I.
Introduction
Despite being a member of multilateral
and regional trade blocs, and having entered into bilateral free trade
agreement with India, Nepal’s export performance has remained weak. Nepal has been
unable to fully utilize the market access and tariff concessions offered by
trading partners, primarily due to crippling supply-side constraints. These have
become strong and persistent constraints to export competitiveness. As a
land-locked country and with its currency pegged to the Indian rupee, Nepal’s
trade concentration (and deficit) with India is notably high. Over the years, the
composition of its export basket has hardly changed. Given its strategic
location between India and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the market
access concessions received so far, there exists a huge opportunity to not only
reduce trade deficit by increasing exports and substituting imports, but also to
stimulate economic activities and create jobs by promoting export-oriented
industries.
II.
Export Performance and Structure
Nepal’s export performance has been dismal,
with the export growth lagging far behind import growth and its share in GDP
shrinking. While merchandise exports grew by an average of 0.7%, merchandise imports
grew by 13.6% over FY2009-FY2013. Exports reached as high as
13.1% of GDP in FY2000. Since then, it has declined consistently, reaching just
4.5% of GDP in FY2013 (Figure 1). The export basket is dominated by light
manufactured and agriculture goods (66% and 23.5%, respectively, of total
exports in FY2013). Export of manufactured goods also peaked in FY2000 (9.8% of
GDP). It has declined since then, bringing down total exports. Export of
manufactured goods was a mere 3% of GDP in FY2013. Nepal exported US$633
million of manufactured products in FY2011. The main manufacturing exports are textiles
and fabrics, iron and steel, readymade garments, and non-ferrous metals (Figure
2). Exports to India account for about 60% of Nepal’s total export (Figure 3).
Figure 1: Evolution of exports, FY1976-FY2013
Source: Nepal Rastra Bank
Figure 2: Composition of export in 2011 (US$907.6 million)
Source: UN COMTRADE
Figure 3: Direction of manufacture exports in 2011
Source: UN COMTRADE
The degree of production specialization
is declining. While the level of overall
specialization has been low for a long time, a particularly worrisome aspect is
the rapid decline of specialization in producing labor-intensive and
resource-intensive manufactured goods, which was positive up until FY2007 (Figure
4). Furthermore, Nepal’s existing export capabilities are not advanced as the
export basket is dominated by low-value added agriculture and manufactured
products. Assets and capabilities (embedded knowledge) required to produce a
particular good are normally imperfect substitutes for producing another good
of similar nature (differentiated in some aspects only). Hence, the probability
that Nepal produces a new export item is closely related to the closeness (or
proximity) of that product with another product it is already producing. In this sense, given that
Nepal’s installed capabilities are concentrated in the production of low-value added
manufactured and agriculture products, the potential comparative advantage in
the production and export of new products is also linked to the existing capabilities.
With the existing set of infrastructures and other pre-requisites for export
competitiveness, the new export products will likely be somewhat similar, in
terms of value addition and production capabilities, to the existing ones. There is hardly any
substantive change in the composition of the export basket and market
diversification (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Specialization index
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
Note: The specialization index compares the net flow of goods (exports minus imports) to the total flow of goods (exports plus imports). The index ranges from -1 to 1, with positive value indicating that an economy has net exports (implying that the country also specializes in the production of that product). Negative value indicates that the country imports more than it exports (resulting in net consumption). This measure of specialization, which can be computed at each product level, normalizes trade balance and enables comparison across countries and product groups by removing biases arising from the size of the economy.
Figure 5: Composition of export basket
in 2003 and 2010
Source: The Growth Lab, Center for International Development, Harvard University; http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/programs/growth-lab
Note: The charts are called “Tree maps”. The total area represents total exports of Nepal in a given year. The smaller rectangular areas represent the share of each product in total export. The exported products are grouped according to the broader commodity group they belong to (SITC rev.2 code) and are colored accordingly. For instance, red color shows the group of manufacturing goods. The percentage shows the share of trade represented by that good.
A jump from the existing basic production
capability (low-value added manufactured and agriculture products) to a more
complex production capability (high-value added manufactured and agriculture
products, electronics, and equipment)will require greater provision of critical
infrastructures, technology transfer and adoption, competitive environment and
innovation, enhancement of skills, supportive regulatory and institutional
frameworks, and overall macroeconomic stability. These will also contribute to
a meaningful structural transformation that is characterized by a high and
inclusive growth together with an equitable rise in per capita income.
III.
Treaties and Policies
Nepal is the first Least Developed
Country (LDC) to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (on 23
April 2004) through a full working party process. Its membership was approved
at the Cancun Ministerial Conference in September 2003. Nepal is also a member
of two regional trade agreements (RTAs), namely the Agreement on South Asian
Free Trade Area (SAFTA) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Similarly, Nepal has
signed a FTA, which is reviewed and renewed every seven years, with India. Nepal’s exports are also
getting preferential access under Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to
developed countries’ markets. Furthermore, the European Union has offered duty-free,
quota-free access to all export items under its ‘Everything but Arms’
initiative. Regarding trade promotion and investment, Nepal signed the Trade
and Investment Framework Agreement with the United States in 2011, and
bilateral investment protection and promotion agreements with France, Germany,
the United Kingdom, Mauritius, Finland, and India.
In addition to these treaties, Nepal
has initiated a number export promotion programs and policies. Nepal’s medium
and long term plans and policies highlight the need to boost exports by
enhancing value addition, mainstreaming trade, and increasing employment in
trade-related sectors. The approach paper for the new Three-Year Plan (FY2014-FY2016)
sets targets of NRs100 billion worth of exports by FY2016, NRs1 billion of export
of each product listed in the Nepal Trade Integration Strategy (NTIS) 2010, and
reduction of the trade deficit to 20% of GDP (from the existing 27% of GDP). The
government also rolled out an updated trade policy in 2009 with an objective to
reduce the trade deficit by promoting exports, and to boost income and
employment opportunities in trade related activities. Consistent with the main
objectives of Trade Policy 2009 and to formulate an export-led inclusive growth
strategy, the government adopted the Nepal Trade Integration Strategy (NTIS)
2010. It identified 19 key commodities and services with ‘export potential’, the
major export destinations for them, and product-specific promotion strategies.
The Industrial Policy 2010 emphasizes high-value
added production, employment generation, promotion of domestic industries, and facilitation
of forward and backward linkages in the industrial sector. Its specifies the
provision of additional facilities and incentives such as customs and excise
duty refund on imported raw materials and intermediate goods if they are used
in the production of export items. It also aims to promote Special Economic
Zones (SEZs) and institute a ‘one-window’ policy for all industrial activities.
Given the export performance so far,
Nepal has not been able to fully utilize the benefits that come with being a
member of the multilateral and regional trading blocs, and the market access
concessions offered by the developed countries. Furthermore, the trade and
investment promotion policies are not effectively implemented to boost exports.
Both external and internal factors have contributed to this, but the latter one
seems to be more crippling than the former.
IV.
Crippling Constraints
External constraints include
non-tariff barriers (NTBs) such as rules of origin, and technical, sanitary,
and phytosanitary standards related barriers. Even if tariff barriers are
coming down and almost 97% of export items are accorded duty free, quota-free
access to the developed countries’ markets, the NTBs are somewhat negating the potential
gains by increasing fixed costs, thus eroding cost competitiveness. Nepal faces
sanitary and phyto-sanitary barriers to market entry in the OECD countries,
India, and PRC.
Similarly, technical barriers and hassles at customs point are more prevalent
in the region, including PRC. Government support in the form of subsidies to key
sectors such as agriculture in OECD countries and India has reduced relative competitiveness
of Nepal’s agricultural exports.
Internal constraints are more crippling
than external constraints as they negatively impact production capacity of
domestic firms and erode cost competitiveness of export items. Market access concessions
(exogenous factor) alone will not promote Nepal’s exports. A key to boosting Nepal’s
exports is to enhance its production and supply capacity, which currently continues
to fall short of demand. In FY2013, the average capacity utilization of
industries was just 58% (Figure 6).The major factors that affect supply
capacity and erode export cost competitiveness are: (i) lack of adequate and
quality infrastructure, (ii) political instability and strikes, (iii) recurring
labor disputes, (iv) lack of skilled human resource, (v) deficient research and
development investment and innovation in the private sector, and (vi) policy inconsistencies
and implementation paralysis.
Figure 6: Capacity utilization of
industries
Source:
Economic Activities Report (FY2012 and FY2013), Nepal Rastra Bank
Note: Study areas were Kathmandu, Biratnagar, Janakpur,
Birgunj, Pokhara, Siddarthanagar, Nepalgunj and Dhangadi
Lack of adequate and quality infrastructure: The inadequate supply of electricity
has severely constrained both production and potential comparative advantages
of Nepal’s exports. Firms are not able to operate manufacturing plants and
machines at full capacity due to the shortage of electricity. They are
compelled to depend on generators that use petroleum fuel to power machines, increasing
cost of production and eroding cost competitiveness of goods. According to the Enterprise
Survey 2013, the percentage of firms owning or sharing a generator jumped to
50.5% in 2013 from 15.8% in 2009. Furthermore, generators met, on an average, 34%
of electricity demand.
About 69% of firms identified electricity as a major constraint in 2013.
Similarly, the inadequacy of existing transport
infrastructure and logistical hassles has also increased production costs and lowered
export competitiveness. The major trade routes need upgrading as it is chocking
the flow of traffic and increasing the cost of transportation. About one-third
of the manufacturing firms identified bad transport facility as a major
constraint in 2013. Furthermore, the lack of adequate facilities for
warehousing, handling equipment, scanning machines, testing laboratories, and
basic information and communication technology (such as harmonized automated
customs management systems) have restrained trade flows. 13. Nepal consistently stands out as a country
with one of the poorest logistical and enabling trade infrastructures in the world.
In fact, Nepal slipped to 151 position out of 155 countries in the Logistics
Performance Index (LPI) 2012. It ranked 147 in 2010 and 130 in 2007. On the specific
components of LPI, while there has been an improvement in the customs score and
ranking, it has deteriorated in the case of infrastructure and logistics
competence (Figure 7). Similar is the case with Global Enabling Trade Ranking
(GETR), which shows that the enabling environment, including trade-related
infrastructure and customs, for trade has deteriorated over in the last couple
of years. Nepal’s ranking deteriorated from 110 in 2009 to 118 in 2010 and 124
in 2012.
Figure 7: Nepal’s logistics
performance ranking
Source:
Logistics Performance Index 2012, World Bank
Note: The numbers in
parentheses indicate the number of countries included in the ranking.
Political instability and strikes: Over the past few years, frequent
political and union related strikes along the main trade routes have disrupted
production and distribution of goods and services. This has led to an increase
in the ‘lead time’ (the amount of time between the placing of an order and the
receipt of the goods ordered), which together with the natural high trading costs
of being a land-locked country have contributed to an increase in delivery
costs. In South Asia, Nepal has the highest export lead time (days) for land
supply chain
(Figure 8), largely due to the 777 km of land supply chain, which is the longest and
the most expensive when compared with other countries in the region. According
to Doing Business 2014, it still takes 11 documents, 42 days and US$2,295 to
export a container (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Furthermore, the business
community has repeatedly complained about the high costs imposed by truck syndicates,
leading to rise in cost of production.
Figure 8: Export lead time (days) for land supply chain)
Source: Logistics Performance Index 2012, World Bank
Figure 9: Documents, time and cost of export
Source: Doing Business 2014, IFC
Figure 10: Export across borders
Source: Doing Business 2014, IFC
Recurring labor disputes: The recurring labor disputes,
especially after FY2006, have been one of the thorniest issues in the
industrial sector. It has not only disrupted production, but also contributed
to the loss of established markets abroad and the closure of domestic firms.
The garment industry has been hit the hardest. Once the highest foreign
currency earner, the industry is now struggling to maintain and fulfill orders
in time, especially after the end of the Multi-fiber Agreement (MFA) in 2005. By
abolishing the quota regime, the end of MFA created a level playing field for
all garments exporters to the US, resulting in the loss of market share to low-cost
yet competitive exports from other countries. Nepal has one of the highest
minimum wages in South Asia (Figure 11), but also one of the lowest labor
productivities.On
an average, the annual labor productivity growth contracted by 6.8% in 2013,
much larger than the 4% dip in 2009.
Figure 11: Monthly minimum wage in
South Asia ($, current prices)
Source: ILO Global Wage Report 2013
Lack of skilled human resource: The lack of qualified human resources
as well as the shortage of workers due to large-scale migration has affected production.
Garment and pashmina productions are hit by the shortage of workers of all
skills range. The exodus of youths has put pressures on wages, increasing
industrial sector wages by an average annual rate of 10% since FY2006. The gap
between the demand for and supply of workers of all skills range has hampered production,
operations, management and marketing of goods and services.
Deficient research and development: The private sector itself has not
been able to scale up research and development investment and training of
staff, resulting in hardly any major product innovation in the entire production
chains. The Nepalese exporters seem to be more reliant on market concession
abroad than promoting efficiency gains and innovation within their own
factories. In 2013, 26.1% of firms on average had their own website and only
8.2% had an internationally recognized quality certificate. Furthermore, only
31.9% firms offered formal training to staffs.
Policy inconsistencies and implementation
paralysis: While the government has introduced elaborate policies,
their implementation remains weak. The trade policy introduced in 1983 was
updated in 1992 and 2009, along with the formulation of elaborate sectoral
promotion strategies for export potential goods (Diagnostic Trade Integration Study
[DTIS] in 2004 and NTIS in 2010). For example, after two decades of delay, the
establishment and operationalization of the special economic zone (SEZ) in
Bhairahawa has finally been initiated without the passage of the SEZ Act.
Similarly, the ‘one window’ facility for exporters and provisions like ‘no
work, no pay’ remain unimplemented. Several institutional arrangements
envisaged in the trade and investment policies have not been formed. In a way,
there has been policy inconsistencies (instability) and policy implementation
paralysis. There is a possibility that the existing set of policies and
sectoral promotion strategies may be termed ineffective without first fully
implementing them and taking adequate time to evaluate the actual output.
V.
Export Opportunities
Due to the nature and scope of the FTA
with India and the pegged exchange rate, there exists tremendous potential for Nepal’s
exporters to cater to the increasing demand for goods and services in India. The five border Indian
states—namely Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim—have a
combined population of over 400 million, average real GDP growth of over 7%,
and average real per capita income growth of over 6% (except in Uttar Pradesh,
which had 5% growth over FY2008-FY2012). Furthermore, along with the agreement
to upgrade trade infrastructure at new customs points and to provide assistance
to enhance technical skills, a number of outstanding tariff, para-tariff and
non-tariff barriers were resolved in December 2013 during the Inter-Governmental
Committee meeting between Nepalese and Indian commerce secretaries. This was
followed by the ‘Bali package’ agreed during the Ninth Session of the
Ministerial Conference of the WTO in January. The Bali package, as a part of
the agreement on trade facilitation measures, includes provision for assistance
to LDCs to enhance their infrastructure and build capacities of customs administration.
On top of these, China and several developed countries, including the US, have
accorded duty-free, quota-free entry to almost 97% of exported items.
Against this backdrop and the recent weakening
of Nepalese rupee against convertible currencies, which makes Nepal’s exports relatively
cheaper, there exists opportunities for Nepal to boost exports by addressing
some of the supply-side constraints even in the short term. Nepal could better coordinate
and utilize Aid for Trade (AfT) offered by development partners to boost not
only software but also hardware aspects of trade. Similarly, other trade
related technical assistance (TRTA) and the support from Enhanced Integrated
Framework (EIF) to enhance sectoral technical, marketing, branding and processing
capacities could be fruitful.
To tackle some of the supply-side
constraints in the short term, the government needs to ensure proper implementation
of some of the provisions outlined in trade and industrial policies, especially
those related to the promotion of export-oriented sectors and the 19 sectoral
support strategies elaborately detailed in the NTIS 2010.
In the long term, an important export
product as well as a stimulant to export-oriented sector is energy,
particularly hydropower export to India. Nepal’s immense water
resource endowment and the potential to sustainably harness them make it a
unique export item in itself. Furthermore, the adequate supply of
hydroelectricity may substantially reduce the cost of production and also give
rise to firms that could operate at various stages of the supply chains.
Similarly, tourism is another export service whose further promotion may
increase not only visitor inflows, but also revitalize hotel industry and
associated businesses. However, this would require adequate upgrading of
necessary tourism related infrastructure and services at various key destinations.
Nepal ranked 112 out of 140 countries in the Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report 2013, with even lower ranking in air transport
infrastructure (121), ground transport infrastructure (137), tourism
infrastructure (130), and ICT infrastructure (127). Encouragingly, Nepal ranks
sixth in the world terms of price competitiveness in travel and tourism
industry.
The other long-term measure to boost
export competitiveness includes investment in either construction of new or
upgrading of existing road network along the major trade corridors. Also
equally important is the strategy to retain workers and develop their skills so
that the export-oriented sectors do not face shortage of workers of all skills
range. The increase in the cost of production due to high wages could be partially
offset by enhancing operational efficiency and productivity of workers. The upgrading of skills
could also benefit migrant workers, who would be able to secure semi-skilled to
skilled jobs overseas, allowing them to earn more income and remit more money
back home. Properly matching skills development to the structure of industry as
they evolve according to the pace of global value chain development and
competition is a key to sustaining manufacturing sector growth in the medium to
long term.
Regional economic cooperation in areas
such as cross-border connectivity, regional trade facilitation measures, and
energy trade will help reduce the cost of trade and bring about efficiency
gains throughout the production cycle and value chains. Furthermore, more
cooperation in trade and investment, and monetary and financial services will help
promote exports by facilitating investments in priority sectors and credit
flows to high-return sectors. The South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation
(SASEC) initiative—a regional economic cooperation investment-oriented partnership
between Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal—is already working on building multi-modal
transport networks and logistics hubs to facilitate trade. Similarly, SASEC is
also working on developing a regional energy market, increase energy
availability, improve energy trade infrastructure, and create a harmonized
legal and regulatory frameworks.
VI.
Conclusion
To fully utilize the substantial
market access concessions it already has and to boost exports, Nepal needs to
significantly improve its supply-side capacities. This will require
adequately addressing the crippling constraints—lack of adequate and quality
infrastructure; political instability and strikes; recurring labor disputes;
lack of skilled human resource; deficient research and development; and policy
inconsistencies and implementation paralysis— to industrial activities, and a timely
and effective implementation of the policies and sectoral strategies that are
already in place.
The country also needs to properly
utilize the technical assistance offered through various financing windows by
multilateral and regional trading blocs, and development partners. This will also
help boost private sector activities in export-oriented sectors, which is
mostly dominated by small and medium enterprises. In the long term, along with
improvements in the investment climate, the government will need to substantially
increase investment in energy, transport corridors, skills development, technology
transfer and adoption, supportive regulatory and institutional frameworks
including SEZs, and overall stable macroeconomic environment. These are critical
for product and market diversification as well as product sophistication to
stay competitive and to make exports an important driver of inclusive growth,
which is essential to absorb an estimated 633,000 new entrants annually to the
job market by 2020.
