Order Code RS22183
Updated January 8, 2007
Trade Preferences for Developing Countries
and the WTO
Jeanne J. Grimmett
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
World Trade Organization (WTO) Members must grant immediate and
unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to the products of other Members
with respect to tariffs and other trade-related measures. Programs such as the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), under which developed countries grant
preferential tariff rates to developing country products, are facially inconsistent with this
obligation because they accord goods of some countries more favorable tariff treatment
than that accorded to goods of other WTO Members. Because such programs have been
viewed as trade-expanding, however, Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provided a legal basis for one-way tariff preferences and
certain other preferential arrangements in a 1979 decision known as the Enabling
Clause. In 2004, the WTO Appellate Body ruled that the Clause allows developed
countries to offer different treatment to developing countries in a GSP program, but only
if identical treatment is available to all similarly situated GSP beneficiaries. Where
WTO Members’ preference programs have provided expanded benefits, Members
(including the United States) have in many instances obtained WTO waivers. With the
GSP and Andean preference programs set to expire at the end of 2006, Congress enacted
legislation in December 2006 (P.L. 109-432) extending the GSP for two years and
extending Andean preferences until June 30, 2007, with the possibility of conditional
extension thereafter. The statute also extends until September 30, 2012, with
amendments, a provision in the African Growth and Opportunity Act allowing lesser-
developed beneficiary countries to receive duty-free benefits for apparel made with third
country fabric or yarn and expands textile and apparel benefits for Haiti. This report
will be updated.
Trade Preferences and GATT MFN Requirements
As parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, World
Trade Organization (WTO) Members must under Article I:1 of the GATT grant
immediate and unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to the products of
other Members with respect to customs duties and import charges, internal taxes and

---

CRS-2
regulations, and other trade-related matters. Thus, whenever a WTO Member accords a
benefit to a product of one country, whether it is a WTO Member or not, the Member
must accord the same treatment to the like product of all other WTO Members.1 Tariff
preference programs for developing countries are facially inconsistent with this obligation
as the favorable treatment provided by the granting country to the goods of a specific
group of countries is not extended to all WTO Members. Since preference programs have
been viewed as vehicles of trade liberalization and economic development for developing
countries, however, GATT Parties have accommodated them in a series of joint actions.
In 1965, the GATT Parties added Part IV to the General Agreement, an amendment
that recognizes the special economic needs of developing countries and asserts the
principle of nonreciprocity. Under this principle, developed countries forego the receipt
of reciprocal benefits for their negotiated commitments to reduce or eliminate tariffs and
restrictions on the trade of less developed contracting parties.2 Because of the underlying
MFN issue, GATT Parties in 1971 adopted a waiver of Article I for the Generalized
System of Preferences (GSP), which allowed developed contracting parties to accord
more favorable tariff treatment to the products of developing countries for 10 years.3 The
GSP was described in the decision as a “system of generalized, nonreciprocal and
nondiscriminatory preferences beneficial to the developing countries.”
At the end of the GATT Tokyo Round in 1979, developing countries secured
adoption of the Enabling Clause, a permanent deviation from MFN by joint decision of
the GATT Contracting Parties. The Clause states that notwithstanding GATT Article I,
“contracting parties may accord differential and more favourable treatment to developing
countries, without according such treatment to other contracting parties” and applies this
exception to: (1) preferential tariff treatment in accordance with the GSP; (2) multilateral
nontariff preferences negotiated under GATT auspices; (3) multilateral arrangements
among less developed countries; and (4) special treatment of the least-developed countries
“in the context of any general or specific measures in favour of developing countries.”4
To describe the GSP, the Clause refers to the above-quoted description in the 1971
waiver. The Enabling Clause has since been incorporated into the GATT 1994.5
1 While the WTO uses the term “most-favored-nation” to describe nondiscriminatory trade
treatment, U.S. law has since 1998 referred to this treatment as “normal trade relations” (NTR)
status. See P.L. 105-206, § 5003. This report uses the WTO terminology.
2 Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation ¶ 9.212 (updated 1999)[hereinafter
McGovern]. Part IV is generally viewed as nonbinding, though some have argued otherwise with
regard to certain of its provisions. Id.; John H. Jackson, William J. Davey & Alan O. Sykes, Jr.,
Legal Problems of International Economic Relations 1171 (4th ed. 2002).
3 GATT, Generalized System of Preferences; Decision of 25 June 1971, L/3545 (June 28, 1971).
4 GATT, Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of
Developing Countries; Decision of 28 November 1979, L/4903 (Dec. 3, 1979). In 1999, the
WTO General Council waived GATT Article I:1 until June 30, 2009, to allow developing country
Members to provide preferential tariff treatment to products of least-developed countries,
without being required to do so for like products of other Members. Preferential Tariff Treatment
for Least-Developed Countries; Decision on Waiver, WT/L/304 (June 17, 1999).
5 Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994, ¶ 1(b)(iv); see WTO Appellate Body Report, infra note 15, at ¶ 90.3.

---

CRS-3
WTO Waivers for Preferential Trade Agreements
The European Union had argued in the GATT that it could further deviate from
Article I:1 MFN requirements for nonreciprocal free trade with developing countries
under GATT Part IV, discussed above, as well as Article XXIV, which provides an MFN
exception for customs unions and free trade areas meeting specified conditions. At issue
was the Lomé IV Convention, a preferential, nonreciprocal trade arrangement between
the EEC and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The Convention extended
beneficial tariff and quota treatment to ACP imports as well as development assistance
to ACP countries. GATT panels concluded in unadopted 1993 and 1994 panel reports
that such a deviation was not justified under either provision.6 Regarding the Article
XXIV claim, the 1994 report concluded that because the Lomé Convention involved non-
GATT Parties, the Article did not cover the agreement and thus could not be used to
justify the inconsistency with Article I of trade preferences for bananas imported from
ACP countries.7 The European Communities (EC) subsequently obtained a temporary
waiver of GATT Article I:1 for the Lomé agreement; a waiver was later granted for the
successor ACP-EC Partnership (Cotonou) Agreement until December 31, 2007.8
WTO Waivers for U.S. Preference Programs9
The United States until recently held a waiver of Article I:1 obligations for tariff
preferences accorded the former Trust Territories of the Pacific Island (TTPI); the waiver
expired December 31, 2006.10 U.S. waivers for tariff preferences under the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA),
each of which pertained solely to GATT Article I:1 obligations, expired December 31,
2005, and December 4, 2001, respectively.11 The United States does not hold a waiver
for preferences authorized in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which
are available to sub-Saharan African countries through September 30, 2015.12
6 McGovern, supra note 2, ¶ 9.212.
7 Panel Report, EEC — Import Regime for Bananas, ¶¶ 156-164, DS38/R (1994), as reprinted
in 34 Int’l Legal Materials 180 (1995).
8 GATT, L/7604 (December 19, 1994); WTO, WT/L/436 (December 7, 2001).
9 For further information on these programs, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of
Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate, by Vivian C. Jones; CRS Report RL32895,
Textile Exports to Trade Preference Regions, by Bernard A. Gelb; and CRS Report RS21772,
AGOA III: Amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity Act, by Danielle Langton.
10 United States — Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; Decision of 14 October 1996,
WT/L/183 (Oct. 18, 1996)(covered the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau).
11 Council for Trade in Goods, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; Draft Decision,
G/C/W/21/Rev.1 (Oct. 23, 1995); Council for Trade in Goods, Andean Trade Preference Act;
Draft Decision, G/C/W/54 (Sept. 4, 1996); World Trade Organization, WTO Analytical Index;
Guide to WTO Law and Practice 87 (1st ed. 2003).
12 African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), P.L. 106-200, Title I, 19 U.S.C. §§ 3701 et seq.,
as amended by the Trade Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004,
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
In February 2005, the United States submitted requests for GATT waivers for three
preferential tariff programs through their existing expiration dates: (1) CBERA, as
amended by the United States-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act (through September 30,
2008); (2) ATPA, as amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
(through December 31, 2006); and (3) AGOA (through September 30, 2015).13 These
programs extend duty-free treatment that in some cases is subject to quantitative
restrictions and, consequently, the requests seek waivers not only of GATT Article I:1 but
also of Article XIII, ¶¶ 1 and 2, which require nondiscrimination in administering quotas.
The waivers are still pending, with questions on the programs having been raised by
Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, and Paraguay.14
WTO-Legality of Non-trade Conditions in Preference Programs
In European Communities - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to
Developing Countries, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) explained how developed country
WTO members may design preferential-tariff programs within the requirements of the
Enabling Clause.15 The dispute between India and the European Communities (EC)
stemmed from an EC Regulation which awarded tariff preferences to a closed group of
12 beneficiary countries on the condition that they combat illicit drug production (the
Drug Arrangements). India brought the claim alleging that the Drug Arrangements were
inconsistent with GATT Article I:1 and unjustified by the Enabling Clause.
The initial dispute panel, in a report issued on December 1, 2003, concluded that the
EC was in violation of its WTO obligations, with one panelist dissenting on procedural
grounds.16 Addressing the nature of the Enabling Clause and its procedural implications,
a two member majority first concluded that the Enabling Clause functions as an exception
to the GATT Article I:1 MFN obligation and that, consequently, the burden of proof rests
on the party that invokes the Enabling Clause as a defense (¶ 7.53). The lone dissenter
argued that the MFN obligation does not apply to the Enabling Clause and that India did
12 (...continued)
P.L.108-274, and the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, P.L. 108-429.
13 Request for a Waiver, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act , G/C/W/508 (Jan. 3, 2005);
Request for a Waiver, Andean Trade Preferences Act, G/C/W/510 (Jan. 3, 2005) and
G/C/W/510/Add.1 (Mar. 15, 2005); and Request for a Waiver, African Growth and Opportunity
Act (AGOA), G/C/W/509 (Jan. 3, 2005).
14 Paraguay has blocked the U.S. requests, having suggested compensation as a means of
alleviating alleged trade damage caused by exclusion from U.S. programs; other WTO Members
have primarily raised textile trade issues. See Goods Council considers new EC enlargement,
extends Kimberley waiver, WTO News Item, November 20, 2006, at
[http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/ ctg_20nov06_e.htm]; Minutes of the Meeting
of the Council for Trade in Goods, July 12, 2006, at 3-8, G/C/M/85 (Sept. 14, 2006); May 9,
2006, at 3-11, G/C/M/84 (June 29, 2006); Mar. 10, 2006, at 3-13, G/C/M/83 (May 1, 2006); Nov.
10, 2005, at 9-12, G/C/M/82 (Nov. 28, 2005).
15 Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R (Apr. 7, 2004).
16 Panel Report, European Communities — Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to
Developing Countries, WT/DS246/R (Dec. 1, 2003).

---

CRS-5
not properly bring the claim under the Clause (¶¶ 9.15, 9.21). Employing a broad reading
of the term “non-discriminatory” in the Clause’s description of the GSP, the panel
concluded that developed countries were required to provide “identical tariff preferences”
under GSP schemes to “all developing countries” (¶ 7.161). Applying this standard, the
panel then ruled that the Drug Arrangements were inconsistent with GATT Article I:1 and
could not be justified under the Clause (¶ 7.177). The European Communities appealed.
The Appellate Body report, issued on April 7, 2004, first addressed the relationship
between GATT Article I:1 and the Enabling Clause. The AB upheld the panel’s findings
that the Enabling Clause is an exception to GATT Article I:1 and that the Clause does not
exclude the applicability of Article I:1 (¶¶ 99-103). The AB explained that the Enabling
Clause is to be read together with Article I:1 in the procedural sense, since a challenged
measure, such as the Drug Arrangements, is “submitted successively to the test of
compatibility with the two provisions.” In other words, when the Enabling Clause is
implicated, the dispute panel first examines whether a measure is consistent with Article
I:1, “as the general rule,” and, if it is found not to be so, the panel then examines whether
the measure may be justified under the Clause (¶¶ 101-102).
Noting the “vital role” played by the Enabling Clause “in promoting trade as a
means of stimulating economic growth and development” and the intent of WTO
Members through the Clause to encourage the adoption of preference schemes, the AB
found that the Clause was not a typical GATT exception or defense (¶ 106, 114). Thus,
the AB modified the panel’s finding and held that, unlike the ordinary practice with
respect to GATT exceptions, under which exceptions are invoked only by the responding
party, “it was incumbent upon [complainant] India to raise the Enabling Clause in making
its claim of inconsistency with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994” and to identify specific
provisions of the Clause which it believed were violated by the respondent’s measure (¶¶
115, 123)(emphasis in original). At the same time, the burden of justifying GSP schemes
under the cited Enabling Clause provisions still rests on a respondent (¶ 125). In
application, the AB found that India sufficiently raised the issue, thereby placing the
burden on the EC to justify the Drug Arrangements under the Clause.
Most importantly, the AB reversed the panel’s substantive decision regarding the
breadth of acceptable preference programs under the Enabling Clause. The AB found
instead that developed countries can grant preferences beyond those provided in their GSP
to developing countries with particular needs, but only if identical treatment is available
to all similarly situated GSP beneficiaries (¶ 173). The AB elaborated that similarly
situated GSP beneficiaries are all GSP beneficiaries that have the “development, financial,
and trade needs” to which the treatment is intended to respond (¶ 173). In reaching this
conclusion, the AB reversed the panel’s reading of the term “non-discriminatory” as used
to define the GSP in the Enabling Clause. Even under the more expansive view of the
Enabling Clause, however, the AB upheld the Panel’s ruling that the EC failed to prove
the Drug Arrangements were in fact “non-discriminatory” (¶ 189). Two factors led the
AB to its conclusion: (1) the closed list of beneficiary countries in the Drug Arrangements
could not ensure that the preferences would be available to all GSP beneficiaries suffering
from illicit drug production and trafficking, and (2) the Drug Arrangements did not set out
objective criteria that distinguished beneficiaries under the Drug Arrangements from other
GSP beneficiaries (¶¶ 187, 188).

---

CRS-6
Before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the ruling, the U.S. WTO
representative stated, according to meeting minutes, that the United States was pleased
that the Appellate Body had “reversed the Panel’s finding that the Enabling Clause
required developed countries under their GSP programs to provide identical preferences
to all developing countries” and that the AB’s decision “would help maintain the viability
of GSP programs.”17 The United States raised concerns, however, about the AB’s finding
that complainant India needed to raise the Clause, but that the EC bore the burden of
proving that the Drug Arrangements were consistent with the Clause. The United States
questioned the legal basis for this “hybrid approach” suggesting that difficulties might
ensue in allowing the complaining party to set the burden of proof for the respondent.
Recent Legislation
With the GSP and Andean preference programs set to expire at the end of 2006,18
Congress enacted legislation in December 2006 (P.L. 109-432) extending the GSP for two
years, with an amendment calling on the President to revoke certain competitive need
waivers, and extending Andean preferences until June 30, 2007, with the possibility of
conditional extension thereafter. The statute also extends until September 30, 2012, with
amendments, a provision in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) permitting
lesser-developed beneficiaries to obtain duty-free benefits for textile products regardless
of the origin of the fabric or yarn used, and expands textile and apparel benefits for
Haiti.19
17 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, Apr. 20, 2004, ¶¶ 58-59, WT/DSB/M/167
(May 27, 2004)(emphasis in original).
18 Current beneficiaries of the Andean program, 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 3201 et seq., are Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. All but Bolivia have been engaged in free trade agreement (FTA)
negotiations with the United States; negotiations have concluded with Colombia and Peru, while
negotiations with Ecuador are currently inactive. It has been U.S. policy to remove a beneficiary
country from a preference program once it becomes an FTA party.
19 For further information on textile issues involving Haiti, see CRS Report RS21839, Haitian
Textile Industry: Impact of Proposed Trade Assistance, by Bernard A. Gelb.

---