Consultation outcome

UK trade preferences scheme for developing countries: summary of responses

Updated 16 August 2022

Introduction

The UK trade preferences scheme - the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) - has been in place since 1 January 2021. GSP applies to imports of goods originating in least developed countries (LDCs) and other developing countries. Trade is an essential factor in economic growth which can trigger positive changes in a country’s economy, helping to raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty.

The new UK trade preferences scheme - the Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS) - has been developed in consultation with businesses, public sector bodies, civil society and the general public. The government conducted an 8-week public consultation from 12:15am on 19 July to 11:45pm on 12 September 2021. This document provides an overview of the responses received from the public consultation.

A statement of direction was published alongside the public consultation. It set out proposals that represented the considerations on which the government was inviting views for rules of origin (RoOs), tariffs, goods graduation, and GSP conditions.

The government’s response to the public consultation is being published alongside this summary of the consultation. The government’s response includes its strategic approach and policy direction, which has been informed by the responses received through the public consultation.

Policy objectives

The overall objective of the policy changes is to increase trade with developing countries, thereby supporting their economic growth.

Policy changes have been guided by the following objectives:

• a simpler scheme for partner countries and businesses to understand and use
• a scheme that supports sustainable growth
• coherence with the UK’s trade policy ambitions to be a leader on trade for development

The DCTS is relevant for countries that benefit under the UK’s existing GSP.

See Annex B for a list of GSP countries at the time of the public consultation.

See trading with developing nations for current GSP countries.

Overview of the current scheme

The UK’s GSP provides similar access as the EU trade preferences scheme by granting duty-free, quota-free access to around 47 LDCs and granting tariff reductions to other developing countries.

The government is changing the UK’s trade preferences scheme to improve access to the UK market for developing countries. Increasing trade with the UK contributes to developing countries’ integration into the global economy and helps create stronger trade and investment partners for the future and support supply chains.

The UK’s GSP has 3 frameworks.

General Framework

For low income countries (LICs) and lower middle income countries (LMICs). They benefit from the full or partial removal of customs duties on two-thirds of tariff lines.

Enhanced Framework

For LICs and LMICs that also ratify and effectively implement 27 international conventions. They benefit from the full removal of customs duties on two-thirds of tariff lines.

Least Developed Country Framework

For countries that are classified as LDCs by the United Nations. They benefit from duty-free, quota-free access for all products except arms and ammunition.

What we asked

This consultation aimed to reflect the government’s commitment to consult and take into account the views of all sectors of society and international stakeholders. Through the consultation, we made it possible for UK and non-UK respondents to have their say on the UK’s approach to preferential market access for developing countries.

Respondents included:

• individuals
• non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• public sector bodies
• businesses and business associations
• other international governments

The consultation offered respondents the opportunity to provide views on:

• simplifying RoOs requirements for LDCs
• simplifying and reducing tariffs for LICs and LMICs in the Enhanced and General Frameworks
• reassessing the approach to goods graduation for countries in the General Framework
• reassessing some conditions of the GSP applicable to all 3 frameworks, and those which specifically apply to the Enhanced Framework

Respondents could provide their views by completing a GOV.UK consultation questionnaire and by submitting responses to the consultation email address. Respondents to the GOV.UK consultation questionnaire were given an option to include supplementary information as evidence, in addition to their completed questionnaire response.

The GOV.UK consultation questionnaire was divided into 4 sections:

• RoOs, including product specific rules (PSRs)
• tariffs
• goods graduation
• GSP conditions

A comprehensive list of all the questions asked as a part of this public consultation is available in Annex A. An information pack provided background and technical information on the UK’s GSP and wider trade policy, to help respondents complete the consultation questionnaire.

What respondents told us

For RoOs, most respondents favoured increasing the permitted levels of non-originating content and the provisions for cumulation, which aligns with the policy direction indicated in the statement of direction. Opinions were more closely balanced between those favouring or opposing liberalisation of existing product specific provisions.

On tariffs, LDCs already have duty-free, quota-free access to UK markets, but changes could be made for goods from LICs and LMICs. The general sentiment was in favour of reducing tariffs, which is in line with the UK’s broader policy goals of trade liberalisation. Some concerns were voiced about new tariff reductions eroding the current preferential margins that benefit LDCs and, in some instances, countries in GSP’s Enhanced Framework.

Protection of preference margins for less competitive goods from other developing countries was also cited as a reason for amending the current approach on goods graduation, which a majority of respondents supported.

Fewer than half of respondents opted to offer their view on the conditions which apply to all GSP countries and provide for circumstances where GSP access can be varied or suspended. Of those who responded, most thought the impact of these conditions was negative for exports and business. With regard to the conditions which enable eligible countries to benefit from the more generous preferences in GSP’s Enhanced Framework, a clear majority of those who opted to respond were in favour of simpler requirements.

This report

This report provides a summary of the responses received through the public consultation process on the development and direction of the UK’s new trade preferences scheme.

This document does not contain a list of the respondents or contain any personal or organisational details of respondents. Views have been summarised in the following sections of this report but are not attributable to any individual respondent or business. The figures in this document refer to those who responded to the consultation and all responses are considered equally in the summary results to each question. Some respondents used identical or very similar wording as other respondents when answering some questions and we have noted such instances, where relevant. This does not affect the equal treatment of all responses in the summary results. A number of respondents raised points which fell outside the scope of this consultation. However, they have still been included as respondents in the statistical analysis.

To provide confidentiality, the government does not intend to publish any individual consultation responses it received. Some organisations have published their own responses independently.

This report does not set out government policy with respect to the new UK trade preferences policy, but the views provided in these responses have been carefully considered and analysed and the responses gathered have informed the development of government’s policy proposals.

Consultation respondents

As a result of this consultation the government received 300 responses, 280 of which were submitted via the GOV.UK consultation questionnaire and 20 to the consultation email address. Of the 280 responses to the GOV.UK consultation questionnaire, 19 included a document with their completed questionnaire response.

Respondents to the public consultation were self-categorised into the following 7 groups:

• an individual - you are responding with your personal views, not as an official representative of any organisation
• NGO - you are responding on behalf of an NGO (an organisation outside of the public sector set up not for purposes that are primarily to conduct business)
• public sector body - you are responding in an official capacity as a representative of a public body either in the UK or elsewhere (including devolved administration / local government organisation)
• business - you are responding in an official capacity with the views of an individual business
• business association - you are responding in an official capacity representing the views of a business organisation
• other - international government
• other - please specify

Each individual submission from a respondent is treated equally in the figures presented throughout this document.

Summary of respondents

Respondent group	Number of respondents
Businesses	134
Business associations	42
Individuals	42
Public sector bodies	24
Other	22
NGOs	15
Other - international government	1
Total	280

Business associations were required to respond to questions about the number of businesses represented, the average size of those businesses (number of employees) and the business area (sector) that the association represented. Businesses were given the option of providing information about their number of employees, their geographic location, the sector of their UK operations and whether they were an importer or exporter of goods. Those businesses could opt to specify the geographic region from which they imported or exported and whether they did so using GSP terms.

Public sector bodies and NGOs were required to respond to a question about the (thematic) areas they represented. NGOs could also opt to specify how many members their organisation represented.

Summary of responses

This section provides an aggregated overview of how respondents answered the questions in the GOV.UK consultation questionnaire. For the responses submitted to the consultation email address, where the views related to the issues covered in each sub-section of the questionnaire, a summary of those views is included in the respective sub-section.

Simplifying RoOs requirements for LDCs

This section gave respondents an opportunity to comment on GSP RoOs for LDCs, including cumulation provisions and PSRs.

RoOs determine where goods originate from and which goods can benefit from GSP tariff rates.

PSRs detail the criteria for sufficient processing or transformation where the good is made up of ‘non-originating’ materials or they define which goods can be considered eligible for GSP tariff rates if made exclusively from ‘originating’ materials.

When asked whether they were aware of the GSP RoOs requirements before hearing about this consultation, a high proportion (229 of 279 questionnaire respondents) were already aware or somewhat aware. When asked in more detail, a lower proportion (162 of 280 respondents), but still a majority, were already aware or somewhat aware of cumulation possibilities.

Were you aware of GSP RoOs requirements?

Awareness	Count	Percentage
Aware	152	54%
Somewhat aware	77	28%
Not aware	50	18%
Total	279	100%

Were you aware of the cumulation possibilities within the GSP?

Awareness	Count	Percentage
Aware	115	41%
Somewhat aware	47	17%
Not aware	117	42%
Total	279	100%

As part of the proposed changes for RoOs, the statement of direction proposed simplifying PSRs and extending cumulation for LDCs.

The following themes were apparent in the questionnaire responses.

Liberalisation of PSRs

Almost two-thirds of respondents (177 of 280) offered an opinion about whether PSRs should be simplified or liberalised.^{[footnote 1]} Of those who commented, slightly more supported the simplification and liberalisation of PSRs (93 in favour and 84 against). Those respondents who were against thought it would provide LDCs with an unfair advantage over LICs and LMICs (that is, in the General and Enhanced Frameworks). About one third of respondents (103 of 280) said they did not know whether PSRs should be liberalised.

Do you think the government should make the PSRs more liberal for LDCs?

Answer	Count	Percentage
Yes	93	33%
No	84	30%
Do not know	103	37%
Total	280	100%

Increase of non-originating content

Of those who commented on PSRs, a majority of respondents favoured higher non-originating content. Those who were not in favour said that it gave LDCs an unfair advantage over LICs and LMICs. Of these 84 responses, 44 were responses similar or identical to some other responses.

Extending cumulation

The majority of respondents (162 of 279) had a level of awareness about cumulation possibilities^{[footnote 2]} and most respondents (176 of 279) offered an opinion about whether cumulation should be extended. Of these respondents, the majority (117) supported extending cumulation for LDCs, to increase regional integration, support trade for LDCs or counteract the effects of countries signing free trade agreements (FTAs) and graduating from GSP. Those who were not in favour (59) argued that relaxing both PSRs and cumulation would provide an unfair advantage to LDCs and adversely affect preference margins for LICs and LMICs.

Do you think the government should expand the cumulation possibilities for LDCs?

Answer	Count	Percentage
Yes	117	42%
No	59	21%
Do not know	103	37%
Total	279	100%

Language and clarity

Most respondents (192 of 274) thought that it was easy (148 responses) or relatively easy (44 responses) for traders to comply with the existing RoOs requirements.^{[footnote 3]} Some commented that RoOs could be made easier to understand, and the language used should be simplified. Some respondents also noted the complexity of understanding the different procedures in PSRs and the difficulty of calculating value addition. Suggested improvements included the publication of the guidance in local languages, simplicity in the text and more support and training for exporters.

EU REX

Respondents took this opportunity to highlight issues following the UK’s departure from the EU REX systems and the challenges for the administrative requirements on goods coming via third countries.

Other responses

Of responses sent to the consultation email address, most were in favour of simplifying and liberalising PSRs. Suggestions included the need to increase non-originating content to increase utilisation rates, and the removal of double transformation rules, which were particularly challenging.

These respondents were also in favour of extending cumulation provisions for LDCs, primarily to support supply chains and encourage regional integration. Respondents provided feedback on cumulation possibilities with specific countries. Examples were UK FTA partners under duty free products, regional blocks such as African Caribbean and Pacific Group States (ACP), African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and other GSP beneficiaries. One respondent highlighted the need to extend cumulation possibilities particularly within the African region which is currently benefitting less in comparison with Asian GSP countries. One respondent was in favour of extending cumulation provisions for LDCs if this were further linked to labour standards.

In responses sent to the email address, those that were against the simplifications of PSRs and extending cumulation for LDCs thought that it would cause preference erosion to Enhanced and General Framework countries and would distort the level playing field. All of these respondents were based in or traded with the General Framework or Enhanced Framework countries.

Reducing tariffs for LICs and LMICs

This section gave respondents an opportunity to comment on possible amendments to the UK’s trade preferences scheme tariff schedules, including simplifying tariffs, extending coverage to more goods and providing greater tariff reductions.

When asked how aware respondents were of GSP tariffs prior to hearing about this consultation 54 said they were not aware (from a total of 275 respondents). Of these, 12 were individuals (from a total of 40 individuals) and 34 were businesses (from a total of 131 businesses).

Coverage and depth

Respondents were asked whether the government should make more goods from countries in the Enhanced Framework and/or General Framework eligible for preferential tariff reductions. There was support for tariff reductions (204 respondents in favour) and for offering greater tariff reductions on eligible goods from General Framework and Enhanced Framework countries (214 respondents in favour).

Several respondents were opposed to making the General Framework more generous (these were largely respondents who used similar or identical wording to other respondents), arguing that only the LICs and LMICs with the most vulnerable economies should be eligible.

Forty five respondents chose to comment on specific products. Within these, respondents raised issues of preference erosion, on products such as sugar, cut flowers, bananas and canned fish and the importance of reducing tariff escalation to support value addition, on products such as cocoa.

Nuisance tariffs

When asked whether the government should set all GSP tariffs of 2% or less to zero, of 280 respondents, 136 respondents favoured removing all nuisance tariffs, with 76 opposed (mainly respondents using similar or identical language as other respondents). Those who opposed and provided comments highlighted the risks of eroding LDC and Enhanced Framework preferences.

Seasonal tariffs

Respondents were asked whether the government should simplify certain seasonal tariffs that apply to goods from countries in the Enhanced and/or General Framework. Of 198 responses, 171 favoured removal of all, plus 16 favouring removal of some. The few who were opposed gave reasons which included the need to protect existing preference margins for less developed and more vulnerable economies.

Other responses

Responses to the consultation email address did not address the issue of nuisance tariffs or seasonal tariffs.

Amendments to the approach to goods graduation

This section gave respondents an opportunity to comment on possible changes to the approach to goods graduation.

Goods graduation is the suspension of preferential rates of customs duty on certain imports following a goods graduation assessment. These imports are deemed highly competitive and to no longer need preferences to compete in the UK market. These imports cannot benefit from preferential rates and the UK Global Tariff applies instead. Suspension can be applied only to goods from countries in the General Framework.

When asked whether the government should amend its approach to goods graduation, of the 110 respondents, 75 agreed, 21 said they did not know and 14 said that the approach should not be amended.

Among respondents who thought the approach should be amended, common reasons were the importance of protecting the preference margins of less competitive countries and of UK businesses. Some respondents suggested the goods graduation process should only be applied to countries with a diversified export base and some respondents suggested assessments should consider the impact on workers in developing countries.

Of the respondents who said the approach should be amended, many thought the frequency of assessments should be increased. This included many similarly-worded responses arguing that the government should review the list of graduated goods at shorter intervals due to fast-changing trade dynamics. Of respondents who said the frequency of assessments should be reduced, some argued that developing countries need investment to bring their goods to a level at which they can enter the UK competitively. A longer time for graduation allows countries to make progress on issues such as value addition.

Respondents who said the current approach should not be amended argued that the existing groupings worked well and that being aligned with the EU preferences scheme contributed to ease of doing business. Other arguments included that GSP protected LDCs’ interests, helped maintain their preferential margin and safeguarded their exports.

Do you think the government should amend its approach to goods graduation?

Answer	Count	Percentage
Yes	75	68%
No	14	13%
Do not know	21	19%
Total	110	100%

Other responses

Of responses to the consultation email address, only 4 included comments on goods graduation.

One respondent favoured maintaining the current approach on the grounds that it strikes the right balance between allowing time to address competitiveness issues and giving business predictability to plan their long lead time production. One respondent suggested that assessments should only be after 5 to 10 years. Three respondents suggested the current grouping of sectors should be amended, of whom one noted that changes could come with both benefits and risks. One respondent suggested the threshold should be reduced and total UK imports should be used to calculate the threshold.

Amendments to conditions: general conditions for suspension of preferences

The UK GSP has a set of conditions which apply to all GSP countries. The conditions provide for circumstances where GSP access can be varied or suspended. The government is considering potential simplification of the conditions that could lead to a suspension or variation of preferences for any GSP country.

156 respondents selected not to respond to questions on the conditions to suspend or vary preferences.

Would you like to respond to questions on the conditions to suspend or vary preferences?

Answer	Count	Percentage
Yes	124	44%
No	156	56%
Total	280	100%

Impact on exports

One hundred and twenty four respondents opted to answer questions in this section of the questionnaire. When asked whether the conditions have an impact on exports from GSP countries, 106 provided a view, with 98 saying that conditions did influence exports. Fifty nine of these respondents thought the impact of conditions was negative, of whom 57 thought conditions should be reduced. Of respondents who said that conditions should be reduced, there were multiple identical comments that compliance procedures are overly cumbersome.

Fifteen respondents thought that conditions had a positive impact on exports. Of these, 11 supported conditions staying the same, and 4 favoured more conditions.

Impact on business

When asked whether the GSP conditions had an impact on business, 91 respondents gave their view. Of these, 32 identified themselves as businesses and 59 identified themselves in another category.

Of respondents who identified themselves as businesses, 23 replied that the suspensive conditions have an impact on their business. Of these, 19 thought the impact was negative and conditions should be reduced (with 16 of these being similarly-worded responses). Nine respondents said that there was no impact on their business, of whom 5 favoured maintaining conditions.

Of respondents who identified themselves in a category other than businesses, 56 said that suspensive conditions had an impact on business. Twenty six thought the impact was negative and conditions should decrease. Twelve respondents thought that the impact was positive and conditions should stay the same. Only three non-business respondents thought the conditions have no impact.

Impact on compliance with GSP obligations

Respondents were asked whether the GSP conditions have an impact on compliance with human and labour rights, good governance and sustainability obligations in GSP countries.

Of the 95 respondents, 87 said that the conditions have an impact on compliance with human and labour rights, good governance and sustainability obligations in GSP countries. Of these respondents, 40 said that conditions should decrease, 29 said that conditions should stay the same, and 2 said that conditions should increase (a further 11 comments were not directly related to the question). There were multiple identical responses that conditions have some impact on compliance with GSP obligations, but rigid application without consideration of local context is counter-productive.

Other responses

In the 20 responses to the consultation email address, there was considerable variation in the level of detail in the comments provided. With regard to the general conditions, the predominant sentiment was that conditions should stay the same. Where specific conditions were mentioned, these related to human rights and labour rights.

Amendments to conditions: Enhanced Framework

The GSP Enhanced Framework provides more generous trade preferences (when compared with the General Framework) as an incentive to economically vulnerable countries to ratify and effectively implement 27 international conventions. The government is considering the conditions and reporting requirements of the Enhanced Framework.

There were 174 respondents to the question about whether the government should simplify the requirements that enable LICs and LMICs to access the Enhanced Framework. Of these, 106 represented businesses or business associations, 23 were individuals, 10 represented an NGO, 18 represented a public sector body and 1 represented an international government. There were a further 16 respondents.

When asked whether the government should simplify the requirements, 149 respondents supported simplification, with the rationale that the current criteria were difficult for developing countries to meet and that simplifying the Enhanced Framework criteria would increase trade or make trade easier with participating countries.

There were similarly-worded responses about economically vulnerable countries being subjected to more requirements than those in the General Framework. These respondents argued that the additional trade preferences and the additional compliance requirements should be finely balanced.

Some similarly-worded responses suggested that the compliance mechanisms of the 27 UN Conventions and other eligibility criteria for qualification into the Enhanced Framework were difficult to comply with.

Twenty two respondents to the questionnaire thought the criteria should stay the same or increase.

Five questionnaire respondents thought the criteria should be simplified, but that conventions-based obligations should remain. Of those, 2 respondents suggested having clearer processes for GSP countries to follow. One respondent suggested a revision of the provision to ‘effectively implement’ the conventions, because it was not easy to determine effective implementation.

One respondent said the environmental conventions should be simplified to allow the time, funds, and technology adaption needed to achieve the requirements in the conventions. One respondent said there should be more conditions on sustainability and environmental protection. That same respondent also thought the government’s economic vulnerability criteria should be dropped, on the grounds that ratifying and effectively implementing the conventions was sufficient.

Very few of the 20 responses to the consultation email address referred to the Enhanced Framework criteria directly. Those that did favoured maintaining the current approach.

Uploaded evidence

At the end of the consultation questionnaire, respondents were given the option to upload documents as further evidence that the government might wish to consider. Nineteen of 280 respondents uploaded documents. Of these, 2 were individuals, 11 businesses or business associations, 1 NGO, 2 public sector bodies and 3 other.

Some uploaded material was about the respondent’s personal or business credentials or a particular experience they had had with the EU GSP system. Other respondents chose to expand on existing answers to the survey in more detail or propose a detailed case study on the GSP including complex analysis undertaken on behalf of their country, sector or business. Where possible, mention of these submitted documents has been included in the relevant sections above.

Next steps

The government has carefully considered the responses to the consultation which have informed the approach to the UK’s new trade preferences scheme for developing countries. Alongside this summary of response document, the government has published its response to the consultation. The government response includes its strategic approach and policy direction, which has been informed by the responses received through the public consultation.

The Secretary of State for International Trade is responsible for the UK trade preferences scheme. Legislation will be drafted to bring the new UK trade preferences scheme into force in early 2023.

Annexes

Annex A: consultation questions

Tariffs

Q1 How aware were you of Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) tariffs prior to hearing about this consultation?

Q2 Should the government set all GSP tariffs of 2% or less to zero?

Q3 Please select all of the products that you wish to comment on.

Q4 Please provide comments on your selection.

Q5 Should the government simplify certain seasonal tariffs that apply to goods from countries in the Enhanced and/or General Framework?

Q6 Please select all of the products that you wish to comment on.

Q7 Please provide comments on your selection.

Q8 Do you think the government should make more goods from countries in the Enhanced Framework and/or General Framework eligible for GSP tariff reductions?

Q9 Please select the product(s) that you wish to comment on by inserting the commodity code(s) into the text box.

Q10 Please provide comments on your selected commodity codes and their eligibility for the relevant GSP framework(s).

Q11 Do you think the government should provide greater tariff reductions on eligible goods from countries in the Enhanced Framework and/or General Framework?

Q12 Please select the product(s) that you wish to comment on by writing the commodity code(s) on the lines provided.

Q13 Please provide responses on your selected commodity codes and tariffs below.

Goods graduation

Q14 Would you like to respond to questions on goods graduation under the UK GSP?

Q15 Do you think the government should amend its approach to goods graduation?

Q16 Please explain your answer.

Q17 Do you think the government should amend the grouping of goods used in the goods graduation assessment?

Q18 Please explain your answer.

Q19 The government will review the list of graduated goods every 3 years. Do you think the government should review its list of graduated goods more or less frequently than this?

Q20 Please explain your answer.

Rules of Origin

Q21 Were you aware of the GSP rules of origin requirements before hearing about this consultation?

Q22 Do you think there is sufficient information online about the GSP rules of origin requirements?

Q23 What information would help you understand the GSP rules of origin requirements better?

Q24 How easy do you think it is for traders in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to comply with the current GSP rules of origin requirements.

Q25 Please explain the aspects of the rules of origin requirements that you consider not easy for traders in LDCs to comply with. Where possible please provide information on the importance of these issues to you or your organisation.

Q26 ‘Cumulation’ provides producers with flexibility in terms of sourcing materials, allowing them to use materials from suppliers located in other countries and still qualify for preferential tariffs.

Q27 Were you aware of the cumulation possibilities within the GSP before hearing about this consultation?

Q28 Please select the types of cumulation you are aware of.

Q29 Do you think the government should expand the cumulation possibilities for Least Developed Countries?

Q30 Please explain your answer. Where possible, please specify the countries and/or materials which you would like to see included within the GSP cumulation rules.

Q31 If you answered ‘No’ to Q27. Please explain your answer, if you have concerns with allowing LDCs to use imported (“non-originating”) materials in tariff free exports to the UK please specify your concerns in relation to specific goods where possible.

Q32 Do you think the government should make the product specific rules more liberal for Least Developed Countries (LDCs)?

Q33 Please explain your answer and provide any further comments on this proposal, referring to specific goods and suggestions for making the product specific rules more liberal where relevant.

Q34 Would you like to comment on the rules of origin for specific goods?

Q35 Please add the commodity code of at least one good that you wish to comment on. You may comment on groups of goods classified at the Chapter level (HS2), heading level (HS4) or subheading level (HS6).

Q36 Please fill out the table below according to the instructions.

GSP conditions

Q37 Would you like to respond to questions on the conditions to suspend or vary preferences under the UK GSP?

Q38 Do you think the conditions listed above have an impact on exports from GSP countries?

Q39 Please provide rationale for your selection.

Q40 Do you think the conditions listed above have an impact on your business? Please only answer this question if you are responding in an official capacity with the views of an individual business.

Q41 Please provide rationale for your selection.

Q42 Do you think the conditions listed above have an impact on business?

Q43 Please provide rationale for your selection.

Q44 Do you think the conditions listed above have an impact on compliance with human and labour rights, good governance and sustainability obligations in GSP countries?

Q45 Please provide rationale for your selection.

Q46 Do you think the government should simplify the requirements for countries to access the Enhanced Framework?

Q47 Please provide rationale for your selection.

Q48 Please provide any further comments on the Enhanced Framework of UK GSP.

Q49 Please provide any further comments on the UK GSP.

Annex B: GSP countries

As listed in the information pack which accompanied the consultation questionnaire.

Enhanced Framework

Countries in the Enhanced Framework are:

• Armenia**
• Bolivia
• Cape Verde
• Kyrgyzstan
• Mongolia
• Pakistan
• Philippines
• Sri Lanka

General Framework

Countries in the General Framework are:

• Algeria
• Congo
• Cook Islands
• Ghana*
• India
• Indonesia
• Jordan
• Kenya*
• Micronesia
• Nigeria
• Niue
• Syria
• Tajikistan
• Uzbekistan
• Vietnam*

Least Developed Countries Framework

Countries in the Least Developed Countries Framework are:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Bangladesh
• Benin
• Bhutan
• Burkina Faso
• Burundi
• Central African Rep
• Cambodia
• Chad
• Comoros
• Congo, Democratic Rep
• Djibouti
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Gambia
• Guinea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Haiti
• Kiribati
• Laos
• Lesotho
• Liberia
• Madagascar
• Malawi
• Mali
• Mauritania
• Mozambique
• Myanmar
• Nepal
• Niger
• Rwanda
• São Tomé and Príncipe
• Senegal
• Sierra Leone
• Solomon Islands
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Tanzania
• Timor-Leste
• Togo
• Tuvalu
• Uganda
• Vanuatu
• Yemen
• Zambia

*These countries have signed trade agreements with the UK, however they currently still receive GSP market access during the transition to their new trade arrangement.

**Armenia will be removed from the scheme in 2022. It was classified by the World Bank as an upper-middle income country in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

The list was last updated on 9 July 2021.

1. Annex A question 32: Do you think the government should make the product specific rules more liberal for Least Developed Countries (LDCs)? ↩

2. Annex A question 27: Were you aware of the cumulation possibilities within the GSP before hearing about this consultation? ↩

3. Annex A question 24: How easy do you think it is for traders in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to comply with the current GSP RoOs requirements. ↩