Free trade agreement between Colombia and United States of America.

On May 15, 2012, the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed by Colombia and the United States
entered into force with the aim of promoting trade between the two countries. The agreement
affects all sectors of the economy and national productive life, including ICTs.

The FTA is an agreement that generates opportunities for all Colombians, without exception, it
contributes to create jobs and improve the performance of the national economy. Initially, it benefits
exporting sectors because they will be able to sell their products and services, under very favorable
conditions, in the U.S. market. But not only to exporters, also to all other domestic producers.

The topics negotiated were those considered as general, like access to markets, in its two aspects
(industrial and agricultural), intellectual property, investment regime, government procurement,
dispute settlement, competition, e-commerce, services, environment and labor.

The service sector is already the largest in the Colombian economy. High value-added services are
the great dynamizer of the world's economies, foreign investment is included because there is great
interest in attracting it. Intellectual property, a highly sensitive issue, was also negotiated, as well as
State purchases, a very important element for boosting trade.

FTA has had a positive impact on trade, investment, increase in non-mineral-energy exports and
tourism in Colombia, but the main benefit of the FTA for Colombia is the consolidation of the tariff
preferences that we had with the tariff preferences agreement, ATPDEA. This covered about 5,670
products. The entry into force of the FTA meant access to the U.S. market with 0% tariff for
approximately 10,634 tariff positions.

Of these positions, 286 new products have entered the market in exports from 2012 to 2017.
Among these products are medicines, rigid tubes, mushrooms, tires, sweet corn, laminated
products, toothpastes, among others, which are products with constant growth in exports.

Finally, the Free Trade Agreement with the United States not only brought stability to the rules of
the game in terms of tariffs and the inclusion of more than 5,000 goods, but also implied, for
different sectors of the economy, competing with other markets for more than 320 million
consumers in the U.S. market. For example, in the cosmetics, footwear and apparel sectors,
Colombia began to be competitive at similar levels with markets such as the Netherlands, Hong
Kong and Korea. In the case of cosmetics, Colombia competes for the U.S. market with countries
such as Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Brazil.

Those who are against the FTA generally argue that in the net balance Colombia would continue to
make a minimal profit and reproach the following:

Unequal distribution of NAFTA benefits: The government officially assumed that there are winners
and those affected when this treaty entered into force. Different trade unions have expressed their
rejection of this agreement, considering it harmful to the national economy, mainly in the areas of
agriculture and intellectual property. Sectors affected are rice, wheat, maize, sugar, poultry, cattle
and pig farming. They will be affected, not because they disappear, but because now they will have
to earn less, work more and compete more. In any case, there will be some very big structural
changes if the FTA enters into force. The sectors most affected by these changes will be: the
agricultural sector, the public health sector (access to health is affected by the same section in
which the North American pharmaceutical monopolies "managed to raise the standards of
protection of their sector, above the parameters of the WTO... This will be reflected in less
competition, greater monopoly and, therefore, the increase in consumer prices¨), the industrial
sector (by the entry of remanufactured products that would compete with national producers at very
low costs), and the industrial sector (by the entry of remanufactured products that would compete
with national producers at very low costs).

Lack of popular consultation (which would be essential in such an important matter). The disputes
around the FTA are increased by the absence of a popular consultation. Until now, different guilds,
unions and ordinary citizens have expressed their rejection of this agreement, considering it harmful
to the national economy, mainly in the aspects of agriculture and intellectual property. Other
economic sectors clearly benefit, such as garments, flowers, plastics and leather goods. In the face
of these wide divergences, a popular consultation could be useful.