€ billion) 

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

47,3

22,9

18,0

6,5

50,3

23,8

19,6

6,9

39,9

20,4

13,9

5,6

54,7

26,2

21,0

7,5

57,8

27,2

23,0

7,6

62,3

28,7

25,2

8,5

52,7

23,6

21,3

7,7

56,2

24,2

22,3

9,6

80,6

35,4

32,0

13,3

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

EBA

GSP+

Standard GSP

GSP total

The  duty-free,  quota-free  EBA  arrangement  has  supported  improvements  in  domestic 
revenues  for  the  lowest  income  economies  in  the  world.  EBA  beneficiaries  had  strong 

(26)  The baseline was a continuation of the current regime, against which various scenarios were simulated. 
A scenario of the complete abolition of all three arrangements, which by comparison with the baseline 
would allow for a quantification of the overall impact, was not simulated as such a policy option was 
never considered (the EBA arrangement being open-ended). However, an abolition of the standard GSP 
and GSP+ arrangements was simulated. 

(27)  Note that the study made a number of assumptions about countries changing from one GSP category to 
the  other  by  the  end  of  the  projection  horizon  in  2029.  Bangladesh,  e.g.,  which  is  assumed  to  be  a 
standard GSP beneficiary by then, is not counted in these numbers. 

Page | 10 

 
 
 
 
overall  growth  in  exports  to  the  EU  with  good  performance  across  all  sectors.  GSP+ 
beneficiaries have shown, on average, more resilience to crises compared to standard GSP 
and EBA beneficiaries; with steady growth of exports to the EU over the years, smaller 
contractions in 2020, and a significant rebound in 2021. 

Compliance with international standards 

Alongside the economic benefits of GSP, beneficiary countries have advanced with regard 
to sustainable development and compliance with international standards. As a prerequisite 
for joining GSP+, all GSP+ beneficiaries ratified the relevant 27 international conventions, 
have  maintained  ratification,  and  have  made  no  reservations  which  go  against  the 
principles  of  the  conventions.  Overall  compliance  with  GSP+  requirements  in  terms  of 
cooperation  with  and  reporting  obligations  to  UN  and  ILO monitoring  bodies has  been 
relatively  high  as  most  reports  were  submitted  on  time.  In  the  few  instances  in  which 
reports were submitted either late or not at all, the Commission and the EEAS have raised 
this with the countries concerned. Moreover, GSP+ beneficiaries have committed to the 
effective implementation of the conventions and taken part in detailed monitoring of this 
commitment with the EU. The special incentives provided through the GSP+ arrangement 
have been instrumental in achieving this.  

The European Commission has established a rigorous process of engagement with GSP+ 
beneficiaries,  using  all  political  and  technical  channels  for  cooperation  and  dialogue. 
Specific monitoring missions in the GSP+ beneficiaries allow for collections of evidence 
on the ground and informing of compliance obligations. Such engagement is based on the 
issues  highlighted  by  the  UN  and  ILO  supervisory  mechanisms  and  their  reports  and 
recommendations, with the objective to promote progress over time in addressing those 
issues. The EU is also deploying significant financial and technical support to beneficiary 
countries in their efforts to effectively implement the international conventions.  

In terms of effective implementation on the ground, significant progress was achieved in 
the  field  of  human  rights,  notably  taking  a  medium-  to  long-term  perspective,  with 
legislative  reforms  being  carried  out  in  several  beneficiary  countries  to  tackle  key 
challenges. Positive developments are apparent especially in terms of efforts to advance 
women’s  and  children’s  rights,  the  fight  against  torture  and  ill  treatment,  and  the 
eradication of child labour and forced labour. For example, Pakistan adopted a law against 
torture and custodial death in 2022; Bolivia introduced a bill that defines torture in line 
with international standards and established a National Preventive Mechanism. However, 
despite  this  positive  progress  in  ensuring  a  conducive  legal  framework,  effective 
implementation  and enforcement  remain challenging. Restrictions to  civil society space 
and  freedom  of  expression  are  also  common  concerns  in  several  GSP  beneficiaries. 
Gender-based violence has been a common problem, exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis 
and the related restrictions. 

Progress has been achieved also in the field of labour rights and working conditions. All 
GSP+  beneficiary  countries  have  adopted  new  legislation  or  amended  existing  laws  to 
better comply with international standards. For example, Sri Lanka has made significant 
progress in the fight against child labour; Uzbekistan has eradicated forced and child labour 
in its cotton harvest through sustained efforts since 2016. However, in several countries, 
further efforts are required as there is still insufficient compliance with conventions or a 
lack  of  effective  cooperation  with  ILO  and  information  on  enforcement  and  effects  of 
policies. 

Overall, beneficiary countries are making progress in addressing key environmental and 
climate  change  challenges.  Positive  developments  regarding  the  implementation  of  the 

Page | 11 

 
Montreal  Protocol  and  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  have  taken  place  in  all 
GSP+ beneficiary countries. More ambition in the nationally determined contributions and 
cooperation  in  the  multilateral  fora  regarding  climate  change  and  biodiversity  are  also 
positive developments. Conversely, the effective implementation of the conventions was 
challenging and reporting obligations remain to be addressed in most of the beneficiary 
countries  as  regards  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  and  Endangered  Species 
(CITES), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 

With regards to good governance, positive developments have been observed both in terms 
of efforts towards drug control and anti-corruption measures. Although in general efforts 
are clearly noticeable, long-term challenges remain, such as the establishment of functional 
and politically independent anti-corruption agencies.  

5.  THE THREE ARRANGEMENTS 

5.1. 

Standard GSP  

There are currently ten standard GSP beneficiaries: the Republic of Congo, Cook Islands, 
India, Indonesia, Kenya, Micronesia, Nigeria, Niue, Syria, and Tajikistan. This number has 
declined  over  the  years,  including  during  the  reporting  period,  as  standard  GSP 
beneficiaries’ income status increases and/or they conclude preferential trade agreements 
with  the  EU,  therefore  no  longer  qualifying  for  GSP;  or  as  they  successfully  apply  for 
GSP+. 

As noted already in section 3, Vietnam left the scheme on 1 January 2023, after its FTA 
with the EU had entered into force on 1 August 2020, and India and Indonesia are currently 
negotiating preferential trade agreements with the EU.  

During  the  reporting  period,  standard  GSP  beneficiaries  continued  to  represent  a 
significant share of total GSP use, with the biggest users of the GSP scheme being India 
and Indonesia (Figure 9). Clothing (S-11b), machinery (S-16), and footwear (S-12) are the 
main products using standard GSP: combined, they represented nearly 50% of all standard 
GSP imports in 2022.  

Figure 9: Standard GSP – Imports using preferences by beneficiary country, 2019-2022 (€ million) 

2019

2020

2021

2022

13.825

11.541

14.348

18.845

5.959

4.880

8.729

7.110

5.433

7.635

4.305

5.268

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

India

Indonesia

Vietnam Cabo Verde

Bolivia Mongolia

Kyrgyz Republic

Others

Reflecting a high concentration of imports of specific products from certain standard GSP 

Page | 12 

 
 
 
beneficiaries, graduation (28) mechanisms have been triggered for  certain products from 
three standard GSP beneficiaries – India, Indonesia, and Kenya – over the reporting period 
and in 2023, resulting in EU imports of those goods originating from these countries no 
longer benefitting from the preferences. This is an indication of improved competitiveness 
of the relevant goods and industry sectors in these standard GSP beneficiaries. 

Belarus  was  formally  eligible  for  standard  GSP,  but  the  EU  fully  withdrew  its  GSP 
preferences  already  in  2006  due  to  serious  labour  rights  violations.  Belarus  expressed 
interest in re-engaging on this issue prior to the fraudulent elections in 2020. Given the 
continuous deterioration of the situation in Belarus as well as of EU-Belarus relations since 
then, including in the context of Russia’s military unprovoked and unjustified aggression 
against Ukraine, the withdrawal is maintained.  

5.2.  GSP+ 

The special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, or 
GSP+,  continues  to  be  a  key  tool  to  engage  with  and  support  vulnerable  developing 
countries. During the reporting period, the nine GSP+ beneficiaries were Armenia, Bolivia, 
Cabo Verde, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan.  

Despite the global economic challenges, one GSP+ beneficiary (Armenia) graduated from 
the scheme as of 1 January 2022 thanks to its economic development and higher income 
status. 

The GSP+ arrangement remains attractive for standard GSP beneficiaries, as demonstrated 
by  efforts  by  beneficiaries  to  take  additional  commitments  relating  to  ratification  and 
effective implementation of the relevant international conventions. This is illustrated for 
example  by  Uzbekistan’s  successful  application  and  joining  GSP+  status  as  of  1  April 
2021 (29) and Tajikistan’s engagement in a pre-application dialogue during the reporting 
period that led to a formal request to join the GSP+ in April 2023  (see also section 3.1 
above).  

The  top  three  GSP+  beneficiaries  in  terms  of  export  value  to  the  EU  (Pakistan,  the 
Philippines and Sri Lanka) accounted for over 90% of all imports into the EU under GSP+ 
during the reporting period, while the new GSP+ beneficiary (Uzbekistan) ranked fourth 
and with a growing use of the preferences (Figure 10). In terms of products, textiles and 
clothing combined (S-11a and S-11b) represent nearly 60% of all GSP+ imports into the 
EU in 2022, followed by electrical machinery (S-16) and oils, fats and waxes (S-3). 

(28)  Product graduation ensures that preferences are provided to those countries and products most in need 

and avoids competitive pressure among GSP beneficiaries.  

(29)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/576  of  30 November  2020  amending  Annex  III  to 
Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 to include the Republic of Uzbekistan among the countries benefiting 
from tariff preferences under the GSP+. 

Page | 13 

 
 
Figure 10: GSP+ – Imports using preferences by beneficiary country, 2019-2022 (€ million) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2019

2020

2021

2022

5.117

4.695

5.556

7.976

1.763

1.604

1.168

4
9

7
9
1

1.106

8
0
1

8
2
1

2.047

1.415

0
4
2

4
3
2

2.950

1.749

4
5
4

Pakistan

Philippines

Cabo Verde

Bolivia

Sri Lanka

Mongolia

Uzbekistan

Armenia

Kyrgyz Republic Others

The EU’s monitoring of GSP+ beneficiaries’ respect of their obligations in the reporting 
period  was  conducted  through  written  exchanges  of  information  as  well  as  in  person 
dedicated missions as soon as the global health situation allowed: in the reporting period 
it was possible to conduct missions in Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, 
and Uzbekistan (30). Issues relating to the GSP+ obligations were discussed regularly also 
in  the  context  of  other  high-level  meetings,  including  Trade  and  other  Committees  and 
Human Rights Dialogues. Dedicated Staff Working Documents on each of the nine GSP+ 
beneficiaries accompany this report and cover in more detail the state of implementation 
of  the  27  GSP-relevant  conventions  per  country,  as  well  as  the  monitoring  activities, 
economic impact of GSP+ and the broader political context for GSP in those countries. 

5.3.  Everything But Arms arrangement 

EBA countries make up the largest group of all GSP beneficiaries – 47 LDCs currently 
benefit  from  the  tariff-free  quota-free  access  to  the  EU  market  under  this  arrangement. 
Imports from LDCs accounted for 2% of total EU imports in 2019 and 40% of total imports 
from  all  GSP  countries.  69%  of  these  imports  from  LDCs  benefitted  from  EBA 
preferences (31). The top products (each worth over €1 billion) imported under the EBA 
arrangement  in  2022  were  clothing  and  footwear  (S-11b  and  S-12a),  followed  by  base 
metals and articles thereof (S-15b) and fish and crustaceans (S-1b).  

During  the  reporting  period,  preference  utilisation  in  EBA  countries  remained  almost 
constant at an average of 93%. The decrease in preferential imports in 2020 and 2021 (see 
further section 4 above) is largely the result of the economic crisis linked to the COVID-
19 pandemic, which initially turned the performance from 2014 to 2019 on its head: the 
average annual growth rate of goods imports from EBA beneficiaries in the earlier period 
(12.6%) was substantially higher than the EU’s overall import growth (at 3.2%). However, 
between 2019 and 2021, the average annual growth of the EU’s overall goods imports was 
10.6%,  while  the  preferential  imports  from  EBA  beneficiaries  contracted  by  an  annual 
average of 5.9%. But the strong performance in 2022 meant that EBA beneficiary countries 
managed to regain the competitive position that they had reached before the pandemic. 

It is also important to note that the decline in 2020 and 2021 was strongly dominated by 
the reduction in EU imports from Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Myanmar  (in that order) 
which  combined  accounts  for  90%  of  the  decrease  in  EU  preferential  imports  from  all 

(30)  Not in Bolivia, Cabo Verde, and Mongolia. 
(31)  The remaining imports benefit from other preferential arrangements or MFN zero duties.  

Page | 14 

 
 
 
 
LDCs between 2019 and 2021. That means that on average other LDCs hardly decreased 
their  exports  to  the  EU,  and  19  LDCs  actually  increased  their  exports.  In  the  case  of 
Cambodia  and  Myanmar,  the  decrease  has  largely  been  explained  by  country-specific 
political and economic factors – the partial withdrawal of EBA preferences for the former 
and the fallout of the 2021 military coup for the latter. 

During the reporting period, safeguards measures imposed by the Commission in 2019 on 
imports of rice from Cambodia and Myanmar applied until January 2022. 

The three  biggest  EBA  beneficiaries have been  under  enhanced engagement during the 
reporting period (Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Myanmar). In that period, EBA preferences 
were  partially  withdrawn  from  Cambodia  as  of  12  August  2020  due  to  serious  and 
systematic concerns related to human rights ascertained in the country (32). This report is 
accompanied  by  a  dedicated  Staff  Working  Document  providing  more  detailed 
information on this enhanced engagement and on the relevant developments in these three 
countries. 

The European Commission services and the EEAS may, as appropriate, further increase 
their vigilance regarding the human and labour rights situation also in other EBA countries 
depending  on  current  and  future  developments.  It  is  important  to  recall  that  continued 
enjoyment of EBA preferences requires that also EBA beneficiaries respect the principles 
laid down in all the UN and ILO conventions on human rights and labour rights listed in 
annex VIII of the GSP Regulation. 

6.  PARTNERSHIPS AND COOPERATION 

6.1. 

Support for GSP beneficiaries  

The  GSP  is  a  comprehensive  tool  to  support  long-term  sustainable  development  in 
beneficiary countries, as discussed already in section 1. This goal is further supported by 
the  formulation  of  Multiannual  Indicative  Programmes  (MIPs)  which  define  the  EU’s 
priority  areas  and  specific  objectives  for  development  cooperation  with  the  respective 
countries  (most  recently  for  the  period  2021-2027).  This  is  done  in  dialogue  with  the 
partner  country  government,  civil  society  and  other  stakeholders,  in  cooperation  with 
international organisations and monitoring bodies, to help the countries meet requirements 
and maximise utilisation and benefits of the GSP preferences. 

A majority of MIPs includes support to sustainable growth and decent jobs, with fair and 
just working conditions, which will make it possible for the Commission to design, where 
appropriate, specific actions and measures that contribute towards relevant support to GSP 
countries.  Work  towards  ratification  and  effective  implementation  of  conventions  and 
commitments related to good governance, human rights, migration, and environment also 
have ample support from MIPs generally. As GSP+ countries face specific requirements 
to be eligible for the additional tariff preferences, this is typically given particular attention. 

In 2020, the EU and its Member States together provided €22.9 billion or 40% of global 
Aid for Trade (AfT), making them the largest AfT donor in the world. The EU’s AfT is 
closely coordinated with its trade policy. Accordingly, 96% of AfT is directed to countries 
that have preferential access to the EU market, including through the GSP. GSP beneficiary 

(32)  EU Regulation 2020/550; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1469  

Page | 15 

 
 
countries received over one third of the EU’s AfT, not considering those who may have 
other types of preferential access. Among GSP beneficiaries, the majority of AfT goes to 
countries that have access to the EU market under the EBA.  

In 2020, EU AfT directed towards GSP beneficiary countries was relatively more focused 
on  two  areas.  First,  trade  policy  and  regulations,  which  often  includes  support  to  the 
capacity  of  designing  and  implementing  trade  policy,  including  specific  areas  such  as 
frameworks  on  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  (SPS)  measures,  intellectual  property  rights, 
technical  regulations,  trade  facilitation  and  customs  reforms.  Secondly,  building  trade 
development related capacity, which often includes a focus on strengthening the utilisation 
of  the  GSP  and  other  arrangements  through  supporting  export  competitiveness  of 
businesses, creating links with buyers, etc.  

EU AfT, including its support to GSP compliance and utilisation, is a tool to deliver on the 
Global  Gateway (33).  Launched  in  December  2021,  it  is  a  new  strategy  to  mobilise 
investments totalling €300 billion over 2021-2027. Half of this has been earmarked for the 
Europe-Africa  Global  Gateway  Investment  package.  In  line  with  the  EU’s  geopolitical 
ambitions and commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Global 
Gateway strategy aims to boost smart, clean and secure investments in digital, energy and 
transport,  and  to  strengthen  health,  education  and  research  systems  across  the  world  to 
underpin a lasting global recovery while promoting universal values and high standards, 
good governance and transparency. The Global Gateway will be delivered through a Team 
Europe  approach,  which  brings  together  the  EU  and  EU  Member  States  with  their 
implementing agencies and public development banks as well as European development 
financing institutions. It also seeks to mobilise the private sector to leverage investments 
for a transformational impact. 

Beyond this general  framework, there  are further specific opportunities to  support GSP 
goals, some examples of which are outlined below. Further options for GSP beneficiary 
countries to benefit from EU financed capacity building are for instance Socieux+ (34) or 
TAIEX (35).  

The Trade for Decent Work project (36) (2019-2021, €6 million), co-funded by the EU and 
Finland and implemented by the ILO, promoted the implementation of ILO fundamental 
conventions  in  specific  countries  under  the  EU  GSP+  and  EBA  arrangements.  The 
operation of the project was based on two frameworks: (1) a Global Facility, undertaking 
global initiatives in international labour standards and ad hoc support to specific needs of 
partner countries and (2) a Country-focused Facility providing support for selected target 
countries each year. The project  included  several  GSP beneficiaries  (Bangladesh, Cabo 
Verde,  Mongolia,  Madagascar,  Mozambique,  Pakistan,  and  the  Philippines).  The 
implementation of the project continues in 2022-2024. 

The years 2020-2021 marked the conclusion of three GSP+ related projects funded under 
the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  for  a  total  amount  of  €5.7 
million.  The  overall  objective  of  these  projects  was  to  empower  civil  society  actors 
including trade unions to monitor the effective compliance and implementation of GSP+ 
related  conventions  in  countries  where  the  special  incentive  arrangement  applies.  More 
specifically, these projects sought to build up the awareness and capacity of civil society 

(33)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-europe-world/global-gateway_en 
(34)  http://socieux.eu/about/  
(35)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9a6139af-d5f8-11ea-adf7-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

(36) https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/WCMS_697996/lang--en/index.htm  

Page | 16 

 
 
actors to conduct the monitoring but also advocate for legal and policy reforms to uphold 
labour  and  wider  human  rights  in  GSP+  beneficiary  countries.  This  was  achieved  for 
example by setting up Monitoring Task Forces to follow-up the implementation of main 
agreements related to UN and ILO Conventions, to build up constructive policy dialogue 
between civil society organisations (CSOs), social partners and state actors on these topics 
or  conduct  outreach  to  an  external  public  audience  through  extensive  media  coverage, 
national  human  rights  education  campaign  or  submission  to  the  Treaty  Bodies  and 
Universal Period Reviews. For example, in Bolivia, EU-funded Actions focused on CSO 
monitoring  and  advocacy  on  ratified  human  rights  conventions  before  national  and 
international  instances  such  as  the  Inter-American  Commission  on  Human  Rights 
(IACHR) and UN. The  high  relevance and the broad impact  of these projects  has  been 
underlined  in  several  evaluations  and  in  particular,  the  enhanced  general  understanding 
about the GSP+ arrangement, the increased dialogue and engagement with  State actors, 
and the increased capacity of CSOs to assess and report about its compliance.  

The  EU  also  supported  the  provision  of  comprehensive,  transparent,  centralised 
information on GSP for beneficiaries, businesses, civil society, and policy makers alike via 
the GSP Hub project. The GSP Hub (2019-2021, €400,000) aimed to improve awareness 
and  transparency  of  the  GSP,  its  economic  benefits  and  its  monitoring,  via  a  dedicated 
website (37), written publications, and a series of awareness events in Europe and in GSP 
beneficiary countries. The maintenance and update of the website will continue through 
2024.  

Beyond  support  to  implementation  of  GSP+  relevant  conventions,  the  EU  has  also 
provided sector-specific assistance for beneficiary countries to  achieve maximisation of 
GSP+  preference  utilisation.  The  EU-Sri  Lanka  Trade  Related  Assistance  Project  (€8 
million)  for  example  provided  sector  specific  assistance  on  sanitary  and  phytosanitary 
compliance,  packaging  and  labelling,  export  management  and  marketing,  and  market 
linkages  in  the  spices  and  processed  foods  sectors.  The  project  also  facilitated  the 
formulation  of  a  National  Export  Strategy  as  well  as  contributed  to  the  approval  of  a 
National  Quality  Infrastructure  Strategy  and  action  plan,  and  the  publishing  of  a  GSP+ 
Business Guide.  

6.2.  Way ahead 

In the coming years, the general direction of support to GSP+ beneficiaries will be defined 
by  the  continued  application  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe (38),  the  EU’s  new  main 
financing instrument for its external action in the period of 2021-2027, as mentioned in 
Section 6.1. A mid-term review will be completed in 2024, providing the opportunity to 
adjust priorities and resources where needed for the period of 2024-2027. Based on MIPs, 
Annual  Action Plans and other measures  defining specific  actions to  be  carried out  are 
established. The preparation of MIPs and Action for GSP beneficiaries takes into account 
their trade facilitation needs, including to increase GSP utilisation, as well as the priorities 
established under GSP+ monitoring and EBA enhanced engagement. Additionally, support 
for  GSP  beneficiaries  will  consider  the  changes  in  the  GSP  post-2023,  when  the  new 
Regulation  is  expected  to  enter  into  force,  notably  supporting  the  ambitions  of  current 
GSP+ beneficiaries and future graduating LDCs to be part of the new GSP+ for example 
by supporting ratification and implementation efforts.  

(37)  https://gsphub.eu/  
(38)  Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing 

the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe. 

Page | 17 

 
 
These  efforts  will  be  further  supported  by  the  EU’s  Global  Gateway  described  above. 
Accordingly,  trade-related  support  will  leverage  innovative  de-risking  tools  to  catalyse 
private sector investment.  The  Global Gateway strategy aims to boost smart,  clean  and 
secure investments in digital, energy and transport, and to strengthen health, education and 
research systems across the world to underpin a lasting global recovery while promoting 
universal values and high standards, good governance and transparency (39). 

7.  CONCLUSION  

As ample evidence indicates and as detailed in this report, the GSP provides substantial 
economic benefits to its beneficiaries, with the strongest impact on the EBA beneficiary 
countries. Between 2014 and 2019, preferential imports from EBA beneficiaries increased 
by 81% (from €13.9 billion to €25.2 billion in 2019). In the absence of GSP+ preferences, 
the GDP of GSP+ beneficiaries could be reduced by up to 0.3% - in absolute terms, up to 
€6.6 billion - and exports from GSP+ beneficiaries to the EU could drop by up to 25%.  

Furthermore, the GSP is an effective instrument to engage with and support developing 
countries  to  launch  the  necessary  reforms  towards  the  effective  implementation  of 
international  standards  of  human  rights,  labour  rights,  environmental  and  climate 
protection, and good governance.  

Overall compliance with GSP+ requirements in terms of reporting obligations to UN and 
ILO  monitoring  bodies  is  relatively  high,  reflecting  a  clear  commitment  by  beneficiary 
countries  to  this  key  prerequisite  for  participation  in  the  scheme  and  adherence  to 
international standards. This commitment also provides a basis for assessment by treaty 
monitoring  bodies,  which  is  in  turn  the  key  component  of  the  EU’s  monitoring  and 
engagement.  

On this basis, the Commission services and the EEAS are monitoring the respect of GSP 
obligations  to  comply  with  international  standards  for  all  beneficiaries,  and  more 
particularly for the beneficiaries of the GSP+ arrangement and some EBA beneficiaries. 
Monitoring focusses on the implementation of international standards set by the UN and 
ILO on their respective conventions. Engagement with beneficiary countries makes use of 
all opportunities and means of communication available, including existing formal  fora 
like  dialogues  and  joint  commissions,  as  well  as  monitoring  missions  and  other  more 
informal means of exchange. In this process, the inputs of civil society partners, both in 
the  beneficiary  country  and  internationally,  are  of  primary  importance.  Technical  and 
development  cooperation  projects  also  contribute  towards  the  goal  of  sustainable 
development and the implementation of international standards.  

Beyond  the  implementation  of  existing  obligations,  the  accompanying  Staff  Working 
Documents  show  beneficiaries’  commitment  to  international  standards  beyond  the 
formally established list of conventions listed in the GSP Regulation. For example, GSP+ 
beneficiaries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the 
Paris  Agreement,  which  are  not  listed  in  the  GSP  Regulation.  Moreover,  several  GSP 
beneficiaries  are  advancing  in  ratification  of  the  newly  established  fundamental  ILO 

39 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-europe-world/global-gateway_en 

Page | 18 

 
 
conventions  relating  to  occupational  safety  and  health,  as  well  as  ILO  conventions  on 
labour inspections and tripartite consultations, not listed in the GSP Regulation either.  

Against  the  background  of  these  incentives  and  monitoring,  over  the  last  few  years 
significant  progress  was  achieved  in  many  beneficiary  countries  in  terms  of  efforts  to 
advance women’s and children’s rights, the fight against torture and ill treatment, as well 
as labour rights and working conditions, including eradication of child labour and forced 
labour  in  GSP  beneficiary  countries.  Examples  include  Sri  Lanka,  which  has  made 
significant  progress  in  the  fight  against  child  labour.  Uzbekistan  eradicated  forced  and 
child  labour  in  its  cotton  harvest  through  sustained  efforts  since  2016.  Beneficiary 
countries  are  making  progress  in  addressing  key  environmental  and  climate  change 
challenges,  as  well  as  in  deploying  efforts  towards  drug  control  and  anti-corruption 
measures.  

In conclusion, the EU GSP contributes to positive economic and sustainable development 
in  beneficiary  countries  by  supporting  GSP  countries’  integration  in  the  international 
global  value  chains  and  their  compliance  with  the  respective  GSP  obligations.  The  EU 
GSP’s  incentive-based  approach  of  engagement  has  proven  successful,  and  it  should, 
therefore, continue. This implies establishing effective and trust-based interactions with 
GSP  governmental  authorities  over  issues  that  are  often  politically  sensitive  and  that 
require time to be tackled successfully. The EU GSP acts as a facilitator to achieve progress 
on the ground, in a way that is sustainable over time, through closer relations and positive 
engagement between the EU and beneficiary countries. 

It  is  fundamental  to  provide  continuity  and  legal  certainty  for  GSP  beneficiaries  and 
business. In view of the upcoming expiry of the GSP Regulation at the end of 2023 and 
the  still  on-going  negotiations  for  a  new  Regulation,  the  Commission  has  proposed  an 
extension of the current rules, which was welcomed by the European Parliament and the 
Council.  During  the  period  of  prolongation  of  the  current  rules,  monitoring  and 
engagement  will  continue  as  usual,  and  beneficiary  countries  should  continue  to  make 
reform  efforts.  Beyond  the  extension,  a  revised  GSP  Regulation  is  expected  to  provide 
continuity  and  maintain  the  essential  features  of  the  scheme,  while  being  flexible  to 
respond  to  future  political  challenges  such  as  changes  in  the  GSP  countries’  economic 
status, new sustainability demands and improving communication and transparency of the 
GSP monitoring and reporting work. 

Page | 19