This report was prepared by the OAS Trade Section to serve as a basis for the discussions
of the Special Committee on Trade at its second meeting held in Montevideo, Uruguay on
June 14-15, 1995. The SCT decided to annex this paper to its report to the Trade Ministers
at their meeting in Denver on June 30, 1995. Chapter IV is a contribution of the
Inter-American Development Bank, based on its analysis of tariff structures and rules of
origin systems in the region. The report was examined by the Advisory Group to the Special
Committee on Trade at its fourth meeting held in Washington, D.C. on June 1-2, 1995.
Introduction and Summary
The Declaration of Principles issued at the conclusion of the Summit of the Americas
assigns the OAS major responsibilities for assisting governments in carrying out the
agreements reached as part of the Summit process. In the area of trade, the Plan of Action
adopted at the Summit directs the OAS Special Committee on Trade (SCT), with the support
of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the secretariats of other specialized regional and
subregional organizations, to assist in the systematization of data in the region and to
continue its work on studying economic integration arrangements in the Hemisphere,
including brief comparative descriptions of the obligations in each of the Hemisphere's
existing trade agreements.
In carrying out this request, the OAS Trade Section prepared a "compendium" of
Western Hemisphere trade arrangements.(1) This report builds upon the
information contained in the compendium and offers further information and analysis on the
trade related issues dealt with in the Declaration and Plan of Action adopted at the
Summit of the Americas.
The report provides an overview of recent developments with respect to trade and
economic integration in the Americas and deals with some other issues of particular
relevance to the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Chapter I
focuses on the characteristics of trade flows and major trends with regard to trade among
countries of the Hemisphere, and Chapter II describes briefly all the major bilateral,
trilateral and subregional trade agreements in the Hemisphere. It also provides
information on recent developments in integration groupings such as NAFTA, the Andean
Group, Mercosur, Caricom and the Central American Common Market.
Chapter III identifies areas of commonality and divergence in the various trade and
integration arrangements in the Americas. Chapter IV presents a detailed discussion on
tariff structures and rules of origin systems in the region. Chapter V analyzes the
relationship between hemispheric free trade in the Western Hemisphere and multilateral
rules and disciplines, in particular with regard to the relevance of GATT Article XXIV and
GATS Article V as a measure of the compatibility of regional agreements in the region and
the multilateral trading system as embodied in the WTO.
The challenges facing the smaller developing countries in the Hemisphere with regard to
free trade in the Americas are described in Chapter VI while Chapter VII discusses
considerations which should be taken into account when designing the actions and measures
leading to the formation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), as well as some
proposals with regard to future work to be undertaken. At the end of this chapter, the
report makes some suggestions as to the contribution which the Special Committee on Trade
and the Trade Section could make towards the establishment of the FTAA.
Main Findings of the Report
- Trade in the Americas
- The increase in intra-subregional trade is one of the most important aspects of the Hemisphere's international trade in the 1990s. Old and new trade arrangements propelled by the economic liberalization measures of the past 10 years contributed greatly to this increase. However, while countries of a same group are trading more with their partners, the level of these exchanges varies from one country to another and from one bloc to another.
- The share of intra-subregional exports in total exports more than doubled within the Andean Group, from 4.1 percent in 1990 ($1.25 billion) to 10 percent in 1994 ($3.34 billion); and within Mercosur, from 8.9 percent in 1990 ($4.13 billion) to 19.1 percent in 1994 ($11.42 billion). In the Central American Common Market, exports within the group also increased, from 17.3 percent in 1990 ($686 million) to 21.6 percent in 1994 ($1.23 billion), while Caricom's share slightly fell from 12.6 percent in 1990 ($496 million) to 11.5 percent in 1993 ($475 million). In North America, trade between Mexico, the United States and Canada rose following the entry into force of the NAFTA agreement in 1994.
- While the Western Hemisphere, as a whole, is the largest and most important trading partner for all the countries in the region, NAFTA is the largest partner of most trading blocs and most countries of the Hemisphere. It accounts for 48.8 percent of CACM's trade, 48.4 percent for the Caribbean, 65 percent for the Group of Three, and 46.1 percent for the Andean Group. However, Europe dominates the market in the Mercosur countries (27.6 percent compared to 22.5 percent for NAFTA), Bolivia (22.8 percent compared to 18.9 percent for NAFTA), Suriname (39.2 percent compared to 12.4 percent for NAFTA) and Guyana (43.4 percent compared to 35.2 percent for NAFTA).
- Latin America and the Caribbean are also important markets for several countries of the region. They account for as much as 19.5 percent of all CACM exports and as little as 8 percent of the Group of Three countries' exports. Latin America and the Caribbean represent a major export market for Bolivia and Paraguay (44.5 percent), followed by Uruguay (39.4 percent), El Salvador (33.6 percent), Guatemala (29.3 percent), and Argentina (28.2 percent). However, Haiti (0.8 percent), Dominica (3.2 percent), Honduras (4.8 percent), and Mexico (4.8 percent) are not at all dependent on the Latin American and Caribbean markets for their exports.
- Canada has been developing closer links with Latin America since the beginning of the 1990s, when it joined the Organization of American States and negotiated NAFTA with the United States and Mexico. Official consultations are held regularly with several Latin American and Caribbean countries. More than 95 percent of Canada's exports to the region in 1994 went to the United States. Latin America's share of Canadian exports dropped from 5 percent of total exports in 1983 to 2 percent in 1993.
 - Trade and Integration Agreements
-
- The new trade and integration agreements which have been established and/or revived in the region are very different from their counterparts of the 1960s and 1970s. The new agreements have been propelled mostly by serious trade and economic liberalization measures adopted by countries in the region.
- One might distinguish six different types of economic-integration agreements: economic unions in which the members integrate all of their economic policies; common markets in which a customs union is supplemented by removal of all barriers to factor movements between members; customs unions in which member countries eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers among themselves and establish a common external tariff on goods from third countries; free trade agreements in which member countries eliminate substantially all tariff and non-tariff barriers among themselves; preferential agreements in which access to a larger market is offered without demands for reciprocity; and sectoral agreements that provide for reduced-tariff or duty-free treatment among their members on a limited range of products.
- Examples of the last four types of agreements can be found in the Western Hemisphere today. There are a significant number of customs unions and free trade agreements among American states to which the report refers specifically and the compendium deals with intensively. In addition, Canada, the United States, and some Latin American countries (e.g., Venezuela and Colombia) offer preferential non reciprocal access to their markets under various types of programs. There are also numerous sectoral agreements, such as the AutoPact that the United States and Canada entered into in 1965, and bilateral agreements on specific products negotiated within the framework of LAIA (Latin American Integration Association).
- Commonality and Divergence in the Agreements
-
- The agreements examined in the report fall into two general categories: four are customs unions and three are arrangements leading to free trade areas. One of the four customs unions (Mercosur - 1991) is a fairly recent agreement while the Andean, Caribbean and Central American arrangements have longer histories. Each of the earlier agreements have had to be modified to fit changing circumstances. The ability of the agreements to adjust to new conditions is one of their central features. In certain cases, for example, adjustments have had to be made to respective schedules for trade liberalization in light of members' inabilities to meet certain original, or even modified, deadlines.
- The free trade agreements, on the other hand, are fairly recent in vintage. NAFTA is the most comprehensive and served as a useful model for the negotiation of the Group of Three agreement, which nevertheless, reflects the special interests of its constituent members. The Bilaterals with Chile, while sharing a number of common traits are essentially designed to address specific bilateral liberalization objectives, and are focused mainly on liberalization of trade in goods.
- NAFTA is the only agreement without a geographically defined accession clause, and to which all countries of the Hemisphere could theoretically adhere. Membership in all the other agreements is subject to geographical or other limitations at the subregional level, none of which could theoretically encompass the entire Hemisphere. There are thus, certain practical difficulties, barring amendments being made to the agreements in question, in achieving Hemispheric free trade by the expansion in the membership of existing arrangements to other countries.
- All agreements provide for the liberalization of tariffs and most non-tariff barriers. Some of the earlier integration attempts (i.e., Andean Group, Central America and Caricom) were less successful in achieving the trade liberalization objectives in the original timeframes that were established. Nevertheless, adjustments have been made as these agreements have evolved and new timetables have been established and generally adhered to. Some agreements have encountered difficulties in establishing common external tariffs in all products and therefore have required provisions allowing for limited time and specified exceptions.
- The agreements have clearly contributed to the liberalization of trade among the members. Three out of four customs unions contain, at least formally, MFN obligations with respect to tariffs as do the set of FTAs negotiated by Chile. When necessary, derogations from this obligation have been obtained so as to allow countries to enter into trade liberalization negotiations.
- A number of agreements, in particular the customs unions, contain special provisions designed to address the needs of participating countries that are at lower stages of development. Such provisions can take the form of different levels of obligations and/or differences in the number of exceptions or phasing requirements. Some agreements contain both forms, but differing stages of development do not, themselves, preclude participation in trade liberalization efforts.
- One area of significant difference among the agreements is found in how each addresses the issue of emergency measures. In Mercosur and Caricom, bilateral safeguards actions do not effectively exist. In NAFTA and the Group of Three, bilateral safeguard mechanisms essentially have sunset provisions, while they are essentially open ended in the case of the Andean Group and Central America. The subject of unfair trade practices has been one of the most difficult to address at all levels, be it multilateral, plurilateral or bilateral.
- With regard to trade in services, including financial services, transportation services, telecommunications services, provisions respecting the temporary entry of persons, as well as with respect to the issues of investment, government procurement, state and monopoly providers of goods and services and intellectual property provisions, the agreements that have been negotiated more recently provide thorough coverage. Nevertheless, some of the "older" agreements have been modified to take into account international progress in these areas, such as the adoption by the Andean Group of highly disciplined provisions in the area of intellectual property.
- Effectively, government procurement is only covered in the NAFTA and Group of Three agreements (procurement is a voluntary plurilateral agreement in the WTO, and Canada and the United States are the only signatories in the Hemisphere). Mercosur has set up a working group on procurement which is supposed to report its findings on June 30, 1995. Similarly, the Caricom countries are studying various options for a coordinated subregional approach.
- A number of agreements contain measures relating to the treatment of foreign investment, with most of those being ahead of similar provisions in the Uruguay Round. In the case of Mercosur, investment issues were not included in the original negotiation, but have since been included by incorporating the Colonia Protocol. The same situation pertains to the Andean Group which brought forward investment and intellectual property provisions since the inception of the original agreement. NAFTA contains the most comprehensive set of investment related disciplines of any agreement.
- Four of the agreements reviewed (plus the WTO) contain provisions relating to intellectual property rights. Those that do not are Mercosur, Caricom and the FTAs entered into by Chile. In the case of Central America, first attempts to include intellectual property rights date back to 1968, but did not, however, include patent rights. The agreement has since been amended in 1994 and is in the process of ratification. Both NAFTA and the Group of Three agreements contain well developed intellectual property provisions.
- Protection, Preferential Tariff Elimination and Rules of Origin
-
The Inter-American Development Bank's study of tariffs and rules of origin in the Hemisphere, arrives at the following initial conclusions:
First, despite the depth and speed of the import liberalization process in Latin America, there still remain significant differences among national tariff structures in the Hemisphere. Moreover, the different approaches to trade policy in the region will strongly influence the type of integration that is feasible for the Americas in the foreseeable future. Given that the creation of an advanced integration arrangement such as a customs union is highly demanding regarding the harmonization of national trade policies, the creation of a free trade area can be viewed as the most likely first step toward the goal of economic integration in the Hemisphere.
Second, the process of preferential tariff elimination has advanced at a varied pace in the Hemisphere in recent years. The new generation agreements such as NAFTA, the Group of Three, and Mexico-Costa Rica will have duty free treatment for about 95 percent of the items by the year 2004, and the rest will circulate freely shortly thereafter. In contrast, the first generation agreements such as the Chilean bilateral accords will achieve almost full tariff removal under the LAIA regime by the end of this decade.
Third, the establishment and success of a hemispheric free trade area depends fundamentally on the adoption of a system of rules and disciplines, including those that govern origin, that have precise objectives, coherent criteria and simple administrative procedures.
The IDB's in-depth analysis of the LAIA system of rules of origin vis-a-vis that used in the new generation agreements supports the view to move towards a regime that borrows the best from existing systems in the Hemisphere. On the one hand, rules of origin should be as transparent as possible given certain clearly defined objectives; on the other hand, they must display sufficient rigor to fulfill those objectives in an effective way. In this regard, it would be preferable to minimize the number of criteria for origin, giving preference to a change in tariff classification, using complementary requirements like value added only in exceptional cases where they are merited. This more simplified, yet rigorous, approach seems to be emerging as a possible guideline for a future development of rules of origin, and indeed the option is being studied in the WTO for non-preferential schemes.
- Regionalism and Multilateral Rules
-
- The future Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has to be consistent with the multilateral trading system. The need to ensure this compatibility applies not only to the prospective FTAA but also to existing regional and subregional arrangements in the Hemisphere. Indeed, "compatibility" is an objective as well as a necessity, due to the fact that almost all countries in the region are members of the WTO.
- According to a recent report by the WTO Secretariat, only seven trade agreements concluded among the countries of the Hemisphere have been notified to the GATT. These are the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom), the Central American Common Market (CACM), the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA), the Andean Group, and the Southern Cone Common Market (Mercosur).
- The general view that trade agreements among developing countries need only to conform to the GATT Enabling Clause may be reexamined in light of the nature and wide scope of the new trade and integration agreements in the region. In fact, almost all existing agreements in the region could meet the requirements of Article XXIV. This would not have been so just a few years ago, when most trade and integration agreements covered a limited percentage of the participants' total trade and were designed more to exclude other countries' imports than to liberalize mutual trade. There is a strong case for notifying these agreements to the WTO as all countries stand to gain from greater transparency in the functioning of regional agreements.
- In addition, it seems to be necessary to go beyond the limited approach envisaged in GATT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause, and to move towards a new attitude concerning the compatibility of subregional arrangements with multilateral obligations. Both the Hemisphere and the multilateral trading system in general would benefit from compatibility examinations that take into account the policy areas now incorporated into the trade policy arena.
- Regional agreements can constitute "building blocks" for multilateralism when regional disciplines are multilateralized or are used as a basis for multilateral agreements. Multilateral disciplines can also become building blocks for regional agreements when used as a basis for liberalizing trade among a limited number of countries. Within the Americas, establishment of the proposed FTAA can benefit from using multilateral disciplines as a foundation for hemispheric free trade. Moreover, the adoption of hemispheric agreements on areas not covered by multilateral rules and disciplines can help promote consensus-building on these issues at the international level.
- Less Developed Countries
-
- Reciprocal trade liberalization between countries at different stages of development has always posed special problems. From the perspective of smaller countries, this problem has often been viewed as a question of fairness. From the perspective of larger and more developed countries, the problem takes on different dimensions. They often question whether it is appropriate to engage in free trade arrangements with countries at lower stages of development when such "partners" cannot undertake equivalent obligations.
- The conflict between these two perspectives has thus far been handled, if not entirely resolved, through the creation of special measures in favor of the developing countries. The best-known measures have been one-way preferential arrangements such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Lomé Convention, the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and Caribcan. In addition, developing countries have been generally treated more favorably with respect to their obligations in multilateral trade negotiations through the "special and differential" treatment contained in Part IV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
- The attitudes of both developed and developing countries to one-way preferential trade have changed. In Latin American and Caribbean countries, the implementation of structural reform programs and a drastic modification of the region's trade policy through the reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers and the removal of quantitative restrictions is now perceived as being part and parcel of good development strategy. The industrialized countries, for their part, have placed ever-greater emphasis on "reciprocity" in a new international trading environment.
- The old dilemma of trade relations between rich and poor thus remains in place, but in a new perspective. For less developed countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, enhanced participation in hemispheric trade is essential for rapid and sustained growth and development. However, the acknowledged need for a more open trading system and for hemispheric free trade does not change the fact that these countries remain in a vulnerable position. While the global benefits of trade liberalization are generally recognized, the realization of these benefits by small and less developed countries will depend greatly on their capacity to adjust to shifts in market opportunities and to increased competition. When these countries cannot adjust appropriately and quickly enough, more often than not due to underlying structural weaknesses, their trade and economic prospects may worsen.
- The challenge therefore is how to design a satisfactory reciprocal arrangement among unequal partners that will promote prosperity through free trade and integration in the Americas without endangering the economic viability of some countries in the process. That process should proceed from the understanding that while access to larger markets may be difficult for the smaller countries in the Hemisphere, due to quantitative restrictions on their most important export products, it is not the only problem. It is also one of supply-side constraints, whether related to scale and scope, quality, price, or some other consideration or combination thereof. Therefore, measures designed to enhance the productive and investment opportunities of the less developed countries would contribute to their ability to participate fully in hemispheric liberalization efforts.
- The Road Ahead
-
- Free trade among the countries of the Americas should be constructed upon two basic building blocks: the multilateral disciplines of the GATT/WTO, and existing commitments contained in the various bilateral and regional trade and integration agreements. As regards the GATT/WTO disciplines, two main implications for the establishment of the FTAA should be highlighted. First, where adequate multilateral disciplines and mechanisms exist they could be incorporated in the FTAA by reference, i.e., they would not need to be duplicated or renegotiated at the hemispheric level. Second, the countries could focus their negotiating energies in areas where a "WTO-plus" outcome might be achieved: WTO areas where further liberalization is required, and those areas falling outside the WTO where disciplines are crucial for intensified liberalization within the Americas.
- In analyzing the relationship between the FTAA and the regional and bilateral arrangements, three distinct but related issues are critical. First, the liberalization process has exposed countries in the region to increased international competition and adjustment pressures. Second, the intensification of trade liberalization brought on by the expansion of such agreements should be considered as steps toward hemispheric free trade, and could be organized to facilitate that process. Third, existing agreements in the Hemisphere could be used as a basis for a hemispheric-wide agreement in certain critical areas or sectors such as rules of origin, customs procedures, investment measures and transportation.
- There is a need for a two-staged approach toward hemispheric free trade. The next few years could be seen as both a preparatory process of the negotiations on the FTAA, and a time for countries to concentrate on measures essential for deeper trade liberalization and expansion, so that concrete progress can be achieved by the end of the decade. Three sets of actions seem to be particularly important:
- A Framework for Hemispheric Liberalization in Goods and Services. Trade liberalization is the "core" of any free trade agreement, and to this end, a plan and timetable should be defined as soon as possible. It would encompass industrial and agricultural tariffs, and restrictions to trade in services.
- Action in Areas That Could Facilitate Trade. In most cases, these measures are related to the WTO agreements as many of these agreements are designed to increase transparency and facilitate international trade. At this stage it is important to ensure that all the countries in the region are in a position to implement the WTO agreements and, where appropriate, to accelerate their implementation.
- Identify Issues not yet Covered by the WTO such as investment and competition policy, which were included in the Summit of the Americas Plan of Action, in which hemispheric discussions can put the Americas at the forefront of multilateral consensus-building.
- The second stage would then be a period in which the FTAA would take shape and free trade in goods and services, as well as disciplines on new issues, are finally negotiated. One of the outstanding issues would be whether free trade in the Americas will be arrived at by accession to one of the existing agreements or by negotiating an "umbrella" agreement which may allow for the continued existence of regional agreements.
- The Role of the OAS
-
- The OAS can assist the countries of the region in their search for trade liberalization through two key mechanisms: the Special Committee on Trade (and its Advisory Group) and the Trade Section. The Special Committee on Trade (SCT) offers a multilateral forum where trade and trade-related issues can be examined by the countries of the region with a view to taking action on hemispheric trade liberalization and expansion. Specifically, the SCT can provide a forum where alternative strategies and actions regarding the FTAA could be analyzed and recommendations be formulated.
- The Trade Section could provide technical support to the negotiating process, since its basic purpose is to support countries in the area of trade and to be responsive to their needs and concerns, including the tasks assigned to the OAS by the Summit of the Americas in relation to the establishment of the FTAA. The Trade Section is in a position to co-operate with the countries of the Hemisphere in the following areas:
- Trade Liberalization: Efforts are being made to adapt the OAS Foreign Trade Information Service (SICE) to be used as a negotiating tool (in addition to existing functions) by making available information on trade flows and trade policy related information.
- Trade Facilitation: The Trade Section could be directed by Ministers to conduct research and analysis on the countries' laws, regulations and practices concerning specific issues such as technical standards, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures and customs procedures, with a view to providing a comparative analysis that could be essential for the pursuit of negotiations.
- Policy Issues: The Trade Section is also prepared to conduct comparative studies of various policy issues that might have a bearing on the negotiation of a FTAA. The Trade Section, for example, has agreed with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to build a Western Hemisphere data base on services measures, and it could conduct comparative analyses in the areas of investment, competition policy, and intellectual property rights.
- Finally, institutional cooperation will be essential to promote the trade initiatives undertaken by countries of the region. The OAS-IDB-ECLAC Tripartite Cooperation Mechanism could play an important supportive role as the countries in the Americas move toward free trade. The same can be said of the secretariats of the regional and sub-regional integration agreements. Indeed, all available resources and capabilities in these institutions could be used to help in the construction of a more prosperous Hemisphere.
1. The agreements covered are: the World Trade Organization, the Southern
Cone Common Market, the Andean Group, the Central American Common Market, the Caribbean
Community and Common Market, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Group of Three,
and Chile's bilateral free trade agreements with Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela.
See OAS Trade Section, "An Analytical Compendium of Western Hemisphere Trade
Arrangements", June 1995.
Chapter I
Merchandise Trade in the Americas
The increase in intra-subregional trade is one of the most important aspects of the
Hemisphere's international trade in the 1990s. Old (Central American Common Market, Andean
Group, Caricom) and new (such as NAFTA, Mercosur and the Group of Three) trade
arrangements propelled by the economic liberalization measures of the past 10 years
contributed greatly to this increase.(2) However, while countries of a
same group are trading more with their partners, the level of these exchanges varies from
one country to another and from one bloc to another. Except for the Mercosur countries,
Bolivia and a few Caribbean states, NAFTA is the largest trading partner of all countries
of the Hemisphere.
After reviewing and explaining the extent to which intra-subregional trade has grown in
the Western Hemisphere in the first half of the 1990s, this Chapter will present a brief
review of the importance of such trade in the Americas. The chapter will end with a
section on North American Trade with the Western Hemisphere, emphasizing the trade
relationships (in terms of intensity levels and commodity components) of both the United
States and Canada with their partners of the region.(3)
The flow of goods among the countries of the region has traditionally been very small.
Intra-Latin American trade reached only 7 percent of total trade in 1938. It rose slightly
after World War II to 10.4 percent in 1954, but remained fairly minor.(4)
A series of regional trade arrangements in the 1960s boosted intra-subregional trade. For
instance, the share of intra-subregional exports in total exports peaked at 26 percent in
the Central American Common Market (CACM) in 1970.(5) However, because
these trade arrangements were based on import-substitution policies aimed at promoting
industrialization in the region, high trade barriers and numerous exceptions later
prevented countries from expanding trade among themselves. Other factors which impeded
intra-subregional trade include political conflicts; exchange rate volatility and
macroeconomic mismanagement; and lack of political will on the part of the countries to
implement their treaty obligations.(6)
In the 1980s, the effects of the debt crisis led to a sharp contraction in trade among
Latin American countries. The countries that would later establish Mercosur saw their
intra-subregional export share drop, from 11.6 percent in 1980 to 5.5 percent in 1985,
while the share of the CACM countries fell from 25.4 percent in 1980 to 10.7 percent in
1986. The Andean Group countries experienced a smaller reduction, from 4.8 percent in 1982
to 2.9 percent in 1984. Unlike their Latin American neighbors, the Caricom countries first
registered an increase in their share of intra-subregional exports in total exports, from
8.3 percent in 1980 to 14 percent in 1989. It was, however, followed by a drop to 11.5
percent in 1992.(7)
The mid-1980s and early 1990s brought sweeping economic reforms, and trade
liberalization based on an outward-looking and market-oriented strategy. Beginning in the
late 1980s, old trade arrangements (e.g., CACM, Andean Group, Caricom) were revisited,
while new ones (e.g., Mercosur and Group of Three) were created in the 1990s. These
arrangements are the product of the economic liberalization process of the mid-1980s, and
have succeeded in increasing intra-subregional trade.
2. The major subregional arrangements of the Western Hemisphere will be
described in Chapter II. However, here is a list of the members of these trade groupings.
Central American Common Market: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua. Andean Group: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Caricom: Antigua
and Barbuda, the Bahamas (not a member of the Common Market, only of the Caribbean
Community), Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St.Kitts and
Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.
NAFTA: United States, Canada, and Mexico. Mercosur: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and
Uruguay. Group of Three: Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela.
3. The reader should be aware that the data in this Chapter come from
different sources (e.g., Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, INTAL,
International Monetary Fund, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Statistics Canada) and
should therefore be used with caution. This lack of information demonstrates the need for
a comprehensive data base that would encompass up-to-date information on all countries of
the Hemisphere, something that the OAS Trade Section is working on.
4. Donald W. Baerresen, Martin Carnoy, and Joseph Grunwald, Latin American
Trade Patterns (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1965), 75.
5. See Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Desenvolvimiento de los procesos de integración en América latina y el Caribe, LC/R.
1527 (Santiago: ECLAC, 16 May 1995), 9.
6. For more information on this issue, see Richard Bernal, "Regional
Trade Arrangements in the Western Hemisphere," American University Journal of
International Law and Policy 8 (Summer 1993): 689.
7. See Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Desenvolvimiento de los procesos de integración en América latina y el Caribe, 9.
Trade in Latin America and the Caribbean
According to ECLAC (see Table 1), the share of intra-subregional exports in total
exports more than doubled within the Andean Group, from 4.1 percent in 1990 ($1.25
billion) to 10 percent in 1994 ($3.34 billion); and within Mercosur, from 8.9 percent in
1990 ($4.13 billion) to 19.1 percent in 1994 ($11.42 billion). In the Central American
Common Market, exports within the group also increased, from 17.3 percent in 1990 ($686
million) to 21.6 percent in 1994 ($1.23 billion), while Caricom's share slightly fell from
12.6 percent in 1990 ($496 million) to 11.5 percent in 1993 ($475 million). Further trade
liberalization and the establishment of a common external tariff — albeit with
transitory exceptions - in Mercosur and the Andean Group should ensure that the increase
in intra-subregional trade will continue.
Table 1
Share of Intra-Subregional Exports in Total Exports
(Andean Group, Mercosur, CACM, and Caricom)
(in percentages)
| |
1990
|
1991 |
1992 |
1993
|
1994 |
| Andean Group |
4.1 |
6.2
|
7.9 |
9.6 |
10.0 |
| Mercosur
|
8.9 |
11.1 |
14.3 |
18.8 |
19.1 |
| CACM
|
17.3 |
18.7 |
23.3 |
22.6 |
21.6 |
| Caricom
|
12.6 |
11.6 |
11.5 |
N.A. |
N.A |
Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Desenvolvimiento de los procesos de integración en
América Latina y el Caribe , 9.
As shown in Table 2, which indicates the average export share by subregional group for
the 1989-1992 period, Mercosur accounts for almost 40 percent of Paraguayan exports and
one-third of Uruguayan exports while it is much less important for Brazil (6.8 percent).
However, this percentage for Brazil has been increasing significantly to reach 14 percent
in 1993. It is also worth noting that Mercosur is a very important trading partner for
Bolivia, a member of the Andean Group, since 32 percent of Bolivian exports are sold to
the four Mercosur countries. In Central America, CACM represents a major market for both
Salvadoran (30.9 percent) and Guatemalan (22.8 percent) exports, while it remains of
little importance for Honduras (4.1 percent). In the Caribbean, the local market is most
important to Barbados (14.5 percent) and Trinidad and Tobago (11.1 percent), while
Colombia is the Andean country which trades the most with its Andean Group partners (8.5
percent of its exports).
Latin America and the Caribbean are an important market for several countries of the
region. They account for as much as 19.5 percent of all CACM exports and as little as 8
percent of the Group of Three countries' exports. Latin America and the Caribbean
represent a major export market for Bolivia and Paraguay (44.5 percent), followed by
Uruguay (39.4 percent), El Salvador (33.6 percent), Guatemala (29.3 percent), and
Argentina (28.2 percent). However, Haiti (0.8 percent), Dominica (3.2 percent), Honduras
(4.8 percent), and Mexico (4.8 percent) are not at all dependent on the Latin American and
Caribbean market for their exports. The importance of the Latin American and Caribbean
market has increased in recent years (1993-1994) but no complete data is available.
With respect to the type of products exported by the countries of the region,
information available for the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) (see Table 3)
shows that manufactured products accounted for 62.2 percent of LAIA's intra-subregional
exports in 1992. However, these products represented only one-third of LAIA's exports to
the rest of the world. Chemicals, transport equipment, and non-electrical machinery are
among the products generally exported to Latin America. They are generally more
diversified and more technology-intensive than the products exported (foodstuffs,
agricultural products, oil, metals and minerals as well as footwear and textiles) to the
rest of the world.
Table 2
Exports by Subregional Group
(Average 1989-1992, in percentages)
CACM Caribbean Group of
Countries Three Mercosur NAFTA
CACM 15.5 0.9 2.3 0.1 48.8
Costa Rica 10.4 1.2 1.7 0.3 54.3
El Salvador 30.9 0.9 1.4 0.2 40.8
Guatemala 22.8 1.2 3.9 0.0 47.0
Honduras 4.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 52.9
Nicaragua 11.1 0.1 5.5 0.1 29.7
Caribbean
Countries 0.3 6.7 1.7 1.5 48.4
Barbados 0.0 14.5 0.1 0.0 18.5
Dominica 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.8 65.2
Guyana 0.0 6.5 2.7 0.3 35.2
Haiti 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 80.5
Jamaica 0.1 4.6 0.5 1.5 45.4
Suriname 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.9 12.4
Trinidad 0.5 11.1 3.4 1.1 54.2
and Tobago
Group of 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.6 65.0
Three
Colombia 1.2 0.7 5.4 1.3 43.3
Mexico 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.3 75.6
Venezuela 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.4 52.4
Mercosur 0.4 0.4 3.8 10.6 22.5
Argentina 0.3 0.3 4.1 16.3 14.5
Brazil 0.4 0.5 3.8 6.8 26.2
Paraguay --- --- 1.1 37.6 4.8
Uruguay 0.1 0.2 2.8 33.9 13.4
NAFTA 0.7 0.8 6.9 1.5 41.7
Andean
Group 1.7 1.8 3.8 3.1 46.1
Bolivia 0.0 --- 2.9 32.0 18.9
Colombia 1.2 0.7 5.4 1.3 43.3
Ecuador 1.4 --- 2.7 1.0 51.5
Peru 0.6 0.1 6.8 4.9 25.4
Venezuela 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.4 52.4
LAC 1.4 1.0 2.8 5.6 43.3
W.Hem 0.8 0.8 6.4 2.3 40.4
Latin America Western
Andean and the Western Europe
Group Caribbean Hemisphere (former EEC)
CACM 0.8 19.5 66.3 18.2
Costa Rica 0.9 13.9 67.1 22.0
El Salvador 0.4 33.6 73.4 20.3
Guatemala 1.3 29.3 72.4 11.3
Honduras 0.2 4.8 57.6 17.6
Nicaragua 1.1 17.4 42.2 30.4
Caribbean
Countries 1.6 10.4 58.6 19.7
Barbados 0.1 14.7 33.2 16.8
Dominica 0.5 3.2 68.2 19.0
Guyana 1.6 9.7 43.7 43.4
Haiti 0.1 0.8 81.2 14.7
Jamaica 0.5 6.7 52.0 29.0
Suriname 0.0 9.6 22.0 39.2
Trinidad
and Tobago 0.3 16.7 70.4 7.2
Group of
Three 2.5 8.0 72.7 13.2
Colombia 8.5 14.4 57.1 24.6
Mexico 1.2 4.8 80.3 9.4
Venezuela 2.8 12.2 63.8 16.2
Mercosur 3.8 19.8 40.3 27.6
Argentina 5.2 28.2 40.7 27.9
Brazil 3.4 15.3 39.3 27.5
Paraguay 1.8 44.5 49.1 30.5
Uruguay 1.6 39.4 50.8 24.1
NAFTA 1.6 10.6 46.7 17.6
Andean
Group 8.9 14.1 59.3 19.1
Bolivia 5.1 44.5 63.0 22.8
Colombia 8.5 14.4 57.1 24.6
Ecuador 6.9 14.0 64.6 11.2
Peru 6.9 15.8 39.4 25.2
Venezuela 2.8 12.2 63.8 16.2
LAC 3.2 13.7 56.0 20.6
W.Hem 1.9 11.5 46.8 18.6
Source: Computed by the OAS Trade Section with data from INTAL
Table 3
LAIA's Intra-Subregional And Global Commodity Exports
(percentages of total exports)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Foodstuffs
. intra-subregional exports 19.8 23.6 15.3 14.7 19.3
. exports to the rest of the world 25.6 31.8 27.3 28.2 25.0
Agricultural raw materials
. intra-subregional exports 4.6 5.6 5.4 6.1 6.0
. exports to the rest of the world 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.5
Combustibles
. intra-subregional exports 21.9 11.9 14.3 11.9 10.4
. exports to the rest of the world 38.5 24.2 28.8 20.7 23.4
Metals and Minerals
. intra-subregional exports 8.5 10.4 11.3 10.6 9.8
. exports to the rest of the world 9.4 9.7 10.2 12.9 13.2
Manufactured Products
. intra-subregional exports 45.0 48.3 52.6 56.6 54.4
. exports to the rest of the world 23.8 31.2 30.1 34.2 34.4
1990 1991 1992
Foodstuffs
. intra-subregional exports 22.7 20.1 18.7
. exports to the rest of the world 23.6 25.0 25.9
Agricultural raw materials
. intra-subregional exports 5.0 4.3 3.6
. exports to the rest of the world 3.4 3.5 3.6
Combustibles
. intra-subregional exports 12.7 11.0 8.9
. exports to the rest of the world 28.8 24.7 24.1
Metals and Minerals
. intra-subregional exports 8.0 7.3 6.4
. exports to the rest of the world 12.8 12.7 12.0
Manufactured Products
. intra-subregional exports 51.5 56.9 62.2
. exports to the rest of the world 30.8 33.7 33.9
The total of intra-subregional exports and exports to the rest of the world (in
percentages of total exports) both equal 100 percent.
Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, El dinamismo reciente
del comercio intraregional de la Asociacíon latinoamericana de integración (ALADI),
LC/R. 1436 (Santiago: ECLAC, 23 August 1994), 20.
Trade in North America
In North America, trade between the United States and Canada rose following the entry
into force of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989. In 1988, over 70 percent of
Canada's total exports went to the United States; in 1994, this amounted to 86 percent.(12) Moreover, as noted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, "trade
among the NAFTA partners soared 17 percent in 1994, growing over $50 billion in just one
year. ... U.S. merchandise exports to Canada and Mexico grew twice as fast as U.S. exports
to the rest of the world (16.4 percent vs. 7.5 percent) accounting for half of the 1994
gain in U.S. exports."(13)
Although countries of a same bloc are trading more with their partners, the intensity
of these relationships varies from one country to another and from one group to another
(see Table 1). For example, the NAFTA countries are those which trade the most with each
other (over 40 percent of their total trade). As mentioned earlier, 86 percent of Canada's
and more than 75 percent of Mexico's exports are going to the United States while these
two countries are respectively the first and the third trading partner of the United
States. Canada's exports to Mexico are still very small but growing, with a 28 percent
increase in 1994.
NAFTA is the largest partner of most trading blocs and most countries of the
Hemisphere. It accounts for 48.8 percent of CACM's trade, 48.4 percent for the Caribbean,
65 percent for the Group of Three, and 46.1 percent for the Andean Group. However, Western
Europe dominates the market in the Mercosur countries (27.6 percent compared to 22.5
percent for NAFTA), Bolivia (22.8 percent compared to 18.9 percent for NAFTA), Suriname
(39.2 percent compared to 12.4 percent for NAFTA) and Guyana (43.4 percent compared to
35.2 percent for NAFTA). Moreover, except for Bolivia, countries do very little trade with
other countries of the Hemisphere that are not members either of their trading bloc or of
NAFTA.
- U.S. Trade with the Western Hemisphere
The United States is undoubtedly the
largest trading partner in the Western Hemisphere. It represents 69 percent of the market
(gross domestic product) of the region. The share of Latin America and the Caribbean
amounts to 24 percent, while that of NAFTA, Mercosur, Group of Three, the Andean Group,
Central America and Caricom(14) is respectively 82 percent, 11 percent,
4 percent, 0.76 percent and 0.35 percent.(15)
The Western Hemisphere constitutes the largest U.S. trading partner, and has
contributed significantly to the growth in U.S. exports over the last decade. The region's
share rose from 38.0 percent in 1985 to 40.1 percent in 1994. Total U.S. exports to the
Americas in 1994 were valued at $205 billion. While imports have also grown, the region's
contribution to total U.S. imports fell slightly, from 34.2 percent in 1985 to 32.4
percent in 1994. The United States purchased $215.5 billion worth of products from the
Americas in 1994.
While the Western Hemisphere as a whole is the largest U.S. trading partner, that trade
is geographically quite concentrated among its NAFTA partners. Canada is the single
largest U.S. trading partner in the region, and indeed in the world. Exports to Canada
represented 22.3 percent of U.S. total exports in 1994, and 55.7 percent of its exports to
the region. Imports accounted for 19.4 percent of total U.S. imports, and 59.8 percent of
imports from the Americas. Exports to Mexico represented 9.9 percent of the U.S. total
exports in 1994, and 24.7 percent of its exports to the Hemisphere. Imports from Mexico
reached 7.5 percent of all U.S. imports, and 23 percent of imports from the region.
Automobiles and automotive parts accounted for 20 percent of U.S. trade with its NAFTA
partners while computers, machines, and electronics represented 17.8 percent.
The second-largest U.S. trading partner in the region in 1994 was the Andean Group.
Imports from these countries accounted for 2.2 percent of U.S. total imports, and 6.7
percent of those from the region, while U.S. exports represented 2.1 percent of total
exports, and 5.3 percent of exports to the Americas. Oil and petroleum products are the
dominant U.S. imports, while computers, electronics, and vehicles are the main U.S.
exports.
Mercosur represents a very small share of U.S. trade: 2.7 percent of all U.S. exports
in 1994, and 6.7 percent of U.S. exports to the Hemisphere; and 1.6 percent of all U.S.
imports, and 5.0 percent of imports from the region. In 1994, Brazil accounted for 59.3
percent of U.S. exports to the group, and 81.5 percent of U.S. imports from these four
countries. Footwear, computers, machines and vehicles are the most traded goods. Mercosur
is also a significant purchaser of U.S. aircraft.
U.S. exports to CACM amounted to 1.0 percent of total exports in 1994 (2.6 percent to
the region) while imports represented 0.7 percent of total U.S. imports (2.2 percent from
the region). Costa Rica is the largest U.S. trading partner in the group (34.0 percent of
the total). The most important component here is the textile and apparel industry, for
which these countries receive preferential quota treatment. Semi-manufactured apparel,
both knit and unknit, accounts for almost one-fifth of U.S. exports to the region while
the finished apparel products that are exported back to the United States comprise nearly
half of Central American shipments.
The Caribbean Community countries are the smallest U.S. trading partners in the region
(0.6 percent of total U.S. exports and 0.4 percent of total imports). They have received
preferential treatment from the United States since the inception of the Caribbean Basin
Initiative in 1984.(16) As with CACM, apparel components account for
most U.S. exports to the group, while finished apparel take a large share of U.S. imports.
Oil and refined petroleum products from Trinidad and Tobago is also a major U.S. import.
With respect to Chile, U.S. exports have grown at a much faster rate than imports from
Chile over the past 10 years. In 1994, exports reached $2.8 billion (0.5 percent of total
exports) and imports amounted to $1.8 billion (0.3 percent of total imports). Trade is
dominated by U.S. exports of manufactured goods, and imports from Chile of agricultural,
mineral, and forestry products.
Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Panama accounted for 0.8 percent of all U.S. exports
and 0.6 percent of all imports in 1994. The commodity composition of U.S. trade with these
countries is similar to that of the Caribbean Community.
- Canada's Trade with the Western Hemisphere
Canada has been developing closer
links with Latin America since the beginning of the 1990s when it joined the Organization
of American States and negotiated NAFTA with the United States and Mexico. Official
consultations are held regularly with several countries, including Mexico, Argentina,
Colombia, Brazil, and Chile. Bilateral relations have been enhanced when the Canadian
Prime Minister visited Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Trinidad and
Tobago with over 300 business representatives in January 1995. He also visited Mexico in
March 1994.
Canada has had a long and historical relationship with the Caribbean States since the
1700s when the British Northern Atlantic colonies were trading fish, lumber, and other
staples. Preferential treatment has also been a constant element of this long
relationship, from 1898, when Canada established a 25 percent tariff preference on a
number of West Indies exports to 1986, when the Canadian government announced the creation
of Caribcan, a program that gives preferential duty-free access to almost all imports from
the Commonwealth Caribbean countries.(17)
More than 95 percent of Canada's exports to the region in 1994 went to the United
States.(18) Latin America's share of Canadian exports dropped from 5
percent of total exports in 1983 to 2 percent in 1993, while it was 4 percent in 1973. In
1994, Canadian exports to Latin America and the Caribbean were valued at CDN$3.8 billion,
and the imports at CDN$7.3 billion.(19) Although "the rate of
growth of Canadian exports to Latin America has been consistently lower than the average
rate for Canadian exports . Canadian exports to Latin America have been persistently
under-reported because of transshipment through the United States."(20)
For instance, Chilean imports from Canada in 1993 were $50 million higher than the
Canadian registered exports to Chile.(21)
Trade with several Latin American countries has been growing at a very fast rate over
the past few years. Exports have gone up by 80.0 percent with Colombia in 1994; 54 percent
with Chile; 28 percent with Mexico; and 25 percent with Brazil. Over half of Canada's
exports to Latin America and the Caribbean in 1994 went to Mexico (27 percent) and Brazil
(25 percent), while Colombia (10.4 percent) and Chile (7.8 percent) represented a smaller
share. On the import side, Mexico (61 percent) and Brazil (13 percent) were the two major
suppliers for Canadian imports from the region in 1994. The Caribbean countries
represented only 6.2 percent of the Canadian exports to the Hemisphere in 1994, and 6.8
percent of the imports.(22)
With respect to the commodity component of Canadian exports to Latin America, Canada
sells goods such as wheat, coal, asbestos, sulphur and milk powder, as well as value-added
products such as telecommunications equipment, mining machinery, motor-vehicle parts,
electronic components and environmental technology.
12. Statistics Canada, Exports by Country Cat. No. 65-003 (Ottawa:
Statistics Canada, 1989 and 1994).
13. U.S. Department of Commerce, NAFTA: First Year Snapshot (Washington,
D.C.: 17 February 1995), 1.
14. Only Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago are included.
15. Most data bases use the US dollar to compare information on gross
domestic products, exports, imports, etc. from different countries. However, foreign
exchange rates are generally very inadequate as a basis for international comparisons. For
instance, a dollar does not buy the same quantity of bananas in the United States and in
Costa Rica. In order to minimize such discrepancies, R. Summers and A. Heston have
constructed a common set of world average relative prices which have been used here to
calculate the gross domestic product of each trading group. See R. Summers and A. Heston,
"A New Set of International Comparisons of Real Product and Prices: Estimates for 130
countries, 1950-1985," The Review of Income and Wealth 34 (March 1988): 1-25.
16. This program is described in the next chapter.
17. Ibid.
18. Statistics Canada. Exports by Country, 1994.
19. Ibid., and Statistics Canada, Imports by Country Cat. No. 65-006
(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1994).
20. Stephen Wilson, Changing Partners: Trends in Canada's Regional
Economic Relations. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Policy Staff
Paper No. 95/02 (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, March
1995), 12.
21. Ibid.
22. Statistics Canada, Exports by Country, 1994; and Imports by Country,
1994. |
SEDI
| 
