Ecuador accounted for 15%of ATPA imports in 1999, followed by Bolivia with only 4%. (9)
Overall, the ATPA trade effects appear to be relatively small. ATPA's Economic Effects on the Andean Countries

Although the trade effects of ATPA were relatively small, there was some indication that the composition of trade changed and that, with a few products, a case can be made that ATPAcontributed to this change. It is possible that the altered composition of U.S. imports from ATPAcountries reflects broader change in what Andean countries were producing and that this in turnpoints to some indirect evidence that ATPA-eligible products were substituted for illicit coca. (11)
Bolivia and Peru. First, reauthorize ATPA for an extended period of time to reinforce the U.S. commitment to the alternative developmentcounternarcotics strategy. Second, extend duty-free treatment to other Andean exports, such astextile and apparel products, to broaden the program effects, particularly in Colombia, which remainsthe most problematic country. Postscript: Legislation in the 107th Congress

On December 4, 2001, ATPA expired and U.S. tariffs were reimposed on affected Andeanexports. On February 15, 2002, the Bush Administration deferred collection of these tariffs for 90days in expectation that the 107th Congress would either reauthorize ATPA or provide a short-termextension of its trade preferences. In part because the ATPA legislation was eventually linked to thelarger debate on trade promotion authority (TPA), Congress was unable to complete work on the billbefore the deferral expired. The ATPA program was reauthorized in the Andean Trade Promotionand Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), Title XXXI of the Trade Act of 2002 ( H.R. 3009 ), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 6, 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 ). All dutyreductions that were in place prior to ATPA's expiration were made retroactive to December 4, 2001and presumably all those duties collected are reimbursable. Changes to ATPA Provisions

As passed into law, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) expresses the findings of Congress that extending and expanding trade preferences to beneficiarycountries continues to be an effective part of a broader U.S. foreign policy to counter illicit drugtrafficking from the Andean region. To enhance the effects of the expired ATPA, it extendspreferential treatment through December 31, 2006 and expands it to cover many exports previouslyexcluded. (27) For this reason alone,although reauthorized ATPA program may still beonly a small part of a large and long-term U.S. counternarcotics effort, expanding duty-freeprovisions to a larger portion of the region's exports, including its growth industries, may have apositive effect on the program's effectiveness.
Following passage by the 102nd Congress, President George Bush signed into law the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) on December 4, 1991( P.L. 102-182 , title II), making it part of amultifaceted strategy to counter illicit drug production and trade in Latin America. For ten years,it provided preferential, mostly duty-free, treatment to selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia,Ecuador, and Peru. ATPA's goal was to encourage growth of a more diversified Andean exportbase, thereby promoting development and providing an incentive for Andean farmers and otherworkers to pursue economic alternatives to the drug trade.
On December 4, 2001, ATPA expired and U.S. tariffs were reimposed on affected Andean exports. On February 15, 2002, the Bush Administration deferred collection of these tariffs for 90days in expectation that the 107th Congress would either reauthorize ATPA or provide a short-termextension of its trade preferences. In part because the ATPA legislation was eventually linked to thelarger debate on trade promotion authority (TPA), Congress was unable to complete work on the billbefore the deferral expired. The ATPA was eventually reauthorized as the Andean Trade Promotionand Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), Title XXXI of the Trade Act of 2002 ( H.R. 3009 ), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 6, 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 ). All dutyreductions that were in place prior to ATPA's expiration were made retroactive to December 4, 2001and presumably all those duties collected are reimbursable.
In evaluating the ATPA program, its trade effects were shown to have been relatively small, although there was some indication that the composition of trade changed and that, with a fewproducts, a case could be made that ATPA supported this change. It is possible that the slightlyaltered composition of U.S. imports from ATPA countries reflected broader change in what Andeancountries were producing and that this in turn pointed to some indirect evidence that resources onceused for drug-related activity were being redirected toward ATPA-eligible products. IsolatingATPA's role from other counternarcotics and economic diversification programs, however, has beena difficult challenge, producing imprecise estimates.
Supporters of ATPA argued that its effects were evident and proposed that it be reauthorized to reinforce the U.S. commitment to the "alternative development" counternarcotics strategy and thatpreferential treatment be extended to other Andean exports to broaden the program's effects. Ingeneral, the 107th Congress appeared to accept this position. To enhance the effects of ATPA, thereauthorization legislation provides for an extension of trade preferences through December 31,2006, extending them to cover exports previously excluded, including certain textile and apparelarticles, canned tuna, watches and parts, petroleum, footwear, and selected leather bags and goods. Congress was also careful to consider, and in many cases preserve, the interests of domesticproducers. ATPA may be only a small part of a large and long-term counternarcotics effort, butCongress reasoned that expanding duty-free provisions of ATPA to include more exports in growthindustries may have a positive effect on the region.