A/HRC/4/10 page 13 (c) Enhance the welfare of consumers and reduces poverty, as a wider variety of goods and services will be available at lower prices. 40. Unfortunately, during the last two decades trade liberalization has often been implemented too hastily and without proper sequencing. It was sometimes more promoted by economic dogma than by an informed analysis of its probable economic and social impact.18 Undifferentiated and abrupt liberalization across all sectors has in many cases triggered a sudden and massive influx of cheap import goods. Many local firms, especially small and medium-size enterprises, could not withstand this competition, thus triggering the shutdown of local production and a massive loss of employment. In addition, the sudden import increase created balance-of-payments problems, currency devaluations and ultimately higher consumer prices. 41. The expected increase in the competitiveness of local firms, in particular with regard to the export market, often did not materialize due to various reasons, including inadequate business environments and a multitude of supply side constraints such as poor infrastructure, high transaction costs of entering the international market, lack of technical experience and difficulties in obtaining export finance.19 The importance of these supply side problems directly linked to the capacity to trade can be illustrated by the example of Sub-Saharan Africa, where poor infrastructure adds 15-20 per cent of transport costs to the price of exported products. These costs, more than three times the world average, are a far more important barrier to export than most tariffs.20 42. Trade reforms that do not take these effects into account are likely to lead to a situation where fundamental human rights, including the right to work are substantially eroded. In order to make trade reform measures compatible with poverty reduction and human rights objectives, trade policy should be based on sound economic and social impact assessments. These assessments should include a sector-by-sector and, if necessary, product-by-product analysis of potential liberalization impacts on domestic economic sectors, the balance of payment, employment and public finance. Based on such impact assessment, liberalization should be designed and sequenced with a view to maximizing its development and human rights benefits. 43. While competitive sectors can be amenable to immediate liberalization, others should be given adequate transition periods allowing local producers to adapt to the new context and to progressively improve their competitiveness. The impact assessment should also provide information on a certain range of strategic goods and services that should be permanently excluded from liberalization. Such exclusions should be allowed by international trade rules whenever market mechanisms are likely to inhibit the access of the population, or parts of it, to goods and services guaranteed by fundamental economic, social and political human rights. 44. The impact of trade reform on public finance can be substantial, as many developing poor countries rely on customs duties as a major source of government revenue. The likelihood and possible extent of a “fiscal gap”, created through a loss of customs revenues should be carefully assessed. A fiscal gap can, in turn, have an adverse impact on the Government’s ability to finance social spending, which would directly influence the ability to comply with human rights