The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement:
Background and Issues
M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
February 14, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34470
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Summary
The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. It is a
comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and Colombia, which will
eventually eliminate tariffs and other barriers in bilateral trade in goods and services. On October
3, 2011, President Barack Obama submitted draft legislation (H.R. 3078/S. 1641) to both houses
of Congress to implement the agreement. On October 12, 2011, the House passed H.R. 3078
(262-167) and sent it to the Senate. The Senate passed the implementing legislation (66-33) on
the same day. The agreement was signed by both countries almost five years earlier, on
November 22, 2006. The Colombian Congress approved it in June 2007 and again in October
2007, after it was modified to include new provisions agreed to in the May 10, 2007, bipartisan
understanding between congressional leadership and President George W. Bush.
The United States is Colombia’s leading trade partner. Colombia accounts for a very small
percentage of U.S. trade (1% in 2013), ranking 31st among U.S. export markets and 33rd among
foreign exporters to the United States. Because the FTA has been in effect for less than two years,
the effect of the agreement is not yet clear. Economic studies estimate that, upon full
implementation, the impact on the United States would be positive but very small due to the small
size of the Colombian economy when compared to that of the United States (about 2.2%).
The congressional debate surrounding the CFTA mostly centered on violence, labor, and human
rights issues in Colombia. Numerous Members of Congress opposed passage of the agreement
because of concerns about alleged targeted violence against union members in Colombia,
inadequate efforts to bring perpetrators to justice, and weak protection of worker rights. However,
other Members of Congress supported the CFTA and took issue with these charges, stating that
Colombia had made great progress over the last 10 years to curb violence and enhance security.
They also argued that U.S. exporters were losing market share of the Colombian market and that
the agreement would open the Colombian market for U.S. goods and services. For Colombia, an
FTA with the United States has been part of its overall economic development strategy. Critics in
Colombia are concerned about protection of worker rights and the adverse effects the agreement
may have on some sectors, particularly on rural farms.
To address the concerns related to labor rights and violence in Colombia, the United States and
Colombia agreed upon an “Action Plan Related to Labor Rights” that included specific and
concrete steps to be taken by the Colombian government with specific timelines. It includes
numerous commitments to protect union members, end impunity, and improve worker rights. The
Colombian government submitted documents to the United States in time to meet various target
dates listed in the Action Plan. Most of the commitments were met prior to the FTA’s approval.
The U.S. business community generally supports the FTA with Colombia because it sees it as an
opportunity to increase U.S. exports to Colombia. U.S. exporters urged policymakers to move
forward with the agreement, arguing that the United States was losing market share of the
Colombian market, especially in agriculture, as Colombia entered into FTAs with other countries.
Colombia’s FTA with Canada, which was implemented on August 15, 2011, was of particular
concern for U.S. agricultural producers. Critics of the agreement expressed concerns about
violence against union members and the lack of protection of worker rights in Colombia,
especially in labor cooperatives. Labor unions in general remain highly opposed to the agreement.
They argue that Colombia’s labor movement is under attack through violence, intimidation, and
harassment, as well as legal challenges.
Congressional Research Service
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Rationale for the Agreement ............................................................................................................ 1
Colombian Tariffs on Goods from the United States ....................................................................... 2
Review of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement ..................................................................... 2
Key CFTA Provisions ................................................................................................................ 3
Market Access ..................................................................................................................... 3
Tariff Elimination and Phase-Outs ...................................................................................... 3
Agricultural Provisions ....................................................................................................... 4
Information Technology ...................................................................................................... 4
Textiles and Apparel ............................................................................................................ 5
Government Procurement ................................................................................................... 5
Services ............................................................................................................................... 5
Investment ........................................................................................................................... 5
IPR Protection ..................................................................................................................... 6
Customs Procedures and Rules of Origin............................................................................ 6
Labor Provisions ................................................................................................................. 7
Environmental Provisions ................................................................................................... 7
Dispute Settlement .............................................................................................................. 7
Labor and Environmental Provisions after May 10, 2007, Bipartisan Trade
Framework ............................................................................................................................. 8
Basic Labor Provisions........................................................................................................ 8
Provisions on Environment ................................................................................................. 9
Other Provisions .................................................................................................................. 9
Labor Affairs Council of the CFTA ........................................................................................... 9
U.S.-Colombia Trade Relations ..................................................................................................... 10
U.S.-Colombia Merchandise Trade ......................................................................................... 11
Andean Trade Preference Act .................................................................................................. 13
U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia .......................................................................... 14
FTA Potential Economic Impact .................................................................................................... 14
Study Findings on Economic Impact ....................................................................................... 15
Possible Economic Impact on Agriculture .............................................................................. 16
Issues Related to Violence and Labor ............................................................................................ 17
Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights ........................................................................... 18
Details of the Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 19
Creation of a Labor Ministry ............................................................................................. 19
Criminal Code Reform ...................................................................................................... 19
Cooperatives ...................................................................................................................... 20
Temporary Service Agencies ............................................................................................. 20
Collective Pacts ................................................................................................................. 21
Essential Services .............................................................................................................. 21
ILO Office ......................................................................................................................... 21
Protection Programs .......................................................................................................... 21
Criminal Justice Reform .................................................................................................... 22
Action Plan Follow-Up Mechanism .................................................................................. 23
Congressional Research Service
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Responses to the Action Plan in Colombia .............................................................................. 25
Views on the Agreement ................................................................................................................ 26
Market Access for U.S. Exporters ........................................................................................... 26
Colombian Farmer Concerns ................................................................................................... 26
Labor Views ............................................................................................................................. 27
Implementation of Labor Action Plan ..................................................................................... 28
Indirect Employment Arrangements ........................................................................................ 29
Colombian Government Actions in Response to U.S. Labor Concerns .................................. 30
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Trade with Colombia: 1997-2013........................................................................... 12
Figure 2. U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia ................................................................. 14
Tables
Table 1. Colombian Tariff Rates on U.S. Products .......................................................................... 3
Table 2. Key Economic Indicators for Colombia and the United States........................................ 10
Table 3. U.S. Trade in Goods with Colombia in 2013 ................................................................... 12
Table 4. U.S. Imports from Colombia: Duty-Free and ATPA ........................................................ 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 31
Congressional Research Service
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Introduction
The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. It is a
comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States and Colombia that will
eventually eliminate tariffs and other barriers in bilateral trade in goods and services. On April 15,
2012, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, President Barack Obama
announced that the agreement would enter into force the following month, far sooner than many
observers expected. The announcement came after completion of several months of work by both
governments to review each other’s laws and regulations related to the implementation of the
FTA, as well as to Colombia’s efforts to fulfill its set of commitments under the Action Plan
Related to Labor Rights.1
President Obama submitted the draft legislation (H.R. 3078/S. 1641) to implement the U.S.-
Colombia FTA to both houses of Congress on October 3, 2011. On October 12, 2011, the House
passed H.R. 3078 (262-167) and sent it to the Senate. The Senate passed the legislation (66-33)
on the same day. The President signed the legislation into law on October 21, 2011 (P.L. 112-42).
The CFTA negotiations grew out of a regional effort in 2004 to produce a U.S.-Andean free trade
agreement between the United States and the Andean countries of Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador.
After negotiators failed to reach an agreement, Colombia continued negotiations with the United
States for a bilateral FTA. On February 27, 2006, the United States and Colombia concluded the
U.S.-Colombia FTA, and finalized the text of the agreement on July 8, 2006. On August 24, 2006,
President Bush notified Congress of his intention to sign the U.S.-Colombia FTA. The two
countries signed the agreement on November 22, 2006. The Colombian Congress approved the
agreement in June 2007 and again in October 2007, after the agreement was modified to include
new labor and environmental provisions.
Rationale for the Agreement
Since the 1990s, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean have been a focus of U.S.
trade policy as demonstrated by the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), and the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. After 2004, U.S.
trade policy in the Western Hemisphere focused on completing trade negotiations with Colombia,
Peru, and Panama and on gaining passage of these free trade agreements by the U.S. Congress.
The U.S.-Peru FTA was approved by Congress and signed into law in December 2007 (P.L. 110-
138).2 The U.S.-Panama FTA was approved by Congress shortly after the CFTA on October 12,
2011, and signed into law on October 21, 2011 (P.L. 112-43). It went into effect on October 31,
2012.
The major expectation among proponents of the free trade agreement with Colombia, as with
other trade agreements, is that it will provide economic benefits for both the United States and
Colombia as the level of trade increases between the two countries. Another expectation among
1 Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), United States, Colombia Set Date for Entry into Force of
U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement, available at http://www.ustr.gov.
2 For more information, see CRS Report RL34108, U.S.-Peru Economic Relations and the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
Congressional Research Service
1
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
proponents is that it will improve investor confidence and increase foreign direct investment in
Colombia, which may bring more economic stability. For Colombia, a free trade agreement with
the United States has been part of the country’s overall development strategy and efforts to
promote economic growth and stability.
Colombian Tariffs on Goods from the United States
Before the U.S.-Colombia FTA entered into force, the U.S. average tariff on Colombian goods
was 3%, while Colombia’s average tariff on U.S. goods was 12.5%. In 2010, about 90% of U.S.
imports from Colombia came into the country duty-free under trade preference programs or
through normal trade relations. Most of Colombia’s duties on U.S. exports were consolidated into
three tariff levels: 0% to 5% on capital goods, industrial goods, and raw materials not produced in
Colombia; 10% on manufactured goods, with some exceptions; and 15% to 20% on consumer
and "sensitive" goods. Exceptions included automobiles, which are subject to a 35% duty; beef
and rice, which were subject to an 80% duty; and milk and cream, which were subject to a 98%
duty through August 11, 2010.3
Table 1 provides a summary of Colombian tariffs on goods coming from the United States before
the free trade agreement entered into force. Other agricultural products fell under the Andean
Price Band System (APBS). The APBS protects domestic industry in Colombia, and other
Andean countries, with a variable levy by increasing tariffs when world prices fall, and lowering
tariffs when world prices rise.4 The APBS includes 14 product groups and covers more than 150
tariff lines. The system resulted in high duties, sometimes exceeding 100%, on certain U.S.
exports to Colombia, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, pork, poultry parts, cheeses, and
powdered milk.5
Review of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
The comprehensive free trade agreement will eventually eliminate tariffs and other barriers to
goods and services. The agreement was reached after numerous rounds of negotiations over a
period of nearly two years. Some issues that took longer to resolve were related to agriculture.
Colombia had been seeking lenient agriculture provisions in the agreement, arguing that the
effects of liberalization on rural regions could have adverse effects on smaller farmers and drive
them to coca production. The United States agreed to give more sensitive sectors longer phase-out
periods to allow Colombia more time to adjust to trade liberalization. Sectors receiving the
longest phase-out periods include poultry and rice.
3 Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade
Barriers, March 2010.
4 The Andean Price Band system is applied by the four countries belonging to the Andean Community, a regional trade
integration agreement formed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The four countries entered into the Andean
Community as a form of trade integration through the removal of trade barriers and the application of common external
tariffs, and a goal to eventually form a common market.
5 USTR, 2010 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Table 1. Colombian Tariff Rates on U.S. Products
before the FTA Entered into Force
Tariff Base Rate
Number of Tariff
% of Total Tariff
(%)
Lines
Lines
0 173
2.5
> 0 to 5
2,083
30.2
> 5 to 10
1,225
17.7
> 10 to 20
3,282
47.5
> 20 to 35
97
1.4
> 35
46
0.7
Total 6,906 100.0
Source: U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, Colombia Tariff Schedule, reported by United States
International Trade Commission (USITC), U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and
Selected Sectoral Effects, Investigation No. TA-2104-023, USITC Publication 3896, December 2006. Colombia
Trade Promotion Agreement, Colombia Tariff Schedule.
Notes: Does not include tariff lines with base rate values of blanks. Total of 6,906 tariff lines includes 5,986
industrial and textile tariff lines and 920 agricultural tariff lines.
Key CFTA Provisions6
This section summarizes several key provisions in the original agreement text as provided by the
United States Trade Representative (USTR), unless otherwise noted.7
Market Access
The agreement provides for the elimination of tariffs on bilateral trade in eligible goods. Upon
entry into force, the agreement eliminated 80% of duties on U.S. exports of consumer and
industrial products to Colombia. An additional 7% of U.S. exports will receive duty-free
treatment within five years of entry into force and most remaining tariffs will be eliminated
within 10 years after entry into force.
Tariff Elimination and Phase-Outs
Upon entry into force, the CFTA eliminated most tariffs immediately and will phase out the
remaining tariffs over periods of up to 19 years. Tariff elimination for major sectors include the
following:
6 The text of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) is available online at the Office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) website: http://www.ustr.gov.
7 USTR, Trade Facts, “Free Trade with Colombia: Summary of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement,” June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
3
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
• More than 99% of U.S. and almost 76% of Colombian industrial and textile tariff
lines became free of duty. Virtually all industrial and textile tariff lines will be
duty free 10 years after entry into force.8
• All tariffs in textiles and apparel that meet the agreement’s rules-of-origin
provisions were scheduled to be eliminated immediately (see section on “Textiles
and Apparel” below).9
• Tariffs on agricultural products will be phased out over a period of time, ranging
from 3 to 19 years (see section on “Agricultural Provisions” below). Colombia
will eliminate quotas10 and over-quota tariffs in 12 years for corn and other feed
grains, 15 years for dairy products, 18 years for chicken leg quarters, and 19
years for rice.11
Agricultural Provisions
Prior to the FTA entering into force, Colombia applied some tariff protection on all agricultural
products. The trade agreement provides immediate duty-free access on 77% of all agricultural
tariff lines, accounting for 52% of current U.S. exports to Colombia. Colombia will eliminate
most other tariffs on agricultural products within 15 years.12 U.S. farm exports to Colombia that
received immediate duty-free treatment include high-quality beef, cotton, wheat, soybeans,
soybean meal, apples, pears, peaches, cherries, and many processed food products including
frozen french fries and cookies. U.S. farm products that will receive improved market access
include pork, beef, corn, poultry, rice, fruits and vegetables, processed products, and dairy
products. The agreement also provides duty-free tariff rate quotas on standard beef, chicken leg
quarters, dairy products, corn, sorghum, animal feeds, rice, and soybean oil.13
The CFTA removed Colombia’s price band system on U.S. products upon the agreement’s entry
into force. However, if the rates under the price band system result in a lower rate than that given
under the FTA, the United States will be allowed to sell the product to Colombia at the lower
rates.14
Information Technology
Under the agreement, Colombia agreed to join the World Trade Organization’s Information
Technology Agreement (ITA), and remove its tariff and non-tariff barriers to information
technology products. Colombia will allow trade in remanufactured goods, which is expected to
8 United States International Trade Commission (USITC), U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential
Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, USITC Publication 3896, December 2006, pp. 2-1 and 2-2.
9 Ibid.
10 Tariff rate quotas are limits on the quantity of imports that can enter a country duty-free before tariff-rates are
applied.
11 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Trade
Promotion Agreement Overall Agriculture Fact Sheet, August 2008.
12 Ibid.
13 USTR, Trade Facts: Free Trade with Colombia, Summary of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement,” June 2007.
14 USITC Publication 3896, December 2006, p. 3-4.
Congressional Research Service
4
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
increase export and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses involved in remanufactured
products such as machinery, computers, cellular telephones, and other devices.
Textiles and Apparel
In textiles and apparel, products that meet the agreement’s rules of origin requirements will
receive duty-free and quota-free treatment immediately upon entry into force. The United States
and Colombia have cooperation commitments under the agreement that allow for verification of
claims of origin or preferential treatment, and denial of preferential treatment or entry if the
claims cannot be verified. The rules of origin requirements are generally based on the yarn-
forward standard to encourage production and economic integration. A “de minimis” provision
will allow limited amounts of specified third-country content to go into U.S. and Colombian
apparel to provide producers in both countries flexibility. A special textile safeguard will provide
for temporary tariff relief if imports prove to be damaging to domestic producers.
Government Procurement
In government procurement contracts, the two countries agreed to grant non-discriminatory rights
to bid on government contracts. These provisions cover the purchases of Colombia’s ministries
and departments, as well as its legislature and courts. U.S. companies are to be assured access to
the purchases of a number of Colombia’s government enterprises, including its oil company.
Services
In services trade, the two countries agreed to market access in most services sectors, with very
few exceptions. Colombia agreed to exceed commitments made in the WTO and to remove
significant services and investment barriers, such as requirements that U.S. firms hire nationals
rather than U.S. citizens to provide professional services. Colombia also agreed to eliminate
requirements to establish a branch in order to provide a service and unfair penalties imposed on
U.S. companies for terminating their relationships with local commercial agents. U.S. financial
service suppliers will have full rights to establish subsidiaries or branches for banks and insurance
companies. Portfolio managers will be allowed to provide portfolio management services to both
mutual funds and pension funds in the partner country, including to funds that manage privatized
social security accounts.
Investment
Investment provisions will help establish a stable legal framework for foreign investors from the
partner country. All forms of investment are to be protected, including enterprises, debt,
concessions and similar contracts, and intellectual property. U.S. investors are to be treated as
Colombian investors with very few exceptions. U.S. investors in Colombia will have substantive
and procedural protections that foreign investors have under the U.S. legal system, including due
process protections and the right to receive fair market value for property in the event of an
expropriation. Protections for U.S. investments will be backed by a transparent, binding
international arbitration mechanism. In the preamble of the agreement, the United States and
Congressional Research Service
5
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Colombia agreed that foreign investors would not be accorded greater substantive rights with
respect to investment protections than domestic investors under domestic law.15
IPR Protection
The agreement will provide intellectual property rights (IPR) protections for U.S. and Colombian
companies. In all categories of IPR, U.S. companies are to be treated no less favorably than
Colombian companies. In trademark protection, the agreement requires the two countries to have
a system for resolving disputes about trademarks used in internet domain names; to develop an
on-line system for the registration and maintenance of trademarks and have a searchable
database; and to have transparent procedures for trademark registration.
In protection of copyrighted works, the agreement has a number of provisions for protection of
copyrighted works in a digital economy, including provisions that copyright owners will maintain
rights over temporary copies of their works on computers. Other agreement provisions include
rights for copyright owners for making their work available on-line; extended terms of protection
for copyrighted works; requirements for governments to use only legitimate computer software;
rules on encrypted satellite signals to prevent piracy of satellite television programming; and rules
for the liability of Internet service providers for copyright infringement.
In protection of patents and trade secrets, the U.S.-Colombia FTA limits the grounds on which a
country could revoke a patent, thus protecting against arbitrary revocation. In protection of test
data and trade secrets, the agreement protects products against unfair commercial use for a period
of 5 years for pharmaceuticals and 10 years for agricultural chemicals. In addition, the agreement
requires the establishment of procedures to prevent marketing of pharmaceutical products that
infringe patents, and provides protection for newly developed plant varieties. The parties
expressed their understanding that the intellectual property chapter would not prevent either party
from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all.
On music and motion picture property piracy, the agreement’s IPR provisions include penalties
for piracy and counterfeiting and criminalize end-user piracy. It requires the parties to authorize
the seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of counterfeit and pirated goods and the equipment used to
produce them. The agreement mandates both statutory and actual damages for copyright
infringement and trademark piracy. This is to ensure that monetary damages could be awarded
even if a monetary value to the violation is difficult to assess.
Customs Procedures and Rules of Origin
The agreement includes comprehensive rules of origin provisions to ensure that only U.S. and
Colombian goods benefit from the agreement. The agreement also includes customs procedures
provisions, including requirements for transparency and efficiency, procedural certainty and
fairness, information sharing, and special procedures for the release of express delivery
shipments.
15 USTR, Trade Facts: Free Trade with Colombia, Summary of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement, June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
6
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Labor Provisions
The labor and worker rights obligations are included in the core text of the agreement. The United
States and Colombia reaffirmed their obligations as members of the International Labor
Organization (ILO). The two countries agreed to adopt, maintain and enforce laws that
incorporate core internationally recognized labor rights, as stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including a prohibition on the worst forms of child
labor. The parties also agreed to enforce labor laws with acceptable conditions of work, hours of
work, and occupational safety and health. All obligations of the CFTA chapter on labor are
subject to the same dispute settlement procedures and enforcement mechanisms as other chapters
of the agreement.
The agreement includes procedural guarantees to ensure that workers and employers have fair,
equitable, and transparent access to labor tribunals or courts. It has a labor cooperation and
capacity building mechanism to pursue bilateral or regional cooperation activities, which may
include the principles embodied in the 1998 ILO Declaration and activities to promote
compliance with ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. The United States and
Colombia agreed to cooperate on activities on laws and practices related to ILO labor standards;
the ILO convention on the worst forms of child labor; methods to improve labor administration
and enforcement of labor laws; social dialogue and alternative dispute resolution; occupational
safety and health compliance; and mechanisms and best practices on protecting the rights of
migrant workers.
Environmental Provisions
The environmental obligations are included in the core text of the agreement. The agreement
requires the United States and Colombia to effectively enforce their own domestic environmental
laws and to adopt, maintain, and implement laws and all other measures to fulfill obligations
under covered multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Both countries committed to
pursue high levels of environmental protection and to not derogate from environmental laws in a
manner that will weaken or reduce protections. The agreement includes procedural guarantees to
ensure fair, equitable, and transparent proceedings for the administration and enforcement of
environmental laws. In addition, the agreement includes provisions to help promote voluntary,
market-based mechanisms to protect the environment and to ensure that views of civil society are
appropriately considered through a public submissions process. All obligations in the
environmental chapter of the agreement are subject to the same dispute settlement procedures and
enforcement mechanisms as obligations in other chapters of the agreement.
Dispute Settlement
The core obligations of the agreement, including labor and environmental provisions, are subject
to dispute settlement provisions. The agreement’s provisions on dispute panel proceedings
include language to help promote openness and transparency through open public hearings;
public release of legal submissions by parties; and opportunities for interested third parties to
submit views. The provisions require the parties to make every attempt, through cooperation and
consultations, to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of a dispute. If the parties are unable
to settle the dispute through consultations, the complaining party will have the right to request an
independent arbitral panel to help resolve the dispute. Possible outcomes could include monetary
penalties or a suspension of trade benefits.
Congressional Research Service
7
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Labor and Environmental Provisions after May 10, 2007, Bipartisan
Trade Framework
In early 2007, some Members of Congress indicated that some of the provisions in pending U.S.
FTAs would have to be strengthened to gain their approval, particularly relating to core labor
standards. After several months of negotiation, bipartisan congressional leadership and the Bush
Administration reached an understanding on May 10, 2007, on a new bipartisan trade framework
that calls for the inclusion of internationally recognized labor rights and environmental provisions
in the text of pending free trade agreements. On June 28, 2007, the United States reached an
agreement with Colombia on legally binding amendments to the U.S.-Colombia FTA on labor, the
environment, and other matters to reflect the bipartisan understanding of May 10.
The amendments to the FTA are similar to the amendments that were made to the U.S.-Peru free
trade agreement, which was approved by Congress in December 2008. Some of the key
amendments include obligations related to five basic ILO labor rights, multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs), and pharmaceutical intellectual property rights (IPR). These provisions
would be enforceable through the FTA’s dispute settlement mechanism. On October 30, 2007, the
Colombian Senate “overwhelmingly” approved the labor and environmental amendments to the
CFTA, marking the end of the approval process for the agreement in Colombia.16
Basic Labor Provisions
After the bipartisan agreement, the Administration reached an agreement with Colombia to
amend the FTA to require the parties to “adopt, maintain and enforce in their own laws and in
practice” the five basic internationally recognized labor principles, as stated in the 1998 ILO
Declaration. The amendments to the agreement strengthened the earlier labor provisions which
only required the signatories to strive to ensure that their domestic laws would provide for labor
standards consistent with internationally recognized labor principles.
The amendments that resulted from the bipartisan trade framework were intended to enhance the
protection and promotion of worker rights by including enforceable ILO core labor principles in
the agreement. These include (1) freedom of association; (2) the effective recognition of the right
to collective bargaining; (3) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; (4) the
effective abolition of child labor and a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor; and (5) the
elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. These obligations would
refer only to the 1998 ILO Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
Another change to the agreement relates to labor law enforcement. A decision made by a
signatory on the distribution of enforcement resources would not be a reason for not complying
with the labor provisions. Under the amended provisions, parties would not be allowed to
derogate from labor obligations in a manner affecting trade or investment. Labor obligations
would be subject to the same dispute settlement, same enforcement mechanisms, and same
criteria for selection of enforcement mechanisms as all other obligations in the agreement.
16 Rosella Brevetti, International Trade Reporter, “Colombian Senate Overwhelmingly Approves Labor-Related
Amendments to FTA with U.S.,” November 1, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Provisions on Environment
In the original text of the agreement, the parties would have been required to “effectively
enforce” their own domestic environmental laws; this was the only environmental provision that
would have been enforceable through the agreement’s dispute settlement procedures. Other
environmental provisions in the original text that were not enforceable included provisions on
environmental cooperation, procedural guarantees for enforcement of environmental laws, and
provisions for a public submissions process. Under the amended version of the FTA, the United
States and Colombia agreed to effectively enforce their own domestic environmental laws, and to
adopt, maintain, and implement laws and all other measures to fulfill obligations under the seven
covered multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The amended agreement states that all
obligations in the environment chapter would be subject to the same dispute settlement
procedures and enforcement mechanisms as all other obligations in the agreement.
Other Provisions
Other amendments to the FTA include provisions on intellectual property, government
procurement, and port security. On intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, some Members
of Congress were concerned that the original commitments would have impeded the entry of
generic medicines to treat AIDS or other infectious diseases. The amended agreement was a way
of trying to find a balance between the need for IPR protection for pharmaceutical companies to
foster innovation and the desire for promoting access to generic medicines to all segments of the
population. The amended text of the agreement maintains the five years of data exclusivity for
test data related to pharmaceuticals. However, if Colombia relies on U.S. Federal Drug
Administration (FDA) approval of a given drug, and meets certain conditions for expeditious
approval of that drug in Colombia, the data exclusivity period would expire at the same time that
the exclusivity expired in the United States. This could allow generic medicines to enter more
quickly into the market in Colombia.
In government procurement, the amended provisions allow U.S. state and federal governments to
condition government contracts on the adherence to the core labor laws in the country where the
good is produced or the service is performed. Government agencies also will be allowed to
include environmental protection requirements in their procurements. Concerning port security,
an added provision ensures that if a foreign-owned company were to provide services at a U.S.
port that would raise national security concerns, the CFTA would not be an impediment for U.S.
authorities in taking actions to address those concerns.17
Labor Affairs Council of the CFTA
The Labor Affairs Council (Council) of the U.S.-Colombia FTA convened its first meeting on
June 4-5, 2013, in Washington, D.C.18 Pursuant to Article 17.5 of the FTA, the Council is
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the labor chapter, including reviewing each
party’s progress under the chapter. The Council is comprised of senior officials from labor
17 Office of the United States Trade Representative, Trade Facts, “Bipartisan Trade Deal,” Bipartisan Agreement on
Trade Policy, May 2007, pp. 4-5.
18 Joint Statement of the Labor Affairs Council of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,
Washington, D.C., June 5, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
ministries and other appropriate agencies. During the meeting, the Council, which includes the
U.S. Secretary of Labor and Colombia’s Minister of Labor, reaffirmed the parties’ commitments
under the Labor Chapter, such as the commitment to adopt and maintain in law and practice the
rights as stated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The
Council further clarified the domestic mechanisms, institutions, and procedures that each party
has established to advance the fulfillment of the FTA’s labor provisions. Other topics addressed
during the meeting include the following: the vision of Colombia’s new Ministry of Labor;
activities to strengthen institutional capacity and labor law enforcement and compliance in
Colombia; and areas of particular concern regarding the implementation of the Labor Chapter.
The Council recognized the significant progress that Colombia has made while recognizing that
certain challenges remain.19
U.S.-Colombia Trade Relations
With a population of 49 million people, Colombia is the third-most populous country in Latin
America, after Brazil and Mexico. Colombia’s economy, the fourth-largest economy in Latin
America, after Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, is small when compared to the U.S. economy.
Colombia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013 was estimated at $378 billion, or about 2.2%
of U.S. GDP of $16.8 trillion in 2013 (see Table 2). Colombia’s exports and imports of goods and
services were both equal to 17% of its GDP in 2013.
Table 2. Key Economic Indicators for Colombia and the United States
Colombia
United States
2003 20130 2003 2013
Population (mil ions)
43
49
290
316
Nominal GDP ($US billions)a 95
378
11,512
16,811
GDP, PPPa Basis ($US billions) a 269 528
11,512
16,811
Per Capita GDP ($US)
2,226
7,720
39,653
53,140
Per Capita GDP in $PPPb
6,322 10,800 39,653 53,140
Exports of goods and services (US$
16 66
1,043
2,254
billions)
Exports as % of GDPb
17% 17% 9% 13%
Imports of goods and services (US$
19 73
1,544
2,752
billions)
Imports as % of GDPb
20% 20% 13% 16%
Source: Compiled by CRS based on data from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) on-line database. Figures
for 2013 are estimates.
a. Nominal GDP is calculated by EIU based on figures from World Bank and World Development Indicators.
PPP refers to purchasing power parity, which attempts to factor in price differences across countries when
estimating the size of a foreign economy in U.S. dollars.
b. Exports and Imports as % of GDP are derived by the EIU and include trade in both goods and services.
19 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
10
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
The United States is Colombia’s dominant trading partner in both imports and exports.
Subsequently, any change in U.S. demand for Colombian products can have a considerable effect
on Colombia’s economy. Colombia’s market opening measures over the past 10 years, however,
have resulted in changes to its direction of trade and the percentage of trade with the United
States has been declining. Colombia has regional trade agreements with most countries in Latin
America, including the Central America Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador); Mexico; Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay); and Chile. An FTA
with Canada, approved by both countries in 2010, entered into force on August 15, 2011.
Colombia recently signed an FTA with the European Union, which entered into force in August
2013. Colombia is one of four countries comprising the Pacific Alliance, an evolving regional
trade integration arrangement that also includes Chile, Mexico, and Peru. In February 2014, the
presidents of all four countries signed a protocol to eliminate tariffs on 92% of goods traded
within the Alliance. The outstanding 8% of items with tariffs remaining are in the agricultural
sector and will be phased out over a period of 17 years. The United States has observer status
within the Alliance.20
Because the U.S.-Colombia FTA has been in effect for less than two years, it is too early to
evaluate the effect of the agreement on U.S.-Colombia trade. The United States accounts for 28%
of Colombia’s total imports. China is the second-leading supplier of Colombia’s imports,
accounting for 17% of total imports in 2013, followed by Mexico, which accounted for 9%. The
United States is also Colombia’s leading export market, accounting for 34% of total Colombian
exports in 2013. In agriculture, Argentina surpassed the United States as Colombia’s leading
supplier of agricultural imports in 2010. Argentina supplied 25% of Colombia’s agricultural
imports in 2013, while the United States supplied 22%.
U.S.-Colombia Merchandise Trade
Colombia accounts for a very small percentage of U.S. total trade (1% in 2013). In 2013,
Colombia ranked 31st among U.S. export markets and 33rd among foreign exporters to the United
States. U.S. merchandise exports to Colombia totaled $16.5 billion in 2013, while U.S. imports
totaled $21.4 billion. As shown in Table 3 the dominant U.S. import category from Colombia in
2013 was crude oil and gas (61% of total imports from Colombia); followed by nonferrous metal
(11%); petroleum and coal products (6%); fruits and tree nuts (5%); and mushrooms, nursery and
related products (3%). The leading U.S. export categories to Colombia were petroleum and coal
products (33% of total exports to Colombia); basic chemicals (7%); agriculture and construction
machinery (5%); resin and synthetic products (4%); and aerospace products and parts (3%).
U.S. exports to Colombia increased in 2013 to $16.5 billion, from $14.3 billion in 2012 and $12.8
billion in 2011. In 2009, exports to Colombia decreased from $10.6 billion in 2008 to $8.8 billion,
following international trends in global trade after the financial crisis. Between 2003 and 2007,
U.S. exports to Colombia increased from $3.5 billion to $7.9 billion (see Figure 1). In 2013, U.S.
imports from Colombia decreased to $21.4 billion, down from $24.7 billion the previous year and
$22.4 billion in 2011. In 2009, imports declined 15%, from $13.1 billion in 2008 to $11.2 billion,
but then increased to $15.7 billion in 2010. In the five-year period prior to 2008, imports had been
increasing steadily, from $6.3 billion to $13.1 billion in 2008.
20 Lucien O. Chauvin, “Eliminating Tariffs on 92% of Goods,” International Trade Daily, February 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
11
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Table 3. U.S. Trade in Goods with Colombia in 2013
U.S. Domestic Exportsa
U.S. Imports for Consumptionb
Leading Items
$
Leading Items
$
(NAIC 4 Digit Level)
Millions Share (NAIC 4 Digit Level)
Millions Share
Petroleum and coal products
5,463.0
33%
Oil and gas
13,133.8
61%
Basic chemicals
1,225.6
7%
Nonferrous metal
2,281.2
11%
Agriculture and construction
836.5
5%
Petroleum and coal
1,309.9 6%
machinery
products
Resin, synthetic rubber and related
587.7
4%
Fruits and tree nuts
1.133.2
5%
products
Aerospace products and parts
529.5
3%
Mushrooms, nursery and
668.0 3%
related products
Al other
7,839.8
48%
Al other
2,838.1
13%
Total exports
16,482.1
—
Total imports
21,364.2
—
Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb at http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
a. U.S. domestic exports represent goods that are grown, mined, produced, or manufactured in the United
States and sent to foreign countries. Domestic exports include goods from U.S. Foreign Trade Zones that
have been enhanced in value.
b. U.S. imports for consumption represent foreign goods that immediately enter U.S. consumption channels.
Goods being held in bonded warehouses or U.S. Foreign Trade Zones are not included until they are
withdrawn for consumption.
Figure 1. U.S. Trade with Colombia: 1997-2013
(U.S.$ in Billions)
US Domestic Exports
US Imports for Consumption
Balance
$ Billions
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
-$5
-$10
-$15
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb at http://dataweb.usitc.gov
Congressional Research Service
12
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Andean Trade Preference Act
Under the Andean Trade Preference Act, a regional trade preference program that expired on July
31, 2013, the United States extended duty-free treatment to imports from Colombia and other
countries from the Andean region.21 Colombia’s status as a beneficiary country under ATPA ended
when the U.S.-Colombia FTA entered into force in May 2012. ATPA was enacted on December 4,
1991 (Title II of P.L. 102-182), and was renewed and modified under the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA; Title XXXI of P.L. 107-210) on August 6, 2002.
Additional products receiving preferential duty treatment under ATPDEA included certain items
in the following categories: petroleum and petroleum products, textiles and apparel products,
footwear, tuna in flexible containers, and others. Since the enactment of ATPDEA, Congress
extended ATPA preferences several times for Colombia and other Andean countries for short
periods of time.
In 2013, 88% of U.S. imports from Colombia received duty-free treatment through normal trade
relations or preference programs, compared to 81% in 2012, 55% in 2011, and 93% in 2010 (see
Table 4). ATPA has not been in effect for Colombia since mid-2012 when the U.S.-Colombia
FTA entered into force, and ATPA imports from Colombia in 2013 went down to zero. In 2010,
the last full year in which Colombia was an ATPA beneficiary country, 60% of Colombian
imports came in under the ATPA program. This share declined to 12% in 2011 due to a lapse in
the renewal of ATPA in 2011.
Table 4. U.S. Imports from Colombia: Duty-Free and ATPA
($ Billions and percentages)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total
7.36
8.77 9.24 9.25
13.06
11.22
15.67
22.39 24.65 21.36
All Duty-
6.56
7.90 8.53 8.45
12.04
9.96
14.54
12.22 20.01 18.77
Free
% of
89%
90% 92% 91%
92%
89%
93%
55% 81% 88%
Total
ATPAb
3.89
4.65 4.80 4.53
7.34
5.59
9.47
2.67 5.54 0.00
% of
53%
53% 52% 49%
56%
50%
60%
12% 22% 0%
Total
Source: Compiled by CRS using USITC imports for consumption data. Imports from consumption represent
foreign goods that immediately enter U.S. consumption channels. Goods being held in bonded warehouses or
U.S. Foreign Trade Zones are not included until they are withdrawn for consumption.
a. Total U.S. imports for consumption.
b. Includes imports under ATPA and ATPDEA.
21 For more information see CRS Report RS22548, ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
Congressional Research Service
13
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia
U.S. foreign direct investment in Colombia on a historical-cost basis totaled $8.4 billion in 2012,
up from $6.5 billion in 2011 and $6.2 billion in 2010. In 2011, the largest amount was in mining,
which accounted for 40.7%, or $2.8 billion, of total U.S. FDI in Colombia. The second-largest
amount, $1.9 billion (27.7% of total), was in manufacturing, followed by $630 million in finance
and insurance (9.2% of total). The U.S.-Colombia FTA is expected to improve investor
confidence in Colombia and will likely increase the amount of U.S. FDI in the country. Investors
from other countries would also be expected to increase investment in Colombia as the FDI
environment improves. The stock of U.S. FDI in Colombia increased by 30% in 2012 (see Figure
2).
Figure 2. U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia
Historical-cost Basis
Colombia Total
$9
$8.4
$8
$7
$6.5
$6.1
$6.2
$6
$5.0
$5
$4.6
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Economic Accounts.
FTA Potential Economic Impact
Upon full implementation, the U.S.-Colombia FTA will likely have a small, but positive, net
economic effect on the United States. However, there will likely be some adjustment costs as
industries adapt to the lower trade barriers on imports from the United States. The net overall
effect is expected to be minimal because Colombia’s economy is very small when compared to
the U.S. economy (1.6%) and the value of U.S. trade with Colombia is a very small percentage of
overall U.S. trade. Most of the economy-wide trade effects of trade liberalization from the FTA
will likely arise from Colombia’s removal of tariff barriers and other trade restrictions.
Approximately 90% of U.S. imports from Colombia enter the United States duty-free, either
Congressional Research Service
14
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
unconditionally or under the ATPA or other U.S. provisions; hence, the marginal effects of the
FTA on the U.S. economy likely will not be significant.
Study Findings on Economic Impact
A study by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) assessed the potential
effects of a U.S.-Colombia FTA on the U.S. economy. The study found that, in general, the
primary impact of an FTA with Colombia would be increased U.S. exports to Colombia as a
result of enhanced U.S. access to the Colombian market.22 Major findings of the USITC study on
the likely effects of a U.S.-Colombia FTA on the U.S. economy, should the agreement be fully
implemented, include the following:23
• U.S. exports to Colombia would increase by $1.1 billion (13.7%) and U.S.
imports from Colombia would increase by $487 million (5.5%). U.S. GDP would
increase by over $2.5 billion (less than 0.05%).
• The largest estimated increases in U.S. exports to Colombia, by value, would be
in chemical, rubber, and plastic products; machinery and equipment; and motor
vehicles and parts. In terms of percentage increases, the largest increases in U.S.
exports would be in rice and dairy products.
• The largest estimated increases in U.S. imports from Colombia, by value, would
be in sugar and crops not elsewhere classified. The largest estimated increases in
U.S. imports, by percent, would be in dairy products and sugar.
• On an industry level, the FTA would result in minimal to no effect on output or
employment for most sectors of the U.S. economy. The U.S. sugar sector would
be the only sector with an estimated decline of more than 0.1% in output or
employment. The largest increases in U.S. output and employment would be in
the processed rice, cereal grains, and wheat sectors.
The USITC reviewed seven studies that it found on the probable economic effects of a U.S.-
Colombia FTA.24 The results of the studies reviewed by USITC varied. One study found that U.S.
exports to Colombia would increase by 2.4% to 8.3%, while another study assessed that the
expected increase would be 44%. Two studies found that the largest increases in U.S. exports
would be in agriculture products, metal and wood, and food products. In assessing the impact on
U.S. imports from Colombia, the results of the studies also varied. One study found that U.S.
imports from Colombia would increase by 2.0% to 6.2%, while another found that U.S. imports
would increase by 37%. The largest increases would be in apparel and leather goods, textile
products, and metal and wood. The studies also assessed that an FTA would result in small overall
22 United States International Trade Commission (USITC), U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential
Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, Investigation No. TA-2104-023, USITC Publication 3896, December
2006. (Hereinafter USITC, December 2006). Findings are based on a projected 2007 baseline.
23 USITC, December 2006, pp. 2-1 and 2-2.
24 In its review of the seven economic studies, the USITC noted that these studies analyzed a proposed, possible, or
hypothetical U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement (FTA) and not the final text of the actual FTA that was the subject of
its investigation. Therefore, the underlying assumptions made in the reviewed studies may be different than those of the
USITC’s analysis.
Congressional Research Service
15
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
welfare gains for both the United States and Colombia and a positive impact on the U.S.
agricultural sector despite an increase in U.S. sugar imports.25
The non-governmental Institute for International Economics (IIE) did a study in 2006 assessing
the possible impact of a U.S.-Colombia FTA on both the U.S. and Colombian economies.26 The
study found that a U.S.-Colombia FTA would be expected to result in an increase in total trade
between the two countries. The total value of U.S. imports from Colombia would increase by an
estimated 37% while the value of U.S. exports to Colombia would increase by an estimated
44%.27 In terms of welfare gains, the study assessed that a U.S.-Colombia FTA would result in
small welfare benefits for both partners, though the gains would be larger for Colombia. On a
sectoral level, the study found that an agreement would have a minor sectoral effect on the U.S.
economy, but the effect would be more significant for Colombia because it is the smaller partner.
The study indicated that Colombia would face certain structural adjustment issues with a
displacement of low-skilled workers in some sectors, but that these workers would all be able to
find job possibilities in the expanding sectors.28
One of the drawbacks to a bilateral free trade agreement is that it may result in trade diversion
because it is not fully inclusive of all regional trading partners.29 Trade diversion results when a
country enters into an FTA and then shifts the purchase of goods or services (imports) from a
country that is not an FTA partner to a country that is an FTA partner even though it may be a
higher cost producer. In the case of the United States and Colombia, for example, goods from the
United States may replace Colombia’s lower-priced imports from other countries in Latin
America. If this were to happen, the United States would now be the producer of that item, not
because it produces the good more efficiently, but because it is receiving preferential access to the
Colombian market. The IIE study assessed that a CFTA probably would not cause trade diversion
in the United States, but that it could cause some trade diversion in Colombia. The IIE study
estimated that an FTA with the United States would result in a decrease in Colombia’s imports
from other countries of approximately 9%.30
Possible Economic Impact on Agriculture
The USITC study found that one of the impacts of a U.S.-Colombia FTA would be increased U.S.
agriculture exports to Colombia as a result of enhanced U.S. access to the Colombian market.31 In
the agricultural sector, key findings of the study include the following:
25 USITC, December 2006, pp. 7-1 to 7-4.
26 Jeffrey J. Schott, editor, Institute for International Economics (IIE), Trade Relations Between Colombia and the
United States, August 2006. (Hereinafter IIE, August 2006).
27 IIE August 2006, Chapter 4, “Potential Benefits of a U.S.-Colombia FTA,” by Dean A. DeRosa and John P. Gilbert.
This chapter uses empirical and applied methods of economic analysis to examine the potential quantitative impact of a
U.S.-Colombia FTA and is one of the studies reviewed by the USITC in its assessment of a U.S.-Colombia FTA.
28 Ibid, p. 112.
29 When a trade agreement lowers trade barriers on a good, production may shift from domestic producers to lower cost
foreign producers and result in substituting an imported good for the domestic good. This process is called trade
creation. Trade creation provides economic benefits as consumers have a wider choice of goods and services available
at lower costs. Trade creation also results in adjustment costs, however, usually in the form of domestic job losses as
production shifts to another country.
30 IIE, August 2006, pp. 88-89.
31 USITC Publication 3896, p. xv.
Congressional Research Service
16
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
• The removal of tariff and nontariff barriers would likely result in a higher level of
U.S. exports of meat (beef and pork) to Colombia. U.S. imports of meat from
Colombia would eventually increase, but those are currently restricted by
Colombia’s lack of certification to export fresh, chilled, or frozen beef or pork to
the United States.
• Colombia’s elimination of trade barriers and certain government support
measures under a CFTA would likely result in increased U.S. grain exports to
Colombia. Rice would account for most of the increase, with yellow corn and
wheat accounting for the remaining balance.
• U.S. exports to Colombia in soybeans, soybean products, and animal feeds would
likely increase under a CFTA.32
According to the IIE study, the main gains to Colombia in agricultural trade would likely be more
secure and preferential market access to the U.S. market. U.S. agricultural exports would gain a
small but not insignificant preference in the Colombian market for temperate-zone agricultural
produce. The study’s authors state that the long time periods for phasing out tariffs for sensitive
products and safeguard provisions that would replace Colombia’s price band system would lessen
the impact of increased imports from the United States. One section of the study describes the
results of a global applied general equilibrium model on the pending FTA. In terms of the overall
effects on Colombia’s economy, the results of the study imply that, in the medium term,
Colombia would lose a net amount of $63 million, or about 0.06% of GDP. In the longer term,
however, Colombia would gain $550 million each year, or about a 0.5% permanent increase to
GDP.33
Issues Related to Violence and Labor
Colombia has a long tradition of civilian, democratic rule, yet has been plagued by violence
throughout its history.34 The debate on U.S. free trade agreement with Colombia brought attention
to the issue of labor rights violations in Colombia and whether the government was doing enough
to curb violence, especially against union members; address the problem of human rights abuses;
and end impunity.
Numerous Members of Congress opposed the FTA with Colombia because of concerns about
violence in Colombia against labor union members and other human rights defenders.
Policymakers who voiced opposition to the agreement generally were concerned about the
impunity issue in Colombia, the lack of investigations and prosecutions, and the role of the
paramilitary. The Obama Administration also expressed concerns about the level of violence in
Colombia and negotiated the “Action Plan Related to Labor Rights” discussed later in this report.
Some Republican and Democratic supporters of the FTA took issue with these charges against the
Colombian government and contended that Colombia has made significant progress in recent
years to curb the violence. Some policymakers stated that Colombia is a crucial ally of the United
32 Ibid, pp. xvi-xvii.
33 IIE, August, 2006.
34 For more information, see CRS Report RL32250, Colombia: Background, U.S. Relations, and Congressional
Interest, by June S. Beittel.
Congressional Research Service
17
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
States in Latin America and that if the FTA with Colombia did not enter into force, it would have
led to further problems in the region.
The Colombian government responded to U.S. concerns and acknowledged that, while there
continued to be killings in Colombia, the situation had improved significantly in recent years.
Government data indicate that assassinations of labor union activists and teachers decreased by
86% between 2002 and 2009, from 196 in 2002 to 28 in 2009. In 2010, however this number
increased to 37. Data on the number of labor leaders murdered can vary by source. In 2006, the
Colombian government estimated that 60 labor union members were killed, while the National
Labor School (ENS), a Colombian labor organization, estimated that 78 labor union members
were killed.35 In 2010, the Colombian government recorded 34 murders, while the ENS recorded
51.36 In 2012, according to the ENS, there were 20 murders of labor union members.37
Colombia has a high level of violence in society in general, though it has greatly reduced the
homicide rate over the past decade. In 2010 there were more than 15,400 homicides, with a rate
of 34 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants (far exceeding Mexico’s rate of 18.1 per 100,000 in
2010).38 In 2012, there were 14,670 homicides in Colombia, which decreased the homicide rate to
31 per 100,000 inhabitants.39 The 20 homicides of labor unionists recorded by ENS in 2012
accounted for 0.14% of total homicides. Whether labor activists are being targeted because of
their union activity or for other reasons is an issue that continues to be debated.
Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights
The United States and Colombia negotiated to develop an “Action Plan Related to Labor Rights”
(the Action Plan) to help resolve the following U.S. concerns related to labor-related issues in
Colombia: alleged violence against Colombian labor union members; inadequate efforts to bring
perpetrators of violence to justice; and insufficient protection of workers’ rights in Colombia. The
governments of the United States and Colombia announced the plan on April 7, 2011. It includes
numerous specific commitments made by the Colombian government to address U.S. concerns.
The Obama Administration’s announcement of the plan stated that the successful implementation
of key elements of the plan was a precondition for the agreement to enter into force.40 The plan
includes a number of obligations with target dates throughout 2011, and with a final target date of
2014 for the completion of hiring extra labor inspectors. The most significant target dates were
April 22, 2011, and June 15, 2011.
35 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf. The State Department reports that the ENS revised its figures upward to 47 after initially
reporting 39 homicides for 2009.
36 For more information, see CRS Report RL34759, U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues, by Mary
Jane Bolle.
37 Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS), “Tres Años del Gobierno Santos: Subsiste el déficit de Trabajo Decente,” August
12, 2013.
38 See CRS Report RL32250, Colombia: Background, U.S. Relations, and Congressional Interest, by June S. Beittel.
39 "Colombia's homicide rate hits lowest level in 27 years," Colombia Reports, January 7, 2013.
40 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Leveling the Playing Field: Labor Protections and the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,” April 6, 2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2011/04/06/fact-sheets-us-colombia-trade-agreement-and-action-plan.
Congressional Research Service
18
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Details of the Action Plan
This section summarizes the details of the Action Plan as reported by the Office of the United
States Trade Representative (USTR).41
Creation of a Labor Ministry
One of Colombia’s key commitments under the Action Plan was to create a new Labor Ministry.
By November 2011, the Colombian government had established the new ministry. On October
31, 2011, President Santos announced the appointment of Liberal Party leader Rafael Pardo to
lead the country’s newly formed Labor Ministry, with the goal of implementing a broader and
more effective regime to protect labor rights. The Colombian government expected that the Labor
Ministry would provide the framework to mobilize resources and strengthen enforcement of labor
laws. During the Uribe Administration, Colombia’s labor-related functions were managed under
the Ministry of Social Protection (MSP), which was created in 2002 by President Alvaro Uribe.
The MSP had combined Colombia’s Ministry of Health and previous Ministry of Labor into one
central agency.
The Action Plan’s target dates for the measures related to the labor ministry ranged from April 22,
2011, to December 15, 2011.42 The Action Plan included the following as part of the Colombian
government’s commitments:
• Plan and budget for the hiring of 480 new labor inspectors over a four-year
period, including the hiring of at least 100 new labor inspectors during 2011 and
budgeting for an additional 100 new inspectors in the 2012 budget.
• Improve the system for citizens to file complaints concerning labor rights
violations. The system is to have a toll-free telephone hotline and a new web-
based mechanism for registering complaints. The MSP/Labor Ministry will
conduct outreach to promote awareness of the complaint mechanisms.
• Improve the MSP/Labor Ministry mediation and conflict resolution system in all
32 departments (Colombian states) by assigning specialized resources to the
MSP’s regional offices, training workers and employers in conflict resolution,
and conducting outreach. The MSP will also conduct outreach to the public,
employers, and workers through TV programs and printed material.
Criminal Code Reform
The Colombian government submitted legislation to the Colombian Congress to reform the
country’s criminal code by establishing criminal penalties for employers that undermine the right
to organize and bargain collectively. The new article in the criminal code encompasses a wide
41 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights, April 7, 2011, available at
http://www.ustr.gov.
42 On April 6, 2011, the Colombian Congress overwhelmingly approved to split three fused ministries and grant
President Juan Manuel Santos extraordinary powers over the following six months to restructure parts of the
Colombian government. President Santos has six months to divide the three ministries and reconstruct certain
departments. The new ministries will be: Interior, Justice and the Law, Health and Social Protection, Labor,
Environment and Sustainable Development, and Housing, Cities, and Territory.
Congressional Research Service
19
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
range of practices that adversely affect fundamental labor rights and would penalize violators
with up to five years of imprisonment. The Colombian government committed to have the
legislation enacted by the Colombian Congress by June 15, 2011.
Cooperatives
The Colombian government agreed to accelerate the effective date of the provisions of Article 63
of the 2010 Law of Formalization and First Employment, passed in December 2010. This
provision of the law prohibits the misuse of cooperatives or any other kind of labor relationship
that affects labor rights, and imposes significant fines for violations. The government submitted
legislation to the Colombian Congress to move the effective date from July 1, 2013, to June 15,
2011. The Colombian congress approved the bill.
The Labor Ministry will direct 50 of the 100 new labor inspectors referenced above to be
assigned exclusively to cases involving cooperatives. The hiring and training of these inspectors
was to be completed by December 15, 2011. Most of these inspectors had been hired as of early
December 2011. A second group of 50 labor inspectors specializing in cooperatives were to be
hired during 2012. The priority sectors for labor inspections will be the palm oil, sugar, mines,
ports, and flower sectors. The Colombian government agreed to confirm to the U.S. government
by April 22, 2011, that these inspections had begun.
The Colombian government agreed to issue regulations implementing the 2010 cooperatives law
by June 15, 2011. The purpose of these regulations is to
• clarify earlier cooperatives laws;
• ensure coherence among earlier laws and the new cooperatives law;
• increase inspections of cooperatives;
• increase sanctions for labor law violators;
• strictly apply and enforce the requirements that cooperatives be autonomous and
self-governing; and
• develop and conduct an outreach program to inform and advise workers of the
following: their rights under Colombian law; remedies and courses of action
available to them through the courts in order to enforce recognition of a direct
employment relationship; and the existence of criminal penalties for employers
who are responsible for undermining the right to organize and bargain
collectively (upon congressional approval of the criminal code reforms in
Colombia).
The Colombian government agreed to work with the U.S. government to ensure that the agreed
objectives are addressed and provide quarterly reports on the enforcement results to all interested
parties.
Temporary Service Agencies
The Colombian government committed to implement a regime to prevent the use of temporary
service agencies to circumvent labor rights. This would include actions such as improving the
inspection process, designing a new training program for labor inspectors, and building databases
Congressional Research Service
20
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
to identify regions and sectors where there have been abuses. The enforcement regime is to
include a monitoring and reporting mechanism in which all interested parties could verify
progress and compliance with labor laws. As a first step, the MSP was to issue quarterly reports
for interested parties that include the results of preventive inspections, penalties, fines, the
cancellation of licenses and permits, and the list of those agencies found to be in violation. The
Colombian government agreed the MSP, and later the Labor Ministry, would share a draft of the
enforcement plan with the U.S. government by April 22, 2011; work with the U.S. government to
ensure that the agreed upon objectives are addressed; conduct a series of preventive inspections
by June 15, 2011; and fully implement the enforcement plan by December 15, 2011.
Collective Pacts
The Colombian government committed to include in the bill on criminal code reform a provision
stating it is a crime, subject to imprisonment, to use collective pacts to undermine the right to
organize and bargain collectively. Approval of the criminal code reform took place in June 2011.
The provision prohibits collective pacts from extending better conditions to non-union workers.
The MSP/Labor Ministry began conducting a public outreach campaign after the criminal code
reform was approved to promote awareness. Colombia’s Labor Ministry is enforcing the reforms
through preventive inspections and the new labor complaint mechanisms to detect and prosecute
violations. The Colombian government committed to request technical assistance from the
International Labor Organization (ILO) to monitor the use of collective pacts and will work with
the U.S. government to ensure that the agreed objectives are addressed.
Essential Services
Colombia agreed that the MSP would collect the body of Colombian doctrine, case law, and
jurisprudence that has narrowed the definition of essential services. The MSP disseminated this
information and relevant guidelines to labor inspectors, the judicial branch, unions, and
employers by the target date of April 22, 2011.43
ILO Office
The Colombian government’s formal request to the ILO for technical assistance was
accomplished by the target date of September 15, 2011. The Colombian government had
committed to request cooperation, advice, and technical assistance from the ILO to help in the
implementation measures in the Action Plan. It committed to work with the ILO to strengthen the
presence and expand the capacity and role of the ILO in Colombia. The U.S. and Colombian
governments committed to working together to identify the necessary resources and sources of
support.
Protection Programs
Colombia’s Ministry of Interior and Justice issued a Ministerial Resolution, by the target date of
April 22, 2011, to broaden the definition of who is covered by its protection program. The
broader definition includes (1) labor activists; (2) persons who are engaged in active efforts to
43 These documents are under review by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Congressional Research Service
21
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
form a union; and (3) former unionists who are under threat because of their past activities. The
Colombian government planned and budgeted for necessary additional resources for this
expansion by increasing the FY2011 allocation by 50% (approximately US $6 million) to provide
adequate support for the expansion in the protection program. For FY2012, the Colombian
government assessed the level of funding necessary to support the program and presented the
requested budget to the Colombian Congress before the target date of July 30, 2011.
The Ministry of Interior and Justice committed to eliminate the backlog of risk assessments on
union member applications for protection, by July 30, 2011, through an emergency plan that had
begun earlier. After the backlog elimination, the Colombian government committed to a national
policy on conducting risk assessments to comply with the law to process all risk assessments
within a 30-day period. On May 1, 2011, the Colombian government committed to providing
monthly updates to interested parties.
The Colombian government committed to issue a decree to reform the scope and functioning of
the interagency committee that reviews risk assessments by September 15, 2011. The new
committee was to include representatives from the Inspector General’s Office and the Public
Defender’s Office to enhance objectivity in the assessment process. The Colombian government
agreed to share with the U.S. government the relevant parts of the draft decree by April 22, 2011,
and agreed to work with the U.S. government to ensure that the agreed objectives are addressed.
The Colombian government also committed to strengthen the existing protection system by
immediately implementing administrative measures.
Colombia agreed to amend its teacher relocation and protection program, contained in Resolution
1240 (Resolución 1240) of 2010, to ensure that meritorious requests are granted to teachers and to
eliminate sanctions against teachers not found to be under extraordinary risk. The Colombian
government agreed to work with the U.S. government to ensure that the program is achieving the
objective of effectively protecting those covered by it and to ensure that the agreed objectives are
addressed. Colombia began the sharing of quarterly reports on the program with interested parties
beginning July 1, 2011.
Criminal Justice Reform
The Colombian government agreed to assign 95 additional full-time judicial police investigators
to exclusively support prosecutors investigating criminal cases involving union members and
activists. The first 50 of these judicial police were assigned by June 30, 2011, and most of the
remaining police were assigned by December 15, 2011. The government stated that it would
approve a request to increase funding for the Prosecutor General’s Office for necessary resources
to reduce impunity and for implementing the Action Plan. The Prosecutor General submitted the
budget request by May 20, 2011.
The Prosecutor General’s Office of Colombia informed the Colombian government of numerous
actions it had taken or plans to take to combat impunity in cases involving union members and
labor activists:
• Issued a directive requiring criminal investigators to determine whether a victim
was a union member or labor activist in the initial phase of the investigation;
Congressional Research Service
22
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
• Issued a directive to the chiefs of the Unit of Justice and Peace and the Unit of
Human Rights to share evidence and information about criminal cases involving
union members, labor activists, teachers, journalists, and human rights activists;
• Developed a plan and identified budgetary needs for training judicial police
investigators and prosecutors on crime scene management, and in investigative
techniques with specific reference to the issues involved in labor cases; worked
with the U.S. government in developing a detailed training program;
• Developed a plan and specified budgetary needs by May 20, 2011, to strengthen
the institutional capacity, number of prosecutors and number of judicial police
investigators;
• Finalized an analysis by July 15, 2011, on closed cases of homicides of union
members and activists, in order to extract lessons that could improve
investigations and prosecutions in future cases; the results of this analysis were
widely publicized to help reduce impunity and deter future crimes;
• Developed a plan and identified specific budgetary needs for victims’ assistance
centers specialized in human rights cases, including labor cases; the Prosecutor
General’s Office agreed to staff the centers with professionals with expertise on
human rights and labor issues; Colombia agreed to share the plans and budgetary
allocations for this project to the U.S. government by June 15, 2011;
• Developed a program by the Prosecutor General’s Office to address the backlog
of unionist homicide cases that included (a) meeting with representatives of the
union confederations and the National Labor School, Escuela Nacional Sindical
(ENS), an independent labor rights monitoring body, in order to try to reconcile
discrepancies; and (b) internal guidance to prosecutors to accelerate action on
cases with leads, with a special focus on “priority labor cases”, and to
provisionally close cold cases by June 15, 2011; and
• Improved public reporting of completed criminal cases involving labor violence
by the Prosecutor General’s Office through the following: (a) publication by
April 22, 2011, of cases decided as of January 1, 2011, and thereafter; and (b)
identification of methods by June 15, 2011, for posting information regarding all
completed cases on the Prosecutor General’s Office website.
Action Plan Follow-Up Mechanism
The U.S. and Colombian governments agreed to assess progress in implementing the Action Plan
and agreed to meet on a periodic basis through 2013 at the technical level and at the senior
official level. In November 2013, the United States and Colombia agreed to continue bilateral
meetings to discuss progress on commitments under the Action Plan. Both governments agreed to
two additional technical-level meetings, one meeting of senior officials in 2014, and possible
future meetings if both parties agree to it.44
44 United States Department of Labor, “U.S. and Colombia agree to additional meetings on Colombian Labor Action
Plan commitments,” News Release, November 13, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
23
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Colombia’s Actions in Meeting Milestones
As Reported by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
Major Actions Taken by April 22, 2011
Began hiring 100 additional labor inspectors and budgeted for the hiring of 100 more labor inspectors in 2012.
Improved systems for citizens to file labor-related complaints via phone or internet.
Implemented an inspection system to detect improper use of temporary service agencies to circumvent labor rights
and developed an enforcement plan to prevent abuses.
Established enforcement regime to detect and prosecute the use of col ective pacts to undermine worker rights.
Began workshops to train labor inspectors and other government personnel in conflict resolution and launched a
related outreach program to the public, employers, and workers.
Expanded government protection program and increased funding to provide protection for labor activists, workers
who are trying to organize or join a union, and former unionists who are under threat because of past activities.
Strengthened the teacher relocation and protection program.
Mandated early identification in all new homicide cases of whether the victim was a union member or activist.
Developed a plan for training judicial police investigators and prosecutors on cases involving unionists.
Improved public reporting of completed cases by posting labor violence cases on the Prosecutor General’s website.
Began process to reconcile discrepancies in the number of outstanding unionist homicide cases.
Major Actions Taken by June 15, 2011
Obtained congressional approval of legislation to establish a new Labor Ministry.
Obtained congressional approval of legislation to establish criminal penalties for employers undermining labor rights.
Enacted legal provisions prohibiting the misuse of cooperatives or other types of labor relationships.
Issued regulations implementing a new cooperatives law, including provisions to clarify earlier cooperatives laws,
ensure coherence among these laws, and impose significant fines for companies violating these laws.
Launched a public outreach program to inform workers of their labor rights, with a focus on the new laws governing
cooperatives; criminal anti-union conduct and abuse of col ective pacts; and courses of action available to workers.
Developed and disseminated legal information regarding definition of essential services, especially with regard to laws
establishing a public service as essential and exempt from the right to strike.
Reduced by 75% the backlog of risk assessments for unionists applying for the government protection program.
Issued internal guidance to prosecutors to accelerate action on cases with leads, especially those related to labor.
Developed a plan to strengthen the institutional capacity in regional offices of the Prosecutor General.
Developed a plan and identified budgetary needs for victims’ assistance centers, including labor cases.
Submitted a budget request for the necessary government resources to end impunity and implement the Action Plan.
Developed a methodology for public posting of information regarding completed criminal cases involving labor.
Major Actions Taken by September 15, 2011
Completed an analysis by the Prosecutor General’s Office of closed homicide cases of unionists for the purpose of
extracting lessons to improve the investigation and prosecution of future cases.
Formally submitted a request for technical assistance to the ILO for implementation of Action Plan measures.
Eliminated the backlog of risk assessments for applicants to the protection program for union members and activists.
Completed the reassignment of 50 judicial police investigators to criminal cases involving unionists.
Remaining Commitments
Obtained final approval of the 2012 budget, including funding for 100 additional labor inspectors.
Completed hiring of almost 100 new labor inspectors and assignment of new judicial police investigators; completed
first round of training for inspectors in alternative dispute resolution; and implemented temporary service agency
enforcement plan.
Hiring of an additional 380 labor inspectors scheduled to be completed by early 2014 (original target date was
December 2014).
Source: USTR, Colombian Embassy, Colombia Action Plan Related to Labor Rights: Accomplishments to Date, at
http://www.ustr.gov.
Congressional Research Service
24
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Responses to the Action Plan in Colombia
After the announcement of the Action Plan, at least two of Colombia’s labor confederations
responded favorably to working with the Santos Administration and with business representatives
to come to an agreement on labor issues. Labor unions in Colombia have responded favorably to
at least some elements that were included in the Action Plan, especially those related to work
cooperatives. The Secretary General of Colombia’s National Labor Confederation, Julio Roberto
Gómez, remarked in November 2010 that President Santos’ proposal under the 2010 labor
cooperatives law was a “great achievement” for the trade union movement in Colombia.45
Although initial responses to the Action Plan from Colombian unions were mostly favorable,
some labor unions continue to oppose the FTA with the United States. The ENS stated that the
Action Plan was the most significant advance for the labor movement in Colombia in 20 years,
but has also stated that it has gaps, such as not going far enough to address the labor abuses that
are occurring in labor cooperatives.46 The Solidarity Center in the Andean Region contends that
Colombia has not met its full commitment in the Action Plan to implement the 2010 Cooperatives
Law because the decree that was signed in June 2011 is only a “partial decree.” The Center argues
that the decree leaves out other forms of contracting, other than cooperatives, that are included in
the original decree.47 Some unions continue to oppose the FTA with the United States. Public
sector unionists, in particular, protested plans of the Colombian and U.S. governments to enter
into the FTA, even while the two presidents met in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2011, to
announce the agreement on the Action Plan.
On May 26, 2011, a tripartite labor agreement was reached among representatives of the
Colombian government, the private sector, and some labor representatives. The agreement, which
is the first concluded since June 2006, includes a consensus to request the ILO to provide
cooperation, advice, and technical assistance on the implementation of the Action Plan measures.
Two of Colombia’s major labor confederations, however, the Confederation of Workers of
Colombia (CTC) and the Central Union of Workers (CUT), did not sign the agreement because
they felt they did not have sufficient time to analyze the agreement or to put forth their own
proposals in the agreement. Two other confederations, the General Labor Confederation (CGT)
and the Colombian Pensioners Confederation (CPC), signed the agreement and stated that it was
one of the most significant advances in many years in strengthening labor movement in
Colombia.48
45 ENS, “Trade Unions Comment on Government Proposal to Dismantle Associated-Work Cooperatives (Cooperativas
de trabajo asociado), November 26, 2010.
46 In-person interview with ENS on June 1, 2011.
47 Solidarity Center for Andean Region, June 16, 2011.
48 ENS, “Labor Agreement: CGT and CPC signed it, the CTC and the CUT did not sign it but presented proposals,”
June 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
25
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Views on the Agreement
Market Access for U.S. Exporters
Proponents of the agreement contend that it will improve market access for U.S. exporters. Much
of the U.S. business community supports the FTA. They view it as an opportunity for U.S.
businesses and for increasing exports of U.S. products, especially in agriculture. The National
Pork Producers Council, for example, argues that a trade agreement will provide significant new
export opportunities for U.S. pork producers.49
Prior to passage of the agreement, U.S. exporters were concerned that they were losing market
share in the Colombian market as a result of passage of free trade agreements that Colombia has
negotiated with other countries. Some U.S. exporters were especially concerned about the
Colombia-Canada free trade agreement that entered into force in August 2011. U.S. wheat
producers estimated that the falling U.S. share of the Colombian wheat import market was
declining even further as a result of the implementation of Colombia’s FTA with Canada.50
Numerous policymakers voiced concern about the United States losing market share of the
Colombian market if Congress did not approve the U.S.-Colombia FTA. Over the past 10 years,
Colombia has been actively negotiating free trade agreements with other countries. Colombia has
5 FTAs with 12 countries in Latin America. In addition, the Colombia-Canada FTA entered into
force on August 15, 2011. Colombia has signed FTAs with the European Union, and the EFTA
(Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland). Colombia has also joined an effort to create a
regional trade integration agreement with Chile, Mexico, and Peru by signing a declaration for
this effort on April 28, 2011.
The United States is Colombia’s leading trading partner and the leading supplier of Colombia’s
imports, but its market share has been declining since 2000. Between 2000 and 2011, the share of
Colombia’s imports supplied from the United States declined from 34% to 27%. In agriculture
goods, Argentina replaced the United States as the leading supplier of Colombia’s agriculture
imports in 2010, likely due to a preferential trade arrangement with the region. In 2000, the
United States supplied 31% of Colombian imports of agricultural products, while Argentina
supplied only 5%. By 2011, Argentina’s share had risen to 29% while the United States’ share had
declined to 24%.
Colombian Farmer Concerns
Farmers in Colombia and their supporters are concerned that the FTA with the United States will
result in agricultural products from the United States flooding the Colombian market and hurt
small farmers. Colombia’s relatively high tariff structure in agricultural products will be phased
out over a 19-year period under the FTA, but tariffs on certain products, such as wheat and
soybeans, were removed upon the agreement’s entry into force. Many in Colombia’s farming
sector argue that the agreement and other liberal trade policies are “undermining local food
49 National Pork Producers Council, NPCC Applauds President for Sending Trade Deal to Congress, April 7, 2008.
50 National Association of Wheat Growers, Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, April 2011.
Congressional Research Service
26
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
production and putting small farmers out of business” as lower cost imports enter the Colombian
market.51
In August 2013, a nationwide strike in Colombia lasted over a week as more than 200,000 coffee
growers, dairy farmers, and other agricultural workers and their supporters blocked roads and
launched protests against the U.S.-Colombia FTA.52 Protesters stated that President Santos’
policies of trade liberalization and privatization are forcing small farmers in Colombia to compete
with subsidized U.S. products and making them more vulnerable to market fluctuations. Rural
farmers are concerned that these policies are decreasing their incomes and were striking to ask for
more protection and services from the government. Police reportedly fired tear gas at the
protestors while the army patrolled the streets.53 Human rights organizations contend that
Colombian military personnel were violating human rights of the protestors through beatings and
unwarranted arrests.54
Some observers argue that the problems that farmers are facing go beyond the free trade
agreement with the United States. For example, farmers in rural areas face extremely expensive
credit rates and production supplies. Many also face challenges in transporting their goods to the
main producers because of the poor state of supply routes. While there may be opportunities for
some agriculture producers by exporting other goods, such as Colombia’s array of exotic fruits,
the mounting challenges for smaller producers may be too large for them to handle.55
The nationwide strikes contributed to a plunge in President Juan Manuel Santos’ approval ratings
at the end of August 2013 when his ratings fell to a record low. In response to the protests, the
President reshuffled his cabinet by replacing the agriculture minister, as well as several others.
The government also negotiated a deal with the protestors in which the government said it would
do more to protect the livelihoods of farmers and modernize the agricultural sector. President
Santos announced that his administration would promote a “National Pact” for the agriculture
industry that would include all stakeholders, including those in non-agricultural sectors. Some of
the concessions made to the strikers include regulated fertilizer prices, a freeze on imports of
certain produce, a suspension of a resolution that made it illegal for them to produce seeds from
their own harvests, and a temporary freeze on proposed price hikes for diesel fuel.56
Labor Views
Numerous U.S. labor groups strongly oppose the free trade agreement with Colombia. They
maintain that Colombia’s labor movement is under attack through violence, intimidation, and
harassment, as well as legal channels. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) contends that Colombian labor union members face daily
legal challenges to their rights to organize and bargain collectively and that these challenges
51 Carolina Moreno, “Colombia Farmers’ Strike Finds Support in new York City,” September 1, 2013.
52 Matthew Bristow, “Colombia President Approval Plunges as Protests Roil Nation,” Bloomberg Government,
September 4, 2013.
53 Ibid.
54 Sarah Lazare, “Colombia Nationwide Strike Against Free Trade, Privatization, Poverty,” Common Dreams, August
25, 2013.
55 NTN24 Nuestra Tele Noticia, “Colombia in Focus: Why Colombian Farmers Hate the US Free Trade Agreement,”
August 29, 2013.
56 "Protests in Colombia, Unpopular Dismay," The Economist, September 6, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
27
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
threaten the existence of the Colombian labor movement. While the AFL-CIO acknowledges that
Colombia has made progress in protecting union members, it continues to have concerns
regarding the government’s commitment to protect fundamental worker rights.57 The AFL-CIO
remained opposed to the FTA even after the Action Plan negotiated by the Obama Administration
and the Colombian government was announced on April 6, 2011.58
The position of Colombian labor unions on the U.S.-Colombia FTA is mixed, with some unions
in favor of the agreement and others opposed. In May 2007, 17 Colombian unionists representing
the textiles, flower, mining, and other Colombian industries visited the U.S. Congress to speak
out in favor of the agreement. They represented the General Labor Confederation of Colombia
(CGT), which has acknowledged progress in protecting worker rights by the Colombian
government. Union members in support of an FTA argue that an FTA would provide jobs in the
coffee, flower, textiles, and other industries in Colombia. They contend that the Uribe
Administration made much progress in protecting worker rights and that the Santos
Administration is making these positive changes “more concrete.” Some CGT representatives do
not believe that union workers are being targeted for their labor activities and believe that the
violence is due to the ongoing conflict in Colombia caused by guerillas and paramilitaries.59
Other Colombian union representatives, however, many of whom are government employees,
have spoken out against the agreement. They argue that an FTA would interfere with the
Colombian government’s right to govern the country, and that it would have a negative effect on
Colombia’s agriculture sector and the economy in general.60 A major labor confederation in
Colombia, the Central Union of Workers (CUT) is strongly opposed to the FTA with the United
States and argues that an FTA with the United States would not be effective in protecting worker
rights in Colombia because the labor chapter in the agreement does not go far enough to protect
worker rights. The CUT also contends that the Action Plan Related to Labor Rights would not be
effective in ending the impunity of crimes against unionists in Colombia. According to a CUT
representative, the main problem in Colombia is the high levels of impunity and the lack of
justice in the legal system.61
Implementation of Labor Action Plan
The United States and Colombia continue to cooperate on issues related to the Labor Action Plan.
In November 2013, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor Seth Harris and Colombian Minister of
Labor Rafael Pardo Rueda stated that they had agreed to continue bilateral meetings at least
through 2014 on commitments in the Action Plan. Deputy Labor Secretary Harris said in a
statement that the United States and Colombia are committed to full implementation of the Action
Plan and that both governments look forward to work together “to make these promises a reality
for workers.”62 Both sides recognized advances made by Colombia to date, and at the same time
57 Colombia Reports, “Colombia too far behind on labor and human rights: U.S. union,” March 21, 2010.
58 AFL-CIO Now Blog, AFL-CIO Remains Opposed to Colombia Trade Deal, April 7, 2011.
59 In-person interview with representatives of the General Labor Confederation (CGT) of Colombia on June 2, 2011.
60 Central Union of Workers of Colombia (CUT), Rechazamos el TLC Por Ello, Desautorizamos toda Opinión Sindical
que Contrarie la Postura Institucional, April 12, 2007. CUT, TLC: Todos Limosnearemos Comida, April 2008.
61 In-person interview with CUT representatives on June 1, 2011.
62 United States Department of Labor, “U.S. and Colombia agree to additional meetings on Colombian Labor Action
Plan commitments,” News Release, November 13, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
28
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
underscored several areas of concern, including: collection of fines imposed for labor violations;
targeted inspections in priority sectors; investigation and sanction of all forms of abusive
contracting; the status of hiring labor inspectors; and violence and threats against trade unionists
and continued impunity for the perpetrators.63 The U.S. and Colombian officials agreed to two
technical-level meetings, one meeting of senior officials in 2014, and a possibility for future
meetings upon mutual agreement.
A few Members of Congress have expressed concerns about implementation of the Labor Action
Plan. An October 2013 congressional staff report to the Congressional Monitoring Group on
Labor Rights in Colombia acknowledges that the Colombian government has undertaken
important measures to protect worker rights and is working at the highest levels of government to
implement the Action Plan and improve working conditions in Colombia. The report, however,
states that, despite the “best intentions” by the Colombian government, the actions have not
resulted in improved conditions for workers and activists in Colombia.64 The report states that
murders and threats against union members continue and that subcontracting activities persist
unabated. The report’s findings include the following: 1) Indirect employment is still pervasive
and growing; 2) The inspection system is ineffective and worker protections are weak; and 3) The
right to organize is being denied and a lack of justice prevails.65
Indirect Employment Arrangements
Prior to approval of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, labor groups raised concerns regarding the
widespread practice of indirect employment relationships in Colombia such as labor cooperatives.
Colombian cooperatives are work arrangements mostly found in the sugar cane, palm oil, flower,
mining, and port industries. Critics of the programs contend that these indirect employment
relationships lead to a lack of protection of worker rights, wages below the minimum wage, and
lower health and pension benefits.66 The Colombian government established such work
arrangements to help generate employment, but it later recognized these pacts could lead to an
erosion of worker rights. Subsequently, it undertook a series of reforms since 2004. A key law
was passed by Colombia’s Congress on December 12, 2010. Article 63 of Ley 1429, a law for
formalizing the labor force and generating employment, has new and stronger measures to help
ensure that worker rights are not being violated and to impose sanctions on businesses that are
violating Colombian laws.67 The major changes in this law are increased sanctions on companies
for violations of the law from about $25,000 to $1.5 million; accountability for inspectors if they
do not enforce the law; and enhanced bargaining rights for workers belonging to a cooperative.
The law was to have a transition period and not enter into effect until July 2013. However, in an
agreement with the United States under the Action Plan Related to Labor Rights, the Colombian
government agreed to accelerate implementation of the law to June 2011.68
63 Ibid.
64 The U.S.-Colombia Labor Action Plan: Failing on the Ground, A Staff Report on behalf of U.S. Representatives
George Miller and Jim McGovern to the Congressional Monitoring Group on Labor Rights in Colombia, October 2013.
65 Ibid, pp. 1-2.
66 Mark Gruenberg, “Colombian labor leader seeks trade pact delay,” People’s World, January 21, 2011.
67 In-person interview with Colombian Embassy staff in Washington, D.C. and the Vice Minister of Labor from the
Colombian government on March 10, 2011.
68 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Leveling the Playing Field: Labor Protections and the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,” April 6, 2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Critics of the cooperative work arrangements contend that the arrangements lead to worker
oppression, prevent workers from joining unions, and result in a denial of basic benefits; critics
also contend that certain marginalized groups, especially the Afro-Colombian population, are
particularly vulnerable to unfair treatment. Colombian labor representatives urged Congress to
delay passage of the FTA until Colombia improved its labor laws.69 Labor groups contend that
indirect employment relationships in Colombia persist, even after implementation of the Action
Plan, preventing workers from exercising their rights to free association and collective
bargaining.70
According to the Colombian government, cooperatives are required to provide health benefits,
worker rights protections, and pension benefits. However, there have been cases of non-
compliance. Documents obtained from the Colombian government show that, between 2007 and
January 2011, inspectors made 4,787 visits to work areas, conducted 4,052 investigations, and
imposed sanctions 816 times. The documents also show that the number of workers participating
in cooperatives decreased from 2 million in 2007 to 600,000 in 2010, and that the number of
cooperatives decreased from 12,317 to 4,555 between 2007 and 2010.71
The government states that in 2012 and 2013, thousands of Colombian workers have benefitted
from “formalization agreements” between employers and workers as a direct result from the
Labor Action Plan. A 2013 document issued by the government of Colombia states that numerous
employers in the transportation, sugar cane, palm tourism, health, and other sectors reached
agreement with their workers in which 15,700 workers moved from indirect working
arrangements to permanent direct employment.72
Colombian Government Actions in Response to U.S. Labor
Concerns
In response to U.S. concerns regarding worker rights in Colombia, the Embassy of Colombia in
the United States has been reporting the progress that Colombia has made since 2001 in
strengthening the rights, benefits, and security of unions in Colombia. According to progress
reports issued by the embassy, government reforms in Colombia since 2002 have helped protect
Colombian worker rights to form unions, bargain collectively, and strike. These include enhanced
efforts to open dialogue with union members, including meetings with the president and vice
president of Colombia.73 A September 2011 report issued by the embassy provides data indicating
that homicides dropped by 45% since 2000 and homicides of union members decreased 81%
during the same period. Another report states that a protection program aimed at vulnerable
groups, including union members, and the creation of the special unit at the Prosecutor General’s
Office have led to an 86% reduction in the level of homicides of union members.
(...continued)
office/2011/04/06/fact-sheets-us-colombia-trade-agreement-and-action-plan.
69 Mark Gruenberg, “Colombian labor leader seeks trade pact delay,” People’s World, January 21, 2011.
70 AFL-CIO, The Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights: The View Through Workers’ Eyes, July 2012.
71 Data obtain from an in-person interview with a Vice-Minister from the Colombian government’s Ministerio de la
Protección Social on March 10, 2011.
72 Ministry of Labor of Colombia, Free Trade Agreement: Colombia/United States, pp. 10-11, 2013.
73 Embassy of Colombia, Washington, D.C., Colombia: A Progress Report: Strengthening the Rights, Benefits, and
Security of Unions, October 2007.
Congressional Research Service
30
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues
Regarding allegations that Colombia is the world’s most dangerous country for union members,
the Colombian government responds that because other countries do not track this data, the data
cannot be compared with different countries. The government argues that union membership in
certain professions in Colombia is almost universal, including teachers and judicial branch
employees, and that when someone in these professions is murdered, it is often a union member.
Government representatives have stated that many of victims of violence happen to be union
members, but that does not necessarily mean that they were targeted because of their union
activities.74
Some Colombian government officials believe that the U.S.-Colombia FTA and the Labor Action
Plan demonstrates an unprecedented level of cooperation between two countries on labor issues
and can be a model for other free trade agreements on labor issues.75 For example, thousands of
workers have been added to the formal workforce, which surpassed the size of the informal
workforce in 2013.76 The government has also made considerable efforts to increase the number
of labor inspectors in order to meet its commitments under the Action Plan. As of the end of
January 2014, Colombia accomplished all of its Action Plan commitments by completing the
hiring of 480 new labor inspectors, ahead of the December 2014 target date. Another significant
accomplishment in recent labor relations in Colombia is the signing of a December 2013 tripartite
agreement in which the government of Colombia and representatives from the private sector and
the three major labor groups agreed to a higher minimum wage and to continue the improvement
of working conditions in Colombia.77
Author Contact Information
M. Angeles Villarreal
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
avillarreal@crs.loc.gov, 7-0321
74 Embassy of Colombia, Washington, D.C., Answers to Frequent Allegations about Colombia and Labor Violence,
September 2011.
75 Personal interview with staff at the Embassy of Colombia in Washington, DC on January 17, 2014.
76 Ibid.
77 Labor Ministry of Colombia, Acta de Acuerdo, December 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
31