The Impact of the Andean Trade Preference Act Twelfth ... - USITC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fresh-cut rosesU.S. imports of fresh-cut roses in 2005 were dutiable at the NTR rate of 6.8 percent advalorem. Such imports were dutiable at the rate of 3.4 percent for Chile and Singapore underthe FTAs with those countries, and 6.1 percent for Australia under its FTA. Fresh-cut roseimports were eligible for duty-free treatment under ATPA, CBERA, NAFTA, the AfricanGrowth and Opportunity Act, and FTAs with Israel and Jordan. Imports of fresh-cut rosesare not eligible for duty-free entry under GSP.In 2005, U.S. sales of domestically produced roses fell to 100 million stems, valued at $39million, from 104 million stems, valued at $42 million, the previous year. 172 This patterncontinued the downward trend in the value of U.S. domestic production of fresh-cut rosesthat began in the late 1980s as imported roses entered the United States in increasingquantities. Although the price of both U.S.-grown and imported roses increased slightly in2005 over 2004, imported prices remained lower than those of U.S. roses. 173Imports of roses from all sources accounted for 86 percent of the value of U.S. consumptionof roses in 2005, up from 83 percent the previous year. Imports from ATPA countries in2005 supplied 84 percent of the value of U.S. consumption, compared with 79 percent of itsvalue in 2004. 174 Colombia was the leading supplier, with imports from that countryaccounting for 60 percent of the value of U.S. consumption in 2005. Ecuador was second,with imports accounting for 24 percent of total U.S. consumption in 2005.U.S. imports of fresh-cut roses from all sources totaled $275 million in 2005, an increase of10 percent over the previous year. Colombia and Ecuador were the leading suppliers,accounting for 69 percent and 27 percent, respectively, of the total value in 2005. U.S.imports of fresh-cut roses from all ATPA sources totaled $263 million in 2005, an increaseof 10 percent from the previous year, virtually all of which entered free of duty under ATPA.Colombia supplied 72 percent of the fresh-cut rose imports under the ATPA program in2005, and Ecuador accounted for 28 percent. Peru supplied less than 1 percent of total roseimports under the ATPA program, and no imports of roses from Bolivia were entered in2005.Fresh-cut chrysanthemums, standard carnations, anthuriums, and orchidsU.S. imports of fresh-cut chrysanthemums, standard carnations, anthuriums, and orchids(fresh-cut chrysanthemums etc.) were dutiable in 2005 at the NTR rate of 6.4 percent advalorem. Such imports were dutiable at the rate of 3.2 percent for Singapore and 4.8 percentfor Australia under the FTAs with those countries. Such imports were eligible for duty-freetreatment under the GSP (excluding those from Colombia, which exceeded the competitiveneedlimit), ATPA, CBERA, NAFTA, and FTAs with Israel, Jordan, and Chile. In 2005,virtually all U.S. imports of fresh-cut chrysanthemums etc. from ATPA beneficiary countriesentered free of duty under the ATPA program.172USDA, NASS, Floriculture Crops, 2005 Summary, Apr. 2006.173USDA, ERS, Floriculture and Nursery Crops Outlook, Sept. 2005, p. 12.174Market shares are calculated using all imports of fresh-cut roses from ATPA countries, not exclusivelythose that benefit from the ATPA program.3-16
U.S. sales of domestically produced fresh-cut chrysanthemums etc. decreased by 13 percentfrom $30 million in 2004 to $26 million in 2005. 175 Among the major flowers in thiscategory, sales of domestic chrysanthemums and orchids fell by 14 and 12 percent,respectively. Total U.S. consumption of fresh-cut chrysanthemums etc. decreased by 2percent in 2005 to $135 million. Imports from all sources accounted for 81 percent of thevalue of consumption in 2005, a slight increase over 2004. Imports from ATPA countries,virtually all from Colombia, supplied 72 percent of the value of total U.S. consumption offresh cut chrysanthemums etc. in 2005, up only slightly from 71 percent in 2004.U.S. imports of fresh-cut chrysanthemums etc. from all sources increased slightly to $109million in 2005 over the previous year. Among ATPA beneficiary countries, Colombia wasby far the leading supplier, accounting for 90 percent of the total import value from allsources in 2005. Ecuador, the next largest ATPA supplier, accounted for less than 1 percentof total imports. Bolivia accounted for a relatively insignificant share of imports in 2005, andno imports of Peruvian chrysanthemums etc. were entered in 2005.Probable Future Effects of ATPAThe first part of this chapter analyzed the effects on the United States of the elimination ofimport duties under ATPA, including ATPDEA. As previously reported in this series, mostof the effects on the U.S. economy and consumers of a one-time elimination of duties undera preference program such as ATPA likely occurred within 2 years of the program’simplementation. Other effects, which are discussed in this part of the chapter, occur overtime as a result of an increase in export-oriented investment in the region. Such investmentin new production facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities may occur in responseto the availability of ATPA tariff preferences and may lead to increased exports under ATPAto the United States. Therefore, the Commission has been monitoring ATPA-relatedinvestment in the Andean region, including investment in ATPDEA-eligible products, usinginvestment expenditures as a proxy for the future trade effects of ATPA on the UnitedStates. 176For this report covering 2005, the Commission continues to report about ATPA-relatedinvestment in the region; however, it should be noted that ATPA is scheduled to expire inDecember 2006, so future shipments under the program will not be possible unless it isrenewed. Further, in the cases of Peru and Colombia, the United States has negotiatedbilateral FTAs, called trade promotion agreements, which will replace ATPA tradepreferences when implemented. 177Because U.S. imports from ATPA countries represented such a small portion of total U.S.imports in 2005 (1.21 percent), and an even smaller share of imports that benefitedexclusively from ATPA (0.64 percent), even if U.S. trade preferences were to continue insome form for these countries, the probable future effects of ATPA on the overall U.S.economy would be minimal. However, the Commission was able to identify new and175 USDA, NASS, Floriculture Crops, 2005 Summary, Apr. 2006.176 The practice of using investment to assess the probable future economic effects on the United Stateswas developed as part of the Commission’s reporting requirement on the CBERA. For a more detaileddiscussion of the methodology, see USITC, CBERA, First Report, 1984-85, USITC publication 1907, Sept.1986, p. 4-1.177 For more information on these agreements, see chapter 1.3-17
Page 2 and 3:
U.S. International Trade Commission
Page 5:
PREFACEThe submission of this study
Page 17:
Trade-Related Activities in 2005•
Page 20 and 21:
Organization of the ReportThis chap
Page 22 and 23:
actions to withdraw or suspend coun
Page 24 and 25:
textile and apparel articles made i
Page 26 and 27:
duty-free entry are identical—a C
Page 28 and 29: analysis assumes that the supply of
Page 30 and 31: $11.1 billion in 2005 compared with
Page 32 and 33: Table 2-2 Leading U.S. imports for
Page 34 and 35: and 9.5 percent in 2004 to 7.7 perc
Page 36 and 37: 2-8Table 2-5 U.S. imports for consu
Page 38 and 39: 2-10Table 2-6 Leading U.S. imports
Page 42 and 43: Table 2-8 Textiles and apparel: U.S
Page 44 and 45: Virtually all flower imports from t
Page 46 and 47: The 2005 list of leading imports un
Page 48 and 49: Table 2-9 U.S. imports for consumpt
Page 52 and 53: cathodes, four apparel products, on
Page 54 and 55: 2-26Table 2-11 U.S. exports to ATPA
Page 56 and 57: 2-28Table 2-12 Leading U.S. exports
Page 58 and 59: Figure 2-5U.S. exports to ATPA coun
Page 60 and 61: EcuadorThe growth rate of the Ecuad
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 3ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ATPA ON
Page 65 and 66: Products That Benefited Exclusively
Page 67 and 68: Several leading imports that were i
Page 69 and 70: Table 3-3 Leading imports that bene
Page 71 and 72: Table 3-5 Estimated displacement ef
Page 73 and 74: more in 2004. 132 Asparagus and cut
Page 75 and 76: esulted in greater availability of
Page 77: In recent years, some U.S. growers
Page 81 and 82: Table 3-6 Foreign direct investment
Page 83 and 84: product quality at the volumes requ
Page 85 and 86: $314 million purchase by Phillip Mo
Page 87 and 88: Industry sources attribute the slow
Page 89 and 90: place will have a devastating effec
Page 91 and 92: textile and apparel machinery and t
Page 93 and 94: Textile and Apparel SectorPeru has
Page 95: could begin producing the high-end
Page 98 and 99: Role of ATPA in Counternarcotics Ef
Page 100 and 101: (table 4-1, figure 4-1). 306 Net co
Page 102 and 103: Figure 4-1Net Coca Cultivation in t
Page 104 and 105: to other forms of legal justice. Th
Page 106 and 107: ulk of funding for the plan between
Page 108 and 109: Alternative DevelopmentThe USAID al
Page 111: APPENDIX AFederal Register NoticeA-
Page 114 and 115: 27278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, N
Page 117 and 118: American Chamber of Commerce of Per
Page 119 and 120: Government of Colombia—Colombian
Page 121: Peruvian Asparagus Importers Associ
Page 125: Technical Notes to Chapter 3:Partia
Page 128 and 129:
(1)N(Q a /Q a N) = (1+t)ε aa(2)N(Q
show all

The Impact of the Andean Trade Preference Act Twelfth ... - USITC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?