RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
5 April 2001
(01-1731)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Note by the Secretariat
1. This Note surveys market access conditions for exports of Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
to 30 markets that account for over 95 percent of LDCs total exports. The survey specifically
examines market access improvements for LDCs' exports since the WTO High Level Meeting onIntegrated Initiatives for LDCs Trade Development (HLM), in October 1997.  The study is based on
Members' notifications to the WTO Integrated Database (IDB), COMTRADE and UNCTAD data. It
builds on earlier analytical studies carried out by the Secretariat to examine tariff and non-tariff
barriers facing LDCs' merchandise exports and briefly surveys access opportunities for trade in
services.
1 This Note was prepared pursuant to the decision by WTO Members at the 22nd Session of
the Sub-Committee on Least Developed Countries on 6 December 2000.2
2. This Note is divided into six Sections:
I. Introduction;
II. Market Access Conditions - Findings:
III. Recent Developments in Market Access Improvements for LDCs;IV. Non-Tariff Measures;
V. Market Access Conditions - Trade in Services; and,
VI. Conclusions
3. The results of the market access survey contained in this Note are based on the data
compilation in WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14/Add.1.
INTRODUCTION
4. Recent developments, as shown in changes in domestic legislation, announcements and
notifications by WTO Members, indicate significant and concrete improvements in market access
opportunities for LDCs. Major trading partners, particularly developed and transition economies, have
been mindful of the special needs of LDCs. These countries in particular, have taken or proposed
measures to improve trading opportunities for LDCs. Considerable progress has also been made in theprovision of autonomous liberalization, in advance and without staging on an MFN basis of products
of particular export interest to LDCs and prefer ential access under improvements to GSP, GSTP and
other programmes in favour of LDCs.  Since th e High Level Meeting in October 1997, organized
pursuant to the mandate given by Ministers at the WTO Singapore Ministerial Conference in 1996,
several Members have announced improvements in market access opportunities for LDCs in responseto the call by the WTO to provide duty and quota free access to LDCs' exports. Further significant
developments in LDCs' market access have also been registered based on consultations initiated by
the WTO Director-General as part of the post-Seattle confidence-building exercise. Recent
                                                     
1 WTO Secretariat documents: WT/LDC/HL/14 and Add. 1, WT/COMTD/LDC/W/11/Rev.1,
WT/COMTD/W/16 and 17.
2 WT/COMTD/LDC/M/22.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 2
improvements will assist LDCs as a group, to effectively participate and fully benefit from the growth
and development opportunities to be realized from the world trading system.
5. However, it is recognized that improving market access opportunities is not the only area
where action is needed to further LDCs' trade integration. Enhanced market access together with
improving supply-side response, both through trade-related capacity-building and the continuedimplementation by LDCs of reform priorities are central for their effective participation in the
multilateral trading system.  A holistic approach bringing together national efforts and those of the
international community; encompassing sound and stable macroeconomic policies and supply-side
measures, by LDCs themselves, relevant agencies and development partners, are integral parts of the
efforts that are needed. In this regard, the re-design of the Integrated Framework  into a viable model
for trade-related technical assistance and as a m echanism for mainstreaming trade integration into
country overall development plans and poverty reduction strategies will contribute to these objectives.
I. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS – FINDINGS 
3
6. The market access conditions for LDCs merchandise exports are discussed in this section at
three levels, namely: i) LDCs major trading partners; ii) GSPs/GSTPs including LDC specific
preference schemes; and iii) Product analysis.  The LDCs that are the principal exporters of the
products analyzed are also listed in the appended tables.
7. Though LDCs share in world trade has been declining, within LDC economies themselves,
the external sector has been growing in impor tance. Trade accounts for a significant share of
economic activity in LDCs: currently, exports and imports of goods and services together on average
amount to over 49 percent of GDP.  This is up from a trade-GDP ratio of 35.8 per cent in 1990.4
LDCs trade has been growing, but has not kept pace with growth in the rest of the world. The rate of
growth of merchandise exports for LDCs during the 1990s was 3.6 percent per annum, lower than the
global growth rate of 5.6 percent.  As a result, the share of LDCs in world merchandise exports has
been declining over the last decade from 0.48 percent in 1990, to 0.40 percent in 1999.5
(i) LDCs' Major Trading Partners:
8. The 30 markets analyzed for this study account for over 95 per cent of LDCs' exports,6 and
include trade and tariff data over the repor ting period 1997-1999/2000 for: ni ne developed, seventeen
developing, and four transition ec onomies. Based on a selection of 127 products of major interest to
LDCs at the 6 digit HS level accounting for 90 per cent of LDCs exports to these 30 leading markets,
some analysis of product specific restrictions  has also been undertaken (see (iii) below).
9. Nearly 75 per cent of LDCs' exports are destin ed for developed country markets, mainly the
European Union, United States, Japan and Canada. About 25 per cent is sold in developing country
markets, of which the main ones (accounting for US $ 200 million or more of LDCs exports) areBrazil, China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Hong Kong – China, Rep. of Korea, India, Singapore and
Thailand.  The relevance and potential of existing LDC trade in the regional context, is also of
importance and is reflected in the statistical addendum.
                                                     
3  Data and the methodology used in this section are outlined in the statistical addendum -
WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14/Add.1.
4  Estimates from World Bank, Economic Development Indicators (CD-ROM).
5  WTO Annual Report: International Trade Statistics (2000).
6 The 30 leading markets examined in this study are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
China, Chinese Taipei, Czech Republic, Egypt, European Union, Hong Kong-China, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Rep. of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Russian
Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and United States.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 3
10. The average trade weighted and unweighted applied tariff applicable on LDC exports in their
30 main export markets is 3.8 per cent and 7.1 per cent respectively.7  In developed country markets
the trade weighted average applied tariff is 2.2 and unweighted average is 2.5 per cent; in developing
countries it is 8.6 and 14.3 per cent respectively and in transition economies LDC exports are on
average subject to a 1.3 and 3.1 per cent tariff duty.  Specific duties, other duties and charges and theimpact of quotas especially in agriculture, textiles and clothing, have not been examined in the
tabulation of these averages. When aggregated together, at the HS six digit level, about 75 per cent of
LDCs exports by value, are eligible to enter duty-f ree, either on an MFN basis (nearly 40 per cent), or
under GSP, GSTP or LDC specific preference schemes.
8 Some WTO Members, offer preferences
under regional arrangements or other schemes (e .g., Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)),
that include both developing and LDCs among its beneficiaries.
11. The Table 1 on page 4 below summarizes, by market, import data and the different tariff rates
applied at the HS six digit level.  The table presents: Total imports, LDC imports and market share,
MFN Applied Rates (average, minimum, maximum), where available GSP/GSTP duties (average,
minimum, maximum), and LDC rates (average, minimum, maximum).
(ii) GSPs/GSTPs including LDC specific preference schemes  9
12. In this study, data for 15 of the 30 major tr ading partners, according GSP, GSTP or LDC
specific preferences are included. These are: Australia, Canada, Egypt, European Union, Hungary,
Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Singapore,
Switzerland, Turkey and the United States (see also Table 1 on page 4 below and statistical
addendum). In addition to data from the IDB and WTO notifications, information has also been
sourced from UNCTAD (TRAINS database) for GSP and GSTP preferences.
                                                     
7 The unweighted average for the 30 markets includes all 23 markets examined in the WTO study
WT/LDC/HL/14 in October 1997. For the 23 markets, the average unweighted applied tariff has decreased from
10.6 per cent tabulated in the 1997 study to 6.9 per cent at present.
8 Section III, reflects country specific initiatives, undertaken on an autonomous basis to improve
market access conditions for LDCs.
9 The Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) by the US, and the EC's Cotonou Agreement,
extend preferences that include LDCs and other developing countries.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 4Table 1:  IMPORT DATA AND TARIFF RATES BY MARKET
Market Total Imports LDC Imports LDCs' Market Share AV Applied Duty GSP/GSTP Rate LDC Rate
US $ (millions) US $ (millions) (percentage) Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum
ARGENTINA 29131 16.2 0.06 17.8 0.0 33.0
AUSTRALIA 66560 105.7 0.16 8.0 0.0 28.0 7.7 0.0 28.0 5.0 0.0 23.0
BRAZIL 59206 241.7 0.41 17.4 0.0 27.0
CANADA 209041 396.8 0.19 5.7 0.0 20.8 4.3 0.0 20.8 2.9 0.0 20.8
CHILE 17859 67.3 0.38 9.0 4.5 9.0
CHINA 149427 1341.1 0.90 17.9 0.0 121.6
CHINESE TAIPEI 109942 574.5 0.52 8.5 0.0 48.3
CZECH REPUBLIC 28010 43.1 0.15 6.2 0.0 43.0
EGYPT 15133 98.9 0.65 19.4 1.0 135.0 19.1 0.0 135.0
EU (15) 818147 9727.7 1.19 4.7 0.0 74.9 2.8 0.0 52.4 0.1 0.0 18.9
HONG KONG, CHINA 193589 253.3 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0
HUNGARY 24983 81.3 0.33 10.1 0.0 68.0 6.7 0.0 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INDIA 43100 515.7 1.20 34.5 0.0 260.0
INDONESIA 31012 154.4 0.50 7.4 0.0 87.5
JAPAN 310167 1120.8 0.36 4.9 0.0 50.0 2.4 0.0 38.5 0.9 0.0 38.5
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 119216 953.4 0.80 11.1 0.0 788.9 10.7 0.0 788.9
MALAYSIA 67438 204.4 0.30 6.0 0.0 52.5
MEXICO 131481 41.5 0.03 20.2 0.0 182.5
MOROCCO 9913 63.1 0.64 32.9 2.5 55.5
NEW ZEALAND 13770 12.8 0.09 7.8 0.0 19.0 7.1 0.0 19.0 3.8 0.0 15.0
NORWAY 35314 338.0 0.96 7.0 0.0 136.5 2.0 0.0 84.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
PHILIPPINES 34229 76.0 0.22 9.2 0.0 45.0
POLAND 45092 90.5 0.20 12.6 0.0 40.0 10.7 0.0 40.0 7.2 0.0 40.0
RUSSIA 57065 112.7 0.20 16.8 0.0 30.0 13.5 0.0 60.0 1.4 0.0 30.0
SINGAPORE 114998 563.5 0.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SOUTH AFRICA 29645 243.5 0.82 7.1 0.0 50.0
SWITZERLAND 78637 99.0 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
THAILAND 52055 1050.9 2.02 41.7 0.0 110.0
TURKEY 45057 77.2 0.17 9.2 0.0 145.0 9.1 0.0 145.0
UNITED STATES 967603 6105.8 0.63 4.8 0.0 350.0 3.6 0.0 350.0 2.9 0.0 87.5
Source : WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14/Add.1WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 5
(iii) Product Analysis:
13. LDCs trade in more than 80 per cent of the products classified at the HS six digit level.
However, LDC exports are concentrated on a fe w products. Of the 4162 products exported (at six
digit HS level) by LDCs to the 30 major trading partners (see statistical addendum), a selection of 127
products accounts for 90 per cent of LDCs total exports to these markets.10  Heavy concentration on a
handful, usually primary products with little processing and value-addition, makes LDCs particularly
vulnerable to stochastic shocks and fluctuations in world prices. On average, the top three export
commodities for each LDC, accounts for over 70 per cent of each LDC's total merchandise exports.
Only Bangladesh, Cambodia, Djibouti, Haiti, Laos, Madagascar, Mozambique, Myanmar, Tanzania
and Vanuatu have a significantly more diversified export structure.11
14. Analysis of product-specific restrictions in the statistical addendum, suggests the incidence of
tariff peaks and tariff escalation in product chains of interest to LDCs.  While the duties levied onLDCs exports are small for many products, and are unlikely to affect market access significantly,
tariff peaks where exporters continue to face relatively high applied tariffs (over 10 per cent) are: live
bovine animals, shelled dried beans, groundnuts, tobacco, carpets, clothing and apparel, footwear,
frozen fish and shrimps. Together these products account for about 30 per cent of their total exports,
and a significantly higher share for some individual LDCs.
                                                     
10 The 127 commodities (HS 6 digit) include Petroleum and Petroleum products.  It may be noted that
just 38 products account for 75 % of LDC exports to these markets.
11 See also WTO Secretariat document WT/COMTD/W/16 (1999); UNCTAD: Least Developed
Countries Report (1999) & "Market Access for the LDCs: Where are the Obstacles" (OECD:1997)Tariff Escalation: Jute
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0
Jute..raw or retted
530310Single yarn of jute..
530710Multiple or cabled
yarn of jute..
530720Unbleached w oven
fabrics of jute..
531010Sacks and bags..of
jute, etc
630510Average Duty Rate (%)MFN GSP LDCWT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 6
15. The data also reveals tariff escalation across several product chains, including cocoa, coffee,
fish, wood, leather, textiles and clothing, jute, rubber etc. As examples, the graphs above for Wood
Products and Jute, illustrate the challenges faced by exporters in LDCs to export goods with a higher
level of processing and value added.
II. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MARKET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS FOR LDCS
16. There have been progressive improvements in measures taken by LDCs' trading partners to
secure more open and predictable trading conditions for LDCs since the WTO Singapore Ministerial
Conference in 1996. Consistent with domestic requirements and  international agreements, many
WTO Members have taken measures to provide duty and quota free access to all or essentially all
products exported by LDCs. These autonomous developments are welcome improvements to theoverall picture of market access in favour of LDCs.
17. At the High Level Meeting (HLM) held on 27-28 October 1997, several Members announced
new or additional preferential market access measures for LDCs that they had taken, or proposed to
take, and/or made
 statements drawing attention to existing liberal market access for LDCs under GSPTariff Escalation: Wood Products
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0
Other tropical
wood..in the rough
440349Other tropical
wood..sawn
lengthwise...
440729Tropical veneer
sheets and sheets
for plywood..
440839Non-coniferous
wood, continuously
shaped ..
440920
MFN GSP LDCWT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 7
or GSTP regimes and other preferential arrangements.12 Based on the WTO Director-General's
continuing efforts to improve market access opportunities for LDCs, twenty-eight Members
announced measures they had taken or proposed to take in this regard at the General Council meeting
on 3 and 8 May 2000.13 Table 2, on page 8 below, summarizes the status of preferential access for
LDC exports, based on notifications or announcements made by the twenty-eight Members. To date,twelve Members, namely: Canada, Egypt, European Communities, Japan, Korea Rep. of, Mauritius,
New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States have notified their
market access improvements for LDCs to the WTO.
14
                                                     
12 WT/COMTD/12 and WT/LDC/HL/M/1. Members that elaborated on existing or proposed new
measures for market access in favour of LDCs at the HLM were: Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Egypt,European Communities, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea Rep. of, Mauritius, Malaysia, Morocco,Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and the United States.
13 WT/GC/M/55. Argentina (on behalf of Mercosur), Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, European
Communities, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Korea Rep. of, Norway, New Zealand, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Switzerland and the United States were Members reported to have taken, or intending to take additionalmeasures to further improve access of LDCs to their markets. Hong Kong, China, offered duty-free treatment onan MFN basis to the imports of all countries.
14 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 on
Preferential Tariff Treatment for LDCs (WT/L/304).WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 8Table 2: Summary of Existing or Proposed Market Access Measures for LDCs
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)
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 notified further improvements to the GSP for LDCs effective 1 September 2000, with an additional
570 tariff lines at (HS 8 digit level) added to the list  of duty-free items. Duty-free access to LDC exports
now cover 90 percent of the tariff lines. Canada has also liberalized rules of origin requirements that apply toLDC imports with effect from 23 August 2000. (See also paragraph 18 below for description of recent
initiatives by the Quad.)  Prior to recent announcements, Canada from 1 January 1998, moved beyond its
commitments in the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing to integrate textile products and remove quotas on
a number of specific products, as notified to the WTO Textiles Monitoring Body. At the HLM Canada
announced changes to its Generalized Preferential Treatment (GPT). Preferential rates of duty were loweredon 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
Canada duty-free. Moreover, Canada accelerated most of the Uruguay Round tariff reductions scheduled for
implementation on 1 January 1999 to 1 January 1998.WT/COMTD/N/15  (2000)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/11
(1998)
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
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 In May 2000, imports originating in LDCs through its  national GSP scheme enjoyed dut y-free treatment. WT/GC/M/55 ( 2000)WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 9Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document Reference
(Notifications in bold)
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 im ported into Egypt.  In addition, Egypt bound customs
duties, 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 In February 2001, the EU adopted the Everythi ng But Arms (EBA) initiative in favour of LDCs (see
description in paragraph 18 (b) below). 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 1998.15 Rules
of origin requirements were also simplified allowing for derogations and promoting regional cumulation.WT/COMTD/M/30
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/12
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/W/41
WT/LDC/HL/M/1 (1997)
Hong Kong, China Stated application of duty & quota-free access on an  MFN basis to imports from all sources including LDCs. WT/GC /M/55 (2000)
Hungary All LDC exports enter duty-free and quota-free under existing GSP. Customs Law – 1996 through legal
guarantees, strengthened predictability of the preferential market access to LDCs. Liberal application of
rules of origin requirements.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)
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 2000/1, Japan proposed to reform its GSP scheme , specifically in favour of LDCs. Under the 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 pr oducts, including textiles and clothing, would be
covered by the scheme. Japan, would review further extension of coverage. See also paragraph 18 below.Earlier, amendments and improvements to GSP scheme also notified. In 1997, under its GSP scheme, Japan
applied zero tariffs to 80 per cent of the products that were of major export interest to the LDCs.WT/COMTD/29
WT/LDC/SWG/IF/12
(2001)
WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add. 1- 9
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 2000.16 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)
                                                     
15 Request for a WTO Waiver of the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement is currently under consideration (G/C/W/187/Add.3).
16 The preferential scheme was notified and made under the provisions of the waiver adopted by WTO Members in 1999 (WT/L/304).WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 10Member Market Access for LDCs WTO Document Reference
(Notifications in bold)
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 Proposed preferential access to African  LDCs at the HLM in 1997. 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)
Norway Amendments and improvements to Norway's GSP scheme were notified in 2000-01. It accords duty-free and
quota free access to all industrial and agricultural im ports from LDCs covered by the GSP programme, with
the exception of flour, grains and feeding stuffs; these products are given a preferential margin of 30 percent
within indicative tariff ceilings. Rules of origin requirements have been revised and progressively 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.
Similarly, it had phased out almost all restrictions on textiles and clothing by 1997-98 instead of 2004.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
Slovak Republic The Slovak Republic provided duty-and quota- free access to all imports from LDCs through its GSP. It
confirmed in May 2000, that this system would be maintained in the future.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 11Member 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 Governmenthad taken this general decision which would be confirmed through decrees issued.WT/GC/M/55 (2000)
Switzerland Switzerland had undertaken a revision of its preferential tariff schedule, and since its entry into force on 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 of Origin 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 th e European Union and Norway would enjoy 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/717
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 of
preference 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)
United States See paragraph 18 below for description of  Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Quad
proposal in May 2000. Under the existing GSP system, duty-free access is 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)
                                                     
17  The coverage of the Swiss scheme, particularly in agricult ure, was extended considerably to other developing countries.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 12
18. In May 2000, the Quad proposed to implement both tariff-free and quota-free treatment,
consistent with domestic requirements and international agreements, under their preferential schemes,
for essentially all products originating in LDCs.18 Some new or proposed initiatives taken by the Quad
following the proposal have been outlined below:
(a) Canada, as described in the table above, notified improvements, effective 1
September 2000, by adding a further 570 tariff lines to the list of goods from LDCs
eligible for duty-free treatment. About 90 pe rcent of all LDC imports (by tariff line)
now receive duty-free treatment and LDCs benefit from liberalized application of
rules of origin requirements permitting cumulation from LDCs, Canada and
furthermore of up to half of the required minimum 40 per cent content sourcing from
developing countries;
(b) The EU decision on 26 February, 2001 to adopt the Everything but Arms (EBA)
initiative, according duty-free and quota-free market access for all goods (except
arms) from LDCs, was effective from 5 March, 2001. A transition period for the full
liberalisation of sugar, rice and bananas to be phased in between 2002 and 2009 was
agreed to under which: duties on bananas would be reduced by 20% annually startingon 1 January 2002 and eliminated at the latest on 1 January 2006; Duties on rice
would be reduced by 20% on 1 September 2006, by 50% on 1 September 2007 and
by 80% on 1 September 2008 and eliminated at the latest by 1 September 2009; and
Duties on sugar would be reduced by 20% on 1 July 2006, by 50% on 1 July 2007
and by 80% on 1 July 2008 and eliminated at the latest by 1 July 2009. In the interim,the EU would offer immediate market acces s, through the creation of duty-free quotas
for sugar and rice, based initially on the best figures for LDC exports during the
1990s, plus 15%. These would increase by 15% each year during the interim period.
The EC would monitor imports of rice, bananas and sugar carefully and apply
safeguard measures if necessary to prevent surges. There would also be monitoring toverify respect for rules of origin, as well as anti-fraud measures. The EC would report
to the Council in 2005 on the impact of trad e within the EU and for LDCs, as well as
on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries;
(c) Japan in December 2000, announced its "99 percent initiative on Industrial Tariffs".
The proposal, with implementation planned in April 2001, will increase the coverage
of duty and quota-free treatment for LDCs industrial product exports from 94 to 99
percent and will include textile and clothing (see also table above);
(d) The United States adopted the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in May
2000 for Sub-Saharan Africa. Thirty-four Sub-Saharan countries (including 23
LDCs), were designated as bene ficiaries under AGOA in October 2000,
19 and can
avail new GSP benefits for 1835 tariff lines as from December 2000.20 The AGOA is
subject to eligibility criteria including continuous progress toward establishing amarket-based economy, maintenance of the rule of law, the elimination of barriers to
U.S. trade and investment, poverty alleviation economic policies, protection of
                                                     
18  WT/GC/M/55
19 The 34 beneficiaries designated were: Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya,Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Sao Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
20  See WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3 for product list.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 13
internationally recognized worker rights and, a system to combat corruption. There
are also customs-Related Eligibility requirements that have to be met. The Act
establishes a U.S. Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum
(ATECF) to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions and, to promote
the use of technical assistance to strengthen economic reforms and development.
III. NON-TARIFF MEASURES
19.     Tariffs, provide but one part of the picture of access conditions for LDCs exports. Non-
tariff barriers, also pose serious impediments to the trading opportunities for LDCs.21  Furthermore,
often other factors, such as, technical standards, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, product
standards, and application of rules of origin requirements, pose challenges to LDCs that have to be
overcome to fully utilise and benefit from the improved market access opportunities.
20.     Non-tariff measures affecting LDCs exports  are those that have been notified under the
various WTO provisions. Following the "Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative
Restrictions" adopted by the Good s Council (G/L/59), quantitative re strictions (QRs) notified and
recorded in the database maintained, include measures applied not just by some of the LDCs' major
trading partners, but significantly by some LDCs themselves. While, The Gambia, Haiti and Ugandanotified that no QRs are presently applied, Zamb ia notified QRs (G/MA/NT M/QR/1 + Add.4). The
LDCs major trading partners (30), that as WTO Members have notified QRs are: Argentina, Australia,
Chile, EC, Hong Kong-China, Hungary, India, Ja pan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, New Zealand,
Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Turkey and the US. 
22
21. Under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), US and Canada had notified
quantitative restrictions for imports from certain LDCs.  US has notified quotas with Bangladesh
(G/TMB/N/63), Haiti (G/TMB/N /63/Add.6), and Myanmar (G/TMB/N/66/Corr.3). Canada has
notified quotas with Bangladesh, Lesotho an d Myanmar (G/TMB/N/62). These QRs will be
progressively liberalized and removed by the end of the ATC transitional process on 31 December
2004.  The database maintained by the WTO Rules Division, on contingent trade remedies notified byWTO Members, indicate that anti-dumping action has been initiated by South Africa affecting
Malawi (Bed Linen) and Mozambique (Tyres).  No other measures have been reported.
IV. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS - TRADE IN SERVICES
22. Trade in Services, currently accounts for about one-fifth of total world trade.
23 However, as in
goods, LDCs' trade in commercial services is characterized by its relatively small share in global
trade. While in absolute value, LDCs' exports increased from US$ 3.28 billion in 1990 to US$ 5.71
                                                     
21 See also WT/LDC/HL/14 and Add.1. The incide nce and impact on market access of different
quantitative restrictions and non-tariff measures such as import quotas, tariff quotas, prohibitions, automatic andnon-automatic import licensing, voluntary export restrain ts, state trading and canalized imports, state monopolies,
import monitoring and surveillance is not uniform and given data availability difficult to fully capture.
22  See WTO notifications G/MA/NTM/QR/1 + Add.1-7.
23 World trade in services currently stands at a value of about US$ 1,350 billion with an annual growth
rate of  6 per cent through the 1990s.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 14
billion in 1999, the share of LDCs as a percentage of global trade in commercial services has
remained static at about 0.42 per cent through the 1990s.24
23. Services trade and policies relating to services are of importance, and would need to be
further developed, as LDCs attempt to attract investment, diversify their economies and integrate into
the global trading system. In this regard, in addition to improved access opportunities in sectors andmodes of supply of interest to LDCs, the participation and market access commitments made by
LDCs themselves bear relevance.  The liberalization of services and commitments made will assist in
alleviating supply-side impediments facing LDCs in key sectors such as telecom, transport, financial
services, etc. By facilitating investment and access opportunities for foreign service suppliers in these
sectors, merchandise exports in LDCs  will also be further developed.
24. An analysis of Members' Services Schedules,
25 reveals that 23 of the 30 LDCs that are
currently WTO Members have made commitments on 20 sub-sectors or less of the approximately 160sub-sectors in the Services classification list.
26 Only Burundi, Malawi, Senegal, Solomon Islands
(each with commitments in between 21-60 sub sectors) and Lesotho, Sierra Leone, The Gambia (each
with commitments of more than 60 sub-sectors) have made significantly broader access commitments
among LDCs. Among the specific sectors, tourism has drawn the highest number of bindings. More
than 90 per cent of the Members (not just LDCs) have included at least one sub-sector of tourism intheir schedules. Among LDCs, specific commitments in tourism and travel-related services, were
made by all 30 LDCs, except for Madagascar, Maldives, and Mozambique. Financial and business
services also recorded a high incidence of commitments, while health and education services were the
least commonly scheduled sectors.
25. The structure of market-access commitments by mode, indicates that the bindings undertaken
for mode 2 (cross border supply) are significantly more liberal than those on mode 4 (movement of
natural persons). Over 50 per cent of LDC's commitments on mode 2, were made without limitation,
between 15 – 30 per cent of LDC's commitments on mode 1 (cross border supply) and 3 (commercial
presence) were made without limitation, and mode 4 was predominated by unlimited commitments in
LDCs services schedules.
26. In terms of market access opportunities for LDCs, it may be noted that developed countries
made specific commitments on two-thirds of all service activities.  The coverage ratio climbs to over
80% once audiovisual, postal, transportation, courier and basic telecommunication services are
excluded. However, while the scope and coverage is broad, the depth of the commitments made by
Members on market access and national treatment as inscribed in the schedules, are subject to the
limitations specified therein.
27. Apart from access opportunities, services trade, often requires high levels of skills and
specialization, as well as the use of Information Te chnology. Given supply-side constraints, LDCs are
still developing capacity in these areas at present. In addition to improved market access, addressing
supply-side constraints to enhance efficiency, comp etitiveness and capacity of LDC service providers
including inter alia  access to distribution channels, information networks and technology on a
commercial basis, removing infrastructural bottlenecks, etc., are constraints that need and could befurther addressed in the context of further services liberalization.
                                                     
24 WTO Annual Report: International Trade Statistics (2000). While LDCs share was static through the
1990s for commercial services as a whole, for some sectors, such as travel services, LDCs as a group witnessedrobust growth through the 1990s with share rising from 0.44 per cent in 1990 to 0.63 percent in 2000.
25  Structure of specific commitments by WTO Members as of June 2000.  See also WTO Special
Study 6, "Market Access: Unfinished Business – Post Uruguay Round Inventory and Issues" (2001).
26 Services Sectoral Classification List:  Note by the Secretariat, (MTN.GNS/W/120).WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 15
28. Although at present LDCs' export of commercial services is small and market share is limited,
there are sectors of services trade and particular modes of service delivery which are of commercial
interest to developing countries and LDCs.27 Moreover, services liberalization may attract foreign
investment, particularly in sectors such as telecom, financial services, transport, etc. which are central
to economic activity, but often in short or inadequate domestic supply. Further liberalization ofservices trade, increasing the general level a nd depth of specific commitments undertaken, with
improvements in market access opportunities and easing of restrictions on national treatment,
especially in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing and LDCs, is a matter of
priority for Members.
28 LDCs would be encouraged to actively participate in the ongoing mandated
negotiations on services to better realize the trade potential and comparative advantage that they have
in the provision of many services.
V. CONCLUSIONS
29. Recent developments show significant and concrete improvements in market access
opportunities for LDCs. These improvements will cont ribute to assisting the integration of LDCs into
the trading system and the global economy.  Nevertheless, improving market access is but one aspect
of the efforts needed to assist LDCs integration efforts. There is scope for further improvements inmarket access opportunities, including for LDCs.  Consultations amongst Members suggest that
further significant improvements could emerge and would be accelerated within the framework of
wider multilateral trade negotiations amongst WTO Members.
30. LDCs themselves consider that their participation in the trading system is largely limited by
weak supply-side response, and other factors such as lack of information about market accessconditions and opportunities, and limited access to trade financing and credits, among others.
29
Improving domestic supply-side response and addressing policy constraints through theimplementation of reform priorities are part of the efforts needed to better integrate LDCs into the
multilateral trading system. The re-design of the Integrated Framework , as a mechanism both for the
delivery of trade-related technical assistance within a coherent policy framework and for"mainstreaming" trade priority areas of action into national development plans and poverty reduction
strategies, is expected to contribute in this regard. While improvements in market access opportunities
are necessary for LDCs integration, equally necessar y is the continued implementation of wider trade
liberalization and reform as part of a wider package of domestic reform with mutually supportive
companion policies.
31. Evident in this survey (see Section II), are potential improvements in market access
opportunities for LDCs within their regions. This fi nding shows that the regional context is vital for
LDCs' trade integration. Trading opportunities with neighbours are as significant as with the larger
multilateral context and the evidence suggests that further improvements are possible for LDCs in this
regard. 
30
32. There are also further steps that can be taken to improve the benefits that LDCs will derive
from existing market access conditions. For instance, further improvements and simplification of the
                                                     
27 These include tourism, construction services, which in turn is linked to movement of natural persons
(professionals but also semi-skilled and unskilled labour) etc. See also WT/COMTD/LDC/W/11/Rev.1.
28  Article IV and XIX, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Results of the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations:  The Legal Texts.
 29 See for example the needs assessments prepared by LDCs under the Integrated Framework, contained
in documents WT/COMTD/IF/1 to 40.  A compilation of market access barriers and constraints drawn from the
Needs Assessments is contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/11/Rev.1.
30 See also WT/COMTD/LDC/W/11/Rev.1 and the statistical addendum.WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14
Page 16
preferential schemes coupled with greater awareness of the available opportunities and utilization of
the benefits by the intended beneficiaries in LDCs would be useful. Preference utilization ratios can
be improved. As WTO Members, are liberalizing trade in goods and services, following full
implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments, and more liberalization is expected in the
context of future rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, LDCs would at the present time need totake maximum advantage of existing market access opportunities. Preferences themselves, only
complement and do not substitute for measures needed to offset other supply-side or policy
weaknesses in LDCs.  This is why domestic reform  priorities need to be vigorously pursued as
preferences are a transitional measure in the context of further liberalization on an MFN basis.
33. To further support the LDCs and having regard to the overall objective of providing duty-free
and quota free market access for exports originating from LDCs, Members (developed, developing
and transition economies) could:
- consider further autonomous improvements in access, by eliminating all remaining
tariffs and quantitative restrictions on all LDC exports;
- further simplify and liberalize existing preferential schemes with regard to eligibility
criteria, further easing access restrictions by reducing tariff peaks and facilitating
value-added production by eliminating tariff escalation in product chains of exportinterest to LDCs; and,
- accord flexibility to products from LDCs with regard to origin criteria. Trading
partners could consider flexible application of origin requirements on a case-by-case
basis, or introduce full cumulation of origin for LDCs' products in accordance with
the work being undertaken by the WTO and the World Customs Organization.
__________