Category / Free trade zone

by Mike Poverello

Global minimum tax – a head-scratcher for developing countries

Picture: John Tyson on Unsplash

In a meeting with prospect investors, Jamaican industry minister Aubyn Hill eloquently conveyed his vision for a new free zone in Caymanas, Kingston. A smirk appeared on his face as he delivered the final line. 

“Developers will enjoy a 50-year total exemption on corporate income tax,” Mr Hill said on June 16, seemingly indifferent to the 15% global minimum tax rate that 136 countries, including Jamaica, are expected to implement from 2023 onwards. 

His remarks embody the ambiguity of many developing countries towards the OECD-sponsored reform. While most of them subscribe to the idea behind the reform, they cannot help seeing fiscal incentives as a key pillar of their investment promotion strategies. 

Viable tool  

Policy-makers across the globe have resorted to tax cuts to lure foreign businesses as competition for investment went global in the past 40 years. The world’s weighted average statutory corporate income tax (CIT) rate has declined from 46.5% in 1980 to 25.4% in 2021, according to figures from the Tax Foundation. 

Developing countries in particular have raced to lower national CIT rates to boost their investment appeal. The global minimum tax reform now puts them between a rock and a hard place. 

“From a resource mobilisation perspective typical of a finance minister, the reform may be seen as a good base to stop the race to the bottom,” Bogolo Joy Kenewendo, an economist and former minister of investment of Botswana, tells fDi, on the sidelines of AICE2022, the annual gathering of free zones organised by the World Free Zones Organisation in Jamaica in June 13-17. 

“However, from an investment promotion perspective, tax incentives are the tools we use to attract investment. OECD countries, in particular G20 countries, have already gone through that development phase and built their industries. They no longer need that race to the bottom, but what about countries that see this as a viable tool?” 

The OECD proposal is built on two main pillars. The first proposes to re-allocate some taxing rights over multinational enterprises from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms have a physical presence there. The second introduces a global minimum corporate tax rate set at 15%, which will apply to companies with revenue above €750m and is estimated to generate around $150bn in additional global tax revenues annually.

Free zones 

Developing countries often resort to fiscal incentives to offset structural weaknesses that would otherwise sink their hopes of landing big ticket investments. Free zones are a case in point. They have flourished on their unique combination of fiscal incentives, customs facilitations and plug-and-play infrastructure. Unctad tracked as many as 5383 free zones in 2019, 89% of which were located in developing economies.

Almost 80% of the special economic zone (SEZ) laws worldwide provide for fiscal incentives, such as tax holidays for a defined period of often five to 10 years, or the application of a reduced tax rate, Unctad also found. 

“Differentiated taxes are a necessary compensatory measure to offset the inherent inefficiencies and disadvantages of developing nations which suffer from high energy costs, deficient infrastructure, and higher inbound/outbound transportation costs,” Cesare Zingone, the CEO of Zeta Group Real Estate, a developer of free zones in Central America, tells fDi.

“Therefore an equal minimum tax would increase compliance costs, place developing countries at a competitive disadvantage, and finally favour the relocation of companies to wealthy, developed nations. However if the minimum global tax were to be implemented, it would be imperative for developing countries to implement other compensatory measures, such as reducing social security costs on labour, property taxes or import duties.”

Regardless of the OECD’s global minimum tax push, fiscal incentives continue to feature at the heart of the offer of some of the world’s biggest free zones under development. Among others, in Guatemala, developer Pacific Investment is developing 1200 hectares of land for the new Michatoya SEZ, which promises no CIT for 10 years; Indonesia has just named the island of Natuna Regency in the South China Sea as a SEZ, offering zero CIT for 10 years; Iraq is launching three SEZs to trigger development, also offering zero CIT for the duration of the project. 

If policy-makers and zones developers seem unfazed by the global minimum tax reform, the OECD is equally unfazed. 

“SEZs don’t seem to have done much to prepare for this. The reality is that this is happening, and they will have to get ready for this to come,” Pascal Saint-Amans tells fDi, oozing his confidence in the fact that once the EU and US approve the reform, a domino effect will prompt all the countries that endorsed the reform to fall in line. 

However, the road for the OECD remains uphill. In the EU, Hungary has vetoed a key vote on June 17 to approve the reform. 

Back in Caymanas, Mr Hill continued to mingle with prospect investors, pushing the CIT exemption as the icing on the cake for the package on offer. As with any other policy-maker in developing economies, he is taking his chances at the policy-making table — and so is the OECD. 

Source: FDi Intelligence

Advertisement
by Mike Poverello

New Global Alliance of Special Economic Zones to boost development

 A special economic zone in the Dominican Republic.

UNCTAD joined hands with seven global, regional and national associations representing over 7,000 special economic zones (SEZs) to launch a global alliance on 17 May.

SEZs are geographically delimited areas within which governments promote industrial activity through fiscal and regulatory incentives and infrastructure support.

They go by many different names, including free-trade zones and industrial parks, and are widely used by developed and developing economies.

The Global Alliance of Special Economic Zones (GASEZ) seeks to drive the modernization of these zones across the world and maximize their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan said: “The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides an opportunity for special economic zones to attract investment by putting SDGs at the forefront of their value proposition.”

Ms. Grynspan added: “A new model of sustainable special economic zones is therefore rapidly taking shape and they are contributing to more inclusive, resilient and sustainable economies in the countries where they operate.”

Pooling expertise

The alliance pools the expertise of its members to increase collaboration between SEZs, advocate on their behalf and enhance their contributions to sustainable development.  

SEZs are faced with new challenges and opportunities that require them to adapt and innovate.

Some challenges are related to the COVID-19 pandemic, with new lockdown measures in some parts of the world or disruptions due to the war in Ukraine.

Other challenges and opportunities are longer term, stemming from changing global value chains, including reshoring and nearshoring, and increased digitalization and investments in digital assets.

In addition, ongoing global corporate tax reforms require governments to re-evaluate their fiscal tools and incentives, which SEZs have traditionally relied on.

Many zones are also embracing the SDGs and targeting investment related to these goals.

Towards a global platform

During the alliance’s launch, its founding members expressed their desire to make GASEZ a global platform to catalyse partnerships and bring on board more stakeholders, including governments, the private sector and international organizations.

John Denton, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), said: “We support this important initiative…Through collaborative efforts you will be able to help improve SEZ services to business and at the ICC global network we stand ready to work with you to achieve this objective.”

Deepak Bagla, president of the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies, said: “As supply chains re-organize themselves in a post-pandemic world order, we have a great opportunity where we can work together and create economic zones which will be based on the core pillars of sustainability, of efficiency, of creating jobs and helping us all working together with our complementarities.”

Founding members 

The alliance’s founding members include the Africa Economic Zones Organization, the Free Trade Zones Association of the Americas, the Green Partnership for Industrial Parks in China, the International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation, the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones of the United States of America, the World Free and Special Economic Zones Federation, the World Free Zones Organization and UNCTAD. The Alliance’s members represent 7,000 special economic zones in 145 economies, employing over 100 million people.

Source: UNCTAD, 17 May 2022

by Mike Poverello

UK freeports plan raises illicit trade fears

Sergio Souza, Unsplash

The UK government has promised that a plan to create eight freeports with low-tax zones will boost the post-Brexit economy, but has also sparked fears that they could allow flows of illicit trade into the country.

The designated free-trade zones (FTZs) – due to be created at Felixstowe/Harwich, Liverpool, Hull, Southampton, London Gateway, Plymouth, Teesside and East Midlands airport – will attract investment and job creation in some hard-hit areas of the country, say backers of the proposal, headed by Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

Goods can be landed, stored, handled, manufactured or reconfigured and re-exported at freeports without being subjected to customs tariffs. In addition, companies operating inside the sites will be offered temporary tax breaks, mostly lasting five years.

In the other camp are those who point to the experience with FTZs in other parts of the world in facilitating the trade in things like counterfeit goods and drug trafficking.

In 2018, a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the EU Intellectual Property Office found that FTZs were linked to a 5.9 per cent rise in the value of counterfeit goods exported from hosting countries.

“These results confirm the anecdotal evidence pointing to the misuse of FTZs to conduct illicit trade, and they should be a prompt for future actions,” it concluded.

Since then, the EU has started to pay more attention to the activities of the 82 FTZs within its borders post-Brexit, launching new rules to crack down on what the European Commission says is a “high incidence of corruption, tax evasion, [and] criminal activity.”

The UK government reckons it can move ahead with its freeport plan without the risk of stimulating illicit trade, based in part on the findings of a report published last year by independent research body the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI).

That study acknowledges the evidence of criminal activity taking place at freeports around the world, saying it most commonly takes the form of counterfeit goods, drug trafficking, smuggling of untaxed goods or trade-based money laundering.

Those dangers may be mitigated, it says, through careful risk assessment at each geographical location where freeports are established, making sure crime prevention measures are proportional to those risks, and close vetting of businesses wishing to operate in them.

The freeport operators should also be regularly placed under scrutiny to assess their effectiveness in “discharging their security-related responsibilities,” and recommendations laid out by the OECD should also be adhered to.

The latter includes making sure the authorities have access to goods and related documentation, ideally digital, in addition to screening of businesses operating in the FTZ.

In its notice for the tender for freeport operators published last November, the government says operators “must adhere to the OECD code of conduct…and the specific anti-illicit trade and security measures therein,” as well as the UK’s obligations on money laundering, terrorist funding and transparent transfer of funds.

RUSI’s research has shown that a lack of oversight in freeports provides opportunities “to manufacture, assemble, tranship, relabel and repackage illegal goods, including counterfeit medicines, electronics and fashion items.”

It also notes that ‘leakage’ is common, where goods are smuggled from a freeport into a host economy, thus avoiding relevant checks on health and safety standards, import taxes and VAT.

At least seven freeports operated in the UK between 1984 and 2012, when the government stopped renewing freeport licenses and switched its attention to “enterprise zones”, which also provide tax breaks in a bid to encourage industrial growth and community regeneration.

RUSI notes that the US does seem to be able to operate FTZs without increasing the risk of illicit trade, and says it is “reassuring that, for some parts of government at least, tackling economic crime remains top of the agenda.

Critics of the UK plan, including the opposition Labour Party, think there are other downsides as well.

One viewpoint is that rather than growing the economy, the freeports will simply move it around the country, benefitting deprived areas but providing no net gain overall.

Some also argue that the net result will be even worse – a reduction in tax contributions from industry to the treasury – with businesses elsewhere undercut by those operating within freeport. Others meanwhile are concerned that the rights of people working within the FTZs will be diluted.

“If the government thinks freeports are a magic bullet that will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, bring billions of additional pounds to the Exchequer and radically transform an area it is mistaken,” according to Professor Catherine Barnard, deputy director of UK in a Changing Europe.

“That is not to say they should not be created but the thought they’re going to transform the wealth and prosperity of this country is simply untrue. It will help the regions that get a freeport – but possibly to the detriment of those that don’t.”

Source: Securing Industry, Phil Taylor, 10 March 2021

by Mike Poverello

ICC – Controlling the zone: balancing facilitation and control to combat illicit trade in the world’s free trade zones

Photo by Noel Broda on Unsplash

Herewith a 2020 update of the ICC BASCAP report assessing the environment and highlighting trends in counterfeiting and other forms of illicit trade facilitated within free trade zones.

The Risks

Free Trade Zones (FTZs) provide significant opportunities for legitimate business and play a critical role in global trade as well as economic growth for the host nation.  However, our updated research has continued to confirm that insufficient oversight remains a major enabler of illicit activities.  Since the publication of our previous 2013 report, there have not been vast improvements in limiting criminal activities within FTZs.  In fact, the Covid-19 pandemic has increased vulnerability for abuses by criminal actors who take advantage of supply chain shortages and increased demands as well as relaxed oversight often because of such things as quarantines that have softened Customs control.

Counterfeiters use transit or transhipment of goods, through multiple, geographically diverse FTZs for no other purpose than to disguise the illicit nature of the products. Once introduced into an FTZ, counterfeit goods may undergo a series of economic operations, including assembly, manufacturing, processing, warehousing, re-packaging, and re-labelling. Once completed, the goods can be imported directly to the national territory of the hosting state or re-exported to another country for distribution or to another FTZ, where the process is repeated.

Key recommendations:

Our 2020 report promotes a set of specific policy and legislative recommendations on how to preserve and expand the benefits of FTZs for legitimate traders and protect the public and honest businesses from predatory practices. These recommendations are based on a review of the international and national legal frameworks governing FTZs, including how they are implemented and enforced.

Suggested recommendations include:

  • empowering Customs with jurisdiction over day-to-day operations within FTZs
  • strengthening relationship between Customs and FTZs
  • clarifying and declaring that FTZs remain under the jurisdiction of the national Customs authority
  • enhancing data sharing between Customs and the private sector
  • strengthening national government adherence to international conventions and implementation of international standards
  • legislatively ensuring that strict penalties are in place, including criminal sanctions where appropriate, against perpetrators of illegal activities in FTZs
  • that manufacturers and shippers recognize and use the ICC World Chambers Foundation’s International Certificates of Origin (COs) Accreditation Chain which is a program that accredits chambers of commerce issuing COs wishing to guarantee their commitment to the highest level of quality, implementing transparent and accountable issuance and verification procedures. Accredited chambers will receive a distinctive internationally recognized quality classification, reinforcing their integrity and credibility as competent trusted third parties in the issuance of COs.

Additionally, the new document also provides specific recommendations such as drawing on international agreements, lessons learned from effective and ineffective national legislation, the experience of IP rights holders, and legislative and regulatory measures to enforce intellectual property right protection in FTZs.  These specific recommendations are delineated in the report for action by the World Customs Organization, World Trade Organization, national governments, and FTZ operators. Effective implementation of the measures delineated for each of these bodies will go a long way in securing FTZs from illicit traders.

Download the Document via this hyperlink

Source: International Chamber of Commerce

by Mike Poverello

fDi’s Global Free Zones – the 2019 winners

Each year, fDI recognises the worlds best Free Zones in terms of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Access the Global Free zones of the Year 2019 Report here!

by Mike Poverello

Illicit cigarette use declines in EU but production rises

The consumption of illicit cigarettes fell below 8 per cent of total cigarette use last year, but was still equivalent to nearly 39bn smokes and €9.5bn in lost tax revenues, says a new report.

The latest edition of the annual study – carried out by KPMG on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris International – also found that imports of illicit cigarettes from non-EU countries such as Ukraine and Belarus declined in 2019, with law enforcement reports suggesting there are “increasing volumes from illegal factories within the EU.”

Illicit ‘whites’ with no country specific labelling – i.e. legally produced cigarettes that are smuggled and traded illegally, often through free trade zones (FTZs) – remain the largest element of the counterfeit and contraband (C&C) category, representing 23.1 per cent of total EU illicit consumption or 9bn cigarettes.

Counterfeit of brands owned by manufacturers participating in empty pack surveys grew to 7.6bn cigarettes, an increase of more than 38 percent over 2018’s figure, and is the highest level ever recorded by KPMG. Counterfeit consumption was the highest in the UK and Greece.

The overall picture is one of increasing sophistication by the criminal networks behind the illicit trade, with multiple production units to compensate if one is raised, and increasingly high tech manufacturing equipment. New groups are also emerging that are focusing specifically on smuggling raw and fine cut tobacco.

“Illicit manufacturers are producing counterfeit, established and new illicit white brands to order at scale for organisations and smugglers who can arrange distribution of large volumes, either in large shipments or increasingly via high frequency, low volume shipments,” says KPMG.

Criminal groups are exploiting new distribution channels, such as rail, as it is faster than traditional shipping routes, as well as courier packages which are small and hard for law enforcement to detect, according to the report.

“The continued decline of illicit tobacco trade in the EU is a positive development and reinforces the importance of supply chain control measures, strict enforcement, and collaboration in combating this issue,” said Alvise Giustiniani, vice president of Illicit Trade Prevention at PMI.

However, while considerable efforts have taken place to stem contraband cigarettes from flowing into the EU, “we are once again seeing criminal organisations shifting their operations to stay one step ahead of anti-illicit programmes, according to the company.

Source: Phil Taylor, Securing Industry, 26 June 2020

by Mike Poverello

WCO News – June 2020

As the title suggests, the latest edition of WCO News contains a variety of articles concerning Customs approach to COVID-19 and even one article relating to Customs Brokers on COVID-19. Other features include C-2-C cooperation and information exchange, Risk Management and the future invisible supply chain and Secure Border . Of interest for Customs Policy are articles on improvements to simplification and harmonisation of components to the Revised Kyoto Convention; WCO’s development of draft “Practical Guidance on Free Zones” as well as Internet domain name ownership data – understanding changes and useful suggestions for Customs. All in all another great read!

Source : World Customs Organisation

by Mike Poverello

OECD – Recommendations on Tightening Controls over Free Trade Zones

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has drawn up recommendations on free trade zones (FTZs) in a bid to stop them being used for illicit trade.

The new guidance – published towards the end of last month – recognises the importance FTZs can play in facilitating globalised trade and stimulating economic growth, but also that they can make life easier for “increasingly sophisticated traffickers dealing in a range of prohibited goods and services including counterfeits.”

One problems with many FTZs is that they are operated by licensed private companies – or sometimes public-private partnerships – which can sometime lead to a disconnect between FTZ internal policies and the laws and regulations laid down by the governments in whose jurisdiction they operate.

The OECD notes also that some with some FTZ the authorities struggle to get physical access to the premises, while obtaining information on the activities of organisation operating within – such as the ownership of goods in transit – can be a challenge.

The result? Some economic operators may “take advantage of inadequate oversight, control and the lack of transparency in FTZ to commit trade fraud, intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement, smuggle contraband, facilitate the proliferation of weapons and launder the proceeds of crime.”

The agency’s recommendations reaffirm the need for law enforcement and other competent authorities to have direct supervision of trade through FTZs, which includes the right to demand access to information related to the production and movement of goods and carry out inspections.

Authorities must also ensure that the organisations operating FTZs are aware of their legal obligations to counter illicit trade.

It has also developed a voluntary Code of Conduct for Clean Free Trade Zone operators, including “strict control of consignments arriving from, or for which there is evidence of having transited through, FTZs that do not implement the code.”

“While FTZs produce economic benefits to their local economies, there is strong evidence that illicit trade (e.g. counterfeits, wildlife and arms) flows through them,” says the OECD.

There is “a positive correlation between the size of FTZs – in terms of employment and numbers of firms – and the value of illicit trade in counterfeits.”

Source: OECD

by Mike Poverello

WCO – Free Zones and the Necessity for Enhanced Customs Involvement

Coega SEZ, South Africa

The expansion of Free Zones has been mainly driven by political decisions closely affiliated with national economic development strategies. In some countries Customs is the primary governmental authority that regulates and governs Free Zones, while in others Free Zones are governed by other authorities, with less involvement from Customs. Depending on the institutional set-up, the scope and degree of Customs control in Free Zones and the economic operations carried out there varies considerably from one Free Zone to another. 

Existing literature reveals that Free Zones attract not only legitimate business but also illicit trade or other illicit activities that take advantage of the regulatory exemptions of Free Zones. 

Numerous papers have outlined the risks associated with Free Zones, along with economic benefits. Most of them deal with the legality of Free Zones policies, particularly in relation to export subsidies as governed by the WTO Agreement. Several other papers have dealt with illicit activities that have been perpetrated by exploiting characteristics of Free Zones. Such illicit activities include money laundering, tax-evasion and trade in counterfeit goods or other illicit goods. 

The WCO research paper deals with Customs-related aspects of Free Zones, considering both the associated benefits and risks. The risks primarily concern illicit trade that exploits key aspects of Free Zones. 

Literature that focuses on risks associated with Free Zones, particularly illicit trade or other illicit activities, have several things in common. They tend to highlight the fact that supervision over cargoes/companies in Free Zones is somewhat relaxed in comparison with other parts of the national territory. The following factors have been pointed out or quoted, although details are rarely provided due to the technical nature of the topic. 

  • Relaxed controls inside Free Zones 
  • Insufficient Customs’ involvement in the operation of Free Zones 
  • Ease in setting up companies inside Free Zones 
  • Insufficient integration of Information Technology(IT) systems by governmental agencies inside Free Zones 

The WCO research paper’s key observations fall in line with those outlined above. It describes the low-level involvement of Customs in monitoring cargo movement and companies’ activities inside Free Zones. This includes Customs’ low-level involvement at the establishment phase of Free Zones, at the approving companies permitted to operate in Free Zones pahse, and during the day-to-day monitoring of cargoes in Free Zones. Limited Customs’ authority inside Free Zones is also mentioned. This paper touches upon relaxed Customs procedures/controls related to Free Zones and observes that they stem from Customs’ limited involvement and limited authority inside Free Zones. These limitations, combined with insufficient integration and utilization of IT, result in a lack of the requisite data concerning cargoes inside Free Zones, and render Customs’ risk-management-based controls – conducted for the purpose of preserving security and compliance without hindering legitimate cargo flows – virtually useless. 

The research paper considers the concept of ‘extraterritoriality’ concerning Free Zones, stemming from a misinterpretation of the definition of Free Zones contained in the WCO Revised Kyoto Convention (RKC), to be behind the aforementioned limited involvement by and limited authority of Customs. The definition within Annex D, Chapter 2 of the RKC does not state that Free Zones are geographically outside the Customs territory. The definition means that the Free Zone itself falls within the Customs territory. ‘Goods’ located in Free Zones are considered as being outside the Customs territory for duty/tax purposes only. 

WCO Research Paper No. 47 – ‘Extraterritoriality’ of Free Zones: The Necessity for Enhanced Customs Involvement

Source: WCO, Kenji Omi, September, 2019

by Mike Poverello

WCO News – June 2019

by Mike Poverello

Britain – a Free Trade Zone?

one.jpg.b8204f9afe634485f2c363177db27de6

Forget increasing the number of Free Trade Zones at and around UK ports, real thought should be given to whether Britain could become a nationwide FTZ, a panel discussion at Multimodal heard today.

The discussion, organised by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, weighed the advantages and disadvantages of setting up more FTZs as Britain’s starts its exit journey from the European Union.

While Geoff Lippitt, business development director at PD Ports, said that there was no “desperation for the traditional type of FTZ”, he conceded that as UK ports enter a new post-EU member era, any method that could improve the competitiveness of the nation’s exports should be considered.

Tony Shally, managing director of Espace Europe, added that FTZs would give the UK a great opportunity to bring manufacturing back to the country.

Bibby International Logistics’ managing director Neil Gould went a step further, calling for the creation of a ‘UK FTZ’, to facilitate a joined up environment in which it is easier to move trade. “We need to think how we work together as an industry and how we join everything up to make the UK more competitive,” he said.

However, Barbara Buczek, director of corporate development at Port of Dover, sounded a word of caution, warning that FTZs could actually be detrimental for ro-ros, an important cargo mode for the south UK port. “It’s a great concept, but we also have to be mindful of the guys on the other side who we have to ‘play’ with,” she said, adding that she is “a bit sceptical” about how an FTZ plan could pan out. Originally published by Port strategy.com