News

Trade Finance for SME's pushed - WTO study

02/09/2016

Countries can initiate new efforts to support access to trade finance for their small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to help them grow into global markets, according to a study released by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

It considered a lack of trade finance as a significant nontariff barrier to trade, with up to 80 percent of trade financed by credit or credit insurance.

The study found that SMEs in developing countries face even greater challenges in accessing trade finance. The estimated value of unmet demand for trade finance in developing Asia is $700 billion.

Gaps in trade finance provision are highest in new "frontier" countries for trade, where trade opportunities are increasing as global production patterns evolve, it said.

"Bridging these gaps in provision would unlock the trading potential of many thousands of individuals and small businesses around the world," it said, noting that the availability of finance is, thus, essential for a healthy trading system.

The study stressed that various steps are already being taken to tackle this issue through encouraging global financial institutions to remain engaged and to ensure that regulations are not prohibitive; increasing the capacity of local financial institutions; and providing support measures to increase the availability of trade finance through multilateral development banks.

Apart from these, further steps could be taken, including enhancing existing trade finance facilitation programs to reduce the financing gap by  $50 billion; and reducing the knowledge gap in local banking sectors for handling trade finance instruments by training at least 5,000 professionals over the next five years.

The study further said countries can also maintain an open dialogue with trade finance regulators to ensure that trade and development considerations are fully reflected in the implementation of regulations; and improve monitoring of trade finance provision to identify and respond to gaps.

It said new efforts to support SMEs' access to trade finance "could have a very significant, positive impact."

"With so many businesses deprived of the support that they need to grow, action is needed to address these trade financing gaps," it added.    


Back to recent news

Recent News

26/11/2024

The latest newsletter is now available in the members trade information section under the category of 'Newsletters'...more

ICC release Technical Advisory Briefing No. 11 - Definition of Trade Finance 19/09/2024

Recognising that there is no global standard for the defining Trade Finance, this Briefing document provides a suggested text and has been recommended for use by the ICC Banking Commisison Steering Committee...more

Latest Question

We, as the issuing bank, requested the below document, under field 46A. “Insurance policy/certificate for 10.00 percent above CIF value payable to the order of Sampath bank PLC, covering institute cargo clauses (a), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage.” Insurance certificate is presented containing below wording on the face side of the document. “The settlement of loss and damage will be effected, unless otherwise provided, through the intermediary of Marsh SA/NV to whom all documents are to be forwarded for this purpose, and will collect the indemnity under deduction of a commission of one percent” Also, it indicates the LC conditions as a mirror image as follows under the heading of "letter of credit conditions" whereas insurance conditions are incorporated separately in the certificate: "covering institute cargo clauses (A), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage" Having considered the above clauses, we have quoted below discrepancies. 1) Insurance policy indicates a deductible of 1 pct instead of irrespective of percentage. 2) Insurance not marked premium paid Beneficiary’s bank disagrees with our discrepancy and raised below argument: “Insurance policy/certificate does not indicate a deductible of 1 pct irrespective of percentage on the face of the document and banks will not examine terms and condition in insurance document as per ISBP paragraph K22 and marked as premium paid under the LC conditions. Considering above, may we have your opinion on the discrepancy quoted by us and the counter argument raised by the beneficiary’s bank.