USTR Hearings on the Renegotiation of NAFTA: Textile and Apparel Industry

Panel:

  • Augustine Tantillo, President, and CEO, National Council of Textile Organizations
  • David Spooner, Counsel representing the U.S. Fashion Industry Association
  • Stephen Lamar, Executive Vice President, American Apparel and Footwear Association
  • Randy Price, VP, Managing Director Product Supply—Americas, VF Corporation
  • Marc Fleischaker, Trade Counsel, Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association
  • Reece Langley, VP of Washington Operations, National Cotton Council
  • Richard Gottuso, Vice President and General Counsel, Bracewell, LLP-Hunter Douglas

Tariff Phaseout Schedule for Apparel in the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement

The EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement was concluded in December 2015. The agreement is EU’s second free trade agreement with a Southeast Asian country (after Singapore) and is the most ambitious and comprehensive FTA that the EU has ever concluded with a middle-income developing country.

Statistics from the Eurostat show that Vietnam was EU’s sixth largest extra-region apparel supplier in 2015 (after China, Bangladesh, Turkey, India and Cambodia), accounting for 3.5% of imports in value (or €28.0 billion) and 2.8% in volume.

The EU-Vietnam free trade agreement is expected to substantially expand Vietnam’s textile and apparel exports to the EU market. On the one hand, EU’s import duties on textile and apparel from Vietnam will be eliminated through a seven-year phaseout period once the agreement comes into force (see below). On the other hand, a garment made in Vietnam which contains fabrics made in South Korea or other ASEAN countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement in force will still be qualified for duty-free treatment under the agreement.

EVFTA tariff phaseout

EVFTA table

category explaination

Complied based on the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement: Agreed text as of January 2016.

The legal review of the negotiated text is currently on-going and will be followed by translation into the EU’s official languages and Vietnamese. The EU Commission will then present a proposal to the Council of Ministers for approval of the agreement and ratification by the European Parliament. The agreement is expected to come into force in 2018.

Are US Textile and Apparel Imports Using Free Trade Agreements? (Updated February 2017)

Free trade agreements (FTAs) are arrangement among two or more countries under which they agree to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff (NTB) barriers on trade among themselves (Cooper, 2014). Theoretically, companies shall be interested in increasing imports from FTA regions because of the duty free treatment (i.e. trade creation effect). Particularly not paying import tariff duty can be a great cost advantage for textile and apparel (T&A) companies given the fact that the average US import tariff rate was still as high as 8% for textiles and 11.6% for apparel in 2016 (WTO, 2017).

fta-2017

Despite the potential benefit of using FTAs, data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel show that 85.7% of US T&A imports came from non-FTA regions in 2016. Interesting enough, although more FTAs have taken effect in the United States, T&A imported under FTA as a percent of total T&A imports dropped from 15.1% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2016.

Among the FTAs in force, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican-Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) altogether accounted for 75.9% of the value of total U.S. T&A imports under FTAs in 2016.

us-fta-utlization-2016

Statistics further reveal that sometimes companies did not claim duty free benefits of FTAs even though they imported T&A from the FTA region. For example, in 2016 about 29.9% of U.S. T&A imports from South Korea, 24.3% from CAFTA-DR and 16.3% from NAFTA and 12.9% from Columbia did not enjoy the duty free treatment granted by the respective FTAs.

fta-rule-3

Some industry experts say the complex T&A rules of origin is a major factor why US T&A companies are not using FTAs enough. According to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), there are more than 20 different tariff lines dealing with various T&A rule of origin situations under respective FTAs.

short-supply-2016

Additionally, U.S. T&A importers seem to use the “short supply list” mechanism–an exception to the yarn forward rules of origin under FTAs, more actively. For example, in 2016 around 2.4% of US T&A imports under FTAs took advantage of the “short supply list” mechanism, increased from only 1.2% in 2008. Similarly, a record high of 6.2% of U.S. T&A imports under the CAFTA-DR used the short supply list in 2016.

Sheng Lu

Made in the USA Textiles and Apparel:Facts and Future

The presentation is the outcome of Jillian Luetje‘s honor project in FASH455 (Fall 2016). In the project, Jillian explored the facts and future of “Made in USA” textile and apparel based on her research of existing literature and interviews with U.S. trade officials. The presentation intends to help the audience (especially those new to the area of textile and apparel trade and trade policy) have a basic understanding of the topic.  

Key findings:

  • Textile and apparel manufacturing in the USA is NOT totally gone.
  • The U.S. textile industry in particular relies on the Western Hemisphere supply chain and related free trade agreements
  • Made in the USA apparel is not going to increase any time soon.

Welcome for any comments and suggestions!

ILO Evaluates Trade Impact of Labor Provisions in Free Trade Agreements

labor provision

The International Labor Organization (ILO) releases a new study, which looks at how the increasing number of labor provisions in free trade agreements are impacting the world of work. According to the study:

Labor provisions in free trade agreements take into consideration any standard which addresses labor relations or minimum working terms or conditions, mechanisms for monitoring or promoting compliance, and/or a framework for cooperation.  (See appendix: evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements).

As of December 2015, there were 76 trade agreements in place (covering 135 economies) that include labor provisions, nearly half of which came into existence after 2008. This represents more than one-quarter (28 percent) of the trade agreements which the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been notified of, and which are currently in force. Over 80 percent of agreements that came into force since 2013 contain such provisions. Countries most active in promoting labor provisions in free trade agreements include: Canada, the European Union, the United States, Chile, New Zealand and Switzerland. Some South-South free trade agreements also include labor provisions.

The study finds that there is NO evidence to support the claim that implementation and enforcement of labor standards leads to reduced trade. The findings show that trade agreements, with or without labor provisions, boost trade between members of the agreement to a similar extent. For country-partner pairs that have a trade agreement with labor provisions in force, bilateral trade is estimated to be on average 28 percent greater than what would be expected without such an agreement.

Results further show that, on average, trade agreements that contain labor provisions impact positively on labor force participation rates, bringing larger proportions of male and female working-age populations into the labor force and, particularly, increasing the female labor force. The study assumes that labor provisions in trade agreements can raise people’s expectations of better working conditions, which in turn increases their willingness to enter the labor force.

However, the study found NO statistically significant relationship between labor provisions and labor market outcomes such as wages, share of vulnerable employment or gender gaps at the aggregate level (i.e. consider all countries). On the one hand, this implies that labor provisions at least do not lead to the deterioration of other labor standards in a country. On the other hand, it indicates that labor provisions in free trade agreements have limited impact on the outcomes of the labor market.

Additionally, the study stresses that interaction among stakeholders, capacity-building and monitoring mechanisms – with the support of social dialogue are critical to achieve positive outcomes in the labor market. In a case study on the Cambodia–US Textile Agreement specifically, the report finds strong firm-level intervention, such as monitoring and compliance, improved wages at the firm level, including a notable reduction of the gender wage gap. In another case study, it is found that capacity-building measures brought to Bangladesh after the Rana Plaza tragedy have resulted in some visible improvements with respect to the number of trade unions, building safety and amendments in labor law in the country.

Appendix: Evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements

labor provisions

Source: http://www.thirdway.org/memo/tpp-in-brief-labor-standards

USITC Studies the Impact of Trade on Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry

job impact of trade

employment in the US T&A industry

In its newly released Economic Impact of Trade Agreement Implemented under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a quantitative assessment on the impact of trade on manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry. According to the report:

  • Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry have been declining steadily over the past two decades. Between 1998 and 2014, employment in the NAICS 313 (textile mills), NAICS314 (textile product mills) and NAICS 315 (apparel manufacturing) sectors on average decreased annually by 7.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively.
  • Rising import is found NOT a major factor leading to the decline in employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313)–as estimated, imports only contributed 0.4 percent of the total 7.6 percent annual employment decline in the U.S. textile industry. Instead, more job losses in the sector are found caused by improved productivity as a result of capitalization & automation (around 4.6 percent annually) and the shrinkage of domestic demand for U.S. made textiles (around 3.5 percent annually) between 1998 and 2014.
  • Rising imports is the top factor contributing to job losses in apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315), however. As estimated by USITC, of the total 11.2 percent annual employment decline in apparel manufacturing, almost all of them is affected by imports (10.8 percent). On the other hand, increased domestic demand for apparel (such as from U.S. consumers) is found positively adding manufacturing jobs by 2 percent annually in the United States from 1998 to 2014.
  • To be noted, USITC did not estimate the impact of trade on employment changes in the retail aspect of the industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 80 percent of jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry came from retailers in 2015. These retail-related jobs are typically “non-manufacturing” in nature, such as: fashion designers, merchandisers, buyers, sourcing specialists, supply chain management specialists and marketing analysts.

2016 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

[Note: The 2017 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study has been released]usfia 2016 cover_Page_1

The report can be downloaded from HERE

Key Findings of the study:

I. Business environment and outlook in the U.S. Fashion Industry

  • Overall, respondents remain optimistic about the five-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry. “Market competition in the United States” is ranked the top business challenge this year, which, for the first time since 2014, exceeds the concerns about “increasing production or sourcing cost.”

II. Sourcing practices in the U.S. fashion industry

  • U.S. fashion companies are more actively seeking alternatives to “Made in China” in 2016, but China’s position as the No.1 sourcing destination seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Meanwhile, sourcing from Vietnam and Bangladesh may continue to grow over the next two years, but at a slower pace.
  • U.S. fashion companies continue to expand their global reach and maintain truly global supply chains. Respondents’ sourcing bases continue to expand, and more countries are considered potential sourcing destinations. However, some companies plan to consolidate their sourcing bases in the next two years to strengthen key supplier relationships and improve efficiency.
  • Today, ethical sourcing and sustainability are given more weight in U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing decisions. Respondents also see unmet compliance (factory, social and/or environmental) standards as the top supply chain risk.

III. Trade policy and the U.S. fashion industry

  • Overall, U.S. fashion companies are very excited about the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and they look forward to exploring the benefits after TPP’s implementation.
  • Thanks to the 10-year extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), U.S. fashion companies have shown more interest in sourcing from the region. In particular, most respondents see the “third-country fabric” provision a critical necessity for their company to source in the AGOA region.
  • Free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs remain underutilized in 2016 and several FTAs, including NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, are utilized even less than in previous years. U.S. fashion companies also call for further removal of trade barriers, including restrictive rules of origin and remaining high tariffs.

The benchmarking study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2016 based on a survey of 30 executives from leading U.S. fashion and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers. In terms of business size, 92 percent of respondents report having more than 500 employees in their companies, while 84 percent of respondents report having more than 1,000 employees, suggesting that the findings well reflect the views of the most influential players in the U.S. fashion industry.

For the benchmarking studies in 2014 and 2015, please visit: https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study