ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
March 9, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22548
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
Summary
The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) extends duty-free treatment to certain U.S. imports that
meet domestic content and other requirements from designated countries in the Andean region.
The purpose of ATPA is to promote economic growth in the Andean region and to encourage a
shift away from dependence on illegal drugs by supporting legitimate economic activities. ATPA
(Title II of P.L. 102-182) was enacted on December 4, 1991. It was renewed and modified under
the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA; Title XXXI of P.L. 107-210)
on August 6, 2002, extending trade preferences until December 31, 2006. Since that time,
Congress has provided several short-term extensions of ATPA. The most recent extension took
place late in December 2010 when the 111th Congress enacted legislation for a six-week extension
of ATPA for Colombia and Ecuador until February 12, 2011 (P.L. 111-344). The 112th Congress
has not renewed ATPA.
The countries originally designated to qualify for trade preferences under ATPA were Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Trade preferences for Peru were not renewed in 2010 because Peru
has a free trade agreement with the United States, which entered into force in February 2009. In
the case of Bolivia, trade preferences were suspended in December 2008 because Bolivia failed to
meet ATPA eligibility criteria related to counter-narcotics cooperation. Bolivia may only be
reinstated as a beneficiary country under ATPA if Congress approves legislation to do so.
The impact of the ATPA on coca production in Andean countries has been small and mostly
indirect, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The study
reports that illegal coca cultivation fell substantially in Andean countries from a 20-year peak of
232,500 hectares in 2007 to 192,000 in 2008. The study also reports that the ATPA, in
combination with other alternative development programs, may indirectly have helped support
job growth in certain exports from Andean countries, such as fresh-cut flowers, asparagus,
bananas, and pineapples.
The trade effects of ATPA on the U.S. economy have been minimal because the amount of U.S.
trade with the Andean region is low. The value of duty-free U.S. imports under ATPA accounts for
about 0.8% of total U.S. imports, or 0.1% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).
Approximately 90% of U.S. imports from ATPA countries enter duty-free under various trade
preference programs or through normal trade relations. Duty-free imports under ATPA account for
49.9% of total U.S. imports from ATPA countries. Leading U.S. ATPA imports in 2010 were
crude petroleum oil, cut flowers, petroleum-oil products (other than crude), refined copper, t-
shirts and similar apparel, and fish and caviar products.
The 112th Congress may reevaluate the extension of ATPA trade preferences for Ecuador and
Colombia. Policymakers may also consider broader reform of U.S. trade preference programs,
including the Generalized System of Preferences. Some Members of Congress maintain that if
ATPA trade preferences are not extended, the United States and the Andean countries risk losing
some of the economic progress that has been achieved over the 18-year life of the program.
Supporters of ATPA argue that the program should continue to reinforce the U.S. commitment to
the “alternative development” counternarcotics strategy. Critics of ATPA argue that unilateral
trade programs are ineffective; that the ATPA has forced U.S. producers to compete with lower-
cost Andean imports; and that, in cases such as Bolivia and Ecuador, trade preferences should not
be extended to countries that do not support U.S. foreign and trade policies.
Congressional Research Service
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
Contents
ATPA Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Trade with Andean Countries............................................................................................... 2
U.S. Trade with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru .......................................................... 2
U.S. ATPA Imports................................................................................................................ 2
ATPA Impact............................................................................................................................... 4
Possible Sectoral Effects ....................................................................................................... 5
Effects of Bolivia’s Suspension under ATPA.......................................................................... 6
Policy Implications ..................................................................................................................... 8
Issues Regarding Suspension of Bolivia ................................................................................ 8
Issues Regarding Investment Dispute in Ecuador................................................................... 9
Colombia ............................................................................................................................ 10
Possible Trade Preference Program Reform......................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Total U.S. Imports from Original ATPA Countries: 2006-2010 ....................................... 3
Table 2. Total U.S. Exports to Original ATPA Countries: 2006-2010............................................ 3
Table 3. U.S. Imports from ATPA Countries: 2001, 2008, and 2010 ............................................. 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
ATPA Overview
The United States extends duty-free treatment to certain imports from Colombia and Ecuador
under a regional trade preference program that began under the Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA). ATPA was enacted on December 4, 1991 (Title II of P.L. 102-182), and was originally
authorized for 10 years with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as designated beneficiary
countries.1 It lapsed on December 4, 2001, and was renewed and modified on August 6, 2002,
under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA; Title XXXI of P.L. 107-
210). ATPDEA amended ATPA by expanding trade preferences to include additional products that
were previously excluded under ATPA. These products include certain items in the following
categories: petroleum and petroleum products, textiles and apparel products, footwear, tuna in
flexible containers, and others. Since the enactment of ATPDEA, Congress has extended ATPA
several times for short-term periods. The most recent extension of ATPA continued preferential
duty treatment for Colombia and Ecuador through February 12, 2011 (P.L. 111-344). The 112th
Congress has not renewed trade preferences and ATPA preferences are currently expired.
The 112th Congress may consider legislation to extend ATPA for Colombia and Ecuador, and may
address the issue of reinstating Bolivia as a beneficiary country under ATPA. Under the most
recent ATPA extension, Peru was dropped from the list of designated beneficiaries because the
United States and Peru have a free trade agreement, which entered into force on February 1, 2009
(P.L. 110-138). The previous extension of ATPA provided trade preferences for Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru until the end of 2010 (P.L. 111-124). In the case of Bolivia, President George
W. Bush suspended Bolivia’s designation in November 2008, stating that Bolivia failed to meet
the eligibility criteria because of its lack of cooperation with the United States on counter-
narcotics efforts. In 2009, President Barack Obama continued the Bush Administration’s
determination that Bolivia was not meeting the eligibility criteria. The President’s option of
reinstating Bolivia as an ATPA beneficiary country expired on June 30, 2009. Bolivia can only be
reinstated as a beneficiary country under ATPA if Congress approves legislation to do so.
ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, is part of a broader U.S. initiative with Andean countries to
address the drug trade problem with Latin America. The act (as a complement to crop eradication,
interdiction, and other counter-narcotics efforts) was intended to promote economic growth in the
Andean region and to encourage a shift away from dependence on illegal drugs by supporting
legitimate economic activities. Increased access to the U.S. market was expected to help create
jobs and expand legitimate opportunities for workers in the Andean countries in alternative export
sectors.
1 Bolivia and Peru were originally designated as beneficiary countries under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).
Peru is no longer a beneficiary country because of the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement which entered into force in
February 2009. Bolivia’s designation as a beneficiary country was suspended by the President as of December 2008
because the country failed to meet the requirements set forth by the ATPA.
Congressional Research Service
1
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
U.S. Trade with Andean Countries
U.S. Trade with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru
In 2010, the United States imported $28.9 billion (1.5% of total U.S. imports) from the four
Andean countries that were originally designated as ATPA beneficiaries (Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru), as shown in Table 1. Colombia is the leading source of U.S. imports from the
region. In 2010, total U.S. imports from Colombia amounted to $15.7 billion; leading import
items were crude petroleum oil, gold, and coal. The next leading supplier of U.S. imports from
the Andean countries is Ecuador ($7.3 billion in 2010), followed by Peru ($5.2 billion), and
Bolivia ($0.7 billion). The four countries collectively were the 15th-leading supplier of U.S.
imports. Colombia and Ecuador have the highest market share of exports going to the United
States, with approximately 42% of Colombia’s and 33% of Ecuador’s exports headed to the
United States. Leading U.S. imports from this region in 2010 consisted of crude petroleum oil
(50%), gold (7%), petroleum oil other than crude (5%), coffee (4%), and coal (3%).
The region accounts for a very small market share of total U.S. exports (1.2%). In 2010, the four
countries collectively were the 14th-largest market for total U.S. exports. Exports from the United
States to the region totaled $22.5 billion in 2010, with Colombia accounting for the largest share
of U.S. exports to the region ($11.0 billion), followed by Peru ($6.1 billion), Ecuador ($5.0
billion), and Bolivia ($0.4 billion), as shown in Table 2. Leading U.S. exports to the region in
2010 were petroleum oil products other than crude (22%), machinery parts (3%), polymers of
ethylene (2%), bulldozers and related products (2%), and aircraft and related products (2%).
U.S. ATPA Imports
Duty-free imports accounted for 87.4% of U.S. imports from the region in 2010. ATPA duty-free
imports accounted for 49.9% of total U.S. imports from the region, as shown in Table 3. Of the
remaining duty-free imports, a small share (1.3%) entered into the United States under GSP and
the remainder entered under normal trade relations, which applies on a nondiscriminatory basis to
almost all U.S. trading partners. Only 12.6% of the value of U.S. imports from the four countries
was dutiable in 2010. Leading U.S. ATPA imports in 2009 were crude petroleum oil, cut flowers,
petroleum oil other than crude, t-shirts and similar apparel, and fish and caviar products.
The year 2008 marked the sixth full year that ATPA provisions were in effect after its renewal
under ATPDEA and also the last year that trade preferences were in effect for all four countries
originally designated as ATPA beneficiaries. Between 2001 and 2008, total U.S. ATPA imports
increased from $1.7 billion (17% of total imports from ATPA countries) to $17.2 billion (61% of
total imports from ATPA countries), an increase of more than 900%. Between 2008 and 2010,
however, ATPA imports fell from $17.2 billion to $14.4 billion, a decrease of $2.8 billion, or
16.3%, mostly as a result of lower imports from Bolivia and Peru. Bolivia was removed from the
list of ATPA designated countries in December 2008, which was the last year that imports from
Bolivia received ATPA preferences. As shown in Table 3, U.S. ATPA imports from Bolivia went
down to zero in 2010. Because of the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, which went into force on
February 1, 2009, U.S. ATPA imports from Peru declined from $3.2 billion in 2008 to $759
million in 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
Table 1. Total U.S. Imports from Original ATPA Countries: 2006-2010
(US$ billions)
Leading U.S.
import items in
Country
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010a
Bolivia 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7
Crude
petroleum
oil, tin, silver
Colombia 9.2 9.3 13.1 11.2 15.7
Crude
petroleum
oil, gold, coal
Ecuador 7.0 6.1 9.0 5.2 7.3
Crude
petroleum
oil, bananas,
crustaceans
Peru
5.9 5.2 5.8 4.2 5.2
Copper,
petroleum oil
(other than
crude), gold
Total 22.5 20.9 28.5 21.2 28.9
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb,
http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Compiled by CRS.
Notes:
a. Imports at the HTS 4-digit level.
Table 2. Total U.S. Exports to Original ATPA Countries: 2006-2010
(US$ billions)
Leading U.S.
export items in
Country
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2010
Bolivia 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Aircraft,
data
processing
machines, jewelry
Colombia 6.2 7.9 10.6 8.8 11.0
Petroleum
oils
(other than
crude), machinery
parts, polymers of
ethylene
Ecuador 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.6 5.0
Petroleum
oils
(other than
crude), petroleum
gases, aircraft
Peru
2.7 3.8 5.7 4.4 6.1
Petroleum
oils
(other than
crude), bulldozers,
machinery parts
Total 11.6 14.6 19.8 17.1 22.5
Source: USITC Tariff and Trade DataWeb, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Compiled by CRS.
Notes:
a. Exports at the HTS 4-digit level.
Congressional Research Service
3
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
Table 3. U.S. Imports from ATPA Countries: 2001, 2008, and 2010
(US$ billions)
% of Total
Boliviaa Colombia Ecuador Peru
Total
Imports
2001 Total Imports
165.1 5,622.6 1,975.4 1,805.5 9,568.7
Duty-Free
Imports
137.3 3,281.0 1,038.1 1,221.0 5,677.3
59.3%
ATPA
53.2 696.6 216.1 686.3
1,652.2 17.3%
GSP
9.5 68.2 33.0 73.4 184.2 1.9%
Other
duty-free
74.5 2,516.1
789.0
461.3 3,840.9
40.1%
2008 Total Imports
540.4 13,058.8 9,043.8 5,839.9 28,483.0
Duty-Free Imports
471.2
12,001.2
7,915.4
5,507.9
25,895.7
90.9%
Total ATPA (including
140.0 7,339.2 6,594.8 3,168.7 17,242.7
60.5%
ATPDEA)
ATPDEA
83.0 6,527.8 6,311.1 1,648.6 14,544.4
51.1%
ATPA
57.0
811.5
283.7 1,520.1 2,698.2
9.5%
GSP
47.6 235.8 57.1 271.0 611.6 2.1%
Other
duty-free
283.6 4,426.2 1,263.5 2,068.1 8,041.4
28.2%
2010 Total Imports
675.9
15,672.6
7,333.8
5,172.5
28,854.8
Duty-Free Imports
457.4
14,536.6
5,507.1
4,729.2
25,230.3
87.4%
Total ATPA (including
0.0 9,472.6 4,179.1 759.3 14,410.9
49.9%
ATPDEA)
ATPDEA
0.0 8,538.9 3,886.6
534.1 12,959.5
44.9%
ATPA
0.0 933.7 292.5 225.2
1,451.4 5.0%
GSP
155.7
158.5 54.3 0 368.5 1.3%
Other
duty-free
301.7 4,905.5 1,273.7 3,969.9 10,451.0
36.2%
Source: USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Compiled by CRS.
a. Bolivia’s designation as an ATPA beneficiary country was suspended on December 15, 2008.
ATPA Impact
The trade effects of ATPA on the U.S. economy are minimal because the amount of U.S. trade
with the region is low. The value of duty-free U.S. imports under ATPA accounts for about 0.7%
of total U.S. imports, or 0.1% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). A 2010 U.S.
International Trade Commission (USITC) study on the ATPA states that the overall effect of
ATPA-eligible imports on the U.S. economy continued to be minimal in 2008 and 2009. The
study estimates that U.S. imports under ATPA of fresh-cut roses and fresh-cut chrysanthemums
provided the most significant impact on U.S. consumers through lower prices. For U.S.
producers, the study estimates that the most significant adverse impact of ATPA tariff preferences
Congressional Research Service
4
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
occurred in 2008 and 2009 as a result of reduced domestic production in fresh-cut
chrysanthemums.2
The impact of the ATPA on coca production in Andean countries has been small and mostly
indirect, according to the USITC study.3 The ATPA, combined with U.S. economic assistance
through alternative development programs,4 may have contributed to the U.S. counter-narcotics
effort. The USITC study states that, in 2008 and 2009, ATPA continued to have a small, indirect
effect in support of illicit coca eradication and crop substitution efforts in the Andean region.
Although coca cultivation has decreased notably since 2007, ATPA was not a major cause of this
and there were likely other factors that contributed to the decline. The study reports that,
according to U.S. State Department data, illegal coca cultivation fell substantially in the Andean
countries of Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru, from a 20-year peak of 232,500 hectares (ha) in 2007 to
192,000 ha in 2008. The study also states that Ecuador effectively eradicated its coca cultivation
by 1992, but remains a major transit country for illegal drugs trafficked from Colombia and Peru.5
The rapid rise in the value of imports from ATPA countries since it was modified by ATPDEA
was primarily due to an increase in the value of imports of petroleum-related products. Imports of
crude petroleum oils accounted for over 70% of U.S. imports under ATPA in 2009. The ATPA, in
combination with other alternative development programs, may have helped support job growth
in certain export sectors, such as fresh-cut flowers and legal crops (asparagus, bananas,
pineapples, and other crops), and expanded alternatives to workers who may have otherwise
engaged in drug-crop production.6
Possible Sectoral Effects
The USITC study identified the fresh-cut chrysanthemum flower industry as the one U.S. sector
that had an estimated displacement of 5% or more due to the ATPA in 2009. In 2007, the two
industries that were identified as having an estimated displacement of 5% or more were asparagus
and fresh-cut flowers (roses and chrysanthemums). ATPA countries supplied 82% of the total
value of U.S. imports of fresh-cut flowers and 99% of the total value of U.S. imports of
chrysanthemums in 2009. U.S. imports of fresh-cut flowers from ATPA countries are primarily
sourced from Colombia, and to a much lesser extent, from Ecuador.7 Almost all imports in this
category enter the United States duty-free under ATPA. The United States is an important fresh-
cut flower export market for ATPA countries, accounting for 80% of the total value of Colombian
exports ($1.02 billion) and 42% of Ecuadorian exports ($471 million) in 2009. The USITC
reports that U.S. companies have invested more than $250 million in the Colombian flower
industry and own approximately 17% of total Colombian cut-flower production.8 Colombia’s
association of flower exporters estimates that the industry provided for 220,000 jobs in Colombia
2 U.S. International Trade Commission, Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and
on Drug Crop Eradication and Crop Substitution, 2009: Fourteenth Report, USITC Publication 4188, September 2010
(hereinafter USITC Publication 4188).
3 USITC Publication 4188, pp. 4-1 and 4-2.
4 The Alternative Development program is a program funded under the U.S. Agency for International Development’s
Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI).
5 USITC Publication 4188, pp. 4-2 and 4-3.
6 Ibid., pp. x and xi.
7 Ibid., pp. 3-10 through 3-13.
8 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
in 2010 and that the U.S. government has recognized the Colombian flower industry as an
important ally in efforts to combat the illegal drug trade. The flower industry also provides for
jobs in the United States, including airline industry employees, customs personnel, custom
brokers, flower importers, retail flower shops employees, and others. However, some U.S.
producers of fresh-cut flowers have been adversely affected by ATPA imports and contend that
many U.S. flower farmers in California have been forced to give up their farms due to increased
flower imports from Colombia and Ecuador.9
Another sector that has been affected is the asparagus industry. Peru is the leading exporter of
asparagus in the world and, by far, the major Andean supplier of fresh asparagus to the U.S.
market. In 2009, Peru supplied nearly all U.S. asparagus imports under ATPA and 57% of all U.S.
fresh asparagus imports. Asparagus imports from ATPA countries in 2007 totaled $162.7 million,
an increase of 24% from 2006. U.S. asparagus imports from ATPA countries increased in 2008 to
$153.5 million and then increased to $162.3 million in 2009.10 Although U.S. producers may have
been adversely affected by lower prices resulting from ATPA, U.S. consumers have benefitted
from a greater availability of fresh asparagus throughout the year and from lower retail prices.
The Peruvian Asparagus Importers Association states that U.S. consumers have benefited from
asparagus imports from Peru because there is now greater availability of fresh asparagus
throughout the year. The association also states that most imports from Peru are destined
predominantly to the eastern United States in areas where local production is minimal. The
Peruvian asparagus industry provides jobs for an estimated 60,000 workers in Peru and is
considered to be an important part of overall economic development in Peru. The Peruvian
Asparagus and Vegetables Institute (IPEH) estimated that nearly 40% of the workers in the
asparagus industry in 2006 came from areas that formerly supplied workers to illegal coca
cultivation.11
Since the ATPA was amended by ATPDEA, investment in the textiles and apparel industries has
increased in the Andean region. Textiles and apparel production has been a leading source of
economic activity, particularly in Colombia and Peru. In 2009, the textiles and apparel industries
provided jobs for 129,434 workers and accounted for 20% of Colombia’s manufacturing jobs.
Peru has been the leading Andean textile and apparel supplier to the United States for the past
several years. In 2009, Peru accounted for 70% ($620 million) of U.S. textiles and apparel
imports from the region.12
Effects of Bolivia’s Suspension under ATPA
The effect of the suspension of trade preferences for Bolivia is difficult to measure because of
other factors that affect the economy. A major impact has likely been a loss of investor confidence
and reduced private investment, which would subsequently affect jobs. However, investment in
Bolivia is also affected by other economic factors and by the internal political situation.13 The
policies of current Bolivian President Evo Morales, an indigenous leader elected in December
9 USITC Publication 4188, pp. 5-8 through 5-11.
10 Based on data from the U.S. International Trade Commission trade database.
11 Peruvian Asparagus Importers Association, Written Statement for the House Committee on Ways and Means, July
12, 2006.
12 USITC Publication 4188, pp. 3-22 and 3-23.
13 EIU, Country Report: Bolivia, January 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
2005, have restricted foreign direct investment (FDI) in Bolivia and subsequently caused a great
deal of uncertainty for foreign investors. President Morales has nationalized a number of
industries since 2006, including hydrocarbons, telecommunications and electricity. Bolivia has
stringent rules on foreign ownership and profit repatriation. In addition, U.S.-Bolivian relations
have been strained by the Morales government’s drug policy and its increasing ties with
Venezuela. In September 2008, Bolivia broke off diplomatic ties with the United States over
accusations of political interference. Restoring diplomatic ties with the United States remains
challenging.14 The resulting political uncertainty in Bolivia has likely affected the potential for
long-term investments in Bolivia and probably contributed to volatility in Bolivia’s FDI flows as
well as potential ATPA-related investment. Though foreign investment flows to Bolivia are
relatively low, any negative impact on the economy could be significant because the size of the
Bolivian economy is so small.
The losses due to the suspension of ATPA trade preferences would likely be concentrated in
certain sectors or regions of the country and, therefore, could come at a significant cost to certain
communities. Some reports on Bolivia’s economy and the effect of the removal of ATPA trade
preferences for Bolivia conclude that one of the main impacts will be a loss of investor
confidence and reduced private investment, which subsequently affects jobs. The government of
Bolivia estimated that before Bolivia’s suspension, ATPA trade preferences created 19,300 jobs,
mostly in the clothing sector. One report cited by the USITC study estimates that the suspension
of trade preferences for Bolivia resulted in thousands of job losses in the textiles and leather
sectors. Another report estimates that employment in the textile sector fell 30% since trade
preferences were suspended.15
A 2008 private sector report by a group of Bolivian business owners called the Confederación de
Empresarios Privados de Bolivia (CEPB) stated that the Bolivian economy is going through a
major crisis due to the political situation and a weakening of free trade practices in the country.16
The report argued that the suspension of ATPA benefits for Bolivia would increase investor
uncertainty, increase unemployment, and have a detrimental effect on attempts to reduce the
production of drugs in Bolivia.17 According to the report, the suspension of ATPA duty benefits
for Bolivian exports would mostly affect Bolivia’s manufacturing industry because such a high
percentage (55%) of Bolivia’s total exports in this industry are headed to the United States. The
report estimated that the removal of duty-free benefits for Bolivian exports to the United States
could eliminate 12,000 direct jobs in the textile sector and up to 85,000 other jobs indirectly.18
The report also stated that the La Paz region in Bolivia would be the most affected region,
especially within the El Alto area, which has high levels of poverty. The study argued that any
negative effects in this region can add to political instability and pose a high risk for democracy
in Bolivia.19
Another report, by the Université de Lausanne (Unil), estimated the effects of ATPA suspension
on Bolivian real incomes.20 The Unil study stated that most industries affected by the removal of
14 Ibid., p. 5.
15 USITC Publication 4188, pp. 3-15 through 3-17.
16 Confederación de Empresarios Privados de Bolivia, The Importance of ATPDEA for Bolivia, October 2008.
17 Ibid., p. 1.
18 The study does not present a methodology explaining how it estimated job losses.
19 Confederación de Empresarios Privados de Bolivia, The Importance of ATPDEA for Bolivia, October 2008, p. 6.
20 Université de Lausanne (Unil), ATPDEA’s End: Effects on Bolivian Real Incomes, by Olivier Cadot, Etchel M.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
ATPA duty benefits are mostly situated in La Paz and El Alto in Bolivia. It estimated that the
effect of ATPA termination on households with employees in the manufacturing industry is
sizable, but the proportion of those households to the economy as a whole is very small. The
study estimated that the termination of ATPA duty benefits would cause a 0.13% drop in
manufacturing employment in Bolivia, in general, and a 2% decline in the textile and apparel
sector, the most affected sector according to the authors of the study. However, the study’s
projected job losses fall more than proportionately on indigenous people and the authors argue
that indigenous people would have fewer “outside opportunities” for earning money once they
lose their job.21
Policy Implications
During the 112th Congress, policymakers may consider another extension of ATPA trade
preferences for Ecuador and Colombia, which expired on February 12, 2011, and may address the
issue of reinstating Bolivia as a designated beneficiary. Some policymakers believe that if ATPA
trade preferences are not extended, the United States and the Andean countries risk losing some
of the economic progress that has been achieved over the life of the program. Supporters of ATPA
argue that the program should continue to reinforce the U.S. commitment to the “alternative
development” counternarcotics strategy. Critics of ATPA argue that unilateral trade programs are
ineffective; that the ATPA has forced U.S. producers to compete with lower-cost Andean imports;
and that trade preferences should not be extended to countries that do not support U.S. foreign
and trade policies. In the Andean countries, ATPA supporters state that the program has had a
positive impact in the region by increasing investor confidence; creating thousands of jobs in
alternative sectors; preventing organized crime; and reducing the production of drugs. They
believe that maintaining confidence in the trade relationship with the United States is key to the
long-term stability of the region.
Issues Regarding Suspension of Bolivia
Bolivia can only be reinstated as a beneficiary under an act of Congress. Numerous Members of
Congress believe that there is no reason to consider a reinstatement of Bolivia as a beneficiary
country because of Bolivia’s continued lack of progress on the issue of counternarcotics and
because of the lack of support for U.S. trade and foreign policies in Bolivia. Other policymakers,
however, have been opposed to the suspension of trade preferences for Bolivia and contend that
the suspension would do more harm than good by empowering champions of anti-Americanism;
make the United States less and less relevant in Bolivia; and leave thousands of people
unemployed.22 In a hearing held on March 3, 2009, by the House Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee on the future of U.S.-Bolivia relations, Representative Engel called for the
administrations of Evo Morales and Barack Obama to initiate a high-level bilateral dialogue
(...continued)
Fonseca, and Synabout Yaye Sakho, February 2008.
21 Ibid.
22 Press Release from the Office of Representative Eliot Engel, “Engel Objects to Suspension of Bolivia from Andean
Trade Preferences,” October 23, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
between the United States and Bolivia to consider a renewed strategy for joint counternarcotics
efforts and the possible reinstatement of ATPA preferences for Bolivia.23
The United States and Bolivia began bilateral talks under the auspices of the U.S.-Bolivia
Dialogue in La Paz, Bolivia, in May 2009, which could have implications for future U.S. trade
policy concerning Bolivia.24 The talks were led by the U.S. State Department and Bolivia’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the objective of reviewing and improving relations between the
two countries. The second meeting took place on October 27, 2009, in Washington, DC.25 The
talks, which continued in 2010 and are expected to conclude in 2011, have focused on a
framework covering trade, counternarcotics, human rights, economic development, and
environmental issues.
Issues Regarding Investment Dispute in Ecuador
Some business groups have called for a reconsideration of trade preferences for Ecuador. One
group of business associations stated in October 2010 that Congress should, at a minimum,
require periodic reviews of Ecuador’s fulfillment of ATPA eligibility criteria. The group contends
that Ecuador is falling short of ATPA criteria related to rule of law, foreign investment, and
intellectual property rights protection.26
A major issue that may be related to the concerns of business groups has to do with a long-
running, multibillion-dollar lawsuit brought against the U.S. oil company Chevron by Ecuadorian
indigenous peoples in which they claim they are the victims of toxic waste. The case goes back to
a period between 1964 and 1990 in which Texaco (which has since merged with Chevron) is
accused of dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into Ecuador’s waterways
and forests. Chevron claims that the environmental damage was caused by Texaco and that the
government of Ecuador exempted the oil companies from liability in exchange for a cleanup and
payment in the early 1990s. Chevron reportedly has claimed that the legal system in Ecuador is
corrupt and will not provide a fair forum, and that Ecuador’s courts are politically influenced.27
Chevron filed a claim with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to look into whether
Ecuador breached international law under the Rules of the United Nations (U.N.) Commission on
International Trade Law. In March 2010, the U.N. arbitration panel ruled that the Ecuadorian
government violated the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the United States with a series of
unnecessary court delays in the long-running battle. The panel ruled in Chevron’s favor with
monetary compensation for the “failure of the Ecuadorian courts to adjudge” the company’s
23 Press Release from the Office of Representative Eliot Engel, “Engel Calls for Immediate High Level Bilateral
Dialogue Between U.S. and Bolivia,” March 3, 2009.
24 U.S. Department of State, “United States-Bolivia Bilateral Dialogue,” Press Release, October 26, 2009.
25 Ibid.
26 Rosella Brevetti, “Business Groups Urge Renewal of GSP and ATPA for Peru, Colombia,” International Trade
Reporter, October 7, 2010.
27 Rosella Brevetti, “Chevron Brings Arbitration Claim Against Ecuador in Long-Standing Dispute,” International
Trade Reporter, October 1, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
9
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
claims.28 Chevron has since filed a motion with the Superior Court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, to
have the case dismissed.29
Some Members of Congress have asked the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) to reject Chevron’s efforts to suspend trade preferences for Ecuador. They argue that the
USTR should not use trade policy “as leverage to interfere in private claims processing through
Ecuador’s legal process.”30 The USTR has reportedly rejected similar requests made by Chevron
in previous years. Other Members of Congress who would like to see a continuation of trade
preferences for Bolivia have argued that renewing ATPA is a pragmatic means to urge President
Correa of Ecuador to maintain open market and democratic policies.
Colombia
With regard to Colombia, a key issue related to ATPA trade preference renewal is the pending
U.S.-Colombia FTA. The 112th Congress may consider whether or not to continue renewing ATPA
trade preferences in the absence of a U.S.-Colombia FTA. Implementing legislation for a U.S.-
Colombia FTA was introduced on April 8, 2008, but it is unclear whether the 112th Congress will
consider implementing legislation for the agreement.31
Possible Trade Preference Program Reform
The 112th Congress may consider legislative action on broader reform of the preference programs
based on comprehensive reviews in hearings held in both the House and the Senate in the 111th
Congress. In the 111th Congress, numerous Members of Congress expressed interest in examining
the possibility of reforming U.S. trade preference programs.32 Congress has established five other
trade preference programs, in addition to ATPA: the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
which applies to developing countries as a whole; the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
(CBERA); the Caribbean Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA); the African Growth and Opportunity
Act (AGOA); and the Haitian Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE).
28 Lucien O. Chauvin, “U.N. Panel Says Ecuador Violated U.S. BIT Because of Undue Delays in Chevron Case,”
International Trade Reporter, April 8, 2010.
29 Lucien O. Chauvin, “In Ecuador, Chevron Files for Dismissal of Long-Running Lawsuit Over Pollution,”
International Trade Reporter, August 19, 2010.
30 Rosella Brevetti, “Sanchez, 25 House Members Urge USTR to Reject Chevron ATPA Lobbying,” International
Trade Reporter, December 24, 2009.
31 For more information, see CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, by M.
Angeles Villarreal.
32 See CRS Report R41429, Trade Preferences: Economic Issues and Policy Options, coordinated by Vivian C. Jones.
Congressional Research Service
10
ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues
Author Contact Information
M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
avillarreal@crs.loc.gov, 7-0321
Congressional Research Service
11