As the European Union reviews Pakistan’s GSP+ status, one central fact risks being lost in the political noise: Pakistan fulfils the formal requirements attached to the scheme. It has ratified all the core conventions, it has stayed engaged with the monitoring process, and it has used GSP+ as a framework to push reforms in difficult circumstances.
Under GSP+, Pakistan is required to adhere to 27 international conventions on human rights, labour standards, the environment and good governance. These conventions have been ratified. Over the last decade, Pakistan has gone through four monitoring cycles, submitted detailed reports and hosted repeated dialogue with EU institutions. Whatever the weaknesses on the ground, there is no serious claim that Pakistan is ignoring its obligations or refusing scrutiny.
In recent years, there has also been movement at the institutional level. The National Commission for Human Rights has been upgraded and recognised with “A status” accreditation, signalling that it now meets key global benchmarks for independence and effectiveness. Pakistan has secured a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for 2026-2028, which would hardly be possible if the wider international community saw it as unwilling to engage.
This has been accompanied by new or improved laws and policies in exactly those areas European officials have highlighted: legislation against child marriage, measures to provide greater protection to journalists, initiatives for minorities and interfaith harmony, and policy steps on climate and environmental management. None of this removes the very real problems that remain, but it does show that GSP+ conditionality has been taken seriously and used as a driver for change.
On the economic side, the impact is visible. Since Pakistan gained GSP+ in 2014, its exports to the EU have risen markedly. Factories producing garments, home textiles, leather goods, sports equipment and surgical instruments have been able to secure longer order books and sustain employment. That has brought much-needed foreign exchange into an economy under constant pressure.
An outcome that acknowledges Pakistan’s efforts, keeps GSP+ in place and ties it to continued cooperation would show that the EU understands the realities of reform in a fragile environment and that when a partner makes an honest attempt to meet demanding standards, that attempt is not ignored.
At the same time, it is important for decision-makers in Brussels to understand how different Pakistan’s starting point is from that of EU member states. With a per capita income of roughly 1,365 dollars, Pakistan is a lower-middle-income, climate-vulnerable country. In the last few years, it has gone through a balance-of-payments crisis, devastating floods and severe heat, while continuing to host large numbers of refugees and manage security threats. Its tax base is narrow, its social protection schemes are limited, and its administrative capacity is uneven.
In that context, implementation will never look identical to that of wealthy welfare states. The question, therefore, is not whether Pakistan has solved all of its governance and rights problems. The question is whether there has been sufficient progress, under clear constraints, to justify the continuation of GSP+ and to support further improvement.
Even the EU’s own language on Pakistan recognises “certain progress” in areas such as women’s and children’s rights, minority protections and environmental conservation, while also calling for more work. The pattern that emerges is one of partial, sometimes slow, but real movement rather than non-compliance.
If GSP+ is withdrawn or sharply limited at this stage, the signal that goes out is that sustained engagement, legal ratification, institutional upgrades and incremental reforms are not enough, even when undertaken in a setting of fiscal stress and climate shocks. It would weaken the incentive structure for reformers inside the country and risk undermining those who have used the GSP+ framework to push for change.
By contrast, a decision to maintain Pakistan’s status, coupled with clear expectations and targeted support, would reinforce the logic of the scheme itself: that trade preferences can anchor gradual improvements in human rights, labour conditions and governance in developing countries.
Pakistan is not claiming perfection. It is asking for a fair reading of its record. It has signed what needed to be signed, it has stayed in the monitoring process, and it has moved, however unevenly, in the direction set out by the EU’s own conditionality. It has done this while facing economic, climatic and security pressures that far exceed those in most EU member states.
As the review proceeds, the choice before European policymakers is not between rewarding failure and punishing it. It is between recognising difficult progress and dismissing it. An outcome that acknowledges Pakistan’s efforts, keeps GSP+ in place and ties it to continued cooperation would show that the EU understands the realities of reform in a fragile environment – and that when a partner makes an honest attempt to meet demanding standards, that attempt is not ignored.
The writer is a freelance columnist.