Pakistan has benefited enormously from preferential access to the European Union market under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+). Yet the country has made little headway in delivering the reforms it committed to undertake in return for these trade concessions. Its record of implementation remains deeply disappointing. With the EU revising its GSP framework and introducing a potentially more demanding set of eligibility requirements, Pakistan can no longer take its preferential trade status for granted.
The EU has raised serious concerns about Pakistan’s failure to demonstrate meaningful progress, pointing to setbacks in several areas despite the considerable economic gains the country has secured through GSP+. This raises a critical question: can Islamabad retain these benefits under the revised framework? The risk of losing them is substantial. Much of Pakistan’s progress has been confined to legislation and administrative measures, with little evidence of lasting improvements in practice.
Pakistan’s difficulties are rooted in a wider governance crisis. The expanding influence of the military, disputed elections, restrictions on political opposition and the weakening of democratic institutions have damaged public confidence in the state. These concerns are not new. Pakistan has ratified numerous international conventions, yet its record suggests a persistent gap between formal commitments and their implementation. Agreements intended to safeguard citizens’ rights have too often failed to deliver meaningful protection on the ground.
Fundamental freedoms in Pakistan remain under considerable pressure. Freedom of expression is restricted, while those who challenge the authorities or take part in protests risk intimidation and punishment. Developments in the Kashmir region offer a stark illustration of the consequences of these restrictions. Enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings remain serious concerns, while accountability for alleged perpetrators is conspicuously weak. The EU has also drawn attention to the use of torture. Taken together, these failures reflect the state’s inability to guarantee citizens the right to live with dignity, security and freedom from fear.
In its latest assessment of Pakistan’s performance, the EU noted that “Significant concerns remained, generally impacting the rule of law and civil society space.” The report also criticised constitutional amendments that have attracted concerns over further erosion of judicial independence, alongside persistent barriers to fair trials and access to justice. Forced labour, meanwhile, continues to affect a significant number of people.
The economic stakes are considerable. In 2024, Pakistan exported goods worth €7.5 billion to the European market under the GSP+ arrangement and received an estimated €732 million in tariff exemptions. These figures demonstrate the importance of the scheme to Pakistan’s export sector, particularly industries that depend on competitive access to European consumers. Losing these concessions would expose exporters to higher tariffs and could weaken their position against competitors enjoying more favourable trading conditions.
The EU has called on Pakistan to strengthen accountability for human rights violations, intensify efforts to eliminate torture and enforced disappearances, and address persistent social problems, including violence against women, child marriage and discrimination against religious minorities. These demands extend beyond the adoption of laws. They require institutions capable of enforcing them impartially, investigating abuses and holding those responsible to account.
That institutional capacity remains a major weakness. Public bodies, particularly those operating within the security establishment, face limited scrutiny despite recurring allegations of serious violations. Without independent oversight, investigations can stall, victims can be denied justice and the authorities can continue to avoid meaningful accountability. This pattern undermines both public trust and Pakistan’s credibility with international partners.
For Islamabad, the central problem is the widening gap between its international obligations and its conduct at home. Assurances of compliance will carry little weight if they are not supported by verifiable results. The EU’s assessment should therefore be treated as a serious warning: preferential access to one of Pakistan’s most important export markets is not guaranteed indefinitely. Continued shortcomings could put the country’s GSP+ status at risk when its eligibility is assessed under the revised framework.
The prospects for reform remain uncertain because the changes demanded by the EU challenge entrenched centres of power. Pakistan’s political elite has little incentive to surrender privileges, while the military’s extensive influence over civilian affairs complicates efforts to strengthen democratic accountability. A weak civilian government, constitutional changes that concentrate power and restrictions on political participation all contribute to a system in which meaningful institutional reform faces formidable resistance. These are not peripheral obstacles; they lie at the heart of Pakistan’s difficulties in meeting its GSP+ commitments.
Accountability for enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings illustrates the problem. When allegations point towards powerful security institutions, can the authorities conduct credible investigations and ensure that those responsible face justice? The question goes beyond the existence of legal provisions. It concerns whether civilian institutions possess the independence and authority to act against influential actors.
Judicial independence presents a similar challenge. An impartial judiciary is essential to protecting fundamental rights, ensuring fair trials and holding public officials accountable. Yet concerns over constitutional changes and the concentration of power have raised doubts about the judiciary’s ability to perform these functions independently. The expansion of powers and legal protections associated with Army Chief Asim Munir has further intensified questions about institutional checks and balances. Unless judicial independence is strengthened in practice, it is likely to remain a significant obstacle in any future EU assessment of Pakistan’s compliance.
Labour rights pose another serious challenge. Pakistan has introduced legislation addressing labour exploitation, but enforcement remains inadequate. Forced labour and child labour persist in parts of the country, sustained by poverty, weak labour inspection, informal employment and limited access to education and social protection. For many vulnerable households, economic desperation leaves children exposed to work and adults susceptible to exploitation. Legislation alone cannot resolve these problems, particularly when enforcement agencies lack the capacity or willingness to act effectively.
Addressing these violations will require sustained investment in labour inspections, stronger protection for workers, effective penalties for employers who exploit vulnerable people, and policies that reduce the economic pressures driving families into exploitative work. Similar efforts are needed across the wider human rights and governance agenda. Progress must be visible, measurable and durable rather than limited to official declarations or changes in the statute book.
Pakistan’s continued access to GSP+ will ultimately depend on whether it can translate its international commitments into credible action. The benefits of the scheme have been substantial, but they come with obligations that cannot be met through legislation alone. Without meaningful progress on human rights, judicial independence, labour protection and institutional accountability, Islamabad risks losing an important trade advantage.
The challenge is political as much as economic. The reforms required to preserve GSP+ threaten established power structures, making implementation difficult. But postponing them carries its own cost. If Pakistan continues to prioritise the interests of powerful institutions over the rights of its citizens, it may find that the trade benefits it has enjoyed for years are no longer within its reach.