WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
30 October 2002
(02-5974)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
Negotiating Group on Market Access
MARKET ACCESS ISSUES RELATED TO PRODUCTS OF EXPORT INTEREST
ORIGINATING FROM LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Note by the Secretariat1
Table of Contents
I. INTRO DUCTION ................................................................................................................. ...3
II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. ..3
III. PARTICIPATION OF L DCs IN WORL D TRADE ..............................................................4
IV. EXPORT PROFILE .............................................................................................................. ...4
A. M AJOR MARKETS ........................................................................................................................4
B. M AJOR PRODUCTS .......................................................................................................................7
V. TARIFF MEASURE S .............................................................................................................. 8
A. S TRUCTURE OF PREFERENCES .....................................................................................................9
B. T ARIFF ESCALATION .................................................................................................................14
C. T ARIFF PEAKS ............................................................................................................................14
VI. NON TARIFF  MEASURES...................................................................................................15
A. R ULES OF ORIGIN ......................................................................................................................15
B. S TANDARDS ..............................................................................................................................1 7
C. A NTI-DUMPING MEASURES .......................................................................................................17
VII. INITIATIVES TO IM PROVE MARKET  ACCESS...........................................................17
A. T ARIFF AND NON -TARIFF MEASURES ........................................................................................18
B. O THER MEASURES .....................................................................................................................19
VIII. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... ......19
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of LDC exports 6
Table 2: Duty-free imports into developed countries from developing
countries and LDCs, 1996-2000 (in percent) 9
Table 3: MFN and Preferential duties, selected markets based on IDB data 11
Table 4: MFN and preferential rates for selected markets based on UNCTAD data 12
Table 5: Pattern of MFN and preferential tariffs facing LDC exports of fish and fish
products in selected markets 13
Table 6: Exceptions to Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access 15Table 7: Products and measures identified by developing countries that affect
market access 17
Table 8: Summary of initiatives to improve market access for LDCs 21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Destination of LD C Exports by market, 2000 5
Figure 2: Destination of LDC produc ts by type of product, 2000 7
Figure 3: Distribution of LDC e xports at the HS 2 Digit level 8
Figure 4: Exports of Lesotho, various years 16
Annexes
Annex Table 1: Ratio of exports of goods and commercial services
to GDP of LDCs, 1990 and 2000 27
Annex Table 2: Merchandise exports and imports of least-developed countries
by selected country grouping, 2001 28
Annex Table 3: Imports of agricultur al products and manufactures of EU,
Asia and North America from LDCs, 2001 29
Annex Table 4: Exports of commercial services of least-developed countries by category,
1990 and 2000 30WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 3
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Ministers committed themselves to consider additional
measures to progressively improve market access for Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and to the
objective of duty-free and quota-free access for products originating in LDCs.2  Paragraph 7 of the
WTO Work Programme for LDCs3 listed elements for review and further examination.  This
document, prepared by the Secretariat, responds to the request for a report on the work mandated in
that programme.
II. METHODOLOGY
2. Exports of developing and LDCs face a number of tariff and non-tariff barriers in their export
markets.  Difficulties in penetrating foreign markets are also amplified by the limited production and
export capacities and capabilities in many LDCs.  Given the breadth of issues that condition market
access opportunities for LDC exporters there is a need to clarify the scope of this study and theassociated methodology.
4  The need for transparency is also important due to the limited data
availability both in terms of notified data to the WTO and the lack of reliability of some of the
available data.
3. In order to address the issue of lack of data on LDC trade and market access a number of
assumptions have been made.  Of particular note on the trade side is the lack of export data, hence theexport values for many LDCs is estimated using import data.  On the tariff side the key issue is that a
number of major markets do not supply their preferential data to the WTO, hence the degree of
market access is estimated using data from other sources.  Furthermore, lack of ad valorem
equivalents for many countries that make use of non ad valorem  lines has made cross market
comparisons of market access very difficult.  As foreshadowed in the meeting of 24 May of the Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries external data sources were consulted to fill in the gaps
where data from the WTO Integrated Database (IDB) was not available.
5
4. The specific approach taken in this study to address the lack of data on protection is similar to
the one taken in the Secretariat study entitled “The Generalized System of Preferences:  A preliminary
analysis of the GSP Schemes of the Quad” (WT/COMTD/W/93).  As noted in that study data in theWTO Integrated Data Base was supplemented with data from the UNCTAD Trade Information and
Analysis Database (TRAINs).
6  The study highlighted the difficulties in making generalizations when
different data sources are utilized.  A similar note of caution applies to the statistical analysis in this
study.  In addition a note of appreciation to UNCTAD,  especially its Trade Analysis Branch, is also in
order for its assistance in providing and verifying data.7
5. In order to take into account the paucity of data on the utilization of preferences and the role
of non-tariff barriers, an attempt was made to complement data from the WTO and UNCTAD by
approaching directly the Export Promotion Offices of LDCs.  Forty-three such offices were identified
and contacted.8  Only two responses were received – Cambodia and Niger.
                                                     
2 Paragraph 42 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, WTO (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1).
3 WT/COMTD/LDC/11.
4 For example, the study does not cover market access for the services exports of LDCs.
5 WT/COMTD/LDC/M/28, paragraphs 65-78.
6 A summary of data availability is contained in TN/MA/S/2.
7 A comparison of the data availability in the WTO IDB database and other databases is contained in
TN/MA/S/2.
8 These countries were identified in conj unction with the International Trade Centre.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 4
6. The study is divided into five main parts.  The first part (section III) is a discussion of the
overall trends of LDC trade.  This discussion is at a general level and is intended to provide an overall
perspective of their participation in merchandise trade and trade in services.  Section IV examines the
export profile of LDCs.  It is broken down into  two sections: an examination of major markets
followed by an examination of products of interest to LDCs.  Sections V and VI taken together are an
examination of the impediments to exports faced by LDC exports.  Section V covers traditional tariff
measures of a non-reciprocal nature, whereas sect ion VI examines non-tariff measures.  Section VII
lists the initiatives to improve market access conditions for LDC exporters that have been undertaken
over the past few years.  Concluding comments are contained in section VIII.
III. PARTICIPATION OF LDCs IN WORLD TRADE
7. An analysis of the participation of LDCs  in world trade was presented as document
WT/COMTD/W/26.  Therefore, this section briefly summarizes some of the main findings of that
study in order to provide a context for the more detailed analysis in the following sections.
• Merchandise and commercial services trade of the LDCs have grown at a similar pace
as world trade between 1990 and 2000 (between 5 and 6% annually).  Consequently,
the LDCs share in world exports of merchandise (and services) trade remained static
at 0.5 per cent (0.4%).
• LDC merchandise imports amounted to US$41 billion and continued to exceed that
of merchandise exports which reached US $35 billion in 2001.
• The share of fuels and manufactured goods expanded sharply at the expense of
agricultural goods and other non-fuel commodities.
• The relative importance of different destinations of LDC exports shifted markedly
from Western Europe to Asia9 and North America over the last decade.
• Western Europe, which accounted for more than one half of LDC exports in 1990,
has seen its share decreasing markedly to less than 40 per cent by the end of the
decade.  In 2000, the Asian region imported more from the LDCs than North America
(US$10.3 and $9.4 billion respectively).
• Commercial services exports of the LDCs amounted to about US$6 billion while
imports reached US$14 billion in 2000.  The share of services in total exports ofgoods and services of LDCs is estimated to be in the order of 14 per cent and thereby
much smaller than for the global average.
More detailed data on LDC participation is contained in annex tables 1-4.
IV. EXPORT PROFILE
A. M
AJOR MARKETS
8. The distribution of markets for LDC products is still heavily concentrated in 2000.  Sixty-
three per cent of all exports go the European Union (EU) and the United States (Figure 1).  In addition
to the EU and US, the major developed country markets are Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway andSwitzerland.  Together all the developed countries import 69 per cent of total LDC exports.  Of
                                                     
9 Asia comprises here 10 economies (Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the six Asian NICs).WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 5
particular note is that three of the top five markets are developing countries in East Asia:  China,
Republic of Korea and Thailand.  These countries account for 20 per cent of total LDC exports.  The
remaining top 10 markets are:  Japan, India, Singapore, Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) and Canada.  The market penetration of LDC exports is
greatest in India and Thailand at 2.1 percent, followed by the European Union at 1.4 per cent(figure 1).
9. Intra-LDC trade is minimal.  Seventeen LDCs have been identified as markets for LDC
exports.  These markets, however, account for less th an 1 per cent of total LDC exports.  Mali is the
largest market and is ranked as 29
th overall.
10. Both African and Asian LDCs rely heavily on the EU and the United States.  These two major
markets account for 60 per cent of total African LDC exports.  The value of the similar figure for
Asian LDCs is 87 per cent.  Another interesting feature is the role of the Republic of Korea.  It isranked 4
th overall as a market, but is only ranked 14th overall as a market for Asian LDCs.  One factor
explaining these figures is Yemen’s reliance on South East Asia.  More than 78 per cent of its exports
are destined for Thailand, China and Korea.  Not surprisingly South Pacific LDCs, which account for
0.2 per cent of total LDC exports, rely heavily on East and South East Asia as well as Australia and
New Zealand.
Figure 1:  Destination of LDC Exports by Market, 2000
Source:  WTO.
11. There is also a marked difference in the importance of markets based on the type of product
(figure 2).  Western Europe a nd North America account for 88 per cent of total LDC exports of
manufactures.  Whereas for agricultural products these two regions account for only 46 per cent of
total agricultural exports.  The principal difference is Asia, which accounts for 38 per cent ofagricultural exports and only 8 per cent of manufacturing exports.
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 6
Table 1:  Characteristics of LDC exports10
Country Concentration
Index at HS-4
levelaConcentration
Index at HS-6
levelbShare of
Agriculture
in Total
ExportscMarket
DiversificationdPrincipal exports
Afghanistan 67.6 67.6 78.5 4 Animal-hair, fur skins, grapes
Angola 98.7 97.8 0.0 3 Petroleum oils, diamonds, crustaceans
Bangladesh 32.6 24.1 0.8 2 Apparel, crustaceans, leather
Benin 67.3 67.0 74.2 5 Cotton, leather, misc. chemicals
Bhutan 55.3 55.3 8.4 3 Turbo-jets, wheat, coal, coffee
Burkina Faso 68.2 66.2 67.5 5 Cotton, oilseeds, sugar
Burundi 90.8 90.6 90.5 3 Coffee, ores
Cambodia 52.6 35.2 0.4 2 Apparel, wood, footwear
Cape Verde 49.8 47.9 0.9 2 Footwear, apparel, mineral fuels
Central African Rep. 87.3 86.1 9.1 1 Diamonds, wood, cotton, coffee
Comoros 80.9 80.9 79.1 3 Coffee, essential oils, ores
Dem. Rep. of Congo 86.2 88.4 3.5 2 Diamonds, mineral fuels, ores, coffee
Djibouti 31.6 31.4 16.1 3 Peals, oilseeds, live animals
Equatorial Guinea 93.3 92.7 0.4 2 Mineral fuels, wood, fish
Eritrea 34.1 31.7 18.6 2 Precious metal, fish leather
Ethiopia 76.1 72.3 84.0 4 Coffee, oilseeds, leather
Gambia 61.9 61.7 16.7 3 Diamonds, electronic equipment, fish
Guinea 83.4 81.6 4.8 2 Ores, diamonds, petroleum oils
Guinea-Bissau 93.3 91.2 49.5 1 Petroleum oils, fish, wood
Haiti 49.7 48.0 10.3 1 Apparel, coffee, edible fruits
Kiribati 92.2 86.5 0.0 2 Fish, electronic equipment
Lao PDR 40.0 26.0 12.3 3 Wood, apparel, coffee
Lesotho 67.4 64.3 0.3 1 Apparel, precious stones
Liberia 83.5 67.1 0.8 3 Ships, wood, diamonds
Madagascar 40.7 35.2 32.9 4 Apparel, fish, coffee
Malawi 82.8 76.7 89.0 7 Tobacco, tea, coffee, sugar
Maldives 57.0 51.3 0.4 4 Apparel, seafood, fish
Mali 80.3 78.2 80.6 8 Cotton, electronic equipment
Mauritania 89.1 67.2 0.3 3 Ores, fish
Mozambique 49.2 48.8 32.3 4 Crustaceans, aluminum, cotton
Myanmar 35.1 23.5 10.8 6 Apparel, wood, crustaceans
Nepal 54.6 46.6 12.9 3 carpets, apparel
Niger 94.0 93.4 5.1 2 Petroleum oils, inorganic chemicals
Rwanda 85.3 85.3 66.5 5 Coffee, ores
Samoa 83.4 79.2 9.4 2 Electrical equipment, fish
Sao Tome & Principe 70.8 44.6 20.8 4 Fish, cocoa, machine tools
Senegal 41.0 39.9 26.8 4 Vegetable oil, fish, residues
Sierra Leone 70.1 60.8 5.5 1 Motor vehicles, furniture
Solomon Islands 77.2 70.0 8.5 5 Wood, seafood, fish
Somalia 79.6 73.7 86.7 2 Live animals, wood
Sudan 86.4 86.4 21.7 4 Petroleum oils, oilseeds, live animals
Tanzania 48.5 39.9 46.2 6 Fish, coffee, tobacco
Togo 69.0 60.8 43.4 7 Natural phosphates, cotton, coffee
Uganda 76.0 69.3 73.9 4 Coffee, fish, tobacco
Vanuatu 68.8 61.3 12.5 4 Ships, fish, copra
Yemen 95.6 92.8 1.7 5 Petroleum oils, fish
Zambia 64.5 64.3 11.9 6 Copper, base metals, cotton
Source: UN Comtrade
a. Share of top 3 exports in terms of value in total exports based on HS 4 digit classification.
b. Share of top 3 exports in terms of value in total exports based on HS 6 digit classification
c. Using the WTO Agreement on Agriculture definition of agriculture.
d. Defined as the number of different countries to which an LDC exports 90 per cent of its products.
                                                     
10 Data for Chad and Tuvalu not available in the reporting year 2000.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 7
Figure 2:  Destination of LDC Products by Type of Product, 2000
Source:  WTO
B. MAJOR PRODUCTS
12. There are two elements to the export structure of  LDCs.  First, is its composition and second
is its concentration.  The composition varies considerably across LDCs.  Some, such as Burundi at
90 per cent, have a very high share of agricultural products in total exports.  Whereas, other LDCs
such as Angola and Bangladesh have values of the same index equal to less than 1 per cent (table 1).
The median value is 13 per cent, which is broadly consistent with the overall share of agriculturalproducts in total exports.
11
13. The aggregate LDC export profile, based on a frequency count, is reasonably diversified,
although the degree of concentration based on value is quite high.  LDCs have non-zero values of
exports in approximately 3,400 HS 6 lines.  However, 80 per cent of their exports are in just 276 lines
and 90 per cent in 527 lines.12
14. Nineteen LDCs have concentration ratios at the 4 digit level of the Harmonized System that
are above 80 per cent (table 1).  This list includes only two South Pacific LDCs (Kiribati and Samoa).The rest are from Africa.  Only six LDCs (Bangladesh, Burundi, Central African Republic, Comoros,
Djibouti, Lao PDR, Madagascar, Myanmar and Senegal) have concentration values below 50 per cent.
                                                     
11 It may be noted that several LDCs export primary or mineral based products, that are not covered in
the definition of "Agricultural Products" under the WTO Agreement of Agriculture.
12 Calculated using COMTRADE data.Agricultural products
Asia 
38%
North 
America 
7%Others 
16%
Western 
Europe  
39%Manufactures
Asia  8%
North 
America 
37%Others 
4%
Western 
Europe  
51%WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 8
Figure 3:  Distribution of LDC Exports at the HS 2 Digit Level
Source:  WTO.
V. TARIFF MEASURES
15. There are four different tariff measures: most favoured nation bound rates, most favoured
nation applied rates, reciprocal preferential rates and non-reciprocal preferential rates.13  Th is s tudy
will focus mainly on the last type, namely non-reciprocal preferential rates that are granted to
products originating from LDCs.  This, however, does not discount the significant market access
afforded to LDCs through either low or zero rates applied on a most favoured nation basis, nor the use
of sub-regional integration schemes.14  The first sub-section examines the basic structure of
preferential tariffs, while the second and third examines specific issues of tariff peaks and escalation.
16. Due to the use of non ad valorem  tariffs by some members it should be noted that at times
average values could be misleading.  For example, if ad valorem equivalents are not in the database,
which is the case for some countries, then non ad valorem tariffs cannot be included in the calculation
of averages.  However, if ad valorem equivalents are included in the database, then they have been
included in the analysis.
17. In order to obtain an overall perspective of market access issues for LDCs table 2 shows that
the overall share of duty-free imports (excluding arms) into developed countries originating from
developing countries in 2000 was 61 per cent.  The same number for LDCs was slightly higher at
72 per cent.  These represent significant increases from their 1996 values, which were 47 per cent and
63 per cent.  However, in order to highlight the importance of oil exports, figures excluding oil from
                                                     
13 It is also important to note that Singapore and Hong Kong, China have implemented non-
discriminatory duty-free and quota-free policies.
14 For example through the Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSTP).Fuels
39%
Apparel - not knitted
13%Apparel - knitted
11%Precious stones
6%Other
21%
Coffee, tea & spices
3%
Fish and fish products
5%Wood /wood products
2%WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 9
the overall calculation are also reported.  This adjustment changes the overall picture slightly and the
trend significantly.  The percentage for developing countries rises to 65 per cent and for LDCs it falls
to 66 per cent.  The trend for LDCs, however, is completely reversed.  This time it is negative, falling
to 66 per cent in 2000 from 77 per cent in 1996.
Table 2:  Duty-Free Imports into Developed Co untries from Developing Countries and LDCs,
1996-2000 (in percent)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Excluding arms
  Developing countries 47 48 43 54 61
  LDCs 63 81 77 76 72
Excluding arms and oil
  Developing countries 49 49 44 56 65
  LDCs 77 77 73 71 66
Source:  Indicators developed by international agencies for monitoring implementation of the
Millennium Development Goals.
18. It should be noted that these numbers are indicative and do not take into account the whole
range of non-tariff measures that may have an affect on market access.  They also do not include the
fact that it is possible for imports to enter at a most favoured nation duty rate, even if it is eligible for
preferential duties.  Despite these reservations the table provides an overall market access picture ofLDCs into developed countries.
A. S
TRUCTURE OF PREFERENCES
19. The structure of tariff barriers facing LDC exports is a function of their preferential market
access.  In the absence of such preferences, the pattern of protection they face will be identical to that
faced by all other exporters.  Many countries provide enhanced market access opportunities for LDCs
by complementing their low MFN rates with non-reciprocal preference and reciprocal preference
schemes.15  The result of such policies is a set of unique tariff barriers facing LDC exporters.
20. Two data sources were used in developing the profile of tariff barriers affecting LDC exports.
The first was the WTO IDB (Table 3) and the second was the UNCTAD TRAINs database (Table 4).
The methodology used in the calculation of simple averages differs in the two tables.  In the case of
IDB the tariff indicators for all markets are based on the same subset of 1302 HS 6-digit subheadings,
covering 99% of LDC's exports to the selected markets in 2000.  In the case of TRAINs actual
imports from LDCs were used to determine the tariff lin es to include in the tariff averages.  In view of
the different methodologies used, the two tables, although similar are not strictly comparable.  For
example, differences in averages and maxima for the same Member and tariff year can be explained
by the fact that the product coverage is not the same in both tables.
                                                     
15 There are other approaches such as embedding n on-reciprocal access within a reciprocal agreement.
This is the approach that India has taken through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation(SAARC) to offer preferential access to LDC members of SAARC.  A fuller discussion of market access
initiatives for LDCs is included in Section VII.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 10
21. The IDB database only had data on preferences for 6 out of the 18 markets (table 3).  Of
particular note is the absence of data from the largest market for LDC exports, the European Union.
The margin of preference granted to LDCs, based on IDB data and on a simple average basis is as
high as 3.5 per cent for Japan and as low as 0.7 per cent for Korea.  Although it should be pointed out
that Japan’s MFN average tariff rate is 4.4 per cent compared to 13 percent for Korea.  The UnitedStates, which is the second largest market for LDC exports has a preference margin of 1.8 per cent.
The margins granted by Australia and Canada are 2.6 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 11Table 3:  MFN and Preferential Duties, Selected Markets Based on IDB Data
Total Imports Rank LDCs Share in       MFN Applied duty             GSP RATE             LDC RATE Reference
imports from in LDC import total imp. Simple Non ad Simple Non ad Simple Non ad years
MARKET LDCs imports Mkt Share from LDCs average Max val. duties average Max val. duties average Max val. duties trade /
in million US $ in per cent in per cent in per cent in per cent  in per cent  tariff
Australia 80,139 150 17 0.2 0.5 6.3 25.0 0.0 6.1 25.0 0.0 3.7 20.0 0.0 99 / 01
Brazil 69,088 172 14 0.2 0.6 15.5 35.0 0.0 99-00 / 01
Canada 248,945 259 10 0.1 0.9 5.8 25.0 0.9 4.8 25.0 0.8 3.6 20.0 0.2 99-00 / 01
China 223,547 2,702 3 1.2 9.6 17.7 114.0 0.4 99-00 / 01
Chinese Taipei 125,276 565 9 0.5 2.0 9.1 50.0 0.5 99 / 01
EU 762,007 10,325 1 1.4 36.7 5.9 33.8 2.4 99-00 / 01
Hong Kong, China 215,629 252 11 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 99-00 / 01
India 50,715 1,063 7 2.1 3.8 32.4 210.0 0.0 99-00 / 00
Indonesia 41,680 155 15 0.4 0.6 10.7 200.0 0.0 97 / 98
Japan 389,511 1,131 6 0.3 4.0 4.4 38.5 0.7 1.4 38.5 0.5 0.9 38.5 0.5 99-00 / 01
Korea,  Rep. of 132,380 1,358 4 1.0 4.8 13.0 827.0 0.6 13.0 827.0 0.6 12.3 827.0 0.6 99 / 01
Malaysia 77,951 207 12 0.3 0.7 8.7 136.9 1.2 97 / 99
Norway 55,781 152 16 0.3 0.5 3.8 145.5 4.4 99-01 / 01
Singapore 134,683 624 8 0.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 99-01 / 01
South Africa 35,948 203 13 0.6 0.7 7.6 45.0 24.7 99-00 / 01
Switzerland 143,044 102 18 0.1 0.4 na na 70.6 na na 27.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 99-00 / 01
Thailand 59,077 1,229 5 2.1 4.4 22.7 80.0 23.1 99-00 / 99
USA 1,256,031 7,491 2 0.6 26.6 4.9 350.0 6.4 3.2 87.5 1.6 3.1 87.5 1.6 99-00 / 01
Total of above markets 4,101,431 28,141 0.7 100.0
Source:  WTO IDB
NOTES:  Only ad valorem  rates were used.  If the percentage of non- ad valorem  duties is higher than 25 per cent no averages and maxima are shown because indicators based only on ad valorem
duties could be seriously biased (na: not applicable).  Tariff indicators for all markets are based on the same subset of 1302 HS 6-digit subheadings, covering 99% of LDC's exports to selected
markets in 2000.   Averages are based on pre-aggregation at HS 6-digit level using the same methodology employed in "WTO Member 's Tariff Profiles" (TN/MA/S/4).  The percentage of non- ad
valorem  duties was calculated as the share of HS 6-digit subheadings having non- ad valorem  duties.  In all markets there are at least one or several duty-free tariff lines, i.e. the minimum is duty-free
(0 per cent) for all markets.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 12Table 4:  MFN and Preferential Rates for Selected Markets Based on UNCTAD Data
MFN Applied Rates LDC Applied Rate
COUNTRY Year
Simple
AverageWeighted
AverageMin. Max.Simple
AverageWeighted
AverageMin. Max.
Australia 2001 7.8 8.3 0 25 6.7 5.8 0 25
Brazil 2001 13.8 5.2 0 28 13.4 5.2 0 28
Canada 2001 5.7 11.9 0 22.5 3.8 11.4 0 22.5
China 2001 17.4 9.4 0 114 15.3 9.4 0 114
Chinese Taipei 2001 8.5 6.3 0 50 8.3 6.3 0 50
EU 2001 5.9 5.3 0 74.9 0.3 0.2 0 25
Hong Kong, China 1998 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
India 2001 32.9 22.8 0 210 26.0 18.9 0 210
Indonesia 2000 8.7 2.7 0 170 8.3 2.6 0 170
Japan 2001 10.3 6.6 0 60 2.4 1.6 0 60
Korea,  Rep. Of 1999 8.8 5.3 0 50 7.9 5.3 0 50
Malaysia 1997 3.7 1.1 0 352.9 3.7 1.1 0 352.9
Norway 1996 14.7 6.1 0 249 8.2 2.0 0 249
Singapore 2001 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
South Africa 2001 11.4 9.3 0 60 10.9 9.3 0 60
Switzerland 2001 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Thailand 2000 20.9 5.3 0 80 18.9 5.3 0 80
USA 2001 5.9 10.9 0 350 5.6 6.1 0 350
Source:  UNCTAD TRAINs data.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 13Table 5:  Pattern of MFN and Preferential Tariffs Facing LDC Exports of Fish and Fish Products in Selected Markets
HS 4-digit codes and descriptionsEuropean
UnionJapan United
StatesCanadaaChina Korea,
Rep. ofThailandbIndiac
MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC MFN LDC
0301 - Live fish 6.8 0 2.3 2.3 0.0 0 0.0 0 11.7 11.7 10.0 10.0 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0302 - Fish, fresh or chilled 12.9 0 4.9 4.9 0.8 0 0.1 0 17.9 17.9 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0303 - Fish, frozen 13.6 0 4.4 4.4 0.7 0 0.1 0 18.5 18.5 10.0 10.0 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0304 - Fish fillets and other fish meat 10.2 0 4.4 4.4 0.7 0 0.0 0 30.0 30.0 14.0 14.0 60.0 60.0 55 7.5
0305 - Fish, fit for human consumption 13.3 0 9.8 10.4 1.7 0 0.3 0 27.6 27.6 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0306 - Crustaceans 11.0 0 3.8 3.8 1.3 0 2.7 0 23.9 23.9 18.5 19.4 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0307 - Molluscs 7.2 0 7.4 7.2 0.4 0 0.5 0 21.9 21.9 18.9 18.9 60.0 60.0 15 7.5
0509 - Natural sponges of animal origin 2.6 0 1.8 0 3.0 0 0.0 0 15 15 9.5 9.5 35.0 35.0 15 35
1504 - Fats and oils of fish 3.9 0 2.3 1.6 0.8 0 3.2 0 21.7 21.7 3.5 3.5 sp sp 35 35
1603 - Extracts of aquatic invertebrates 6.4 0 10.8 1.97 4.3 0 4.5 0 25.0 25.0 30.1 30.9 sp sp 40 20
1604 - Prepared/preserved fish 18.4 0 9.2 0 5.2 0 5.4 0 25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 sp sp 40 20
1605 - Aquatic invertebrates prepared or preserved 17.6 0 8.0 0 2.6 0 3.2 0 24.4 24.4 20.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 40 20
Source:  Same as for table 3, but adjusted for commitments cited in table 8.
a.  As of 2003b.  Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar are members of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement.
c.  Only for eligible LDCs.
sp. Specific DutiesWT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 14
22. Table 4 attempts to replicate the information in table 3 using UNCTAD TRAINs data.  Since
the data coverage is more comprehensive in the co ntext of preferences it provides further information
about the nature of LDC market access.  However, at the same time, it should be noted that the
methodology of data extraction from that database  differs from the methodology used to construct
table 3.  Therefore, the two tables, although similar are not strictly comparable.
23. Table 4 confirms the broad parameters of preference by developed country markets as was
obtained in the IDB.  At the same time, it indicates that the margin of preference provided to LDCs by
Brazil, China, Chinese Taipei, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, South Africa and
Thailand is lower than those granted by the other countries in the table.  It should also be noted that
Hong Kong, China and Singapore have duty-free access on an MFN basis.16
B. TARIFF ESCALATION
24. Another aspect of market access is the pattern of residual protection affecting products
originating from LDCs.  In this regard, tariff escalation is particularly important.  In this section tariff
escalation in fish and fish products is examined.  As indicated in figure 3 these products are the fifth
largest export of LDCs behind two types of apparel products, fuels and precious stones.  Furthermore,
downstream processing of fish products has been an important policy option for some LDCs.
25. The basic pattern of MFN and preferential tariffs affecting fish and fish products across
selected markets varies considerably (table 5).  Despite being one of the relatively protected sectors in
the non-agricultural market access negotiations at the MFN level the degree of preferences allocated
to LDCs by certain countries is quite significant.  Canada, the EU and the United States offer duty-
free access to their markets, which in some cases is a significant preference margin.  On the other
hand Brazil, China, Republic of Korea and Thailand do not offer preferences.  India does offer a 50%preference but only on a limited basis to LDC members of SAARC.
26. Table 5 also contains information on tariff escalation in this product category, since tariff
rates on prepared and preserved fish and aquatic invertebrates are also reported.  Since Canada, the
European Union and the United States offer a zero duty rate, tariff escalation is not an issue for LDCs.
Japan’s duties on prepared and preserved fish products are lower than that for fresh products, hencethere is de-escalation.  Thailand has a flat tariff structure of 60 per cent for fish, which escalates, or
de-escalates depending on the applicable tariff rate.  Its tariff structure for products in HS
nomenclature HS1504, HS1603 and HS1604 varies from 30 per cent, to a specific duty rate of 200
Baht per kilo if that rate is higher than 60 per cent.  China’s tariff structure escalates from a base of
11.7 per cent for live fish to 30 per cent for fish fillets.  The duties for prepared or preserved fish areslightly lower than that of fish fillets, but still higher than live, fresh or chilled fish.  Brazil has a
similar structure to that of China, but with overall lower rates.  India’s MFN structure escalates with a
15 per cent duty that triples to 45 per cent for prepared and preserved fish.  The applicable preferential
rate of 50 per cent for eligible LDCs.
C. T
ARIFF PEAKS
27. A tariff line is defined as a peak relative to the values of tariffs in other tariff lines.  The usual
definition of a tariff peak is 15 per cent.  This is called an international peak.  Another definition thatis commonly used is three times the national average since tariff profiles with average values below
five percent will typically not have very many values above 15 per cent.  Therefore, a tariff profile
                                                     
16 Switzerland has a zero average due to the high number of non ad valorem lines in its tariff schedule,
for which ad valorem equivalents are not available.  Th e simple average is calculated using only ad valorem
rates.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 15
with a low overall average could have many national peaks, but not many international peaks.
Similarly, a tariff profile with a high national average may have multiple peaks as defined by the
international definition, but few using the three times the national average criteria.
28. Since many of the markets that offer preferential market access for LDC products have low
overall averages, a tariff peak in this instance will not necessarily be the same as a peak under a non-discriminatory profile.  For developed country ma rkets a peak for LDC exports could be defined as
any tariff above 5 per cent.
Table 6:  Exceptions to Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access
Country Exceptions
Australia Textiles, clothing and footwear, automotive-sector and cheese
Canada Dairy, eggs and poultry
EU Bananas, sugar and rice (phased out by 2009).  Arms and munitions
Japan Positive list  applied to agricultural products such as rice and bovine meat
New Zealand None
Norway Arms and munitions
Switzerland Agricultural products accounting for 2 percent of imports from LDC
United States Textiles and apparel (except those allowed under AGOA)
Table 6 identifies the broad exceptions that a select few developed country markets have
made to a policy of duty-free and quota-free market access.  Therefore the information indicates the
broad areas where tariff peaks affect the exports of LDCs in these markets.  The interesting feature of
the table is the diversity in the exceptions column.  Each market appears to have different products,
which they consider to be sensitive.
VI. NON TARIFF MEASURES
29. It is well accepted that market access conditions are determined by a combination of tariff and
non-tariff measures.  Furthermore, non-tariff measures can range from explicit quantitative
restrictions, in the form of quotas, to other measures such as standards.  In this section the focus of the
analysis is on three types of non-tariff measures that affect the degree of market access in non-reciprocal preferential programs:  rules of origin, standards and anti-dumping measures.
30. It should be noted that the Secretariat did attempt to augment the existing information on non-
tariff measures by directly contacting the export promotion authorities of 43 LDCs.  The nature of the
contact was in the form of a letter soliciting information on any studies, or information that they might
have that would assist the study process.  The le tters were sent on 23 August, 2002.  Only one reply
(Niger) and one query (Cambodia) were received.  The information provided in the response has been
taken into account in the analysis.
A. R
ULES OF ORIGIN
31. Since non reciprocal agreements are discriminatory, goods originating from non-members
must be distinguished from those originating from members.  Such a determination is necessary toascertain whether such a good is eligible for preferential treatment in the importing country.
32. Meeting the rules of origin requirements, however, has always been an issue for LDCs in
terms of their ability to take advantage of preferential tariff rates.  For example, the United States
Government Accounting Office consulted a number of experts in the field of trade preferences, whichWT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 16
they report as “citing several ways in which U.S. rules of origin limit beneficiaries’ ability to use
nonreciprocal preferences”.17  The same report also cited difficulties in the European Union.
33. Lesotho is a recent example of how relaxed rules of origin can improve exports.  During the
1980's, under the GSP, manufactured goods from Lesotho enjoyed preferential duty regimes into
Canada, the United States and other non- European countries.  In addition, Lesotho was a signatory tothe Lomé convention, which allowed duty-free access of clothing into the EU.  Initially, sewn
garments from Lesotho were allowed entry into the EU.  During the late 1980's, the regulations under
the Lomé convention were altered with the requirement that cumulation must apply for qualifying
status, with a time bound derogation from Lesotho.
34. With the introduction of the AGOA in 2000, Lesot ho exports its clothing duty-free and quota
free in the USA.
18  In addition as an LDC it receives the further benefit of not having to apply
cumulation to its clothing exports for a period of four years within the context of the rules of originapplicable under AGOA.  After 2004, unless the derogation is renewed, Lesotho garments will lose
their duty quota free access unless they are manufactured from fabric manufactured in Lesotho,
another qualifying Sub-Saharan state or the USA.  Figure 4 indicates the evolution of the value of
exports in billions of Maloti in Europe, USA and Africa.  The combination of relaxed rules of origin
and lower tariff rates has resulted in a significant increase in exports originating from Lesotho into theUnited States.
Figure 4:  Exports of Lesotho, Various Years
Source:  Cerrex (2002a).
                                                     
17 United States (2001), page 28.
18 Duty and quota free access to the USA market under AGOA is subject to a cap on imports of 1.5% of
the USA's total garment imports in the first year, rising at half a percent per year to 3.5% in 2008.  Up to the end
of October 2001, 51% of the cap was utilized.02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
1997 1998 1999 2000
USA
Europe
AfricaWT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 17
B. STANDARDS
35. Certain products must comply with the technica l standards of an importing country in order to
be permitted for import.  It is entirely possible for a product to be granted a tariff preference, but at the
same time be prohibited from import into a preference giving country if it does not meet existing
standards.  The extent to which standards hinder market access for products originating from LDCshas been the subject of a number of studies (Wilson, 2002).  Of particular note is a recent study
(Cerrex, 2002b), which examined the issue of utilis ation of preferences into the EU that identified
some examples of problems with market access into the EU.  The most notable difficulties are in the
areas of health and safety regulations including the cost of meeting such requirements (table 7).
C. A
NTI-DUMPING MEASURES
36. Since 1995 four (Bangladesh, Malawi, Mozambique  and Nepal) LDCs have had anti-dumping
investigations initiated against their exports.  India initiated two cases against Nepal (zinc oxides andacrylic fibres) and one against Bangladesh (lead acid batteries).  According to the WTO database a
final measure was imposed in the lead acid batteries case.  The cases against Malawi (bed linen) and
Mozambique (tires) were brought by South Africa.  No final measures have been recorded in the
database for either case.
Table 7:  Products and Measures Identified by Developing Countries that affect Market Access
Product HS Code Problems
Bananas 8030019
Strawberries,
apples and pears8.08 and 08.11Health Safety: Pesticide residue levels. Difficulties in complying with EU
standards, lack of technical knowledge.
Beef 16.05.10
Pork 16.02.10.00.21
Sausages 16.01.00.10
Chicken processed 16.02.10.00.21High cost of meeting sanitary and phytosanitary standards.
Fish Ch. 3 and 16 Cost of meeting and administering health regulations, difficulties and cost of
testing procedures.
Fresh flowers 6.03 Difficulties in meeting environmental and social standards.
Tomatoes, chilled 7.02
Tomato paste 20.02
Potatoes 7.01
Courgettes 7.09
Cucumbers 7.07Health and safety regulations - maximum pesticide residue levels, lack of
technical assistance to administer standards.
Organic products Misc. High cost of complying with EU standards and definitions.
Source:  Cerrex  (2002b)
VII. INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS
37. As indicated in the previous sections market access for products originating from LDCs can
be impeded in a variety of ways.  Accordingly, a whole range of initiatives are required to improve
market access.  These can include reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers, as well as technical
assistance to respond to the improved access opportunities.  Overcoming domestic policy and supply-WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 18
side constraints is also a priority for some LDCs so as better to utilize the improvements in market
access conditions.
A. TARIFF AND NON -TARIFF MEASURES
38. Pursuant to the mandate contained in paragraph 42 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, WTO
Members have announced or taken measures to provide duty-free and quota-free access to LDCexports.  Market access measures in favour of LDCs were also announced at the Third UN
Conference for LDCs (LDC-III), in May 2001.  An u pdated listing of initiatives and improvements in
market access for LDCs is contained in Table 8.  Based on the notifications or announcements made
by some 28 WTO Members, the Table tracks improvements and summarizes the status of preferential
market access for LDC exports.  Additional measures taken, such as simplification of origin
requirements, have also been highlighted.
39. To date, 13 WTO Members, have notified
19 market access measures in favour of LDCs.
These are: Canada, Egypt, European Communities, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Morocco,
New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.  To facilitate the
review of improvements in market access for LDCs, Members have been requested to notify measures
undertaken and any subsequent changes to them.  A simplification in the WTO notification
procedures for market access in favour of LDCs was also agreed to in 2001, with the Committee onTrade and Development and Council for Trade in  Goods, forwarding notifications to the Sub-
Committee on LDCs for substantive examination and reporting back.
20
40. Several developed and transition economies including some of the major markets for LDC
exports have adopted a policy of duty-free and quota-free market access for all or essentially all LDC
exports.  These export markets include Canada, Czech Republic, European Union, Hungary, New
Zealand, Norway, Slovak Republic and Switzerland.  Of the major developing country markets for
LDC exports, Hong Kong, China and Singapore, offer duty-free and quota-free access on an MFN
basis.  Some developing countries ranging from Mauritius, Egypt, and Republic of Korea, have also
accorded preferential access to LDCs.  However, the product coverage of these preferential schemes
varies and is usually limited to duty-free treatment for LDC exports in a few tariff lines.  Some othercountries offer preferences in a regional or sub-regional context.  For instance, India, through the
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperati on (SAARC) offers preferential access to LDC
members of SAARC.  Morocco, gives preferential access to African LDCs, while the United States
under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) enhanced market access opportunities for
23 LDCs in Sub-Saharan Africa.
41. In addition to the advances made towards the objective of duty-free and quota-free access for
all LDC exports, some additional measures have also been considered and taken by Members.  For
instance at LDC-III, the European Union announced its intention to forego the use of anti-dumping
measures on exports by LDCs.
21  Other Members have also exercised restraint in the use of contingent
trade remedies on LDCs.  On rules of origin, se veral Members, including Canada, European Union,
Norway and Switzerland have notified changes and simplification in the origin requirements with
some possibility of cumulation in their GSP scheme s.  On Standards, the importance of technical
assistance is recognized and is discussed more fully in the following sub-section of the paper.
                                                     
19 WTO Notifications of preferences as listed out in the table below, have been accorded by developed
countries under the 1979 Enabling Clause (L/4903) and by developing countries under the 1999 Waiver onPreferential Tariff Treatment for LDCs (WT/L/304).
20 WT/COMTD/M/32 and G/C/M/47.
21 See also paragraph 48 of WT/COMTD/LDC/M/25.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 19
B. OTHER MEASURES
42. A number of preference giving countries have im plemented programs to assist LDCs to take
advantage of preferences.  Examples of such programs include Canada’s Trade Facilitation Office
which provides trade and investment related technical assistance to both Canadian importers and
foreign exporters.  Other examples include the Africa Trade and Investment Policy program of the
United Sates which supports the goals of the African growth and Opportunity Act.  Japan and the
European Union also maintain such programs.  Many other countries have similar programs.  The
ones highlighted here are by way of example and not meant to be systemic, nor comprehensive.
43. National initiatives can also be complemented by multilateral efforts.  For example, the World
Bank and the WTO are establishing a new fund, called the Standards and Trade Development Facility,
as part of their efforts to link aid to trade opportunities in the fight against poverty.  Other
international organizations are expected to join th e joint initiative, which aims at placing developing
countries in a stronger position to take advantage of trade opportunities by meeting standards, in
particular those recognized by the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures.
44. The WTO has also worked jointly with the OECD to establish a Doha Development Agenda
Trade-Related Technical Assistance and Capac ity Building Database (DDADB).  The database
contains information on technical assistance provided by bilateral, regional and multilateral
development partners to assist LDCs and other reci pients of assistance to enhance their participation
in the trading system including through improved market access opportunities.  The WTO Annual
Technical Assistance Plan22 has also accorded priority on technical assistance to LDCs, and a
component of the plan is on market access issues, with a view to strengthening LDCs' human andinstitutional capacities to negotiate and take advantage of trading opportunities.
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS
45. Significant advances have been made on a number of fronts to improve the market access
conditions for the merchandise exports of LDCs.  This study has attempted to both summarize these
initiatives as well as identify some of the remaining constraints.
46. The broad approach taken in this study to examine both, the level of preferences and some of
the non-tariff measures such as rules of origin and standards.  On the tariff side the study has
identified some markets where preferences are no t significant.  Whereas, in other areas where
substantial preferences are allocated to LDCs non-tariff measures are relatively more important.  The
study also makes the point that some major markets have chosen to offer market access on an MFNbasis as in the case of Hong Kong, China and Singapore.  Taken together these results imply that a
broad approach is required to assist LDCs improve their export performance.  This approach also
needs to be complemented with efforts to improve the supply capacity of LDCs.
                                                     
22 WT/COMTD/W/104 and Add.1.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 20
REFERENCES
Cerrex (2002a), “Analysis of the Utilisation of EU Preferences”, London, Cerrex Ltd.
Cerrex (2002b), “Barriers to SADC Exports”, London, Cerrex Ltd.United States, General Accounting Office (2001), International Trade: Comparison of U.S. and
European Union Preference Programs , Washington, GAO.
Wilson, J. (2002), “Standards, Regulation and Trade: WTO Rules and Developing Country Concerns”
in B. Hoekman, A. Mattoo and P. English (eds.), Development, Trade and WTO: A Handbook ,
Washington, World Bank.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 21Table 8:  Summary of initiatives to improve market access for LDCs23
Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
Argentina In May 2000, Argentina (on behalf of Mercosur) announced that it provided tariff preferences for LDCs
under the GSTP scheme, and following completion of the ratification process for the offers made in thecontext of the second round of GSTP negotiations, they would be in a position to enhance their preferences.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Australia Reported liberal existing market access conditions under GSP scheme. In May 2000, provided duty and
quota-free access on 93.2 percent of LDC exports to its market. In terms of tariff rates, nearly 84 per cent of
tariff lines were duty-free for LDCs and included preferential rates of duty in products of interest, including
agriculture, fish, textiles and clothing. In 1997, 98 pe rcent of LDC exports entered duty-free. Additional
duty-free entry granted to South Pacific Foru m Island Countries under SPARTECA Agreement.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
WT/TPR/S/104
Bulgaria Continued to grant, duty and quota-free access to its market for a wide range of products from LDCs. In
1997, all LDC exports entered duty-free.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Canada Canada announced that effective from 1 January 2003, it would provide duty-free and quota-free access to
imports from 48 LDCs. The measure to be notified in due course would cover all products except dairy
products, poultry and eggs. New rules of origin and procedures for textiles and apparel were also beingdeveloped that would allow for cumulation from ot her LDCs and also from developing countries.  Effective
1 September 2000, an additional 570 tariff lines at (HS 8 digit level) were added to the list of duty-free
items. Prior to the recent announcements, duty-free access to LDC exports covered 90 percent of the tariff
lines. Canada had also liberalized rules of origin requirements that applied to LDC imports with effect from
23 August 2000. Canada from 1 January 1998, moved beyond its commitments in the Agreement on Textilesand Clothing to integrate textile products and remove quotas on a number of specific products, as notified to
the WTO Textiles Monitoring Body. At the October 1997 High Level Meeting (HLM), Canada announced
changes to its Generalized Preferential Treatment (GPT). Preferential rates of duty were lowered on over
3,000 products from developing countries and coverage was broadened to include an additional 200 tariff
lines. Over 80 per cent of its product lines were GPT eligible and these products from LDCs entered Canadaduty-free. Canada accelerated most of the Uruguay Round tariff reductions scheduled for implementation on
1 January 1999 to 1 January 1998.WT/COMTD/M/41
(2002)
WT/COMTD/N/15
(2000)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/11
(1998)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
                                                     
23 Adapted from WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14/Rev.1.  Updated information or notifications of market access measures in favour of LDCs have be en received in 2001/2 from,
Canada, Czech Republic, European Union, Hungary, Japa n, Morocco, Norway,  Slovak Republic and Switzerland.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 22Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
Chile In May 2000, the Government was in the process of evaluating preferential treatment for products
originating in LDCs within its legal requirements. It  also announced its intention to consider or finalize
initiatives of market access for LDCs at the HLM in 1997.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Czech Republic Czech Republic informed Members of its existi ng GSP scheme, offering duty-free and quota-free access to
all LDCs' exports. In July 2001, copies of a letter received by the Director-General, with information of its
preferential market access for LDCs was circulated to the Sub-Committee.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/25
(2001)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Egypt Following the HLM, Egypt through the GSTP in 1998 notified tariff reductions at HS 8 digit level, ranging
from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of existing applied duties, for 77 products of export interest to LDCs, and
provided duty-free access, for about 50 products imported into Egypt.  In addition, Egypt bound customsduties, with a 10 per cent reduction for industrial products imported from LDCs.WT/COMTD/W/47&
Add.1
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
European Union The EC notified the Everything but Arms (EBA ) initiative. Duty-free and quota-free market access for all
goods (except arms), was accorded to LDCs effective from 5 March, 2001. A transition period of between
2002 and 2009 was provided for the phasing in of sugar, rice and bananas. Earlier, in 2000, about 99 percent
of LDCs exports by value entered the EU market duty-free. At the HLM in 1997, the EC announced the
extension of preferences under the Fourth ACP-EC Convention to non-ACP LDCs that was notified and
effective from 1 January 1998.24 Rules of origin requirements were also simplified allowing for derogations
and promoting regional cumulation.WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.2
(2001)
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/12
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/W/41
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Hong Kong, China Application of duty & quota-free access on an MF N basis to imports from all sources including LDCs. WT/GC/M/55 ( 2000)
Hungary Hungary informed Members of its existing GSP scheme, offering duty-free and quota-free access to all
LDCs' exports. In July 2001, copies of a letter received  by the Director-General, with information of its
preferential market access for LDCs was circulated to the Sub-Committee.  The Customs Law – 1996
through legal guarantees, strengthened predictability of the preferential market access to LDCs. Liberal
application of rules of origin requirements.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/25
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Iceland In May 2000, Government proposed to implement both tariff-free and quota-free treatment for essentially all
products originating in LDCs.  An appropriate notification would be submitted at the earliest convenience.
This treatment would apply to products of export interest to LDCs including textiles.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
India Preferences granted under SAPTA to LDC contract ing states. In 1997, India granted tariff concessions on
574 tariff lines exclusively for the LDC members of S AARC, and had removed quantitative restrictions on
180 lines exclusively in favour of SAARC LDCs.  Further, under the existing GSTP, India provided
preferential access to seven LDCs, namely, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Benin, Guinea, Haiti, Mozambique and
Sudan.  Under the Bangkok Agreement, Bangladesh was given preferential access, and Myanmar and Nepal
had preferential access to India under bilateral agreements.WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
                                                     
24 Request for a WTO Waiver of the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement is currently under consideration (G/C/W/187/Add.3).WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 23Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
Indonesia Announced intention to consider initiatives to improve market access for LDCs at th e HLM in 1997. WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Japan In 2002, Senegal had been added to the list of LDC beneficiaries under Japan's GSP Scheme. Changes to
ceiling quotas for industrial products were also notified. In 2001, Japan's GSP Scheme, was extended,
together with changes, by ten years until 31 March 2011. Following on an earlier proposal, from 1 April
2001, a further 360 products (at HS 9 Digit) from LDCs would be eligible for duty-free and quota-free
treatment. About 99 percent of industrial products, incl uding textiles and clothing, would be covered by the
scheme. In 1997, under its GSP scheme, Japan applied zero tariffs to 80 per cent of the products that were ofmajor export interest to the LDCs.WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.1
-11 (2002)
WT/COMTD/29
WT/LDC/SWG/IF/12
(2001)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Korea, Rep. Of In January 2000, Korea notified preferential duty-free access on 80 items (HS 6-digit) originating from and
of major export interest to LDCs effective from 1 January 2000.25 In May 2000, it indicated that it would
consider further expanding its existing preferential tariff regime for LDCs.WT/COMTD/N/12/
Rev.1
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Malaysia Announced intention to consider initiatives to improv e market access for LDCs at th e HLM in 1997. WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Mauritius Notified effective September 1998, duty-free access for five tariff lines originating from LDCs. The products
comprise certain crustaceans;  guavas, mangoes, mangosteens; axes and billhooks;  handsaws and files.WT/COMTD/W/53
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Morocco Morocco notified duty-free access, for 33 African LDCs. Effective 1 January, 2001, duty-free access was
accorded to 61 products (at HS 4 to 10 digit level) originating in and consigned from the African LDCs.
Debt to Morocco, owed by African LDCs, had also b een cancelled. This measure was in fulfilment of the
proposal made by Morocco at the HLM in 1997.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/18
and G/C/6 (2001)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
New Zealand New Zealand in November 2000, notified its decision  to offer duty and quota-free access to all imports from
LDCs effective from 1 July 2001. Prior to this, in 1999, 96.7 per cent of its tariff lines and 99.3 per cent of
its imports from LDCs entered duty-free.WT/COMTD/27
WT/GC/36
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
                                                     
25 The preferential scheme was notified and made under the provisions of the waiver adopted by WTO Members in 1999 (WT/L/304).WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 24Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
Norway In May 2001, Norway announced still further improvements  in their preferential scheme in favour of LDCs.
With effect from 1 July 2002, Norway would offer du ty-free and quota-free treatment to all LDCs' exports
(except arms) with no transition arrangements for any product. Earlier in 2000, amendments and
improvements to Norway's GSP scheme were notified  Norway accorded duty-free and quota free access to
all industrial and agricultural imports from LDCs covered by the GSP programme, with the exception of
flour, grains and feeding stuffs. Rules of origin requirements were revised and simplified. Following
harmonization in the application of rules of origin with the EC and Switzerland, from 1 March 1998,
bilateral cumulation was permitted and the possibility of future diagonal cumulation of origin was being
considered. At the HLM, Norway announced that it had on an MFN basis accelerated its Uruguay Round
tariff cuts on agricultural products by implementing them from 1 January 1995 instead of 1999.  It had alsophased out almost all restrictions on text iles and clothing by 1997-98 instead of 2004.WT/COMTD/M/34
(2001)
WT/COMTD/N/6/
Add.1 - 2
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Poland Since 1990, Poland has applied preferential treatment for products originating from LDCs and in May 2000,
it announced that it was examining autonomous improvem ents to the existing preferential system with a
view to providing duty-free and quota-free market access for essentially all products originating in LDCs, in
conformity with national legislation and international agreements.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Singapore Singapore notified at the HLM, duty-free treatment on 107 items (HS 6 digit) of export interest to LDCs in
addition to the almost duty-free regime accorded on an MFN basis.WT/LDC/HL/M/1
Annex 1 (1997)
Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic informed Members of it s existing GSP scheme, offering duty-free and quota-free
access to all LDCs' exports. In July 2001, copies of a letter received by the Director-General, with
information on its preferential market access scheme for LDCs was circulated to the Sub-Committee. It
confirmed in May 2000, that its GSP system  would be maintained in the future.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/25
(2001)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 25Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
Slovenia In May 2000, Slovenia announced that it was prepared to provide tariff and quota-free access for essentially
all products originating in LDCs, independent of WTO membership, consistent with its domestic
requirements and international agreements under its newly established preferential scheme. The Government
had taken this general decision which would be confirmed through decrees issued.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Switzerland Switzerland notified its proposal designed to grant duty-free access in the medium term for all products from
LDCs. The revision of the GSP with effect from 1 January 2002, would provide LDCs the phased removal
of all remaining customs duties. Duties were reduced by an average of 30 per cent on 1 January 2002.Subsequently, (from 1 April 2004), an additional reduction of an average of 30 per cent will be granted to
LDCs.  Market access for LDCs would be reviewed in 2005 before the expiry of the current GSP scheme. In
1997, Switzerland had extended its GSP scheme for 10 years. Since 1 March 1997, LDCs were able to
benefit from zero tariffs for all industrial and most agricultural products. Some 98 per cent of LDC products
entered Switzerland duty-free under its notified preferential scheme and improvements thereof. Rules ofOrigin for goods benefiting from preferential access had also been simplified. Switzerland had harmonised
its regulations with the European Union and in the near future materials originating from Switzerland but
also from the European Union and Norway would enjo y the right of cumulation treatment.  Under the new
rules of origin, regional economic groupings in developing countries also enjoyed the right of cumulation
treatment.WT/COMTD/N/7
26 &
Add.1 (2002)
WT/COMTD/W/34
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Thailand At the HLM in 1997, announced tariff preferences on 74 product groups (at the 6-digit H.S. level), through
which some products would be exempted from import duty and others would be given a margin ofpreference of 20 per cent from the applied rates.  This would be subject to an annual review process.WT/LDC/HL/M/1(1997)
Turkey Notified additional preferential tariff rates for imports from LDCs effective from 1 January 1998. These
unilateral preferential rates apply to 556 products at the HS 12 digit level. All these products except coffee,
are given duty-free access.WT/COMTD/W/39 &
Corr.1
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
                                                     
26 The coverage of the Swiss scheme, particularly in agriculture, was extended considerably to other developing countries.WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 26Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document
Reference
(Notifications in bold)
United States The United States adopted the African Grow th and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in May 2000 for Sub-Saharan
Africa. Thirty-four Sub-Saharan countries (including 23 LDCs), were designated as beneficiaries under
AGOA in October 2000, and can avail new GSP benefi ts for 1835 tariff lines as from December 2000.
Earlier improvements under the GSP system, included duty-free access offered on nearly half the 9000
products in the US harmonized tariff schedule. Improvements to the scheme were notified with the additionof 1,783 tariff lines to GSP treatment for LDCs as from 30 May 1997, under the GSP Renewal Act of 1996.
Moreover, at the end of the Uruguay Round implementation period, some 70 percent of US tariff lines
would be subject to MFN rates of 5 per cent or less  and MFN duty-free treatment would cover more than 40
per cent of tariff lines.WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.2
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 27
Annex Table 1:  Ratio of exports of goods and commercial services to GDP of LDCs, 1990 and
2000
(Million dollars and percentage)
Value Ratio to GDP
GDP Goods and
Commercial servicesGoods Commercial services
2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000
Total LDCs 166200 17 26 14 22 2 4
  Afghanistan … … … … … … …
  A n g o l a 8 8 2 83 8 9 33 8 8 9 1 3  Bangladesh 47106 7 14 6 14 1 1  Benin 2168 19 24 13 18 6 6  Bhutan 487 33 30 23 23 10 6  Burkina Faso 2192 11 11 10 9 1 1
  B u r u n d i 6 8 9 77 67 10
  Cambodia 3183 … 47 … 42 … 5  Cape Verde 558 15 22 6 4 9 18  Central African Republic 963 11 18 10 17 1 1  C h a d 1 4 0 71 5 1 81 3 1 6 1 2  Comoros 202 10 24 7 6 2 18  Congo, Dem. Rep. of 4481 27 … 25 … 2 …  Djibouti 553 … 27 … 14 … 14  Equatorial Guinea 1341 32 97 29 96 3 1  Eritrea 608 … 14 … 4 … 10  Ethiopia 6391 8 14 4 8 4 6  Gambia 422 52 59 35 35 17 24
  Guinea 3012 27 25 24 24 3 1
  Guinea-Bissau 215 9 32 8 30 2 2  Haiti 4050 10 12 9 8 1 4  Kiribati 43 34 … 10 … 23 …  Lao People's Dem. Rep. 1709 10 30 9 23 1 7  Lesotho 899 15 27 10 23 6 4  L i b e r i a … …… …… ……  Madagascar 3878 15 29 10 21 4 8  M a l a w i 1 6 9 72 4 2 62 2 2 4 2 3  Maldives 556 90 82 39 20 51 62  M a l i 2 2 9 81 7 2 71 4 2 4 3 4  Mauritania 935 45 40 44 37 1 3
  Mozambique 3754 9 18 5 10 4 9
  Myanmar 7337 11 29 8 22 3 7  Nepal 5497 11 22 6 14 5 7  N i g e r 1 8 2 62 1 1 42 0 1 4 1 1  Rwanda 1794 5 6 4 4 1 2  Samoa 236 21 25 4 6 17 20  Sao Tome and Principe 46 12 33 7 7 5 26  Senegal 4371 23 29 16 21 6 8  Sierra Leone 636 22 8 17 6 5 2  Solomon Islands 275 42 44 33 28 9 16  S o m a l i a …… …… …… …  Sudan 11516 3 16 2 16 1 0
  Tanzania, United Rep. of 9027 13 14 10 7 3 7
  Togo 1219 39 47 32 43 7 4  T u v a l u …… …… …… …  Uganda 6170 … 10 … 7 … 3  Vanuatu 212 46 69 9 14 37 56  Y e m e n 8 5 3 23 0 5 02 9 4 8 2 2  Z a m b i a 2 9 1 14 1 3 03 8 2 6 3 4Memorandum item:     World … 18 23 15 18 4 4
Note:  Trade in goods is derived from balance of payments statisti cs and does not correspond to the merchandise trade statistics give n elsewhere in this report.
 Data are estimated for most countries.
Source:  WTO (2002), International Trade Statistics .WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 28
Annex Table 2:  Merchandise exports and imports of least-developed countries by selected
country grouping, 2001
(Million dollars and percentage)
Exports Imports
Value Annual Percentage Change Value Annual Percentage Change
2000 1990-01 1999 2000 2001 2000 1990-01 1999 2000 2001
Total LDCs 36232 7 11 28 1 41818 5444
O i l  e x p o r t e r s 1 5 0 5 7 9 5 1 6 5 - 1 0 7 5 8 2 7694
  Angola 7886 5 46 53 -15 3215 7 50 3 4  Yemen 4079 15 63 67 -21 2324 3 -7 16 -3  Sudan 1807 14 31 132 -10 1510 9 -27 9 4  Equatorial Guinea 1285 36 77 71 53 533 25 20 26 31
E x p o r t e r s  o f  m a n u f a c t u r e s 1 1 8 4 71 57 2 49 1 7 1 2 5 9693
  Bangladesh 6399 13 6 17 2 8360 8 10 9 0  Myanmar 1620 19 6 44 40 2371 24 -14 3 17  Cambodia 1327 30 9 35 17 1525 23 13 26 3  Madagascar 824 10 9 41 14 997 5 7 34 17  Nepal 804 12 27 34 -8 1573 7 14 11 -6  Lao People's Dem. Rep. 330 14 -16 6 2 535 10 -5 2 3  Haiti 323 5 13 -5 -14 1036 11 29 1 -2  Lesotho 220 15 -11 28 28 728 0 -10 -7 -6 Exporters of commodities 8147 3 -5 -3 12 14780 3 3 -4 5  Senegal 920 3 6 -10 17 1521 2 5 3 -1  Guinea 750 2 -3 3 10 612 -2 2 -13 -2
  Zambia 746 -4 -7 -1 17 750 -2 -11 12 28
  Tanzania, United Rep. of 663 8 -8 22 18 1524 4 7 -2 9  Mali 545 7 3 -5 36 592 1 9 -28 11  L i b e r i a 5 0 0 6 - 1 80 2 3 2 9 0 3440  Ethiopia 482 3 -20 7 -13 1260 0 -5 -9 -17  Uganda 461 11 4 -11 -1 1517 17 -5 13 5  Benin 392 3 2 -7 -3 613 9 11 -18 6  Mozambique 364 17 14 38 93 1158 2 44 2 -8  Togo 363 4 -1 -7 19 565 1 2 -5 10  Malawi 355 -3 -14 -20 -13 569 0 21 -18 -3  Mauritania 300 -5 7 -20 -7 320 -1 -15 5 5  Niger 283 0 -14 -1 -3 372 1 7 -8 12
  Burkina Faso 213 1 -20 -16 -18 550 2 -21 -5 19
  Chad 183 -1 -23 -9 -10 323 8 -11 2 96  Central African Republic 155 1 -3 6 -15 120 -2 -10 -11 8  B h u t a n 1 1 6 5700 1 8 0 8 3 6 - 10  Solomon Islands 85 2 16 -42 1 125 2 -31 14 -10  Maldives 76 3 -14 19 -2 389 10 14 -3 1  Guinea-Bissau 62 10 89 22 -11 62 -3 1 -10 5  Eritrea 35 - -29 75 -14 471 - -6 -5 0  Vanuatu 25 -10 -24 -4 -76 57 -2 9 -41 33  Kiribati 17 21 -5 175 45 41 3 9 17 -12  S a m o a 1 4 53 3 - 3 01 4 1 0 6 41 9 - 82 3  Djibouti 13 - 6080 1 6 5 - 3 - 38 - 3
  Cape Verde 11 5 20 -8 -9 238 5 9 -4 -2
  Gambia 8 -11 -74 14 13 190 1 -22 -1 5  Comoros 7 -10 27 40 -14 72 5 70 -10 18  Sao Tome and Principe 3 0 -20 -25 33 22 1 -8 0 5  Tuvalu 0 -7 86 -81 68 6 2 -7 21 -8Other LDCs  a 1181 -9 -19 -12 -7 2331 -3 -7 8 1Memorandum Item:World  b 6430100 5 4 13 -4 6710700 6 4 14 -4
a  Other LDCs comprise Congo, Dem. Rep. of, Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Burundi and Sierra Leone. Their trade data are strong ly affected by conflict and civil
strife.
b  Includes significant re-exports or imports for re-export.
Note : Data for 2001 are largely estimated.
Source:  WTO (2002), International Trade Statistics .WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 29
Annex Table 3:  Imports of agricultural products and manufactures of EU, Asia and North
America from LDCs, 2001
(Million dollars and percentage)
Annual Annual Annual
percentage percentage percentage
Value change Value change Value change
2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2001
Agricultural
products
European Union
(15)Asia  a,b North America
Total LDCs 2693 2 -8 Total LDCs 2415 4 … Total LDCs 531 9 -2
  Senegal 309 -13 -3   Myanmar 666 20 …   Bangladesh 159 27 -37
  Tanzania, UnitedRep. of255 47 -10   Tanzania, United
Rep. of197 -3 …   Myanmar 53 102 -4
  Madagascar 249 -1 2   Bangladesh 145 5 …   Malawi 53 -29 40
  Uganda 198 -21 2   Equatorial Guinea 109 -11 …   Liberia 47 45 -6  Malawi 193 -14 -13   Mozambique 97 44 …   Madagascar 44 32 99  Bangladesh 186 43 -6   Madagascar 92 69 …   Ethiopia 32 -5 2  Ethiopia 178 12 -48   Mauritania 91 -29 …   Mozambique 26 188 -70  Mozambique 116 19 -13   Lao People's Dem.
Rep.86 10 …   Uganda 24 7 -20
  Sudan 102 -1 -10   Sudan 74 28 …   Haiti 18 0 -30
  Mauritania 86 2 28   Mali 72 -30 …   Tanzania, United
Rep. of15 -28 5
  Liberia 80 87 13   Solomon Islands 66 -39 …
  Congo, Dem. Rep.
of58 -18 -25   Ethiopia 65 -7 …
  Myanmar 55 5 10   Malawi 62 60 …
  Chad 52 -12 -4   Cambodia 58 -16 …  Mali 45 -25 -39   Liberia 44 337 …  Afghanistan 45 104 -64   Yemen 38 61 …  Zambia 44 -1 14   Senegal 34 1 …  Burkina Faso 41 -4 -8   Togo 33 -35 …  Benin 39 13 6   Uganda 31 25 …  Central AfricanRepublic38 12 10   Vanuatu 20 32 …
  Burundi 31 -7 -49
  Others (28) 292 -8 -2   Others (29) 336 -8 …   Others (39) 60 -35 20
Manufactures
European Union
(15)North America Asia a
Total LDCs 6575 13 3 Total LDCs 4997 35 4 Total LDCs 694 -21 …
  Bangladesh 2666 25 5   Bangladesh 2560 26 -2   Bangladesh 287 9 …
  Congo, Dem. Rep.of746 -3 -8   Cambodia 887 39 16   Cambodia 176 -3 …
  Angola 646 16 -19   Myanmar 494 104 -1   Myanmar 111 18 …
  Cambodia 326 16 31   Haiti 292 -1 -10   Nepal 44 -66 …  Myanmar 320 74 17   Nepal 258 31 -15  Liberia 300 -21 88   Lesotho 151 … 53
  Madagascar 279 6 0   Madagascar 122 127 63
  Guinea 171 27 -25   Maldives 104 77 5  Central AfricanRepublic169 8 -44
  Nepal 163 1 -26
  Lao People's Dem.Rep.112 7 7
  Sierra Leone 92 62 -66
  Niger 84 -31 -15  Ethiopia 46 50 11  Tanzania, UnitedRep. of44 98 16
   Others (34) 410 -9 13   Others (41) 129 -31 2   Others (45) 75 -64 …
a  China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taipei Chinese and Thailand
b Includes Secretariat estimates for India
Source:  WTO (2002), International Trade Statistics .WT/COMTD/LDC/W/28
TN/MA/S/7
Page 30
Annex Table 4:  Exports of commercial servic es of least-developed countries by category, 1990
and 2000
(Million dollars and percentage)
Value Share in commercial services
Commercial Transport Travel Other services
 services
2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000
T o t a l  L D C s 5 9 0 0 2 92 1 3 54 4 3 63 4
    A f g h a n i s t a n … …… …… ……
    Angola 295 49 30 21 0 31 70    Bangladesh 283 13 32 6 18 81 50    Benin 126 33 13 50 60 16 27    B h u t a n 3 0 …… …… ……
    Burkina Faso 28 37 17 34 48 29 35
    Burundi 2 38 43 52 38 9 19    Cambodia 159 … 44 … 40 … 16    C a p e  V e r d e 9 9 5 04 6 2 04 1 3 01 3    Central African Republic 11 51 3 16 36 33 61    Chad 25 18 5 34 50 47 45    Comoros 36 63 13 29 80 8 6    Congo, Dem. Rep. of … 30 … 30 … 40 …    Djibouti 75 65 57 16 9 19 33    Equatorial Guinea 10 … 1 … 81 … 18    Eritrea 61 … … … … … …    Ethiopia 387 81 56 2 15 17 30
    Gambia 101 9 9 88 78 3 13
    Guinea 36 14 54 33 5 53 41    Guinea-Bissau 4 5 9 0 52 95 39    Haiti 151 20 2 79 64 1 34    Kiribati … 40 … 13 … 47 …    Lao People's Dem. Rep. 111 75 18 24 80 1 1    Lesotho 36 14 1 51 67 35 31    L i b e r i a … …… …… ……    Madagascar 314 32 16 31 39 37 45    Malawi 44 46 18 43 78 11 4    Maldives 345 10 6 88 93 2 1    Mali 83 31 37 54 43 15 21
    Mauritania 28 35 3 65 83 0 15
    Mozambique 325 61 30 0 23 39 47    Myanmar 510 10 17 21 33 69 50    Nepal 410 4 15 66 38 31 47    Niger 12 5 3 59 58 35 39    Rwanda 39 56 31 33 60 11 8    Samoa 46 15 3 61 88 24 9    Sao Tome and Principe 12 14 0 59 70 28 30    Senegal 330 19 10 43 49 38 40    S i e r r a  L e o n e 1 5 1 02 6 7 64 6 1 42 8    Solomon Islands 44 13 3 38 9 49 88    S o m a l i a … …… …… ……
    S u d a n 2 4 1 46 3 1 62 2 7 01 5
    Tanzania, United Rep. of 615 20 9 36 61 44 29    Togo 46 27 24 51 13 22 63    Tuvalu … … … … … … …    Uganda 182 … 13 … 82 … 5    Vanuatu 118 10 23 68 46 21 31    Yemen 174 27 12 49 42 24 46    Zambia 114 69 37 14 58 18 5Memorandum item:     World 1465100 29 24 34 32 38 44
Note:  Data are estimated for most countries.
Source:  WTO (2002), International Trade Statistics .
__________