EU trade preferences reward developing countries with easier access to European markets. Now, Brussels is considering using those benefits as leverage in migration policy — threatening to withdraw them if governments refuse to take back their own nationals.
The revamped framework follows the EU’s decision to update the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), reorienting it as a trade tool supporting sustainable development in developing countries. The scheme grants these countries preferential access to EU markets, allowing them to export certain goods with reduced or zero tariffs.
It aims to strengthen links to human rights, labour standards and environmental protection, while offering more predictable access to the markets for 65 beneficiary countries.
“Instead of making the conclusion of trade agreements conditional on cooperation, the GSP scheme and the visa sanctioning mechanism threaten countries to take benefits away in cases of non-cooperation,” explained Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Assistant Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics at Sciences Po Paris, to EU Perspectives.
You might be interested
How GSP became a political tool
The GSP has evolved from a purely development-focused instrument into a complex tool that combines trade incentives with political conditionality. Countries graduating economically can now transition more smoothly while meeting sustainability standards. The EU has also incorporated additional international conventions on human rights and labour into the eligibility criteria.
By threatening to withdraw GSP benefits, the EU is prioritising return over a development-oriented trade policy. — Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics
The new rules further introduce grounds for withdrawing benefits in cases of serious environmental or climate violations, reinforcing the EU’s commitment to sustainable development while ensuring stable market access for beneficiary countries. Alongside sustainability, however, the updated GSP also formalises a more assertive use of conditionality linked to migration cooperation.
The EU has approved a proposal to limit trade benefits for developing countries that refuse to take in migrants denied permission to remain in the bloc.
Trade benefits for migration cooperation
Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik highlights the rationale behind this approach. According to her research, migration control and readmission clauses have long been part of EU trade policy. “Our analysis of migration control and readmission clauses in EU trade agreements showed that the EU has been integrating such clauses systematically into association and similar agreements since the 1990s,” she said.
The EU already has the possibility of imposing visa sanctions on countries that do not cooperate on readmission. Yet this instrument has only been applied in a few cases. — Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics
However, these commitments do not always translate into practice. “These clauses often contain a commitment to re-admit own nationals staying irregularly in the partner country. Such commitments are not always followed up with a more detailed readmission agreement and are often not linked to actual cooperation,” Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik explained.
This may help explain the EU’s recent shift. “Instead of making the conclusion of trade agreements conditional on cooperation, the GSP scheme and the visa sanctioning mechanism threaten countries to take benefits away in cases of non-cooperation.”
Blackmail — or leverage?
At that time, the Council emphasized that part of their work si “to create a fairer and more effective approach to migration”. According to its press release, co-legislators agreed that GSP preferences could be withdrawn if a beneficiary country fails to cooperate with the EU on the readmission of its own citizens. The European Commission will monitor compliance with these obligations and will be able to intervene if necessary.
To ensure transparency, the Commission will have to inform the European Parliament and the Council whenever it adopts such decisions.
According to Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, this type of negative conditionality is not new. “It is both an old feature of the EU’s external migration policies and has become more frequent and visible in recent years,” she explained. “The EU already has the possibility of imposing visa sanctions on countries that do not cooperate adequately on readmission. Yet this instrument has only been applied in a few cases, with mixed results.”
Despite the formalisation of sanctions, however, the real-world effect of migration conditionality may be limited. “By threatening to withdraw GSP benefits, the EU is prioritising return — which is often not in the interest of sending countries that benefit from remittances — over a development-oriented trade policy and amplifying the potential consequences for non-cooperation,” Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik said.
According to the political agreement, such withdrawal could only happen if the Commission has already proposed withdrawing visa benefits. “Most of the countries that benefit from GSP are not among the main sources of migration to the EU,” she concluded, “meaning the measure will likely have a limited impact in practice.”
