RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/W/93
5 October 2001
(01-4835)
Committee on Trade and Development
THE GENERALISED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES:
A preliminary analysis of the GSP schemes in the Quad
Note by the Secretariat
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present study was prepared in response to a request from the delegation of the United
States for further information on the benefits of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).  The
request was made at the 32nd Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) on
16 February 20011 during consideration of a Secretariat document:  Implementation of Special and
Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions  (WT/COMTD/W/77 andCorr.1).
2. The aim of this study is to provide an introduction to the functioning of the GSP, including
the preferences provided by developed countries and the benefits drawn by developing countries.  A
study with this aim would have to be quite extensive in order to be comprehensive.  However, the
Secretariat has chosen to limit its scope in several respects.  Section II gives a brief overview of thehistory of the GSP.  The analysis of the current s ituation (Section III) has been limited to a description
of the GSP schemes of the four large WTO Members of the Quad (i.e. Canada, European
Communities, Japan and the United States).  The statistical analysis in section IV has also been based
on the GSP schemes of the Quad.  The analysis is based on data for 1999 only (the most recent year
for which consistent data were available), so that there is no attempt to describe statistically the
evolution of preferences.  However, the brief descriptions of the schemes include the more important
changes over time.
3. The statistical part of this study (Section IV) is based on information from the WTO
Integrated Data Base (IDB).  In the case of the EC, the information had to be supplemented by data on
preferences from UNCTAD's TRAINS Database.
2  If Members consider the approach satisfactory, it
could be extended to additional preference givers, but gaps in the information on other schemes would
present a number of difficulties.  More rigorous analysis of the effects is also possible, but wouldlikely require the use of economic modelling tools or country studies, as discussed in the final section.
4. The elaboration, by the WTO Secretariat, of a study on the functioning of GSP schemes was
complicated by the lack of comprehensive and easily usable notifications by Members and lacunae in
the data available on the application of the GSP schemes preferences in general. This means that the
statistical information, in particular, needs to be read with caution.  Moreover, drawing firmconclusions about the effects of the GSP from these limited data is fraught with difficulties.
                                                     
1 WT/COMTD/M/32
2 This entailed aggregating preference data from 10 to 8 digits, since MFN data in the IDB was only
available at the 8-digit level.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 2
5. In trying to give an appreciation of the value of preferences under GSP, the Secretariat has
included, so far as the data permit, information on MFN and other preferential schemes, in particular
those under regional trade agreements (RTAs).  This helps to put the value of GSP preferences into
the wider context of available forms of tariff treatment in different markets.  In most instances, it was
not possible, from the information available to the Secretariat, to determine to what extent trade from
developing countries fell under GSP or other preference schemes (regional or unilateral).  TheSecretariat therefore devised some rules for the statistical analysis of such cases, as described in
Section IV, where the focus is on forms of tariff treatment, rather than groups of countries defined as
such.
6. In the preparation of the study, the WTO Secretariat received valuable help from UNCTAD in
providing information and in commenting on a draft.  Information on the operational aspects of a
number of schemes was also taken from the UNCTAD Handbooks on the various schemes, as
published on UNCTAD's web-site.  These Handbooks are comprehensive and contain detailedinformation on how designated beneficiaries can take advantage of the schemes.  Information was
also obtained from the Internet web-sites of Members, but in some cases may not reflect the most
recent changes.  Information from these sources helped to a certain extent to overcome the lack of
comprehensive and assimilable information on th e operation of most GSP schemes at the WTO.
II. ORIGINS OF THE GSP
7. The underpinnings of the GSP were largely based on Prebisch and Singer's work on the
secular decline in the terms of trade for agricultural commodities and the perception that only
manufacturing could provide stability and jobs in developing countries.
3 Even today, many of the
least-developed countries and others, whose trade remains concentrated in basic commodities, havesuffered a declining share of world trade, whereas developing countries which have been able to
diversify into manufactures have been able to expand their share.
4  The Prebisch-Singer hypothesis
led to two important policy prescriptions: se ctoral intervention favouring import-competing
manufacturing industry (import-substitution industrialisation), and the idea of creating non-reciprocal
tariff preferences to foster manufactured exports from the developing countries.  This is one of thereasons for the relatively low coverage of agricultural products in GSP schemes.
8. The various drafts of a charter for an International Trade Organization (ITO) included an
article on tariff negotiations.  However, after the failure of the ITO, Article XXVIII bis, dealing with
tariff negotiations, was only adopted as a conse quence of the 1954-55 Review Session of the GATT
Contracting Parties.  Article XXVIII bis contains one of the first indications of differential and non-
reciprocal treatment;  Paragraph 3 states that negotiations shall be conducted on a basis which affords
adequate opportunity to take into account, inter alia , "the needs of less-developed countries for a more
flexible use of tariff protection to assist their economic development and the special needs of these
countries to maintain tariffs for revenue purposes; and all other relevant circumstances, including the
fiscal, developmental, strategic and other needs of the contracting parties concerned."
9. The idea of non-reciprocity became an issue in the preparation of the Kennedy Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations with the increase in the number of developing countries which werebecoming GATT contracting parties.  The issue was discussed at the GATT Ministerial Meeting of
1963, which established a working party to look at the issue.  This led in 1965 to the addition of
Part IV on Trade and Development, recognising the need for a "rapid and sustained expansion of the
                                                     
3 For an early history, see "The History of UNCTAD 1964-84", United Nations, New York, 1985
(Document UNCTAD/OSG/286, UN Publication Sales No. E.85.II.D.6).
4 WTO, "Participation of developing countries in world trade: Recent developments, and the trade of
the least-developed countries", Note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/W/65 of 15 February 2000), Geneva.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 3
export earnings" of the developing countries and exhorting "positive efforts designed to ensure that
[developing countries] secure a share in the grow th of international trad e commensurate with the
needs of their economic development" by developed countries.   Part IV also recognised the needs to
"provide in the largest possible measure more favourable and acceptable conditions of access to world
markets" for their limited range of primary exports, including "measures to attain stable, equitable and
remunerative prices".  It also stated that the "rapid expansion of the economies of the [developingcountries] will be facilitated by a diversification of the structure of their economies… and the
avoidance of an excessive dependence on the export of primary products".
10. However, Part IV did not fully exempt developing countries from reciprocity.
Article XXXVI:8 states that "The developed contracting parties do not expect reciprocity for
commitments made by them in trade negotiations to reduce or remove tariffs and other barriers to the
trade of less-developed contracting parties."   However, the Note to Article XXXVI:8 makes it clear
"that the phrase "do not expect reciprocity" means, in accordance with the objectives set forth in thisArticle, that the less-developed contracting parties should not be expected, in the course of trade
negotiations, to make contributions which are inconsistent with their individual development,
financial and trade needs, taking into consideration past trade developments".
11. The Generalised System of Preferences was propos ed by Dr Prebisch, then Secretary-General
of UNCTAD, as a non-reciprocal syst em of tariff preferences in favour of the developing countries, at
UNCTAD I in 1964.  The arguments were essentially: MFN treatment did not provide equality with
domestic producers or regional trade partners unless set at zero;  MFN treatment did not take account
of inequality in economic structure and levels of development; and because negotiations were
conducted on the basis of reciprocity and the MFN principle, developing countries' exports continued
to face high tariffs.  Preferences were seen as helping to overcome these disadvantages.  Afterovercoming divergences of view and considerable work on the practical details, Prebisch's proposals
were subsequently adopted as a principle at UNCTAD II in New Delhi in 1968.  The compromise was
that the Conference "agrees that the objectives of the generalized, non-reciprocal, non-discriminatory
system of preferences in favour of developing countries should be: (a) to increase their export
earnings;  (b) to promote their industrialization;  and (c) to accelerate their rates of economicgrowth."
5
12. In the earliest discussions, some flexibilities were discussed and these have become de facto
part of operational schemes.  For example, it was noted that "…the industrial countries could establish
a quota for admitting manufactured goods from developing countries free of duty , but they could
exclude from these preferences  a schedule of items constituting a reasonable percentage of the total
goods they import."6  And " all the developing countries , irrespective of their level of development,
would be eligible to avail themselves of the preferential system  up to the amount of the relevant
quota.  But there would have to be a periodic review  of the flow of exports; and if the exports from
one or more countries increased so much that they did not leave sufficient room for those from others,
equitable solutions should be sought."  "Special preferences should be granted to the less advanced
developing countries."  It was also accepted that, after preferences had helped the developing
countries "to prevent or rectify the structural imba lance in their trade", they "will gradually have to
disappear".  That was the concept of "graduation":  that developing countries becoming advanced
would not longer benefit from the GSP.  Finally, it  was recognised that, while developing countries
would not offer "conventional reciprocity", as a resu lt of preferences they would be able to import
more than if the preferences had not been granted.  Thus, irrespective of the subsequent legal texts,
the early discussion already envisaged quota limits, graduation, special preferences for LDCs and theeventual phasing out of preferences.
                                                     
5 Conference resolution 21 (II).
6 UNCTAD, "Towards a New Trade Policy for Development", E/CONF.46/3 (1964).  Italics in
original.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 4
13. In order to allow the GSP system to become legally operational, on 25 June 1971, the
CONTRACTING PARTIES decided to waive the provis ions of Article I of the GATT for a period of
10 years to the extent necessary to permit contractin g parties to accord preferential tariff treatment to
products originating in developing countries and territories.7  (This was anticipated by Australia
which became the first country to introduce a GSP scheme in 1966).  This Decision refers to
"generalized, non-reciprocal, non discriminatory preferences beneficial to the developing countries".Finally, on 28 November 1979, following the conclusion of the Tokyo Round in one of the
"framework agreements", the CONTRACTING PARTIES adopted the Decision on Differential and
More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (the
"Enabling Clause") which provided a legal basis (other than a waiver) for the granting of trade
preferences, tariffs and non-tariff measures, by deve loped contracting parties in favour of developing
countries, and special treatment of the LDCs in the context of any general or specific measures in
favour of developing countries.
8  The Enabling Clause, as a decision of the GATT Contracting
Parties, became part of the WTO system under provisions of paragraph 1 of the GATT 1994.9
14. The Enabling Clause therefore constitutes the legal basis by which individual WTO Members
may unilaterally grant GSP preferences to developing countries.10  Based on the permissive rather
than mandatory language of the Decision, preference givers usually consider that they may also
unilaterally modify, extend or withdraw such pref erences, including the coverage of beneficiaries.
Developing countries often argue that this creates a degree of uncertainty about the scope and duration
of preferences, mitigating the benefits.  Some such countries have therefore suggested the binding of
preferential rates or margins to increase the security of GSP benefits.11
15. Similarly, the Enabling Clause does not provide legal cover for non-reciprocal,
country-selective preference schemes such as those by the EC in favour of ACP countries, by the US
and Canada in favour of Caribbean countries, and so on.  These are covered by waivers from Article I
of the GATT which are limited in time and require WTO approval for renewal.
16. The Enabling Clause requires WTO Members to notify the introduction, modification or
withdrawal of GSP benefits and furnish all the in formation they may deem appropriate relating to
such action.  An attempt to list the notifications ma de by the Quad with respect to their GSP schemes
can be found in Annex I.  The lists are probably not comprehensive but still illustrate the fact that it is
difficult to get a clear picture of the current application of the GSP schemes by considering the
numerous notifications to the WTO.
17. WTO Members which grant GSP preferences under the Enabling Clause include: Australia,
Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, the European Communities, Hungary, Japan,New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and the United States.
12
The scope for joint action by contracting parties (WTO Members) was also envisaged in Footnote 2 toParagraph 2 of the Enabling Clause, but there does not appear to be any history of such joint action.
                                                     
7 BISD 18S/24.
8 L/4903 (BISD 26S/203)
9 The Enabling Clause also allows for regional or  global preferences among developing countries with
less rigour than under Article XXIV of the GATT.
10 The granting of non-reciprocal preferences by deve loping countries in favour of LDCs is the subject
of the Decision of 15 June 1999 (WT/L/304).
11 See for example WT/GC/W/331.
12 UNCTAD, "Generalized System of Preferences – List of Beneficiary Countries",
UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc. 62 of 22 June 2001.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 5
18. The operation of the GSP is frequently referred to in the TPRM process.  Specific concerns
raised in TPRM discussions with respect to GSP include the following:13
- That items of particular export interest for developing countries are not eligible for GSP
benefits, or only partially included in the schemes, such as agricultural and textiles and clothing
items;14 (WT/TPR/M/13, page 11, WT/TPR/M/ 30, page 9, WT/TPR/S/32-2, pages 7,8,
WT/TPR/M/32 25)
- That some GSP schemes ignore the factor-inten sity of production in developing countries as
certain labour-intensive chemical and textile products have been removed from the schemes;
(WT/TPR/M/3, page 20)
- That certain schemes contain binding  ceiling quotas on certain products;15 (WT7TPR/S/32-2,
pages 7-8)
- That not all exports of GSP-eligible goods from developing countries to preference giving
countries actually benefit from prefer ential access; (WT/TPR/S/52-2, pages 22-23)
- That some GSP schemes in reality only benefit a few developing countries exporters of the few
products covered by the scheme and that the benefits of the scheme therefore are highly skewed
both in terms of the number of main beneficiaries and the range of products; (WT/TPR/M/32,
pages 24,25)
- That imports under contractual or unilateral preferences, subject to emergency safeguards or
zero-duty quotas have negative effects on preference schemes; (WT/TPR/M/3, page 15)
- That developing country exports have been progressively excluded from a number of GSP
schemes as such exports have reached the competitiveness criteria defined by GSP-granting
countries.  The negative effects on the market position of certain developing country products
have been magnified by the maintenance of benefits to competing countries; (WT/TPR/S/21-2,page 10)
- That specialization and development indices can  lead to discrimination between developing
countries competing for the same market.  Such  indices favour producer s of raw materials and
low-processed goods while penalizing more advanced suppliers; (WT/TPR/M/3, pages 6,7)
- That sector and country graduation are contra ry to principles of non-discrimination and non-
reciprocity that underpin the GSP and therefore al ien to the original intentions underlying the
GSP concept; (WT/TPR/M/3, page 19, WT/TPR/M/30, pages 9,10)
- That the withdrawal, or the threat of withdrawal  of preferences is used as leverage to obtain
non-trade objectives.  As recipient countries cannot rely on the preferences, they have become
less useful. The consequent uncertainty of access is a major concern to countries affected;(WT/TPR/M/16, page 9) and
- That linking the benefits to non-trade issues, such as environmental and social (labour)
standards as well as intellectual property rights and the fight against drugs curtail the benefits
under the scheme and introduce elements of discrimination and reciprocity into the GSP
scheme. These aspects go against the fundamental principles of the GSP. (WT/TPR/M/3,
pages 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20,  WT/TPR/M/16 pages 16, 25, 29,  WT/TPR/M/30, pages  6, 9, 10,
11, 15, 16, 17, 26)
                                                     
13 WT/COMTD/W/77 of 27 October 2000.
14 The following items were explicitly mentioned;  walnuts, raw coffee, meat, dairy products,
vegetables, cereals, cigars, silk, cotton, woven fabrics of cotton, footwear.
15 The following items were explicitly mentioned:  wood and articles thereof, leather articles, footwear,
electrical machinery and equipment.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 6
19. It may be useful to recall that developing countries are not defined in the WTO, but such
status is largely self-determined.   This does not mean that all countries which consider themselves to
be developing are necessarily accepted as such by GSP preference givers, and the list of developing
countries receiving GSP benefits varies between preference givers.  This ambiguity, linked with the
unilateral nature of the schemes, appears to open the possibility for selection or graduation of GSP
beneficiaries, despite the principle that the schemes are to be non-discriminatory.  Moreover, evencountries which are designated beneficiaries under the various GSP schemes do not necessarily obtain
GSP treatment for all their exports: for example, some products may be excluded or eliminated from
GSP treatment because they are considered by the preference giver to be "competitive", because the
preference giver has concerns about the effects on domestic industry or for other reasons, thus
reducing the generality of the schemes.  On the other hand, LDCs, which are eligible for special
preferences under paragraph D of the Enabling Clause, are defined by the United Nations system, and
this definition is accepted by the WTO.  However, the lists of LDC beneficiaries applied by the USand Japan diverge slightly from the U.N. list (See Annex II).
III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE GSP SCHEMES OF THE QUAD
A. O
VERVIEW
20. This section aims to describe the application of the individual GSP schemes of Canada, the
European Union, Japan and the United States.  The information on the GSP schemes contained in this
section is taken in part from the Handbooks of the schemes of the Quad available on the UNCTAD's
Internet web-site16 as well as the web-sites17 of the preference givers concerned and relevant WTO
notifications.18
21. This document does not cover in any detail the special schemes in favour of the LDCs.  For a
detailed discussion on these schemes, see, inter alia , "Market Access Conditions for Least-developed
Countries", Note by the Secretariat (WT/ LDC/SWG/IF/14/ Rev.1/Add.1 of 25 April 2001),
"Improving Market Access for Least-deve loped Countries" (UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/4 of
2 May 2001), and "Duty and Quota Free Market Access for LDCs:  An Analysis of Quad Initiatives",
UNCTAD and the Commonwealth Secretariat (UNCTAD/DITC/TAB/Misc.7, London and Geneva,2001).
B. C
ANADA
22. The Canadian GSP was first introduced for an initial period of 10 years on 1 July 1974, and
was subsequently renewed in 1984 and 1994 (current valid to 2004), although there have been more
frequent adjustments to the detail of the scheme. 19   For example, in 1995 there was an expansion of
the product coverage and reductions in the preferential duty under the current scheme to counter the
erosion of the margins of preference resulting from the Uruguay Round.  The scheme was again
modified in 2000 to improve market access for LDCs by extending the product coverage and
liberalizing the rules of origin, and this was notified to the WTO Committee on Trade and
Development under the Enabling Clause.
                                                     
16 http://www.unctad.org/tad-docs/newTAD-DOCS3.asp
17 http://www.cbsc.org/english/search/display.cfm?Code=2258&Coll=FE_FEDSBIS_E
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/miti/devel/ngsp_reg.htmhttp://www.ustr.gov/reports/gsp/intro.html
18 See Annex I, concerning notifications to GATT/WTO of changes to GSP schemes.
19 Based on GSP - Handbook on the Scheme of Canada 1998 (UNCTAD/TAP/247/Rev.3).WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 7
23. Under the Canadian system, goods covered by GSP receive a margin of preference from MFN
rates (cf. the US scheme where the GSP rate is al ways set at zero for eligible products), but this
margin of preference is variable across products.  Apart from this reduction in the rate of duty below
the MFN rate, handicrafts from all beneficiaries that meet certain criteria and goods originating in
LDCs normally benefit from duty-free treatment.  Agricultural products included in the scheme are
covered by a positive list, while excluded industrial goods are given in a negative list.
24. To qualify for GSP treatment, at least 60 per cent of the ex-factory price of the goods must
originate in one or more GSP beneficiary countries or Canada.  To qualify for LDC treatment, at least
40 per cent of the ex-factory price of the goods must originate in one or more LDC beneficiary
countries or Canada.  The rules of origin requirements thus allow for cumulation across GSP
beneficiaries.  Since September 2000, within the overall qualifying limit of 40 per cent for LDCs,
20 per cent of the ex-factory price may originate in G SP countries that are not also LDCs.  In addition,
Canadian content may be counted towards the qualifying limit.
25. The utilization rate of GSP (the share of GSP qualifying imports entering at the GSP rate) in
Canada for all beneficiaries in 1997 was estimated by UNCTAD at 65.9 per cent (Annex II).  For
non-LDCs the rate was 70.4 per cent, compared with 56.6 for LDCs.
26. Preferences may be removed as a result of a safeguard action taken under Article XIX of the
GATT 1994, anti-dumping action under Article VI of the GATT and the WTO Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI, and countervailing action under Article XVI of the GATT and the
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The procedures for such actions against
GSP imports are the normal procedures for goods covered by such actions, except that the remedy
allows for the withdrawal of the preference or the establishment of a tariff quota.
C. THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
27. The current GSP scheme of the European Communities (EC) is based on guidelines adopted
in 1994 and implemented in 1995 for the period 1995-2004.  The current multi-annual scheme is
applied under Council Regulation (EC) No: 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 which expires on
31 December 2001.  On 12 June 2001, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a revision to
the EC scheme to be applied from 2002 to 2004.  The proposal brings together a number of differentarrangements, including the "everything but arms" initiative for LDCs, and sectors which were
previously governed by different regulations, although the Commission accepts that the proposal falls
short of harmonising and unifying all the rules.
20  At the time of drafting this report (September 2001),
the changes had yet to be notified to the WTO.
28. Under the 1994 guidelines, several important ch anges were introduced into the EC scheme, of
which two key features were the concepts of tariff modulation and graduation.21
29. Tariff modulation replaced the traditional approach of granting duty-free access for limited
quantities of imports with a system of different preference margins for sets of products with different
degrees of sensitivity.   Thus, in the 1995 revision, applicable through 2001, the quantitative limits
were removed, and all GSP products were classified as very sensitive, sensitive, semi-sensitive or
non-sensitive, according to which they benefited from a 15 per cent, 30 per cent, 65 per cent or
                                                     
20 Commission of the European Communities, "Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme
of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004" COM (2001) 293 final,2001/0131 (ACC), Brussels 12.6.2001.
21 GSP - Handbook on the Scheme of the European Community 1998 (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.25)WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 8
100 per cent (i.e. duty free) preference margin below the MFN rate, respectively.22  The system was
applied for industrial products from January 1995 and for agricultural products covered by the scheme
from January 1996.  According to UNCTAD, the average GSP rate increased from 2.8 per cent
in 1994 to 3.5 per cent, while the MFN rate was declining, so that the preference margin decreased,
although the removal of the quantitative limits may have improved market access for some
beneficiaries.23  LDCs continued to enjoy duty-free access on covered items.  The European
Commission notes that, while the intention of modulation was to provide similar benefits for the four
categories, in practice as a result of progressive liberalization, preferences for non-sensitive and semi-
sensitive products are now comparatively high - some 4 percentage points less than MFN rates - and
the preferences for the more sensitive categories are only some 2 percentage points.24  Under the new
regulation, from 2002 there will be only two categories, in line with the original 1994 guidelines:
"non-sensitive", corresponding to the existing category and obtaining duty-free treatment, and
"sensitive" products, with other categories being grouped together and receiving the same preferentialrate.  To help halt the erosion of preferences as MFN liberalisation proceeds, GSP rates for "sensitive"
products will be expressed as a reduction of 3.5 percentage points from ad valorem  MFN rates and a
30 per cent reduction on specific MFN rates.  For sensitive products with specific rates, if the duty is
less than 2 Euros, there will be an exemption from duty (cf. 0.5 Euros at present).  Whenever there are
mixed ad valorem  and specific rates, only the ad valorem  part is reduced.
30. Graduation was also introduced in 1995, allowing for the modification of the scheme to
exclude certain countries in respect of specific sectors or from the entire GSP scheme.
31. The exclusion of countries is based on one of two criteria: the degree of export specialisation
(the "specialisation index") and a development indicator  (the "development index").  The procedure
for the computation of these indices is given in Annex III.  Exclusion on the grounds of exportspecialisation is based on a ratio between a country's share of total EC imports in a given sector and
its share of total EC imports in all sectors – the so-called lion's share clause.  The development
indicator is based on an exporter's per capita income and total exports, compared with those of the
EC.  For graduation of a country, it is envisaged to use the threshold according to which the
World Bank classifies countries as "high-income ".  This aims to improve predictability and
objectivity.
32. To make graduation more neutral and automatic, the European Commission is envisaging
revision of the list of beneficiaries by applying the criteria for graduation once a year.  This would be
balanced by the requirement that a beneficiary country would need to meet either of the criteria for
exclusion over three consecutive years.  Beneficiaries would be notified of the results of thecalculations and be given the opportunity to comment.
33. The European Commission has computed that immediate introduction of the proposal on
graduation would reduce by more than half the trade volume covered.
25  The requirement to fulfil the
criteria over three years would reduce the number of sectors to be graduated by more than 20.  When
the new GSP regulation is adopted by the Council, the Commission will prepare the revision of
sectors to be graduated under the new regime, to enter into force on 1 January 2003.
                                                     
22 Idem.   Generally, there are no quantitative limitations under the EC GSP (except EBA zero tariff rate
quotas for sugar and rice).  Quantitative limits apply under derogations from rules of origin for Asian LDCs.
23 Idem.
24 Commission of the European Communities, "Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme
of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004" COM (2001) 293 final,2001/0131 (ACC), Brussels 12.6.2001.
25 Idem.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 9
34. At present there is no provision for re-entry to the GSP scheme, once a country has graduated,
but consideration is being given to introducing such a provision where such countries do not meet the
exclusion criteria for three consecutive years.
35. Following the introduction of graduation, the list of industrial products in the scheme did not
change, but the ratio of such imports under GSP to  total imports of such products declined from
73.5 per cent in 1994 to 66.9 per cent in 1997.  This has been attributed to the exclusion of somecountries for GSP benefits.
26  It has also been commented that, although graduation was introduced to
ensure a more equitable distribution of preferences among beneficiary countries, the share of
preferential imports from the three largest beneficiaries increased from 46.3 per cent to 51.6 per cent,
while the LDC share remained constant at about 1 per cent.  China's product coverage fell from
90.6 per cent to 69.6 per cent, although its total imports increased by 40 per cent in the same period.27
36. Another change in the current scheme since its introduction in 1995 was the introduction
in 1998 of "additional preferences in the framewor k of special incentive arrangements" intended to
promote sustainable development, in particular for the protection of labour rights and the
environment.  For the four categories of very sensitive, sensitive, and semi-sensitive agricultural
products there was a further reduction in preferential duties by 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 35 per cent
of the MFN rate, respectively.  For industrial products, the corresponding further reductions were
15 per cent, 25 per cent and 35 per cent. 28   These reductions are available even where a country has
graduated under the development indicator.
37. The European Commission considers that the special incentive arrangements have not
encountered the success that had been hoped, whether because of the relatively small margin on
preference or the complexity of the calculations.29  Under the new proposals, and in line with the
general reform, the additional preferences would double the main GSP preferences, so that, forexample, they would provide an additional flat reduction of 3.5 percentage points on ad valorem
duties and an additional reduction of specific duties by 30 per cent.  In addition to the maintenance of
these preferences where a country has graduated under the development indicator, these will become
available even where graduation takes place under the "lion's share" criterion.
38. In the present scheme, under the social incentive arrangements, not only must imports from
the beneficiary country comply but also all inputs from other countries.  This latter requirement on
inputs is being dropped as non-viable.  The special incentives linked to the protection of labour rights
originally referred to ILO Conventions 87, 98 and 138.  To bring this into line with the concept of
"core labour rights", beneficiaries are also being asked to comply with ILO Conventions 29, 100, 105,
111 and 182.  On the other hand, serious and systematic violation of those standards is proposed as areason for temporary withdrawal of GSP benefits.  Some modification of the provisions related to
environmental protection is being made to take account of the fact that some national certification
schemes have acquired a degree of international recognition.  Temporary withdrawal of benefits is
being contemplated on the basis of significant detr imental effects on the environment arising from the
production of certain products.  Further modifications are envisaged in the scheme for the next
decade.
39. There are also special arrangements for Andean and Central American countries which are
conducting anti-drug campaigns.  These arrangements are being evaluated as to whether they achieve
                                                     
26 UNCTAD, "Quantifying the benefits obtained by developing countries from the Generalized System
of Preferences", Note by the UNCTAD secretariat (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.52 of 7 October 1999).
27 Idem.
28 GSP - Handbook on the Scheme of the European Community 1998 (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.25).
29 Commission of the European Communities, op. cit.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 10
their objectives and consistency with other schemes, and the results of the evaluation will condition
the continuation of the scheme beyond 2004.
40. According to UNCTAD, the utilization rate of  the EC scheme increased from 48.9 per cent
in 1994 to 55.9 per cent in 1996 (Annex II).30  However, the utilization rate for LDCs had fallen from
47.5 to 26.7 in 1997.  This was largely caused by a drop in Bangladesh's utilisation of the scheme,
attributed to the complexity of the origin requir ements in the textile and clothing sectors.  The
utilisation rate for non-sensitive products and semi-sensitive products is now (2001) around 45 per
cent, while it is only 37 per cent for  sensitive and 32 per cent for very sensitive products.31
41. The rules of origin are those applicable to all products and sources, as laid down in
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993, which specifies provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation No. 2913/92 establishing the European Community Custom
Code (ECCC), as last modified by Commission Regulation No. 1602/2000.  Under these rules, in
order to qualify for GSP treatment a product must be either wholly obtained or "substantiallytransformed", if imported inputs are used in the manufacture.  A product is considered to be wholly
obtained in a beneficiary country when it does no t contain any imported input.  When imported inputs
are used in the manufacturing process of a finished product, the ECCC requires that these
non-originating materials be sufficiently worked or processed.  In particular, article 69, paragraph 1 of
the ECCC, as last amended by Regulation 1602/2000, specifies what is considered sufficient workingor processing as follows: "… products which are not wholly obtained in a beneficiary country or in
the Community are considered to be sufficiently worked or processed when the conditions set out in
the list in Annex 15 (the new Single List)  are fulfilled".  In the current scheme, the only general rule to
be followed in order to determine the origin of a product is to establish the HS tariff classification of
the product and check if the conditions laid down in the Single List for that specific product arefulfilled.  The proposed new regulation for the 2002-2004 scheme does not affect the current rules of
origin.  Partial Regional Cumulation is granted to 4 regional groupings (Andean, CACM, ASEAN and
SAARC).  Derogation from rules of origin may be granted to LDC beneficiaries when the
development of existing industries or creation of ne w industries justifies them (derogations have been
granted to Laos, Cambodia, and Nepal for certain clothing products).
D. J
APAN
42. A simplified overview of the coverage, tariff cuts and safeguards of the Japanese GSP scheme
is given in Table 1.  The Japanese scheme applies to 164 countries and territories, including LDCs.
The most recent modification to the Japanese scheme, notified to the WTO Committee on Trade and
Development under the Enabling Clause in early 2001,32 covers recent changes to improve market
access for LDCs, the modification of some product ceilings and the extension of the Japanese scheme
for 10 years to 31 March 2011.  However, the table should merely be regarded as indicative, and those
interested in the full details of the new scheme, as mentioned below, should consult the Japanese
notification.
                                                     
30 UNCTAD, op. cit.
31 Commission of the European Communities, op. cit.
32 WT/COMTD/N/2/Add. 10 of 4 May 2001WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 11
Table 1: Japanese GSP - coverage, tariff cuts and safeguards
Agricultural products
HS Chapters 1-24Industrial products
HS Chapters 25-97
Product Coverage Selected agricultural and fishery products (Positive
list)All industrial products, save for
exceptions(Negative List and new List of
products only for the benefit of
LDC beneficiaries)
GSP rates Various tariff reductions on the MFN rate Duty free
(Exception: 100 ~ 20 per cent
reduction on the MFN rate for 81selected products)
Safeguard Escape clause Ceiling (81 selected products)
Escape clause (for otherproducts)
Source: UNCTAD, Forthcoming GSP - Handbook on the Scheme of Japan, 2001-2002
(UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.42/Rev.2).
43. Within the industrial products group, the large majority of products are duty-free and not
subject to any quantitative limitation, although they may be subject to an escape clause.  In thescheme up to March 2001, there were some 440 HS headings (126 product groups) which received
duty free treatment but were subject to ceilings on the level of imports.  Finally, there were 66 HS
headings which received rates equivalent to 50 per cent of the MFN rate and were also subject to
ceilings.  The ceiling levels, published in the UNCTAD Handbook, were adjusted according to
formulae which vary for sensitive and non-sensitive products and depend on the situation of the
corresponding domestic industry.  Where there is no perceived threat to domestic industry, imports
are allowed to receive preferential treatment and to exceed ceiling levels.  Imports within ceiling are
on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to daily or monthly control.
44. In the most recent notification to the WTO, it is explained that: annual ceilings are now to be
increased annually by 3 per cent over those of the previous fiscal year; maximum country amounts are
reduced to one fifth of the total value or quantity of the ceiling; ceilings and maximum country
amounts are now to be controlled monthly and MFN ra tes are to be applied in the middle of the month
following that in which these limits are reached; and the relaxed administration of these limits is now
abolished.
45. The recent notification also explains that, in the new scheme,  in order to take account of the
need to protect Japanese domestic industry, preferential rates will be raised (i.e., preference reduced)
as follows.  Preferential rates for industrial products will be diversified to five degrees (0 per cent,20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent and 80 per cent) and will be raised in accordance with the
expansion of the amount of preferential imports.  However, tariffs on gin, Geneva and vodka will be
eliminated, i.e. set at zero.  Preferences on agricultural products will be modified to take account of
the outcome of the mandated negotiations in agriculture.
46. Under the previous schemes, carried over into  the new scheme, a particular product of a
particular beneficiary may be excluded from GSP benefits if the beneficiary is recognised as a
high-income country in the World Bank Atlas, if the beneficiary's export to Japan exceed 25 per cent
of world exports of the products to Japan, or if e xports of the beneficiary's products to Japan are worth
more than 1 billion yen.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 12
47. Rules of origin for eligible products are spelled out in the UNCTAD Handbook.  The general
rule is that, apart from products wholly originating in the beneficiary (or using materials originating in
Japan), and transported to Japan in accordance with certain rules for transportation, a change of tariff
heading is required.  However, there are some exceptions to this.  Cumulation is allowed for goods
produced in two or more countries of South-East Asia.
48. The utilization rate of GSP (the share of GSP qualifying imports entering at the GSP rate) in
Japan in 1997 overall was estimated by UNCTAD at 42.5 per cent.  For non-LDCs the rate was
39.9 per cent, compared with 72.2 for LDCs (Annex II).  Although these ratios were declining in
1997, some of the rates shown (particularly from certa in LDCs) are among the highest utilization rates
of any GSP schemes, which has been attributed to the predictability and stability of the Japanese
scheme.33
E. THE UNITED STATES
49. The US GSP provides preferential duty-free entry for about 5,000 products from some
140 countries.34  Under the US GSP all eligible items are duty-free;  there are no non-zero GSP
rates.35  However, there may be limits on the amount that can be imported at the GSP rate, and any
imports above that limit are dutiable at the MFN rate, i.e. on affected items, the GSP operates under a
tariff quota system.
50. The original authority for the US GSP scheme is Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC
2461 et seq.).  The scheme was originally introduced in January 1976 for a 10-year period and has
since been renewed at different intervals under different legislation. Modifications to the product and
country coverage of the US GSP scheme are considered each year by the GSP Sub-committee of the
Trade Policy Staff Committee, an inter-agency committee of the US Government.  Submissions
requesting modifications may be made to that Sub-committee by any interested party, includingbeneficiaries or interested US firms.  Such modifications are brought into force by means of a
Proclamation of the President.
51. Product coverage is predominantly in manufactures and semi-manufactures, with only 14 per
cent of agricultural products in total GSP imports in 1997.
36  Certain articles are prohibited from
receiving GSP treatment, including most textiles and apparel, watches, footwear, handbags, luggage,flat goods, work gloves and other leather wearing apparel.  Any other article deemed to be "sensitive"
cannot be included.  Steel, glass and electronics items are therefore excluded from the U.S. GSP
scheme.
52. Since GSP treatment in the United States is duty-free, special treatment for LDCs involves
providing additional product coverage, rather than a higher margin of preference.  In practice, importsfrom LDCs under the scheme are dominated by unprocessed commodities such as petroleum, tobacco
and raw cane sugar, suggesting that the scheme has had limited success in encouraging
industrialisation among LDCs, although this may change as a result of recent improvements in access
for LDCs.
53. An important initiative in 1997 was the extension of the coverage of the scheme by some
1,783 products specifically for LDCs, which increased their product coverage from 2 per cent in 1996                                                     
33 UNCTAD, "Quantifying the benefits obtained by developing countries from the Generalized System
of Preferences", Note by the UNCTAD secretariat (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.52 of 7 October 1999).
34 USTR, "U.S. Generalized System of Preferences – Guidebook" (http://www.ustr.gov/reports/gsp at
8 August 2001).
35 UNCTAD, "GSP Handbook on the Scheme of the United States of America 2000"
(UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.58).
36 Idem.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 13
to over 60 per cent in 1997.37  This brought the product coverage by LDCs to a similar level for other
developing countries whose coverage had also risen from some 40 per cent in 1996.  However, the
utilisation rates by non-LDCs fell from 60 per cent in 1996 to around 40 per cent in 1997, while the
utilisation by LDCs fell from about 70 per cent to around 30 per cent in the same period.  This was
attributed to some uncertainties regarding the continuation of the scheme after May 1997, and
"underscores the importance of the certainty and stability of trade preferences".38
54. On 18 May 2000, the US enacted the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).39  This
Act offers various benefits among which are trade preference benefits to designated sub-Saharan
African countries (thirty-five out of forty-eight sub-Saharan African countries, whether or not LDCs,
are eligible to receive AGOA benefits).  AGOA extends duty-free treatment for imports from the
designated beneficiaries for 1,835 tariff lines.  In addition to these 1,835 tariff lines, AGOA also
expands GSP benefits to certain textiles and apparel products upon fulfilment of specific origin and
visa requirements.  The trade preferences contained in AGOA have been notified to the WTO underthe Enabling Clause as a modification to the US GSP scheme,
40 and were discussed at the CTD's
34th Session in May 2001.41
55. As in other schemes, not all countries that consider themselves to be developing countries in
the WTO are eligible for GSP.  For example, some are excluded from normal (permanent or
conditional) trade relations or are subject to embargoes.42  Some countries which were previously
subject to such restrictions, e.g., certain socialist and OPEC countries are now eligible.  Mexico lost
GSP when NAFTA came into effect.  Other countries have seen their benefits reduced, suspended or
terminated as a result of disputes over workers' rights or other matters.  Still other countries which
previously enjoyed GSP status have been graduated because of their income levels, being defined as
"high income" by the World Bank (Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore andChinese Taipei).  Graduation was introduced in the US scheme as early as 1985, but there remains a
high concentration of imports from a few GSP be neficiaries, as discussed in Section IV, below.
56. Initially, the US GSP scheme had "no strings attached"
43.  The scheme was non-contractual
and autonomous, with the preference giver having the right to withdraw or modify benefits at any
time.  However, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 expanded the number of criteria which beneficiarieshad to meet, so that the USTR was able to use these provisions as a "non-reciprocal tool".  The main
conditions relate to protection of intellectual property, the respect of labour rights, and the resolution
of investment disputes.  No specific mention is  made in the US GSP Handbook of ILO Conventions
or TRIPS, but in a recent case, leading to the exclusion of a country from certain benefits, the USTR
judged that country as not being in compliance with the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  The US law alsoallows the USTR to offer additional benefits to countries that cooperate with the United States.
(These conditions are also taken into account in relation to petitions for waivers under the competitive
needs limitations, below).
57. Competitive needs limitations (CNLs) are the main  restriction in the US scheme other than
the non-eligibility of certain products.  They are intended to prevent the extension of preferential
                                                     
37 UNCTAD, "Quantifying the benefits obtained by developing countries from the Generalized System
of Preferences", Note by the UNCTAD secretariat (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.52 of 7 October 1999)."Product coverage" is the ratio of imports covered by GSP to total dutiable imports from beneficiaries.
38 Idem.
39 The full text is available either on the AGOA website: www.agoa.gov or at the USTR website:
www.ustr.gov
40 WT/COMTD/N/1/Add. 3 of 1 March 2001.
41 WT/COMTD/M/33.
42 UNCTAD, "GSP Handbook on the Scheme of the United States of America",
UNCTAD/ITCS/TSB/Misc.58.
43 Idem .WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 14
treatment to countries that are considered competitive in the production of an item.  Ceilings are set
for each product and country, and with certain qualifications, a country automatically loses its
eligibility for a given product the year following that in which the ceiling is passed.
58. There are two forms of CNLs in the US sche me.  The "upper" CNL, and the most common, is
triggered if during a calendar year imports from a country account for more than half of total US
imports of that product or exceed a certain dollar value that is adjusted annually.  This figure stands at$100 million in 2001, and is scheduled to be increased by $5 million each year.  The "lower" CNL
covers products imported from a specified beneficiary and considered by the US authorities to be
"sufficiently competitive".  For these products, the trigger is 25 per cent or a dollar value set at 40 per
cent of the "upper" CNL.
59. For products that have exceeded the CNLs, the exporter may be excluded permanently
("graduated") from GSP benefits or, if imports fall below the CNL in the subsequent year, the
exporter can have GSP benefits restored, that is, the country can be "redesignated".  Permanentexclusion can result from:  a petition submitted in the previous annual review; by precluding
individually beneficiaries from newly design ated products; or by denying redesignation.
60. There are two ways in which a country can ma intain its GSP benefits for a product when it
has exceeded the CNLs.  It can obtain a de minimis  waiver, a temporary, one-year exception available
only for imports of relatively small amounts ($14.5 million in 1999, adjustable each year).  The otheroption is to obtain a permanent waiver, which is subject to a more detailed review process.  In either
case, the waiver must be on the grounds of "the national economic interest of the United States".
There are no CNLs for LDCs and for AGOA designated beneficiaries..
61. The main rule of origin is that the sum of the cost or value of materials produced in the
beneficiary country plus the direct costs of processing must equal at least 35 per cent of the appraisedf.o.b. value of the article at the time of its entry into the United States.  Imported materials can be
included only if the are "substantially transformed".  Cumulation is allowed within GSP eligible
regional associations up to the 35 per cent appraised value.  Such regional associations are: the
Andean Community, ASEAN (excluding Singapore and Brunei Darussalam), CARICOM, SADC and
the WAEMU.
62. The average utilization rate of the United States' GSP in 1997 by all beneficiaries has been
estimated by UNCTAD as 61.1 per cent (Annex II).  As in other cases, the rates vary enormously,
from 99.6 per cent of covered products from Malawi to zero in a few cases.
IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
A. M
ETHODOLOGY
63. The statistical analysis of the tariff treatment and trade of Canada, the European Union, Japan
and the United States in this section covers the year 1999, the last year for which consistent tariff and
trade data are held at the WTO for the Quad.
64. A detailed description of the definitions and methodology of the study is included in
Annex IV.  The main principle is that trade has been allocated to tariff treatment categories rather than
to country groupings in order to avoid double counting.  Thus:
• If the MFN rate for a country under a particular tariff line covered by GSP is equal to the GSP
rate or is zero, then the imports from that country under that tariff line are attributed to MFN
trade.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 15
• Imports of a particular product from a designated GSP beneficiary where the GSP rate is less
than the MFN rate are treated as GSP trade.
• If a GSP beneficiary is also a participant in a regional trade agreement (RTA) with the donor,
then, if the rate for an individual tariff line is equal to or less than the GSP rate (and lower
than the MFN rate), then all imports from that beneficiary/partner under that line are
attributed to the RTA category.  This approach could overstate RTA and understate GSPtrade.  In the case of the EC where there is no information on preferences in the IDB and
limited information in the UNCTAD TRAINS database, various preference schemes have
been grouped together.  In these cases, where the MFN rate is zero, imports are classified as
MFN;  otherwise they are included in the computations for "other preferential schemes", and,
in any case, not as GSP.   This procedure for the relevant EC partners could understate both
GSP and MFN trade.  In the US, GSP and LDC beneficiaries receive duty-free treatment on
eligible goods, but LDCs have such benefits on a wider range of products.  This is discussedfurther in relation to specific tables.
• If a GSP beneficiary is also an LDC, then imports from the LDC are shown as GSP if the
LDC rate is equal to the GSP rate (and lower th an the MFN rate).  If the LDC rate is lower
than the GSP rate, then the trade is allocate d to the LDC category of treatment.  This is
consistent with the approach of allocating trade according to duty treatment, not to countrygroupings.  This rule understates the amount of GSP trade, which can, however, be computed
by adding together the data under the GSP and LDC categories.  It also understates trade with
LDCs, since it reflects only trade at an LDC rate which is lower than the GSP rate (or for that
matter MFN or RTA rates, if applicable).
• It is possible that exporters eligible for GSP may choose to export a particular shipment under
MFN or RTA provisions because they consider the documentation on rules of origin
requirements for GSP to be excessively onerous or it may be simpler or attract a lower duty to
export under value added provisions, and so on.  However, in the IDB this would be reported
as GSP trade, overstating the use but not the availability of GSP.
• Trade subject to specific rates for which no ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) was available has
been allocated to the main category of the partner, MFN, GSP, RTA, etc. since there is
insufficient information to allow a comparison of the duty values and make an allocation
according to treatment.  (AVEs have been provided by the EC and the US for the lines subject
to non ad valorem  rates, with trade in the IDB).
65. The tables are presented by group of beneficiaries and type of duty treatment.  The country
composition of each group of beneficiaries follows the definition provided by the reporting country in
the reference information accompanying its nationa l submission to the IDB, except in the case of
"Other Preferences" for the EC. The tables cover HS Chapters 1–97.  In Annex Tables I and II the
division between Agricultural and Industrial goods follows the definitions used in WTO tariff
schedules.
66. The name of the reporting country or group, the year of the tariff and trade information and
the total values of imports are given at the beginning of the tables. Tariff lines for which noad valorem  duty or equivalent (AVE) is available, referred to as N.A. items, have been excluded from
the calculations. The total value of imports entering under N.A. items and the number of N.A. tariff
lines are, however reported under the columns titled  "N.A. Imp." and "All Number of lines - N.A.".
67. It should be noted that the definition of GSP groups may differ from country to country.  For
example, Japan considers Zambia as a developing country – and hence a "GSP beneficiary" - not anLDC, whereas the United Nations classifies Zambia in the LDC category. Again, the US considersWT/COMTD/W/93
Page 16
Mauritius to be an LDC, although Mauritius is not in  the UN group.  In the statistical tables below, the
trade flows have been calculated according to the definition of groups submitted to the IDB by the
reporting country, except that the Secretariat has separated the LDCs, as defined by the donor, from
other GSP beneficiaries.  In the case of the EC, the Secretariat has defined an "Other preferences"
group which reflects RTAs maintained by the EC even where partners are also GSP beneficiaries.
68. In the study no account has explicitly been taken of trade under special offshore processing or
value-added provisions, although some such trade may exist under GSP according to the rule of origin
applicable in a donor country.  For example, such trade is shown under separate tariff lines in the
United States and is particularly important for Central America and the Caribbean.
69. UNCTAD publishes average "utilisation rates" for each beneficiary under each GSP scheme,
and these data for 1997 are shown in Annex II for information.44  However, the basis of these
calculations is different from that described above;  thus, although these data on average utilisation
rates may be useful as additional information, they are not comparable with the tariff line levelcomputations in the present study.
 45
70. As will be observed from the UNCTAD data, the utilisation rates are highly variable as
between preference givers and as between benefi ciaries, ranging from zero to 100 per cent.
UNCTAD also computes the extent to which trade is eligible for GSP treatment as a share of imports
in dutiable  items.
B. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
71. Table 2 shows the value of imports in 1999 under different forms of tariff treatment in
Canada, the European Communities, Japan, and the United States.  Starting with MFN imports, the
forms of tariff treatment are shown in descending  order of the value of imports.  Information is
provided on imports under various reciprocal and unilateral preference schemes.  As noted earlier,various preference schemes are grouped together in the case of the EC, so that trade with EEA/EFTA,
CEFTA, Baltic, Maghreb and Mashreq countries, as well as Turkey and the Faroes, are treated as
MFN where the MFN rate is zero;  otherwise imports (and tariff data) from these countries are
included in the computations for other preferential schemes, and, even for developing countries in
these groups, not as GSP.
46  As indicated in the previous section, imports at LDC rates that are lower
than GSP rates  are shown as LDC and not GSP, al though LDC preferences are formally part of GSP.
72. To illustrate how to read the table, Canadian  imports at the GSP rate, less than the MFN rate
and not covered by other schemes, were $4.16 billion or 2 per cent of total imports.  Of these,
$3.12 billion were dutiable and $1.04 billion were duty-free.  Imports of $96.6 million were at
non-zero, non ad valorem  rates for which the ad valorem  equivalent is unknown to the WTO.  The
duty collected, of $173.9 million is computed by multiplying the duty rate value by its related imports
at the tariff line level and summed across the total trade under the form of treatment.  Imports at the
LDC rate, less than the GSP rate, were $7.2 million, or less than 1 per cent.  These were duty-free.
73. As may be observed from the table, imports at GSP rates were $4.16 billion by Canada (2 per
cent of total imports in 1999), $38.22 billion by the EC (5 per cent), $39.88 billion by Japan (15 per
cent), and $16.7 billion (2 per cent) by the United States.  The corresponding imports at the LDC rate
were $7.1 million by Canada, $765.6 million by the EC, $194 million by Japan and $2.35 billion by
                                                     
44 The data are taken from UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.52 of 7 October 1999.
45 For example, in the present study, imports from ACP countries are treated as ACP, and not GSP, if
the rate is less than or equal to the GSP rate;  othe rwise they are treated as GSP (or MFN, as appropriate).
46 South Africa is not treated under "Other preferences", since the EC-SA FTA had not come into effect
in 1999.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 17
the US.  These were all less than 1 per cent of total imports by the respective donors.  As noted
earlier, the United States accords only zero rate fo r GSP beneficiaries, so that "imports from LDCs" in
the table are only those for which LDCs have coverage that is not available to other GSP
beneficiaries.  Otherwise, imports from LDCs on lines for which GSP is generally available are
covered in the GSP line.
Table 2:  Imports by forms of tariff treatment (US$'000), year:  1999
CANADA
World Imports excl. N.A.   207,912,378 World Imports N.A. 907,321
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total
Imp
ShareDutiable Imp. Free Imp. N.A. Imp. Duty
Collected
MFN 119,586,220 58 16,596,986 102,989,234 740,672 1,519,807
Canada-United States under theNorth American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA)80,418,820 39 0 80,418,820 339 0
GSP 4,164,668 2 3,119,032 1,045,635 96,597 173,925
Mexico under the North
American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA)3,394,771 2 1,507,108 1,887,663 12,500 36,028
Australia 118,163 0 14,071 104,092 40,124 1,544
Israel under the Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement(CIFTA)88,002 0 1,261 86,741 701 53
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries53,890 0 18 53,872 0 2
Chile under the Canada-Chile
Free Trade Agreement
(CCFTA)49,142 0 5,364 43,779 12,807 288
New Zealand 31,551 0 4,018 27,533 3,487 139
Least Developed Countries 7,152 0 0 7,152 95 0
JAPAN
World Imports excl. N.A.   266,075,935 World Imports N.A. 38,986,158
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total
Imp.
ShareDutiable Imp. Free Imp. N.A. Imp. Duty
Collected
MFN 226,000,351 85 51,374,062 174,626,288 6,339,516 4,449,190
GSP 39,880,847 15 21,241,758 18,639,089 32,539,318 1,384,559
Least Developed Countries 194,737 0 0 194,737 107,324 0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 18
UNITED STATES
World Imports excl. N.A.   961,811,854 World Imports N.A. 8,912,427
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total
Imp
ShareDutiable Imp. Free Imp. N.A. Imp. Duty
Collected
MFN 744,630,058 77 349,450,889 395,179,169 207,762 19,086,513
CAN/NAFTA 118,613,631 12 0 118,613,631 0
MEX/NAFTA 70,796,752 7 3,591,208 67,205,543 8,702,753 120,914
GSP 16,700,661 2 0 16,700,661 1,624 0
Caribbean Basin EconomicRecovery Act/CBI3,896,744 0 339,259 3,557,486 288 255,745
ISR/FTA 2,924,050 0 0 2,924,050 0
LDC 2,351,927 0 0 2,351,927 0
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)1,898,031 0 25,485 1,872,546 1,526
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
World Imports excl. N.A.   698,978,010 World Imports N.A. 2,526,980
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total
Imp
ShareDutiable Imp. Free Imp. N.A. Imp. Duty
Collected
MFN 516,027,547 74 256,327,256 259,700,291 743,511 18,368,918
Other Preferences 134,040,848 19 122,703,344 11,337,503 967,845 7,590,718
GSP 38,216,249 5 28,603,236 9,613,012 812,190 1,735,006
ACP 9,828,800 1 6,354 9,822,445 3,434 497
LDC 765,568 0 137 765,430 6
74. Table 3 indicates the average tariff rates payable on the imports accorded to the different
forms of tariff treatment.  Again, to illustrate the meaning of different headings by reference to
Canada, the simple average rate on GSP items (where the GSP rate is less than the MFN rate) is
3.0 per cent.  The simple average on dutiable items is 5.0 per cent.  The import-weighted average onall GSP items is 4.2 per cent and on dutiable items is 5.6 per cent.
75. In Canada, the EC and Japan, where the GSP is often a non-zero rate below the MFN rate, the
simple average GSP (and LDC) rate is lower than the simple average MFN rate, whether on all items
or dutiable items, and the import-weighted average on dutiable items is also lower than the
import-weighted MFN average.  In the case of import-weighted averages, however, the GSP rate is
higher on all items in these three markets.  This apparent inversion takes place because imports from
developing countries are often of goods that attract high MFN rates, and the import-weightingprocedure (where GSP rates are set at a margin below MFN rates) gives higher average rates.  This
phenomenon cannot exist in the United States, where the GSP rate is set at zero for qualifying
imports.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 19
Table 3:  Tariff averages by forms of tariff treatment, year 1999
CANADA
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable it ems All items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.49 8.84 1.27 9.16
Canada-United States under theNorth American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GSP 2.89 5.00 4.18 5.58
Mexico under the North
American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA)1.75 5.40 1.06 2.39
Australia 6.06 11.30 1.31 10.98
Israel under the Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA)0.28 5.41 0.06 4.20
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries0.64 8.23 0.00 10.31
Chile under the Canada-Chile
Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA)1.67 7.58 0.59 5.37
New Zealand 5.92 10.41 0.44 3.47
Least Developed Countries 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
JAPAN
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable it ems All items Dutiable
items
MFN 5.28 8.33 1.97 8.66
GSP 2.20 7.21 3.47 6.52
LDC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
UNITED STATES
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average
Duty Treatment All items Dutiable it ems All items Dutiable
items
MFN 5.59 7.96 2.56 5.46
CAN/NAFTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MEX/NAFTA 0.53 4.50 0.17 3.37
GSP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Caribbean Basin EconomicRecovery Act/CBI0.09 11.10 1.43 16.43
ISR/FTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LDC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)0.09 10.96 0.08 5.99WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 20
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average
Duty Treatment All items Dutiable it ems All items Dutiable
items
MFN 7.07 8.69 3.56 7.17
Other Preferences 7.98 8.51 5.66 6.19
GSP 5.23 6.88 4.54 6.07
ACP 0.11 7.37 0.01 7.82
LDC 0.04 7.44 0.00 4.42
76. Table 4 shows the number of tariff lines for which certain forms of tariff treatment are
available.  There are two blocks of columns.  The first block of four columns indicates the number oflines for which the different forms of tariff treatment are available (on the basis of the methodology
described in the previous section, i.e., where the MFN rate is zero, lines are shown as MFN, etc.).
The second block of three columns covers only the lines under which trade takes place.  Within each
block, there is an indication of the total number of such lines, the number which are dutiable, the
number which are duty-free, and, in the case of the first block, the number of lines for whichad valorem  duties or AVEs are not available.  Again to use Canada as an example, and reading across
the GSP row, there are 2,800 lines for which GSP is available, 1,622 lines are duty-free, 1,178 lines
are dutiable and 341 lines are not ad valorem .  There are 2,232 lines under which imports at the GSP
rate are taking place, 1,284 lines for which GSP imports are duty-free, and 948 lines for which GSP
imports are dutiable.
77. Focussing on the area where trade is taking place, GSP imports are taking place under
2,232 lines in Canada, 1,990 lines in the EC, 3,232 lines in Japan, and 2,875 lines in the United States.
In the case of imports at LDC rates, imports are taking place under 406 lines (1,797 available) in
Canada, 431 lines (1,999 available) in the EC, 216 (1,260 available) lines in Japan, and 54 lines
(1,697 available) in the United States.  The lines av ailable for LDC are fewer than those for GSP rates
generally, since these lines only include those for which the LDC rate is lower than the GSP rate
generally in Canada, the EC and Japan.  In the US, the LDC lines are lines on which the zero rate isonly applicable to LDCs, and not to other GSP beneficiaries.
Table 4:  Number of tariff lines by forms of treatment, year 1999
CANADA Year:   1999
Number of lines Number of lines with trade Duty Treatment
Total Dutiable Free N.A. Total Dutiable Free
MFN 7,767 3,990 3,777 405 7,454 3,724 3,730
Canada-United States under
the North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA)4,263 0 4.263 124 4,103 0 4,103
General Preferential Countries 2,800 1,622 1,178 341 2,232 1,284 948
Mexico under the North
American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA)4,117 1,334 2,783 224 2,045 814 1,231
Australia 593 318 275 383 239 154 85
Israel under the Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement(CIFTA)3,938 204 3,734 295 991 31 960WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 21
Number of lines Number of lines with trade Duty Treatment
Total Dutiable Free N.A. Total Dutiable Free
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries3,534 273 3,261 173 443 11 432
Chile under the Canada-Chile
Free Trade Agreement(CCFTA)4,089 902 3,187 250 325 76 249
New Zealand 613 349 264 368 132 80 52
Least Developed Countries 1,797 0 1,797 339 406 0 406
JAPAN
Number of lines Number of lines with trade Duty Treatment
Total Dutiable Free N.A. Total Dutiable Free
MFN 8,425 5,340 3,085 623 7,263 4,331 2,932
GSP 4,257 1,301 2,956 563 3,232 953 2,279
LDC 1,260 0 1,260 514 216 0 216
UNITED STATES
Number of lines Number of lines with trade Duty Treatment
Total Dutiable Free N.A. Total Dutiable Free
MFN 10,155 7,213 2,942 18 9,598 6,693 2,905
CAN/NAFTA 7,012 0 7,012 0 5,078 0 5,078
MEX/NAFTA 6,653 790 5,863 396 3,946 501 3,445
GSP 3,665 0 3,665 8 2,875 0 2,875
Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act/CBI5,867 46 5,821 4 1,728 138 1,590
ISR/FTA 7,012 0 7,012 0 2,114 0 2,114
LDC 1,697 0 1,697 0 54 0 54
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)5,689 47 5,642 4 1,062 27 1,035
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Number of lines Number of lines with trade Duty Treatment
Total Dutiable Free N.A. Total Dutiable Free
MFN 10,105 8,222 1,883 323 9,735 7,879 1,856
Other Preferences 8,237 7,722 515 308 7,819 7,319 500
GSP 2,147 1,632 515 308 1,990 1,511 479
ACP 6,620 102 6,518 265 3,135 38 3,097
LDC 1,999 10 1,989 0 431 1 430
78. Table 5 shows the top 20 GSP beneficiaries in Canada, the EC, Japan and the United States.
As may be observed, there is a considerable concentration of beneficiaries with some broad
similarities among the schemes and certain differences.  The majority of the developing countries
benefitting most are countries which have relatively large and diversified economies, including
substantial manufacturing sectors.  There is a strong representation of East Asian countries and India.China is the leading beneficiary in the schemes of Canada, the EC and Japan, but is excluded from theWT/COMTD/W/93
Page 22
US scheme.  Brazil is the major Latin American beneficiary, while South Africa is the leading African
beneficiary (North African countries being covered by other preferential schemes in the EC where
they might otherwise be larger suppliers than South Africa).   There are no LDCs among the top
20 GSP plus LDC suppliers to the Canadian market .  Bangladesh is the only LDC in the top 20 of
such suppliers to the EC, and Mauritania is the onl y LDC in the top 20 of such suppliers to Japan.
Angola and Democratic Republic of the Congo are among the top 20 suppliers to the US market, withAngola being the third supplier.
Table 5:  GSP top 20 beneficiaries (US$ million), year 1999
CANADA
Total GSP scheme: 4,165
Total Dutiable Free
China 2,087 1,718 369
Korea, Republic of 602 517 85
Thailand 252 201 51
Hong Kong, China 144 114 30
Malaysia 141 92 49
Brazil 136 37 99
India 130 74 56
Indonesia 118 88 30
Philippines 79 66 14
Singapore 56 15 41
Argentina 32 12 20
Poland 32 20 11
Turkey 30 12 19
Cuba 24 0 24
Viet Nam 23 21 2
South Africa 19 9 10
Pakistan 19 11 7
Iran 18 1 17
Peru 18 2 16
Guatemala 17 2 16
JAPAN
Total GSP scheme: 39,881
Total Dutiable Free
China 22,318 15,241 7,077
Korea, Republic of 4,545 1,496 3,050
Chinese Taipei 2,250 280 1,970
Thailand 2,242 1,155 1,087
Indonesia 1,439 421 1,017
Malaysia 1,089 96 993
Philippines 922 540 382
Viet Nam 774 576 198
Brazil 627 199 428
Singapore 450 94 357
Chile 393 49 345
South Africa 372 49 324
India 355 181 174WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 23
Total GSP scheme: 39,881
Total Dutiable Free
Hong Kong, China 327 123 204
Morocco 253 249 4
Mexico 201 74 127
Saudi Arabia 124 0 124
Israel 121 21 100
Ecuador 112 111 2
Peru 70 15 55
UNITED STATES
Total GSP scheme: 16,701
Total Dutiable Free
Thailand 3,257 0 3,257
Brazil 2,787 0 2,787
Indonesia 1,927 0 1,927
India 1,800 0 1,800
Philippines 1,246 0 1,246
Chile 600 0 600
Argentina 586 0 586
Venezuela 555 0 555
Russian Federation 524 0 524
Turkey 515 0 515
South Africa 506 0 506
Poland 365 0 365
Hungary 357 0 357
Czech Republic 297 0 297
Kazakstan 191 0 191
Slovenia 115 0 115
Sri Lanka 98 0 98
Pakistan 87 0 87
Romania 76 0 76
Zimbabwe 76 0 76
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Total GSP scheme: 38,216
Total Dutiable Free
China 12,854 10,275 2,578
India 3,337 2,791 546
Brazil 2,790 1,430 1,360
Indonesia 2,602 2,031 570
Thailand 2,449 2,139 310
Viet Nam 2,047 1,644 403
Malaysia 1,987 1,562 425
South Africa 1,155 799 355
Colombia 876 270 606
Philippines 748 595 154
Russian Federation 741 384 357
Mexico 733 395 338
Argentina 729 591 137
Pakistan 706 688 18WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 24
Total GSP scheme: 38,216
Total Dutiable Free
Chile 502 475 27
Costa Rica 435 290 145
Ecuador 389 348 40
Peru 367 220 147
Guatemala 335 88 247
Saudi Arabia 301 284 17
NOTE:    In 1999 the EU/South Africa Free Trade Agreement had not yet come into force.
79. Tables AI and AII are comparable to Tables 2 and 3, but provide details on trade, rates and
tariff lines by MTN negotiating categories (Agriculture and Industry), as well as summary data for
agriculture and industrial products (MTN definitions).  The main point to note about these tables is the
relative importance of imports of industrial produ cts compared to imports of agricultural products.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
80. Despite the weaknesses of the data, a reasonably clear picture of what is available under the
Quad GSP schemes emerges. The value and share of imports covered by GSP schemes varies
considerably, amounting to around 2 per cent of total imports in Canada and the US in 1999, butbeing around 5 per cent in the EC and 15 per cent in Japan.  The GSP is only one of a number of
different preference schemes, especially in Canada, the EC and the US.  The GSP schemes do not
provide the most advantageous form of tariff trea tment, except in the US, where all eligible items
receive duty-free treatment.   The variety of preferences has increased over the years, particularly
within the framework of RTAs, and MFN tariffs ha ve fallen considerably over eight rounds of
multilateral trade negotiations.  These changes have diminished the usefulness of the original GSP
preferences, but have to some extent been offset by improvements in GSP benefits.
81. On the basis of the information in this study, and to help focus the debate on the benefits of
GSP, a number of questions might usefully be posed about the value of GSP.
82. How valid were the premises underlying the GSP and do they still hold? To what extent
has GSP achieved its original objectives?  How much has the GSP contributed to development?
Early documents show that the GSP was originally conceived as a temporary measure "to prevent or
rectify the structural imbalance of [developing countries'] trade" and "will gradually have to
disappear".
47  The focus was clearly on the development of manufactured exports as a complement to
import-substitution industrialisation policies, and this explains the relatively low coverage of
agricultural products in GSP schemes.  Recent work at the WTO has shown that the developing
countries have increased their share of world merchandise trade from some 20 per cent in 1973 to 28per cent in 1999.
48  However, this compares poorly with the share of some 33 per cent in 1947 (based
on a much lower value of trade and pre-dating the major liberalisation in the 1950s and 1960s in
developed markets).  Moreover, there is considerable divergence in the performance of different
groups of countries, with the main growth taking place in China and other East Asian countries which
have succeeded in diversifying their economies to wards manufactures.  However, "economies which
have remained tied to exports of raw materials, or to agricultural products (with a few notable
exceptions such as Chile) have lagged behind both in overall trade development and in international
                                                     
47 UNCTAD, "Towards a New Trade Policy for Development", E/CONF.46/3 (1964).
48 WTO, "Participation of developing countries in world trade: recent developments, and trade of the
least-developed countries", Note by the Secretariat (WTO document WT/COMTD/W/65 of 15 February 2000).WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 25
integration".49  This includes notably the LDCs whose overall share in world trade has been
decreasing slightly.  Research also shows that import-substitution industrialisation policies have had a
negative effect on primary production and hence on the rural poor.50  The limited preferences in
agriculture (and the maintenance of relatively high agricultural support in major markets) could well
have similar effects.
83. Given the high MFN rates that continue to exist in areas of export interest to developing
countries, preferences clearly have had some value.  The aforementioned trends in trade suggest that
the focus on manufactures appears to have some validity, but there also appears to have been a
downside through negative effects on agriculture and rural communities in developing countries.
These negative effects could be offset by extending GSP coverage of agricultural products, in
particular processed goods.  This is why it is important to consider whether the validity of the early
emphasis on manufactures still holds.
84. To what extent have the benefits of GSP been captured by relatively few developing
countries with adequate supply capabilities? Have graduation schemes, whether of entire
countries or of certain products, served the objectives of development by transmitting benefits
to smaller developing countries?  Or, has graduation, by eliminating the more competitive
suppliers, served the commercial interests of enterprises in preference giving countries?   What
is the right balance between efforts to improve the supply capability of developing countries and
efforts such as GSP to improve market access opportunities?  The study shows that a large share
of trade under GSP benefits is sourced from relatively few countries.  This fact has been used to
support graduation of countries whose income levels have grown or of certain exports which are said
to be competitive or sensitive, but the concentration among beneficiaries remains, perhaps because of
the greater supply capacity among larger developing country exporters.  To the extent that graduationor competitive needs limitations is a valid way of spreading the benefits to more needy countries,
there may be a case for a more uniform approach among donors in establishing objective and
transparent criteria for graduation of countries or products from specific exporters.  It might also be
useful to standardise the treatment of sensitive items, and the Canadian approach of referring to
standard WTO safeguard procedures has obvious merits in the WTO system, although it may implyheavier administrative costs than more arbitrary approaches.
85. In looking at the effects of GSP on development, it might be useful to study further the effects
on beneficiary countries:  although imports from a beneficiary may have a small share of a the market
of the preference giver, it would be appropriate also  to look at the importance of that trade in the
production and exports of the beneficiaries.
86. The statistical analysis shows that, in countries where the GSP rate is set at a preferential level
below MFN, but not necessarily at zero, the import-weighted average on all items was higher than the
average rate on MFN trade.  As commented, this is because developing countries exports are often
concentrated in areas with high MFN tariffs, while developed countries tend to export items subject to
low MFN tariffs.  The question arises whether development would be better served by bound
MFN tariff reductions on key products of export interest to developing countries, adding to the
security of access, e.g. as was done on tropical products in the Uruguay Round (although the
coverage of processed goods tended to be low) or under the ITA.   As noted earlier, one of the
problems is that GSP preferences are unilaterally granted and may be unilaterally withdrawn.  Such
withdrawals have been made by graduation of individual countries and through exclusions for specific
products.  Moreover, the value of preferences is eroded through tariff reductions on an MFN basis in
the context of multilateral negotiations and in RTAs.  For this reason, some developing countries have
                                                     
49 Idem .
50 Anne Krueger, Maurice Schiff and Alberto Valdez, "Agricultural Incentives in Developing Countries:
Measuring the Effects of Sectoral and Economy-wide Policies", World Bank Economic Review Vol.2 No.7, 1988.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 26
argued for the binding of GSP rates or preferen tial margins, which could limit future MFN tariff
reductions on affected products or at least set parameters for such negotiations.  Where developing
countries are the key exporters, it is likely that preferences under GSP could largely be transformed
into bound MFN cuts, with minimal consequences for the direction of trade while offering greater
security of access and lower administrative costs.
87. Could GSP schemes be better designed?  Could they be improved in terms of coverage,
security and simplicity of use?   If MFN reductions on key products of export interest to developing
countries are not forthcoming, then there remains a place for preferences as a second-best approach,
and the trade data show the usefulness of GSP.  Ho wever, as recognised in the recent EC proposals,
there would seem to be scope for increasing transparency, simplifying the procedures, easing rules of
origin – including extending the possibility of  cumulation across GSP beneficiaries, deepening
preferences or setting GSP rates at zero, extending coverage, and increasing security by putting
preferences into a longer term framework.  Experience with the Japanese scheme shows that stabilityand predictability is associated with higher utilisation ratios.
88. Have the GSP schemes met the criteria of "generalised, non-reciprocal and non-
discriminatory"?  These are the words from the WTO legal texts (the 1971 waiver, cited in the
Enabling Clause), which have never been clarified or the subject of a dispute settlement.  As shown
above, the early discussion on the idea of a GSP scheme in UNCTAD clearly envisaged some sort oflimitations on the scheme and the possibility of transferring benefits from those countries which had
successfully used GSP to other developing countries.   This idea has been widely applied in practice in
relation to graduation and the competitive needs' exclusions, whatever is said in the legal texts.  The
ambiguous situation with respect to definition of the terms of the 1971 waiver and of developing
countries raises the question as to what extent a scheme which does not cover "all developingcountries" is "non-discriminatory" under the Enabling Clause.  Apart from the special provisions for
LDCs, for which the Enabling Clause provides legal cover, how selective do preferences have to be in
order to require a waiver from Article I?
89. Similarly, if all products are not covered, is the scheme "generalised" within the meaning of
the Enabling Clause?  To what extent do the requirements by preference givers that beneficiaries mustfulfill certain conditions, including in relation to non-trade concerns,  meet the criterion of "non-
reciprocity"?  If special incentives or penalties, requiring the fulfilment of conditions by the
beneficiary, are applicable to a sub-group of GSP beneficiaries other than LDCs that meet the
conditions, are these covered by the Enabling Clause?  To what extent would it be wiser to use other
tools than trade preferences – e.g. targeted aid, structural adjustment programmes or technicalassistance - to achieve desirable social goals?
90. Have notification requirements been fully met or could they be improved?  Is there a
need for improved monitoring of the schemes?   The difficulties in the preparation of this document
from WTO source material suggest that there is a need for improvement in notifications and in
statistical reporting.  UNCTAD has additional information on GSP preferences, but more limited
information on RTAs.  Improved notification and reporting procedures would increase transparency
by permitting better monitoring of the schemes by Members, as well as allowing for possiblesuggestions for improvements and enhanced targetting.
91. In conclusion, the present study has been a preliminary attempt by the WTO Secretariat to
provide an introductory picture of the GSP on the basis of information on the origins of GSP, brief
descriptions of four major GSP schemes and a basic statistical analysis of the schemes of the Quad.
This could be extended to other GSP schemes, and the work could be carried out with greaterprecision if more comprehensive information were available on different forms of preferences,
limitations of the schemes, and so on.  The present study does not attempt any rigorous economic
analysis of the effects of GSP.  Such an anal ysis would require some kind of economic model or,WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 27
possibly, case studies in beneficiary countries.  As regards a modelling approach, it would be possible
to make computations of the first round trade effe cts of GSP (trade creation and trade diversion) by
using a partial equilibrium model at the most detailed tariff line level.  A broader analysis could be
undertaken using national or global general equilibrium modelling techniques.  Such an approach
would permit the computation of trade creation and trade diversion only for broad sectors and country
groupings;  but it would also permit the analysis of a wider range of economic effects, such as onGDP and economic welfare.  However, most available models – partial or general equilibrium – have
certain weaknesses in relation to the analysis of the dynamic effects and the handling of economies of
scale and intra-industry trade.  Nevertheless, there have been studies of this kind in the past and such
work could be carried out if Members considered this worthwhile and were willing to collaborate in
providing the necessary information and resources.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 28
TABLE  AI:
M.T.N. CATEGORIES OF TRADE IMPORTS BY FORMS OF TREATMENT
(US$'000), YEAR 1999
CANADA
Agricultural Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 10,232,091 World Imports N.A. 802,585
Duty Treatment Total
Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 6,251,780 61 493,167 5,758,614 691,406
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 3,474,946 34 0 3,474,946 339
GSP 240,033 2 97,164 142,868 44,598
Australia 103,581 1 3,348 100,233 40,060
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 66,655 1 9,890 56,765 9,108
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 34,897 0 4,677 30,219 12,807
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries30,653 0 0 30,653 0
New Zealand 26,071 0 154 25,916 3,485
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 3,211 0 1,261 1,950 701
LDCs 265 0 0 265 82
Industrial Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 197,680,287 World Imports N.A. 104,737
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 113,334,439 57 16,103,820 97,230,620 49,266
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 76,943,874 39 0 76,943,874 0
GSP 3,924,635 2 3,021,868 902,767 51,999
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 3,328,116 2 1,497,218 1,830,897 3,392
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 84,791 0 0 84,791 0
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries23,237 0 18 23,219 0
Australia 14,582 0 10,723 3,859 64
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 14,246 0 686 13,560 0
LDCs 6,887 0 0 6,887 0
New Zealand 5,480 0 3,864 1,616 2WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 29
CANADA
All Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 207,912,378 World Imports N.A. 907,321
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 119,586,220 58 16,596,986 102,989,234 740,672
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 80,418,820 39 0 80,418,820 339
GSP 4,164,668 2 3,119,032 1,045,635 96,597
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 3,394,771 2 1,507,108 1,887,663 12,500
Australia 118,163 0 14,071 104,092 40,124
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 88,002 0 1,261 86,741 701
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries53,890 0 18 53,872 0
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 49,142 0 5,364 43,779 12,807
New Zealand 31,551 0 4,018 27,533 3,487
LDCs 7,152 0 0 7,152 95
JAPAN
Agricultural Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 29,965,348 World Imports N.A. 5,737,790
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 25,806,893 86 15,067,923 10,738,970 5,178,607
GSP 4,155,372 14 2,805,032 1,350,339 559,140
LDCs 3,084 0 0 3,084 43
Industrial Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 236,110,587 World Imports N.A. 33,248,368
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 200,193,458 85 36,306,139 163,887,319 1,160,909
GSP 35,725,475 15 18,436,726 17,288,750 31,980,178
LDCs 191,654 0 0 191,654 107,280WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 30
All Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 266,075,935 World Imports N.A. 38,986,158
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A. Imp.
MFN 226,000,351 85 51,374,062 174,626,288 6,339,516
GSP 39,880,847 15 21,241,758 18,639,089 32,539,318
LDCs 194,737 0 0 194,737 107,324
UNITED STATES
Agricultural Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 37,669,121 World Imports N.A. 2,592,328
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free
Imp.N.A.
Imp.
MFN 26,475,248 70 12,652,734 13,822,51
4194,083
CAN/NAFTA 6,206,540 16 0 6,206,540 0
MEX/NAFTA 1,601,718 4 104,816 1,496,902 2,396,771
Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act/CBI1,298,273 3 0 1,298,273 0
GSP 1,274,905 3 0 1,274,905 1,473
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)659,088 2 0 659,088 0
ISR/FTA 100,807 0 0 100,807 0
LDC 52,541 0 0 52,541 0
Industrial Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 924,142,733 World Imports N.A. 6,320,100
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A.
Imp.
MFN 718,154,810 78 336,798,155 381,356,655 13,679
CAN/NAFTA 112,407,091 12 0 112,407,091 0
MEX/NAFTA 69,195,034 7 3,486,393 65,708,641 6,305,981
GSP 15,425,756 2 0 15,425,756 151
ISR/FTA 2,823,243 0 0 2,823,243 0
Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act/CBI2,598,471 0 339,259 2,259,211 288
LDC 2,299,386 0 0 2,299,386 0
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)1,238,943 0 25,485 1,213,458 0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 31
All Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 961,811,854 World Imports N.A. 8,912,427
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A.
Imp.
MFN 744,630,058 77 349,450,889 395,179,169 207,762
CAN/NAFTA 118,613,631 12 0 118,613,631 0
MEX/NAFTA 70,796,752 7 3,591,208 67,205,543 8,702,753
GSP 16,700,661 2 0 16,700,661 1,624
Caribbean Basin EconomicRecovery Act/CBI3,896,744 0 339,259 3,557,484 288
ISR/FTA 2,924,050 0 0 2,924,050 0
LDC 2,351,927 0 0 2,351,927 0
Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)1,898,031 0 25,485 1,872,546 0
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Agricultural Products
World Import excl. N.A. 49,357,347 World Imports N.A. 2,508,488
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A.
Imp.
MFN 28,268,712 57 14,044,187 14,224,525 742,260
GSP 9,432,729 19 5,160,034 4,272,695 811,767
Other Preferences 5,880,617 12 5,443,649 436,968 951,038
ACP 5,764,117 12 6,354 5,757,763 3,423
LDCs 11,172 0 137 11,035 0
Industrial Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 649,521,664 World Imports N.A. 18,492
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A.
Imp.
MFN 487,758,835 75 242,283,069 245,475,766 1,251
Other Preferences 128,160,231 20 117,259,695 10,900,536 16,807
GSP 28,783,520 4 23,443,202 5,340,317 423
ACP 4,064,682 1 0 4,064,682 11
LDCs 754,395 0 0 754,395 0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 32
All Products
World Imports excl. N.A. 698,879,010 World Imports N.A. 2,526,980
Duty Treatment Total Imp.
excl. N.A.Total Imp.
ShareDutiable
Imp.Free Imp. N.A.
Imp.
MFN 516,027,547 74 256,327,256 259,700,291 743,511
Other Preferences 134,040,848 19 122,703,344 11,337,503 967,845
GSP 38,216,249 5 28,603,236 9,613,012 812,190
ACP 9,828,800 1 6,354 9,822,445 3,434
LDCs 765,568 0 137 765,430 0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 33
TABLE AII:
TARIFF  AVERAGES BY M.T.N. CATEGORIES
AND FORMS OF TARIFF TREATMENT
(%) – YEAR:  1999
CANADA
Agricultural Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.66 10.07 0.63 7.96
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GSP 3.71 5.27 1.80 4.44
Australia 2.41 6.79 0.23 7.02
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 0.48 6.07 0.72 4.86
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 0.62 5.74 0.63 4.69
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
New Zealand 2.01 6.43 0.04 6.78
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 2.62 5.45 1.65 4.20
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.52 8.68 1.31 9.19
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GSP 2.79 4.96 4.32 5.61
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 1.98 5.38 1.07 2.37
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 0.02 4.79 0.00 0.00
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries0.79 8.23 0.01 10.31
Australia 6.62 11.73 8.98 12.21
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 1.86 7.72 0.48 9.97
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
New Zealand 6.65 10.78 2.35 3.33WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 34
All Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.49 8.84 1.27 9.16
Canada-United States (NAFTA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GSP 2.89 5.00 4.18 5.58
Canada-Mexico (NAFTA) 1.75 5.40 1.06 2.39
Australia 6.06 11.30 1.31 10.98
Canada-Israel (CIFTA) 0.28 5.41 0.06 4.20
Commonwealth Caribbean
Countries0.64 8.23 0.00 10.31
Canada-Chile (CCFTA) 1.67 7.58 0.59 5.37
New Zealand 5.92 10.41 0.44 3.47
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
JAPAN
Agricultural Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 11.86 15.25 10.28 17.60
GSP 6.87 12.74 8.43 12.49
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 3.92 6.49 0.90 4.95
GSP 1.64 5.92 2.89 5.61
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
All Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 5.28 8.33 1.97 8.66
GSP 2.20 7.21 3.47 6.52
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 35
UNITED STATES
Agricultural Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 10.43 13.02 1.96 4.10
CAN/NAFTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MEX/NAFTA 0.38 6.44 0.41 6.19
Caribbean Basin Economic RecoveryAct/CBI0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GSP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ISR/FTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LDC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.68 6.76 2.59 5.51
CAN/NAFTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MEX/NAFTA 0.56 4.36 0.17 3.28
GSP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ISR/FTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act /CBI0.11 11.10 2.15 16.43
LDC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) 0.11 10.96 0.12 5.99
All Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 5.59 7.96 2.56 5.46
CAN/NAFTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MEX/NAFTA 0.53 4.50 0.17 3.37
GSP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Caribbean Basin Economic RecoveryAct/CBI0.09 11.10 1.43 16.43
ISR/FTA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LDC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) 0.09 10.96 0.08 5.99WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 36
EUROPEAN COMMUNITES
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 18.49 21.86 21.77 43.82
GSP 7.93 9.70 4.62 8.45
Other Preferences 20.43 22.32 17.70 19.12
ACP 0.74 7.37 0.01 7.82
LDCs 0.09 7.44 0.05 4.42
Industrial Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 4.58 5.67 2.50 5.04
Other Preferences 5.09 5.40 5.11 5.59
GSP 3.87 5.30 4.51 5.54
ACP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LDCs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
All Products
Simple Tariff Average Weighted Average Duty Treatment
All items Dutiable
itemsAll items Dutiable
items
MFN 7.07 8.69 3.56 7.17
Other Preferences 7.98 8.51 5.66 6.19
GSP 5.23 6.88 4.54 6.07
ACP 0.11 7.37 0.01 7.82
LDCs 0.04 7.44 0.00 4.42WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 37
ANNEX I
List of notifications to GATT and WTO relatin g to the Generalized System of Preferences
made by the Canada, the European Communities, Japan and the United States51
CANADA
L/4027 14 May 1974 Original notification
L/4027/Add.1 7 June 1974 Text of the legislation
L/4027/Add.2 11 January 1975 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.3 30 September 1975 Extension of withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.4 14 July 1976 Extension of withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.5 20 September 1976 Details on duty-free treatment of certain products
L/4027/Add.6 7 December 1976 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.7 14 January 1977 Details on duty-free treatment of certain products
L/4027/Add.8 18 February 1977 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.9 23 September 1977 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.10 28 September 1977 Changes to the list of products and tariffs
L/4027/Add.11 16 January 1979 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.12 23 January 1980 Changes to the list of products and beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.13 15 February 1980 Changes to the tariff
L/4027/Add.14 5 November 1980 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.15 19 June 1981 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.16 21 January 1982 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.17 24 November 1983 Designation of LDCs
L/4027/Add.18 16 August 1984 Extension of scheme for 10 years
L/4027/Add.19 23 August 1984 Global cumulative origin among beneficiaries
L/4027/Add.20 1 November 1984 LDC designation
L/4027/Add.21 23 May 1985 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.22 20 June 1985 Inclusion of products
L/4027/Add.23 12 June 1986 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.24 6 March 1987 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.25 18 October 1988 Withdrawal of products
L/4027/Add.26 12 May 1992 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
WT/COMTD/N/15 7 December 2000 Improvements for LDCs
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L/3550 16 July 1971 Original notification
L/3671 7 February 1972 Application of the GSP in 1972
L/3954 16 November 1973 Application of the GSP in 1973
L/4000 14 March 1974 Application of the GSP in 1974
L/4161 27 March 1975 Application of the GSP in 1975
L/4161/Add.1 27 March 1975 Definition of the concept of originating products
L/4161/Add.2 12 June 1975 Application of the GSP from 1 July 1975 to
31st December 1975
L/4282 24 December 1975 Application of the GSP in 1976
L/4282/Add.1 20 January 1976 Definition of the concept of originating products
L/4282/Add.2 5 October 1976 Changes to the list of products
L/4468 20 January 1977 Application of the GSP in 1977 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
                                                     
51 This Annex is most probably incomplete.  Indications of omitted notifications would be appreciated
by the Secretariat.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 38
L/4804 9 May 1979 Application of the GSP in 1979 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
L/4804/Add.1 25 February 1980 Application of the GSP in 1980 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
L/5116 24 February 1981 Application of the GSP in 1981 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
L/5116/Add.1 17 February 1982 Application of the GSP in 1982 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
L/5116/Add.2 24 March 1983 Application of the GSP in 1983 and the definition of
the concept of originating products
L/5116/Add.3 8 August 1983 Application of the GSP in 1983
L/5116/Add.4 22 February 1984 Application of the GSP in 1984
L/5116/Add.5 14 February 1985 Application of the GSP in 1985
L/5116/Add.6 27 May 1986 Application of the GSP in 1986
L/5116/Add.7 10 March 1988 Application of the GSP in 1988
L/5116/Add.8 14 March 1988 Application of the GSP in 1988
L/5116/Add.9 23 May 1991 Application of the GSP in 1991
L/5116/Add.10 8 April 1992 Application of the GSP in 1992
L/7326 29 November 1993 Application of the GSP in 1993
WT/COMTD/N/4 30 June 1995 Application of a four-year scheme of generalized tariff
preferences in respect of certain industrial productsoriginating in developing c ountries and the extension
into 1995 of the application of generalized tariffpreferences in respect of certain agricultural productsoriginating in developing countries
WT/COMTD/N/4/Corr.1 25 September 1995 Corrigendum
WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.1 6 November 1998 Special incentive arrangements concerning labour rights
and environmental protection.
JAPAN
L/3559 20 August 1971 Original notification
L/3559/Corr.1 11 August 1971 Corrections to the original
L/3691 14 April 1972 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/3691/Add.1 18 April 1972 Precision as to the list of beneficiaries
L/3691/Add.2 28 June 1972 Changes to the list of beneficiaries and the product
ceiling quotas
L/3691/Add.2/Corr.1 9 August 1972 Corrigendum
L/3691/Add.2/Corr.2 22 November 1972 Corrigendum
L/3691/Add.3 16 August 1972 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/3691/Add.4 1 November 1972 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/3876 6 August 1973 Modifications for the 1973 fiscal year
L/3876/Add.1 18 April 1974 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/3876/Add.2 4 June 1974 Modifications for the 1974 fiscal year
L/3876/Add.3 22 May 1975 Modifications for the 1975 fiscal year
L/4397 5 November 1976 Modifications for the 1976 fiscal year
L/4397/Add.1 24 November 1976 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/4531 11 August 1977 Modifications for the 1977 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.1 13 July 1978 Modifications for the 1978 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.2 9 July 1980 Modifications for the 1980 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.3 14 July 1981 Modifications for the 1981 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.4 1 November 1982 Modifications for the 1982 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.5 26 May 1983 Modifications for the 1983 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.6 21 June 1984 Modifications for the 1984 fiscal yearWT/COMTD/W/93
Page 39
L/4531/Add.7 27 August 1984 Modifications for the 1984 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.8 12 July 1985 Modifications for the 1985 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.9 1 August 1985 Import data for fiscal year 1984
L/4531/Add.10 23 September 1985 Modifications for the 1985 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.11 25 September 1985 Modifications for the 1996 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.12 21 May 1986 Modifications for the 1986 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.13 13 June 1986 Import data for fiscal year 1985
L/4531/Add.14 29 January 1987 Modifications in industrial products for fiscal year
1987
L/4531/Add.15 6 July 1987 Modifications for the 1987 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.16 14 April 1988 Modifications for the 1987 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.17 3 June 1988 Import data for fiscal year 1986
L/4531/Add.18 16 May 1989 Modifications for the 1989 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.19 13 December 1989 Import data for fiscal year 1987
L/4531/Add.20 10 May 1990 Modifications for the 1990 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.21 25 July 1990 Import data for fiscal year 1989
L/4531/Add.22 23 May 1991 Modifications for the 1991 fiscal year
L/4531/Add.23 11 June 1991 Import data for fiscal year 1990
L/4531/Add.24 30 September 1991 Modifications for the 1991 fiscal year
L/4809 15 August 1979 Consolidated information on Japan's GSP scheme as of
1 April 1979
L/7035 3 July 1992 Import data for fiscal year 1991/92
L/7035/Add.1 7 May 1993 Modifications for the 1993 fiscal year
L/7035/Add.2 12 November 1993 Improvement in the Rules of Origin
L/7035/Add.3 26 April 1994 Ceilings for fiscal year 1994
L/7035/Add.4 13 July 1994 Import data for fiscal year 1993
L/7035/Add.4/Corr.1 20 July 1994 Corrigendum
WT/COMTD/N/2 17 May 1995 Record of Japan's import under GSP for fiscal year
1996
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.1 29 June 1995 Import data for fiscal year 1994
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.2 13 June 1996 Modifications for the 1996 fiscal year
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.3 5 July 1996 Import data for fiscal year 1996
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.4 1 May 1997 Modifications for the 1997 fiscal year
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.5 22 July 1997 Import data for fiscal year 1997
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.6 26 November 1997 Transmission of Handbook of Japan's GSP for the
fiscal year 1997
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.7 10 June 1998 Modifications for the 1998 fiscal year
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.8 2 August 1999 Modifications for the 1998 fiscal year
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.9 21 June 2000 Modifications for the 2000 fiscal year
WT/COMTD/29 5 February 2001 Proposed reform to Japan's GSP scheme in favour of
LDCs
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.10 4 May 2001 Modifications for the 2001 fiscal year
UNITED STATES
L/4299 13 February 1976 Original notification
L/4299/Add.1 2 July 1976 Changes to products and beneficiaries
L/4299/Add.2 5 July 1976 Instructions for completion of certificate of origin
(Form A)
L/4299/Add.3 11 October 1976 Changes to products and beneficiaries
L/4299/Add.4 20 December 1976 Changes to the ru les for designating GSP beneficiaries
(terrorism)
L/4299/Add.5 22 April 1977 Changes to the list of products and regulations for the
usage of GSPWT/COMTD/W/93
Page 40
L/4299/Add.6 2 May 1977 Revision to the procedures for using GSP benefits
L/4299/Add.7 28 October 1977 Procedures fo r request for product additions and
changes in the list of eligible products
L/4299/Add.8 19 April 1978 Changes to the list of products
L/4299/Add.9 18 July 1978 Changes to the list of products and beneficiaries
L/4299/Add.10 14 June 1979 Changes to the list of products
L/4299/Add.11 28 April 1981 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153 29 May 1981 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.1 16 June 1982 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.2 30 May 1983 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.3 30 May 1984 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.4 23 November 1984 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.5 14 November 1985 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.6 10 June 1986 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.7 23 June 1986 Changes in products and beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.8 5 February 1987 Proposed conversion of the GSP Scheme to the
Harmonized System Tariff Nomenclature
L/5153/Add.9 22 June 1987 Annual changes
L/5153/Add.10 10 October 1988 Annual changes
L/5153/Add.11 21 February 1990 Annual changes/extension for 1989
L/5153/Add.12 4 May 1990 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.13 10 May 1991 Changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.14 30 May 1991 Summary of changes
L/5153/Add.15 7 August 1991 Waiver of competitive needs limits for two (certain)
beneficiaries
L/5153/Add.16 25 May 1992 Changes in the list of beneficiaries
L/7074 4 September 1992 Extension and changes to the list of beneficiaries
L/7074/Add.1 27 September 1993 Extension of the GSP scheme for 1994
L/7074/Add.2 23 November 1993 Extension of the list of beneficiaries
L/7074/Add.3 28 March 1994 Extension of the list of beneficiaries
WT/COMTD/N/1 28 February 1995 Extension of the GSP scheme for 1995
WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.1 19 April 1995 Extension of the list of beneficiaries
WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.2 8 December 1998 Additional items for GSP treatment for LDCs
WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3 1 March 2001 Extension of new GSP benefits for Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA) beneficiariesWT/COMTD/W/93
Page 41
ANNEX II
GSP IMPORTS AND UTILIZATION BY BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES
Reporter:  CANADA
Year:  1997;  imports in thousands US$
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 67 8 9
Afghanistan LDC 590 82 66 0 80.5 0.0 0.0
Algeria 440,771 38 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Angola LDC 58 0 0 0 . . .
Argentina 160,673 84,970 52,476 35,441 61.8 67.5 41.7
Armenia 79 58 21 21 36.2 100.0 36.2
Aruba 821 1 1 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Azerbaijan 120 56 56 13 100.0 23.2 23.2
Bahrain 1,726 1,222 2 0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Bangladesh LDC 41,115 30,177 3,373 1,902 11.2 56.4 6.3
Belarus 895 339 147 54 43..4 36.7 15.9
Benin LDC 4 1 1 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
B h u t a n L D C 4 1 3 1 1 03 . 20 . 00 . 0
Bolivia 11,047 331 163 138 49.2 84.7 41.7
Botswana 1,127 1,123 19 0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Br. Ind. Oc. Tr. 161 8 8 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Brazil 946,873 410,009 207,122 130,445 50.5 63.0 31.8
Brunei Darsm 32 9 1 0 11.1 0.0 0.0
Burkina Faso LDC 10 10 10 5 100.0 50.0 50.0
Burundi LDC 86 0 0 0 . . .
Cambodia LDC 3,014 2,720 45 33 1.7 73.3 1.2
Cameroon 5,507 419 117 68 27.9 58.1 16.2
Cape Verde LDC 45 13 8 5 61.5 62.5 38.5
Cent. Afr. Rep LDC 159 2 1 0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Chad LDC 46 41 41 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Chile 224,311 68,820 31,128 28,681 45.2 92.1 41.7
China 4,526,960 2,774,844 1,795,848 1,405,374 64.7 78.3 50.6
Christmasis 0 0 0 0 . . .
Cocos Is. 4 3 2 0 66.7 0.0 0.0
Colombia 216,617 49,331 16,431 10,049 33.3 61.2 20.4
Comoros LDC 28 0 0 0 . . .
Congo 5,580 4 4 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Cook Is. 55 0 0 0 . . .
Costa Rica 132,782 30,734 15,862 11,001 51.6 69.4 35.8
Cote d'Ivoire 44,620 640 594 148 92.8 24.9 23.1
Croatia 7,216 5,266 3,556 2,279 67.5 64.1 43.3
Cuba 255,101 42,956 36,717 36,251 85.5 98.7 84.4
Cyprus 848 484 177 63 36.6 35.6 13.0
Djibouti LDC 3 0 0 0 . . .
Dominica 998 574 427 143 74.4 33.5 24.9
Dominican Rp 78,455 31,843 11,094 3,179 34.8 28.7 10.0
Ecuador 100,214 10,148 3,198 2,161 31.5 67.6 21.3WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 42
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 67 8 9
Egypt 20,926 18,419 4,865 4,194 26.4 86.2 22.8
El Salvador 31,710 12,579 3,184 1,426 25.3 44.8 11.3
Eq. Guinea LDC 68 0 0 0 . . .
Eritrea 59 0 0 0 . . .
Estonia 6,556 1,983 1,290 1,054 65.1 81.7 53.2
Ethiopia LDC 5,279 14 14 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Falkland Is. 0 0 0 0 . . .
Fiji 1,769 407 294 252 72.2 85.7 61.9
Fr. Polynesia 489 43 31 8 72.1 25.8 18.6
Gabon 70 13 10 0 76.9 0.0 0.0
Gambia LDC 98 45 45 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Georgia 322 60 56 0 93.3 0.0 0.0
Ghana 9,164 181 166 32 91.7 19.3 17.7
Gibraltar 62 35 32 0 91.4 0.0 0.0
Guam 1,032 70 57 53 81.4 93.0 75.7
Guatemala 95,870 34,849 26,411 24,948 75.8 94.5 71.6
Guinea LDC 18,833 14 6 0 42.9 0.0 0.0
Guinea Bissau LDC 127 0 0 0 . . .
Haiti LDC 3,055 1,631 524 184 32.1 35.1 11.3
Honduras 38,946 17,272 2,506 621 14.5 24.8 3.6
Hong Kong 905,788 533,681 192,016 76,381 36.0 39.8 14.3
India 425,671 231,719 128,280 102,793 55.4 80.1 44.4
Indonesia 581,192 309,696 134,075 104,316 43.3 77.8 33.7
Iraq 95,701 7 7 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Jordan 607 294 50 14 17.0 28.0 4.8
Kazakhstan 5,282 4,961 32 32 0.6 100.0 0.6
Kenya 12,961 592 578 365 97.6 63.1 61.7
Kiribati LDC 1 0 . 0 . . .
Korea Rep 2,024,599 924,844 686,444 397,596 74.2 57.9 43.0
Kuwait 1,425 1,371 18 0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Kyrgyzstan 80 75 2 0 2.7 0.0 0.0
Lao P. Dem. R. LDC 5,703 1,147 51 3 4.4 5.9 0.3
Latvia 1,574 504 384 172 76.2 44.8 34.1
Lebanon 4,074 2,048 1,520 1,348 74.2 88.7 65.8
Lesotho LDC 4,020 4,020 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Liberia LDC 26 21 21 18 100.0 85.7 85.7
Lithuania 15,954 3,055 873 753 28.6 86.3 24.6
Macau 39,929 32,632 2,170 453 6.6 20.9 1.4
Macedonia 3,297 3,191 646 0 20.2 0.0 0.0
Madagascar LDC 4,149 502 216 90 43.0 41.7 17.9
Malawi LDC 2,125 676 517 491 76.5 95.0 72.6
Malaysia 1,351,774 289,027 266,136 151,207 92.1 56.8 52.3
Maldives LDC 142 137 2 0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Mali LDC 9,902 179 171 0 95.5 0.0 0.0
Marshall Is. 5 0 0 0 . . .
Mauritania LDC 77 25 3 0 12.0 0.0 0.0
Mauritius 6,004 4,685 206 94 4.4 45.6 2.0
Mexico 2,978,018 152,610 122,678 1,954 80.4 1.6 1.3
Micronesia 160 160 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Morocco 47,394 5,322 1,451 877 27.3 60.4 16.5WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 43
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 67 8 9
Mozambique LDC 840 37 7 0 18.9 0.0 0.0
N.E.S. 618 613 613 611 100.0 99.7 99.7
Namibia 11,974 48 46 0 95.8 0.0 0.0
Nauru 36 21 20 0 95.2 0.0 0.0
Nepal LDC 3,886 3,154 1,040 540 33.0 51.9 17.1
Neth. Antiles 4,664 44 41 0 93.2 0.0 0.0
New Caledonia 1,395 31 26 0 83.9 0.0 0.0
Nicaragua 7,084 3,076 292 151 9.5 51.7 4.9
Niger LDC 6,057 414 360 5 87.0 1.4 1.2
Nigeria 375,384 69 68 43 98.6 63.2 62.3
Niue 77 77 77 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Norfolk Is. 0 0 0 0 . . .
Pakistan 112,513 88,467 14,135 12,543 16.0 88.7 14.2
Panama 32,933 1,275 798 680 62.6 85.2 53.3
Papua N. Guin 1,258 6 6 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Paraguay 2,370 403 256 153 63.5 59.8 38.0
Peru 96,984 25,154 18,370 16,904 73.0 92.0 67.2
Philippines 521,014 166,810 108,253 58,300 64.9 53.9 34.9
Pitcairns 4,209 22 22 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Qatar 27,326 338 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Rep Moldova 2,327 2,286 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Russian Fed. 472,629 185,424 37,890 16,724 20.4 44.1 9.0
Rwanda LDC 163 0 0 0 . . .
Samoa LDC 80 58 50 0 86.2 0.0 0.0
Sao Tome Prn LDC 29 2 2 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Senegal 2,557 908 895 7 98.6 0.8 0.8
Seychelles 1,144 21 13 0 61.9 0.0 0.0
Sierra Leone LDC 6,990 1,266 1,171 612 92.5 52.3 48.3
Singapore 834,412 118,131 114,503 12,926 96.9 11.3 10.9
Slovenia 30,122 21,159 16,720 14,080 79.0 84.2 66.5
Solomon Is LDC 14 2 1 0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Somalia LDC 59 49 49 49 100.0 100.0 100.0
South Africa 356,895 93,117 50,481 34,113 54.2 67.6 36.6
Sri Lanka 38,766 28,780 17,589 14,318 61.1 81.4 49.7
St. Helena 45 15 15 15 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sudan LDC 52 5 5 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Suriname 18,174 220 148 0 67.3 0.0 0.0
Swaziland 3,864 262 85 24 32.4 28.2 9.2
Syria 981 631 121 77 19.2 63.6 12.2
Tajikistan 499 0 0 0 . . .
Tanzania LDC 2,091 658 653 651 99.2 99.7 98.9
Thailand 842,216 382,448 274,620 183,997 71.8 67.0 48.1
Togo LDC 39,446 12 12 12 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tokelau 2,523 2,168 1,008 879 46.5 87.2 40.5
Tonga 35 17 17 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Tunisia 6,608 1,699 411 162 24.2 39.4 9.5
Turkmenistan 5 2 2 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Uganda LDC 7,396 54 54 47 100.0 87.0 87.0
Ukraine 18,117 14,223 5,821 4,320 40.9 74.2 30.4WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 44
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 67 8 9
United Arab
Em.9,975 6,785 3,084 1,167 45.5 37.8 17.2
Uruguay 47,759 7,515 3,962 3,393 52.7 85.6 45.1
Uzbekistan 8,718 17 15 0 88.2 0.0 0.0
Vanuatu LDC 1 0 0 0 . . .
Venezuela 699,922 33,270 7,860 5,475 23.6 69.7 16.5
Viet Nam 107,379 71,287 18,752 17,163 26.3 91.5 24.1
Yemen LDC 20,889 2 2 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Zaire LDC 7,384 78 1 0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Zambia LDC 23,348 14 14 9 100.0 64.3 64.3
Zimbabwe 12,497 8,555 7,124 4,398 83.3 61.7 51.4
TOTALS: 20,807,597 7,413,306 4,464,,341 2,943,737 60.2 65.9 39.7WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 45
GSP IMPORTS AND UTILIZATION BY BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES
Reporter:  EUROPEAN UNION
Year:  1997;  imports in thousands US$
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Afghanistan LDC 38,875 11,053 10,862 2,292 98.3 21.1 20.7
Albania 211,951 171,244 163,434 14,144 95.4 8.7 8,3
Algeria 7,499,235 1,412,462 844,425 118,479 59.8 14.0 8.4
Anguilla 297 290 38 0 13.2 0.0 0.0
Argentina 4,266,410 2,131,395 1,001,654 729,007 47.0 72.8 34.2
Armenia 71,489 4,434 4,063 180 91.6 4.4 4.1
Aruba 60,784 42,280 17,196 85 40.7 0.5 0.2
Azerbaijan 72,580 39,196 38,192 9,408 97.4 24.6 24.0
Bahrain 235,087 231,518 227,602 67,134 98.3 29.5 29.0
Bangladesh LDC 2,008,593 1,946,312 1,940,533 532,478 99.7 27.4 27.4
Belarus 484,950 396,394 379,365 167,008 95.7 44.0 42.1
Bermuda 1,157,090 36,325 33,840 52 93.2 0.2 0.1
Bhutan LDC 1,388 1,293 1,293 190 100.1 14.7 14.7
Bolivia 261,700 39,695 38,700 26,715 97.5 69.0 67.3
Bosnia Herzg 179,479 143,636 582 78 0.4 13.4 0.1
Br.Ind. Oc.Tr 7,164 72 71 0 99.2 0.0 0.0
Br. Virgin Is 108,014 1,966 1,964 0 99.9 0.0 0.0
Brazil 14,098,440 7,658,389 6,137,037 4,400,699 80.1 71.7 57.5
Brunei Darsm 611,805 528,726 135,110 12 25.6 0.0 0.0
Cambodia LDC 182,736 176,779 176,835 18,359 100.0 10.4 10.4
Cayman Is 717,645 4,382 3,182 1 72.6 0.0 0.0
Chile 3,876,140 1,094,386 663,785 553,702 60.7 83.4 50.6
China 42,141,453 39,086,859 27,193, 562 20,645,175 69.6 75.9 52.8
Colombia 2,648,894 1,935,146 1,592,814 1,138,914 82.3 71.5 58.9
Costa Rica 996,742 972,987 567,921 450,478 58.4 79.3 46.3
Croatia 1,997,686 1,688,902 28,379 5,940 1.7 20.9 0.4
Cuba 263,884 240,234 173,870 142,902 72.4 82.2 59.5
Cyprus 417,108 293,628 248,821 6,514 84.7 2.6 2.2
Ecuador 1,068,231 959,224 540,049 488,221 56.3 90.4 50.9
Egypt 2,948,766 1,281,855 1,142,927 80,031 89.2 7.0 6.2
El Salvador 419,991 417,341 415,414 231,295 99.5 55.7 55.4
Falkland Is 54,882 49,832 32,704 389 65.6 1.2 0.8
Fr. Polynesia 39,859 25,475 23,193 71 91.0 0.3 0.3
Georgia 55,129 29,286 23,114 5,890 78.9 25.5 20.1
Gibraltar 70,351 21,586 9,959 333 46.1 3.3 1.5
Greenland 236,632 233,980 4,058 2 1.7 0.0 0.0
Guatemala 517,096 497,482 459,299 390,238 92.3 85.0 78.4
Honduras 362,286 317,179 278,728 218,644 87.9 78.4 68.9
Hong Kong 9,192,142 8,248,819 1,189,259 132,873 14.4 11.2 1.6WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 46
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
India 10,629,202 8,359,163 8,127,816 6,666,405 97.2 82.0 79.7
Indonesia 9,363,395 7,805,717 7,756,627 5,725,983 99.4 73.8 73.4
Iran 5,810,534 900,400 879,196 534,966 97.6 60.8 59.4
Iraq 1,534,272 1,073 1,079 51 100.6 4.7 4.8
Jordan 189,853 77,824 67,970 3,337 87.3 4.9 4.3
Kazakhstan 1,621,656 178,308 95,021 38,926 53.3 41.0 21.8
Korea Rep 14,622,894 13,420,486 1,433,456 973,496 10.7 67.9 7.3
Kuwait 1,647,840 133,046 133,684 26,929 100.5 20.1 20.2
Kyrgyzstan 52,076 10,508 4,563 1,995 43.4 43.7 19.0
Lao P.Dem.R. LDC 100,169 99,580 99,527 17,228 99.9 17.3 17.3
Lebanon 169,938 98,004 91,807 3,402 93.7 3.7 3.5
Libya 8,660,907 599,192 180,598 153,708 30.1 85.1 25.7
Macau 754,945 747,935 688,410 18,852 92.0 2.7 2.5
Macedonia 554,333 494,549 20,562 644 4.2 3.1 0.1
Malawi LDC 241,334 222,385 198,276 8,076 89.2 4.1 3.6
Malaysia 11,539,267 9,872,328 9,855,099 3,708,798 99.8 37.6 37.6
Maldives LDC 26,907 26,735 26,603 18,757 99.5 70.5 70.2
Mali LDC 120,967 9,147 8,221 102 89.9 1.2 1.1
Marshall Is 1,456 1,453 1,427 0 98.2 0.0 0.0
Mauritania LDC 359,767 84,246 83,486 50 99.1 0.1 0.1
Mexico 4,123,578 2,700,060 2,586,067 1,298,956 95.8 50.2 48.1
Micronesia 103 103 104 0 100.6 0.0 0.0
Mongolia 36,426 7,331 6,167 5,218 84.1 84.6 71.2
Montserrat 8,844 8,703 3,456 0 39.7 0.0 0.0
Morocco 5,330,811 4,684,236 4,116,791 18,363 87.9 0.4 0.4
Myanmar LDC 160,772 138,478 137,847 18,705 99.5 13.6 13.5
N.E.S. 11,600 9,398 6,772 107 72.1 1.6 1.1
Nauru 1,682 68 13 0 19.8 0.0 0.0
Nepal LDC 179,144 176,601 171,694 135,869 97.2 79.1 76.9
Neth. Antilles 354,379 232,265 128,998 8,626 55.5 6.7 3.7
New
Caledonia213,864 9,848 9,832 27 99.8 0.3 0.3
Nicaragua 152,147 141,115 123,428 104,218 87.5 84.4 73.9
Oman 170,207 155,047 148,480 19,936 95.8 13.4 12.9
Pakistan 2,577,260 2,463,936 2,342,342 2,057,375 95.1 87.8 83.5
Palau 81 80 6 0 7.6 0.0 0.0
Panama 497,137 260,670 38,804 22,431 14.9 57.8 8.6
Paraguay 208,517 39,860 31,771 24,558 79.7 77.3 61.6
Peru 1,623,321 575,175 552,086 453,648 96.0 82.2 78.9
Philippines 4,226,448 3,596,380 3,533,962 1,002,875 98.3 28.4 27.9
Pitcairn 115 115 117 0 101.6 0.0 0.0
Qatar 240,166 33,896 33,785 4,917 99.7 14.6 14.5
Rep. Moldova 113,863 85,508 81,547 26,975 95.4 33.1 31.5
Russian Fed 25,310,685 7,078.663 2,885,085 1,316,067 40.8 45.6 18.6
Samoa LDC 3,777 843 841 0 99.7 0.0 0.0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 47
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Saudi Arabia 12,147,163 1,915,862 1,586,326 462,970 82.8 29.2 24.2
Singapore 12,170,495 11,186,394 1,533,815 384,852 13.7 25.1 3.4
Slovenia 5,252,488 5,045,604 38,263 7,679 0.8 20.1 0.2
South Africa 9,681,961 3,833,305 2,869,325 1,696,343 74.9 59.1 44.3
Sri Lanka 1,290,813 1,005,724 1,000,094 333,151 99.4 33.3 33.1
St. Helena 1,094 1,029 792 0 76.9 0.0 0.0
St. Lucia 57,759 57,445 4,322 12 7.5 0.3 0.0
St. Pierre Mq 8,697 7,944 6,807 506 85.7 7.4 6.4
Syria 2,253,373 234,177 194,989 51,582 83.3 26.5 22.0
Tajikistan 105,706 34,068 19,845 17,890 58.3 90.1 52.5
Thailand 9,403,282 8,337,161 7,657,832 4,209,818 91.9 55.0 50.5
Tunisia 4,537,740 4,052,772 3,792,772 23,559 93.6 0.6 0.6
Turkmenistan 69,643 18,299 18,223 11,416 99.6 62.6 62.4
Turks, Caicos 1,216 1,209 162 2 13.4 1.2 0.2
Ukraine 1,980,483 1,091,329 822,724 383,773 75.4 46.6 35.2
Untd Arab Em 1,603,855 860,978 827,930 138,852 96.2 16.8 16.1
Uruguay 559,559 402,276 131,180 95,292 32.6 72.6 23.7
Us Virgin Is 36,218 18,070 18,000 5,066 99.6 28.1 28.0
Uzbekistan 613,304 55,605 40,238 31,517 72.4 78.3 56.7
Venezuela 1,942,460 656,276 509,071 400,530 77.6 78.7 61.0
Viet Nam 2,539,192 2,410,368 2,396,877 1,512,627 99.4 63.1 62.8
Wallis Fut. I 103 65 65 28 100.4 43.6 43.8
Yemen LDC 190,327 32,815 32,762 18,662 99.8 57.0 56.9
TOTALS: 279,576,557 179,171,279 115,939,676 64,784,642 64.7 55.9 36.2WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 48
GSP IMPORTS AND UTILIZATION BY BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES
Reporter:  JAPAN
Year:  1997;  imports in thousands US$
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Afghanistan LDC 1,058 603 6 0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Albania 1,178 453 453 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Algeria 153,571 153,006 169 167 0.1 98.8 0.1
Amer Samoa 4,601 360 107 2 29.7 1.9 0.6
Angola LDC 3,415 3,413 3,182 3,182 93.2 100.0 93.2
Antigua, Barb. 89 39 7 7 17.0 100.0 17.0
Argentina 533,087 206,079 42,365 40,426 20.6 95.4 19.6
Armenia 97 62 35 0 56.0 0.0 0.0
Bahamas 4,646 200 123 34 61.6 27.5 16.9
Bahrain 377,052 177,695 14,544 6,128 8.2 42.1 3.4
Bangladesh LDC 137,316 110,440 57,328 35,391 51.9 61.7 32.0
Barbados 931 74 66 0 89.9 0.0 0.0
Belarus 11,999 270 66 20 24.5 30.0 7.3
Belize 49,456 49,354 148 0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Benin LDC 1,635 0 0 0 . . .
Bermuda 250 225 24 0 10.7 0.0 0.0
Bhutan LDC 167 149 149 145 100.0 97.8 97.8
Bolivia 11,590 3,383 1,603 911 47.4 56.8 26.9
Bosnia Herz. 2,981 105 0 0 0.0 0.0
Botswana 5,153 13 13 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Brazil 3,737,253 811,904 392,838 320,527 48.4 81.6 39.5
Brunei Darsm 1,380,843 297,601 41 4 0.0 10.0 0.0
Bulgaria 41,292 26,981 23,297 21,162 86.3 90.8 78.4
Burkina Faso LDC 4,812 52 50 9 96.8 18.0 17.5
Burundi 2 2 0 0 0.0 0.0
Cambodia LDC 13,800 12,048 10,511 9,484 87.2 90.2 78.7
Cameroon 34,098 322 312 87 96.9 27.9 27.0
Cape Verde LDC 10 0 0 0 . . .
Cayman Is. 408 408 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Cent. Afr. Rep LDC 799 2 2 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Chad LDC 1,663 4 4 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Chile 2,975,772 1,271,929 670,303 287,123 52.7 42.8 22.6
China 41,438,007 26,590,257 20, 604,944 5,581,370 77.5 27.1 21.0
China Taiwan 11,522,385 3,750,844 2,879,837 2,093,323 76.8 72.7 55.8
Colombia 393,536 49,682 20,903 17,904 42.1 85.7 36.0
Congo 7,001 532 532 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Cook Is. 1,244 36 36 21 100.0 56.8 56.8
Costa Rica 41,556 15,648 14,415 9,354 92.1 64.9 59.8
Cote d'Ivoire 15,462 1,049 1,026 966 97.8 94.2 92.1
Croatia 15,803 12,752 2,706 529 21.2 19.5 4.1
Cuba 106,474 93,161 229 229 0.2 100.0 0.2
Cyprus 5,253 4,601 628 84 13.7 13.4 1.8
Czech Rep 113,552 76,010 54,815 42,370 72.1 77.3 55.7WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 49
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Dominica 1,325 631 411 2 65.1 0.4 0.3
Dominican Rp 30,948 25,038 24,914 8,339 99.5 33.5 33.3
Ecuador 238,741 182,981 102,766 101,297 56.2 98.6 55.4
Egypt 134,901 102,688 12,612 9,979 12.3 79.1 9.7
El Salvador 24,221 8,221 8,114 648 98.7 8.0 7.9
Eq. Guinea LDC 49,712 25,247 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Estonia 8,332 7,253 3,471 3,045 47.9 87.7 42.0
Ethiopia LDC 80,912 565 565 348 100.0 61.5 61.5
Falkland Is. 1,060 1,045 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Fiji 41,252 19,653 1,105 425 5.6 38.4 2.2
Gabon 100,039 47,183 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Gambia LDC 7,814 7,791 2,217 1,850 28.5 83.4 23.7
Georgia 686 197 133 0 67.6 0.0 0.0
Ghana 79,092 7,530 198 140 2.6 70.7 1.9
Gibraltar 2 0 0 0 . . .
Greenland 78,254 77,526 526 254 0.7 48.2 0.3
Grenada 17 5 5 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Guam 31,733 30,468 63 6 0.2 9.2 0.0
Guatemala 96,723 4,133 3,969 2,451 96.0 61.7 59.3
Guinea LDC 6,455 4,894 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Guinea Bissau LDC 1,510 1,510 70 0 4.7 0.0 0.0
Guyana 10,979 449 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Haiti LDC 403 107 61 0 57.4 0.0 0.0
Honduras 146,685 90,060 4,661 160 5.2 3.4 0.2
Hong Kong 1,954,682 601,215 508,331 67,670 84.6 13.3 11.3
Hungary 320,198 80,083 57,649 37,892 72.0 65.7 47.3
India 2,592,608 1,330,400 438,338 206,080 32.9 47.0 15.5
Indonesia 13,686,029 6,103,310 1,584,824 819,795 26.0 51.7 13.4
Iran 3,033,460 2,955,953 50,996 27,303 1.7 53.5 0.9
Iraq 74,304 74,304 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Israel 975,060 110,241 57,627 38,797 52.3 67.3 35.2
Jamaica 34,936 10,298 6,687 163 64.9 2.4 1.6
Jordan 55,680 62 62 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Kazakhstan 184,395 157,939 157,939 9,647 100.0 6.1 6.1
Kenya 25,491 13,783 8,271 7,921 60.0 95.8 57.5
Kiribati LDC 1,441 1,427 42 40 3.0 96.1 2.8
Korea Rep 14,173,129 7,733,276 4,885,711 2,788,734 63.2 57.1 36.1
Kuwait 3,419,738 3,072,637 3,037 4 0.1 0.1 0.0
Kyrgyzstan 1,045 688 688 578 100.0 84.0 84.0
Lao P. Dem. R. LDC 23,828 9,145 9,108 8,263 99.6 90.7 90.4
Latvia 9,757 4,591 4,192 3,777 91.3 90.1 82.3
Lebanon 3,904 187 60 31 31.9 52.8 16.8
Lesotho 11 3 3 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Liberia LDC 266 7 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Libya 5,323 30 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Lithuania 17,543 4,014 1,395 584 34.8 41.8 14.5
Macau 32,373 28,798 25,491 104 88.5 0.4 0.4
Macedonia 11,789 8,652 8,652 4,796 100.0 55.4 55.4
Madagascar LDC 36,614 31,832 700 15 2.2 2.1 0.0
Malawi LDC 31,327 386 386 383 100.0 99.1 99.1WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 50
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Malaysia 10,476,889 2,607,387 1,192,566 897,665 45.7 75.3 34.4
Maldives LDC 18,507 18,502 153 145 0.8 94.6 0.8
Mali LDC 2,446 453 83 17 18.2 21.0 3.8
Marshall Is. 15,753 15,535 69 0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Mauritania LDC 145,320 144,941 130,085 129,703 89.8 99.7 89.5
Mauritius 30,084 24,241 4719 183 19.5 3.9 0.8
Mexico 1,612,991 927,640 174,702 121,424 18.8 69.5 13.1
Micronesia 18,782 18,450 32 0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Mongolia 108,375 3,585 3,551 136 99.0 3.8 3.8
Montserrat 2 0 0 0 . . .
Morocco 286,417 258,250 199,266 195,634 77.2 98.2 75.8
Mozambique LDC 21,195 20,697 45 0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Myanmar LDC 96,143 69,831 11,720 9,865 16.8 84.2 14.1
N.E.S. 58,571 54,004 41,945 41,705 77.7 99.4 77.2
N. Mariana Is. 8,007 7,762 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Namibia 21,438 17,539 2,724 2,521 15.5 92.5 14.4
Nepal LDC 3,856 2,982 2,932 2,137 98.3 72.9 71.6
Neth. Antiles 8,654 8,468 59 0 0.7 0.0 0.0
New Caledonia 182,499 70,698 62,903 15,501 89.0 24.6 21.9
Nicaragua 6,463 3,328 61 0 1.8 0.0 0.0
Niger LDC 10 0 0 0 . . .
Nigeria 173,225 155,252 116 0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Not Spec. 1,917 1,863 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Oman 1,625,076 1,621,512 3,455 3,356 0.2 97.1 0.2
Pakistan 445,472 398,869 52,944 23,739 13.3 44.8 6.0
Palau 10,335 10,307 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Panama 38,315 37,350 1,421 1,384 3.8 97.4 3.7
Papua N. Guin 420,557 8,866 1,098 1,064 12.4 96.9 12.0
Paraguay 105,571 2,197 849 828 38.6 97.6 37.7
Peru 521,334 214,412 168,751 64,843 78.7 38.4 30.2
Philippines 4,883,966 1,221,272 876,388 598,454 71.8 68.3 49.0
Poland 93,676 55,028 35,191 23,289 64.0 66.2 42.3
Qatar 3,126,846 2,459,223 402 344 0.0 85.6 0.0
Rep Moldova 5 0 0 0 . . .
Romania 47,864 33,795 30,935 25,079 91.5 81.1 74.2
Rwanda LDC 41 39 39 39 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sao Tome Prn LDC 11 2 2 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Saudi Arabia 10,838,130 9,225,717 196,182 187,266 2.1 95.5 2.0
Senegal 10,799 7,915 416 346 5.3 83.3 4.4
Seychelles 4,381 4,141 23 0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Sierra Leone LDC 1,405 1,360 3 0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Singapore 5,386,212 875,824 319,522 226,163 36.5 70.8 25.8
Slovakia 21,084 17,302 14,652 10,986 84.7 75.0 63.5
Slovenia 25,318 12,682 9,065 2,593 71.5 28.6 20.4
Solomon Is LDC 102,856 37,177 6,243 6,153 16.8 98.5 16.5
Somalia 7 2 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
South Africa 2,693,274 678,873 491,349 164,842 72.4 33.5 24.3
Sri Lanka 271,086 143,909 78,831 45,419 54.8 57.6 31.6
St. Lucia 115 97 97 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
St. Vincent, G 11,927 11,913 0 0 0.0 . 0.0WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 51
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate
(%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 789
Sudan LDC 24,845 1,170 893 883 76.3 98.9 75.4
Suriname 30,859 29,685 89 50 0.3 56.5 0.2
Swaziland 15,006 8,366 48 0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Syria 41,299 324 319 269 98.5 84.2 82.9
Tajikistan 802 0 0 0 . . .
Tanzania LDC 64,334 12,531 3,087 2,987 24.6 96.8 23.8
Thailand 8,983,475 3,477,849 1,958,670 1,233,737 56.3 63.0 35.5
Togo LDC 153 54 54 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Tokelau 157 68 61 61 90.2 100.0 90.2
Tonga 10,336 10,331 5 3 0.0 66.7 0.0
Trinidad Tbg 5,596 4,700 818 817 17.4 99.8 17.4
Tunisia 16,004 13,252 2,666 379 20.1 14.2 2.9
Turkey 160,345 103,833 80,688 57,150 77.7 70.8 55.0
Turkmenistan 771 416 24 0 5.8 0.0 0.0
Uganda LDC 4,402 1,585 7 7 0.5 100.0 0.5
Ukraine 123,395 67,873 67,005 39,051 98.7 58.3 57.5
United Arab
Em.11,448,670 9,338,079 3,621 55 0.0 1.5 0.0
Uruguay 36,710 16,055 6,934 6,264 43.2 90.3 39.0
US. Virgin Is. 57 57 6 0 10.1 0.0 0.0
Uzbekistan 22,480 4,042 1,081 0 26.7 0.0 0.0
Vanuatu LDC 7,046 5,252 12 9 0.2 73.3 0.2
Venezuela 351,570 9,559 5,505 5,208 57.6 94.6 54.5
Viet Nam 2,138,670 1,789,905 803,182 148,465 44.9 18.5 8.3
Yemen LDC 169,395 165,407 148 49 0.1 33.0 0.0
Yugoslavia 2,019 1,083 884 617 81.6 69.9 57.0
Zaire LDC 50,570 1,227 1,227 0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Zambia LDC 130,277 72,637 72,637 17,809 100.0 24.5 24.5
Zimbabwe 200,579 118,102 118,089 72,571 100.0 61.5 61.4
TOTALS: 173,051,056 93,464,822 40,01 7,223 17,011,750 42.8 42.5 18.2WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 52
GSP IMPORTS AND UTILIZATION BY BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES
Reporter:  USA
Year:  1997;  imports in thousands US$
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate (%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 6 7 8 9
Albania 8,954 4,040 1,402 1,376 34.7 98.1 34.1
Angola LDC 2,876,856 2,403,588 2,403,588 668,124 100.0 27.8 27.8
Anguilla 438 77 25 20 32.5 80.0 26.0
Argentina 2,195,179 1,707,800 683,497 409,996 40,0 60,0 24.0
Armenia 5,863 5,182 560 398 10.8 71.1 7.7
Bahrain 118,169 110,297 40,224 18,692 36.5 46.5 16.9
Bangladesh LDC 1,672,296 1,532,867 39,899 24,684 2.6 61.9 1.6
Belarus 65,652 57,842 4,333 3,680 7.5 84.9 6.4
Benin LDC 8,081 6,469 6,409 3,437 99.1 53.6 53.1
Bhutan LDC 1,012 985 815 25 82.7 3.1 2.5
Bolivia 213,414 120,987 89,005 18,888 73.6 21.2 15.6
Bosnia Herz. 8,264 7,915 7,572 7,381 95.7 97.5 93.3
Botswana 24,541 13,197 6,057 5,882 45.9 97.1 44.6
Br.Ind. Oc. Tr. 853 41 4 0 9.8 0.0 0.0
Brazil 9,505,294 6,452,790 3,592,569 2,206,061 55.7 61.4 34.2
Bulgaria 172,430 137,601 40,052 29,765 29.1 74.3 21.6
Burkina Faso LDC 994 306 75 63 24.5 84.0 20.6
Burundi LDC 13,812 33 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Cameroon 57,178 31,979 2,241 1,196 7.0 53.4 3.7
Cape Verde LDC 496 456 451 421 98.9 93.3 92.3
Cayman Is 19,196 1,172 538 216 45.9 40.1 18.4
Cent. Afr. Rep. LDC 1,348 81 77 0 95.1 0.0 0.0
Chad LDC 2,862 27 18 0 66.7 0.0 0.0
Chile 2,302,678 1,284,849 817,554 364,823 63.6 44.6 28.4
Christmasis 678 195 121 0 62.1 0.0 0.0
Cocos Is 62 24 22 0 91.7 0.0 0.0
Colombia 4,602,645 2,509,173 507,092 78,170 20.2 15.4 3.1
Comoros LDC 2,565 8 0 0 0.0 . 0.0
Congo 351,742 295,241 6,572 6,520 2.2 99.2 2.2
Cook Is 1,138 955 567 356 59.4 62.8 37.3
Cote d'Ivoire 285,557 47,185 12,478 9,411 26.4 75.4 19.9
Croatia 82,701 54,620 35,971 28,298 65.9 78.7 51.8
Cyprus 15,124 10,071 2,045 1,858 20.3 90.9 18.4
Czech Rep 607,113 523,355 308,001 251,499 58.9 81.7 48.1
Djibouti LDC 0 0 0 0 . . .
Ecuador 2,139,339 927,690 130,954 17,310 14.1 13.2 1.9
Egypt 819,529 667,277 53,358 49,664 8.0 93.1 7.4
Eq. Guinea LDC 30,485 28,651 28,496 12,968 99.5 45.5 45.3
Estonia 76,435 58,443 16,030 11,375 27.4 71.0 19.5
Ethiopia LDC 69,649 936 791 734 84.5 92.8 78.4
Falkland Is 534 340 292 0 85.9 0.0 0.0
Fiji 84,304 72,468 12,870 11,131 17.8 86.5 15.4
Fr. Polynesia 35,389 32,034 31,760 26,455 99.1 83.3 82.6WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 53
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate (%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 6 7 8 9
Gambia 3,515 147 100 60 68.0 60.0 40.8
Gaza Strip 32 10 5 0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Ghana 154,062 5,282 3,825 3,450 72.4 90.2 65.3
Gibraltar 2,773 463 231 3 49.9 1.3 0.6
Greenland 7,956 2,418 356 25 14.7 7.0 1.0
Guinea LDC 127,668 600 187 86 31.2 46.0 14.3
Guinea Bissau LDC 70 6 6 6 100.0 100.0 100.0
Hungary 1,077,715 559,048 394,612 276,897 70.6 70.2 49.5
India 7,283,755 4469,347 1,787,083 1,254,945 40.0 70.2 28.1
Indonesia 9,054,291 6,628,742 2,879,740 1,941,883 43.4 67.4 29.3
Jordan 25,616 9,575 4,718 3,066 49.3 65.0 32.0
Kazakhstan 116,352 67,118 49,680 48,064 74.0 96.7 71.6
Kenya 114,347 51,671 12,481 7,371 24.2 59.1 14.3
Kiribati LDC 1,700 44 35 28 79.5 80.0 63.6
Kyrgyzstan 2,425 474 337 228 71.1 67.7 48.1
Latvia 148,867 142,591 4,648 4,312 3.3 92.8 3.0
Lebanon 74,072 37,739 31,346 29,212 83.1 93.2 77.4
Lesotho 86,603 86,594 29 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lithuania 80,512 69,103 3,409 2,712 4.9 79.6 3.9
Macau 1,019,817 985,245 50,782 32,054 5.2 63.1 3.3
Macedonia 142,701 124,449 23,310 17,884 18.7 76.7 14.4
Madagascar LDC 62,491 26,468 10,764 9,307 40.7 86.5 35.2
Malawi LDC 89,404 84,757 84,458 29,272 99.6 34.7 34.5
Mali LDC 3,803 1,761 1,086 919 61.7 84.6 52.2
Malta 217,368 66,189 58,246 59,333 88.0 101.9 89.6
Mauritius 235,380 211,554 25,248 21,633 11.9 85.7 10.2
Morocco 299,737 141,004 50,243 30,986 35.6 61.7 22.0
Mozambique LDC 29,632 16,724 16,477 16,138 98.5 97.9 96.5
Namibia 62,319 5,566 3,226 2,844 58.0 88.2 51.1
Nepal LDC 113,730 109,195 3,395 2,965 3.1 87.3 2.7
New Caledonia 51,129 2,581 430 225 16.7 52.3 8.7
Niger LDC 7,513 910 490 13 53.8 2.7 1.4
Niue 96 55 53 3 96.4 5.7 5.5
Norfolk Is 61 56 56 33 100.0 58.9 58.9
Not Spec 34 4 4 3 100.0 75.0 75.0
Oman 235,202 210,834 31,242 29,103 14.8 93.2 13.8
Pakistan 1,434,667 1,378,762 97,466 49,003 7.1 50.3 3.6
Papua N. Guinea 35,626 3,547 3,338 3,288 94.1 98.5 92.7
Paraguay 40,141 25,541 24, 712 23,913 96.8 96.8 93.6
Peru 1,705,904 1,100,382 555,940 140,917 50.5 25.3 12.8
Philippines 10,417,931 4,681,257 1,996,178 1,646,764 42.6 82.5 35.2
Pitcairn 51 33 33 29 100.0 87.9 87.9
Poland 697,036 556,511 369,984 327,230 66.5 88.4 58.8
Rep Moldova 51,424 48,221 746 46 1.5 6.2 0.1
Romania 398,938 349,647 81,450 74,920 23.3 92.0 21.4
Russian Fed 4,290,261 2012,490 631,326 472,882 31.4 74.9 23.5
Rwanda LDC 3,894 170 150 111 88.2 74.0 65.3
Samoa LDC 3,478 1,003 308 254 30.7 82.5 25.3
Sao Tome Prn LDC 221 132 15 0 11.4 0.0 0.0
Senegal 6,627 4,268 2,945 1,788 69.0 60.7 41.9WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 54
Benefic.
CountryCat Imports
TotalImports
DutiableImports
GSP
CoveredImports
GSP-
ReceivedPot.
Cover
Rate
(%)
(= 5/4)Utiliz.
Rate (%)
(= 6/5)Utility
Rate
(%)
(= 6/4)
12 34 5 6 7 8 9
Seychelles 2,341 536 286 21 53.4 7.3 3.9
Sierra Leone LDC 18,369 1,377 1,204 644 87.4 53.5 46.8
Slovakia 166,213 156,389 45,545 39,432 29.1 86.6 25.2
Slovenia 276,223 255,801 173,590 131,912 67.9 76.0 51.6
Solomon Is LDC 649 36 33 28 91.7 84.8 77.8
Somalia LDC 311 193 193 28 100.0 14.5 14.5
South Africa 2,495,120 905,702 506,191 449,812 55.9 88.9 49.7
Sri Lanka 1,617,836 1,502,050 104,513 97,413 7.0 93.2 6.5
St. Helena 997 720 719 0 99.9 0.0 0.0
Suriname 91,438 8,834 8,537 6,094 96.6 71.4 69.0
Swaziland 43,975 42,066 26, 094 25,290 62.0 96.9 60.1
Tanzania LDC 23,068 12,154 4,643 3645 38.2 78.5 30.0
Thailand 12,540,389 7,733,262 4,678,690 2,534,088 60.5 54.2 32.8
Togo LDC 5,487 4,400 4,223 48 96.0 1.1 1.1
Tokelau 2,531 1,653 645 572 39.0 88.7 34.6
Tonga 2,913 2,432 1,264 737 52.0 58.3 30.3
Tunisia 62,999 55,406 13,144 12,102 23.7 92.1 21.8
Turkey 2,129,233 1,631,797 466,828 398,137 28.6 85.3 24.4
Turks, Caicos 5,178 175 83 55 47.4 66.3 31.4
Uganda LDC 37,712 671 556 529 82.9 95.1 78.8
Ukraine 412,807 266,127 28,704 19,762 10.8 68.8 7.4
Uruguay 228,856 143,656 72,043 69,974 50.1 97.1 48.7
Uzbekistan 39,077 8,622 5,614 5,302 65.1 94.4 61.5
Vanuatu LDC 2,076 22 11 9 50.0 81.8 40.9
Venezuela 12,172,595 9,627,160 542,874 590,711 5.6 108.8 6.1
Westn. Sahara 16 0 0 0 . . .
Yemen LDC 16,390 12,614 12,533 0 99.4 0.0 0.0
Zaire LDC 256,095 97,876 97,792 15,860 99.9 16.2 16.2
Zambia LDC 55,904 428 292 249 68.2 85.3 58.2
Zimbabwe 134,454 114,297 80,808 79,775 70.7 98.7 69.8
TOTALS: 101,341,051 65,975,995 25,05 8,971 15,319,320 38.0 61.1 23.2
Source: UNCTAD, "Quantifying the benefits obtained by developing countries from the Generalized
System of Preferences", Note by the UNCT AD secretariat (UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.52 of 7
October 1999).WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 55
ANNEX III
GSP Scheme of the European Union - Development index
The development index refers to a country's level of industrial development.  It compares that
level to the one of the European Union, using the following formula:
{log[(Yi/POPi)/(Yue/POPue)]+log[Xi/Xue]}/2whereYi = the beneficiary country's gross national product,
Yue = the European Union's gross national product,
POPi = the beneficiary country's population,POPue = the population of the European Union,Xi = the value of the beneficiary country's manufactured exports,Xue = the value of the European Union's manufactured exports.
Specialisation index
The specialisation index refers to the importance of a sector in the Community imports from a
beneficiary country.  It is based on the ratio between that country's share in imports from all countries,
of all products of the sector concerned, whether included in the preferential arrangements or not, and
its share in all imports from all countries.
Thresholds
Development index Threshold for the Specialisation index
= or > - 1,00 100%
< - 1,00 and = or > - 1,23 150%
< - 1,23 and = or > - 1,70 500%
< - 1,70 and = or > - 2,00 700%
Statistical sources
Figures for income and population are those of the World Development Report, for
manufactured exports those of the UNCTAD Handb ook of International Trade and Development
Statistics, and for Community imports those of COMEXT statistics.WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 56
 ANNEX IV
Data presented in Tables 2-5 and Annex Tables I and II:
Definitions used in statistical tables
Item Description
World Imports excl. N.A. Total value of imports from all countries (in thousands of
US dollars) excluding tariff lines for which an  ad valorem
duty or an ad valorem  equivalent are not available.
World Imports N.A. Value of imports from all countries for which an ad
valorem  duty or an ad ad valorem  equivalent are not
available
Duty Treatment Defines the type of duty treatment extended to beneficiaries
(see paragraph 63)
Total Imp. excl. N.A. Total value of imports subject to duty treatment type (in
thousands of US dollars) excluding tariff lines for which anad valorem  duty or an ad valorem  equivalent are not
available
Total Imp. Share Share of the total value of imports by duty treatment type in
the world total import value: (Total Imp. excl. N.A. * 100) /
World Imports excl. N.A.).
Dutiable Imp. Value of imports by duty treatment excluding duty-free
items
Free Imp. Value of imports by duty treatment for duty-free items
N.A.Imp Value of imports by duty treatment for which an ad
valorem  duty or an ad ad valorem  equivalent are not
available
Duty Collected Duty rate value multiplied by its related imports, calculated
at the tariff line level.  Tariff lines for which an  ad valorem
duty or an ad valorem  equivalent are not available have not
been considered
Simple Tariff Average – All items Simple average of the duty rates calculated on all products
(including tariff items without trade).
Simple Tariff Average  –  MFN Dutiable Simple average of the duty rates calculated on all tariff
lines for which the MFN duty is not duty-free (Only tariff
items with trade)
Simple Tariff Average - <MFN Simple average of the duty rates calculated on all tariff
lines for which the preferential duty is lower than the MFNduty (Only tariff items with trade)
Weighted Average – All items Average of all duties weighted by imports in the tariff
treatment classification
Weighted Average – dutiable items Average of the dutiable  duty rates weighted by imports in
the tariff treatment classification
Number of lines – Total Total number of tariff lines (excluding N.A. items but
including tariff items without trade).
Number of lines – Dutiable Total number of dutiable  tariff items (including tariff items
without trade).
All Number of lines – Free Total number of duty-free  tariff items (including tariff
items without trade).
All Number of lines - N.A. Total number of N.A.  tariff lines (including tariff items
without trade)..
Number of lines with trade -   Total Number of tariff items with imports in the tariff treatment
classification (Only tariff items with trade)WT/COMTD/W/93
Page 57
Item Description
Number of lines with trade -   Dutiable Number of tariff items with imports in the tariff treatment
classification excluding duty-free and N.A. tariff items
(Only tariff items with trade)
Number of lines with trade -   Free Number of duty-free tariff lines with imports in the tariff
treatment classification (Only tariff items with trade)
__________