Note: Advance written questions by WTO Members a nd replies provided by Uganda are reproduced
in document WT/TPR/M/93/Add.1.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/TPR/M/93
13 March 2002
(02-1285)
Trade Policy Review Body
19 and 21 December 2001
TRADE POLICY REVIEW
UGANDA
Minutes of Meeting
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Pekka Huhtaniemi (Finland)
Page
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 3II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UGANDA 4III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 5
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY 6
V. REPLIES FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UGANDA AND
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 10
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 12WT/TPR/M/93
Page 3
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
1. The second Trade Policy Review of Uganda was held on 19 and 21 December 2001.  The
Chairperson welcomed the delegation of Uganda, h eaded by H.E. Mr. Edward Rugumayo, Minister of
Tourism, Trade and Industry, and the discussant, H.E. Mr. Henrik Rée Iversen (Denmark).  As usual,
the discussant would speak in his personal capacity and, in accordance with established procedures,
he had made available in advance a broad outline of the themes he intended to raise (document
WT/TPR/D/72).
2. The Chairperson recalled the purpose of the Trade Policy Reviews and the main elements of
the procedures of the meeting.  The Report by the Government of Uganda was contained in document
WT/TPR/G/93 and that of the Secretariat in docu ment WT/TPR/S/93.  Copies of advance written
questions, submitted by the European Union;  Hong Kong, China;  Japan;  the Republic of Korea;
Norway;  and the United States, had been transmitted to the delegation of Uganda.  These questionsand replies provided by the representative of Uganda are reproduced in WT/TPR/M/93/Add.1.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 4
II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UGANDA
3. The representative of Uganda reaffirmed his country's support for the WTO rules-based
system.  Since its last TPR, in 1995, Uganda had pursued trade liberalization and economic reform;
the private sector had an important role as an engine of growth.  To achieve higher growth rates, and
economic transformation, weaknesses, identified under the 2000 Medium-Term Competitiveness
Strategy for Private Sector (MTCS), had to be tackled.  He recalled that the MTCS aimed at creating a
favourable environment for increased private investment and savings, and was enhancing thecompetitiveness of the Ugandan private sector.  Priority actions included:  (i) expansion of
infrastructure and utilities, thereby reducing costs of production, and access to markets, as well as
improving the quality of services;  (ii) strengthening the financial sector and improving access to
financial services;  (iii) reforming commercial justice;  (iv) improvement of: efficiency and
effectiveness of government institutions in service delivery;  business environment for small andmedium enterprises and environment management;  (v) addressing human capital development;  and
(vi) removing impediments to export sector growth.  Uganda's trade policy objectives were to
contribute to poverty reduction to promote employment, economic growth, and export diversification
(particularly non-traditional exports).  Vertical diversification was to be achieved, through further
processing of primary export products, these objectives had been pursued through liberalization,deregulation, privatization, and participation in regional agreements, including in the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) , and the East African Community (EAC).  The
Government also intended to put in place means to fully exploit non-reciprocal preferential treatment
under the U.S. African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement, and the
Everything-But-Arms initiative.
4. Uganda had pursued structural policy reforms in the areas of: embracing liberalized systems
for input and output markets, trade, investments and tax regimes, including domestic and export-marketing and processing, removal of restrictive tariff and non-tariff barriers and abolition of export
taxes.  Most of the remaining non-tariff restrictions were maintained for moral, health, security or
environmental reasons.  Tariffs had become Uganda’s main trade policy instrument.  Uganda had also
revised its regulations on public procurement, to improve transparency and decentralization.  Open
tendering procedures were preferred.  Despite lack  of funding for standardization, since 1995 there
had been a noticeable increase in the number of standards up to 253 as of September 2001.  Efforts
had been were made to improve trade-related capacity by mainstreaming trade issues in the overall
National Planning Strategy, inter alia , through the Integrated Framework and with the donor
community to benefit from trade-related technical assistance.  In August 2000, Uganda released a plan
for the modernization of agriculture, a mainstay of its economy, to increase incomes and improve thequality of life of subsistence farmers, household food security, to provide employment, and to
promote sustainable use and management of natural resources.
5. Uganda faced instability of international commodity prices and tariffs, and tariff escalation.
Non-tariff barriers that included standards requirements and sanitary and phytosanitary measures had
led to Uganda's exclusion from some markets.  Since 1991, Uganda had pursued an open policytowards inward foreign direct investment.  The Investment Code of 1991, the basic law governing
investments in Uganda, did not discriminate against foreigners.  Foreigners could invest in Uganda
without any local equity.  Uganda was committed to the implementation of the WTO Agreements, and
was presently undertaking a commercial law reform to bring all its trade-related laws, regulations, and
procedures into conformity with the WTO requirements.  An Inter-Institutional Committee, and fiveSub-Committees on Agriculture, Services, Implementation and New Issues, Business Malpractices
and Legal Framework, and TRIPS and TRIMs had also been put in place to ensure continuous
consultation and compliance with the WTO obligations
6. Uganda appreciated the technical assistance received, through the Joint Integrated Technical
Assistance Program (JITAP) and the Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technical Assistance to
Least Developed Countries (IF);  however, gaps remained in institutional and human capacity.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 5
III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT
7. The discussant commended Uganda's efforts and achievements in liberalizing its economy.
He noted that Uganda still faced high costs of production, which affected its competitiveness on
international markets.  A depreciation policy had been implemented, and further depreciation could
help Uganda to be more competitive.  Noting th e volume of donor inflows resulting in the over-
valuation of Uganda's exchange rate, he sought Uganda's views on the impact of foreign aid on its
export competitiveness.  Given the deterioration of coffee prices on the international markets, heasked about Uganda's rationale for extending its coffee production.  He also asked Uganda to
elaborate on its future plans for tackling export finance, and welcomed the announced reform in the
banking system.  He acknowledged steps taken to encourage private sector investment in Uganda.
8. He noted that corruption not only increased business costs but also discouraged foreign
investment.  Thus, it had to be tackled.  In this respect, he welcomed initiatives taken by Uganda toimprove its regulatory framework.  He asked Uganda's views on the role that could be played by
trade-related technical assistance, including JITAP and the Integrated Framework, in mainstreaming
trade issues in poverty reduction policy, through capacity-building;  this seemed to be difficult in
Uganda.  He asked about which sectors Uganda had identified to strengthen its competitiveness and to
diversify its economy;  and about the role of the private sector in the MTCS.  Noting the transparencyof Uganda's trade regime, he mentioned that some levies and special fees affected the system's
transparency and predictability.  He was interested in hearing about expected practical results of
Uganda's participation in regional arrangements.  He commended Uganda's success in reversing its
negative economic trend, and encouraged it to pursue its efforts to maintain the necessary economic
growth, and to face the challenge of poverty reduction.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 6
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
9. The representative of the European Union noted that sustainability for Uganda's high
economic growth was an issue.  Its economy was heavily dependent on agriculture, and subject to
external terms of trade shocks.  Broader economic reforms were necessary to ensure economic
growth.  A strong and diversified export sector was required;  Uganda had experienced a balance of
trade deficit in recent years.  Overall imports had continued to increase, due to well above average
imports of feeding stuff, power equipment, ro ad vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.
Increased production by farms and entrepreneurs would be useless without markets in which to sell
the goods and services.  Uganda had a small domestic market due to low disposable incomes, and
depended on imported intermediate goods and capital.  Improved export performance would help to
reduce poverty levels.  The purchasing power of many Ugandans, especially those involved in coffee
and maize production, had already improved.  Uganda's comparative advantage was in agriculture,forestry and mineral resources, and in primary processing.  Agricultural production should be
diversified, through the introduction of new crops and farming technologies for high-value products.
There was also the possibility of extending effective domestic market across the borders to
neighbouring countries also existed.
10. Tariffs were used primarily for revenue generation and not for development.  As trade was
given a rather second-class status, Uganda had not been able to take full advantage of various market
opportunities under the ACP-EU trade arrangemen ts, AGOA, GSP, and COMESA.  Instead, its trade
balance remained negative as export growth failed to catch up with import growth.  The EU
encouraged Uganda to address the structural supply-side constraints to export trade in order to take
full advantage of the several market access opportunities available.  The representative also noted that
the problem of fragmentation of trade issues across ministries was the resultant lack of coherence and
a clear coordination mechanism.  Further, none of the ministries had enough capacity to deal with theissues on a comprehensive basis.  The EU was convinced that with the launch of a new multilateral
negotiations WTO, and its underpinning commitments to strengthen capacity-building assistance in
developing  countries, Members would have the necessary instruments to address Uganda's concerns.
11. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted Uganda's commitment to the multilateral
trading system.  Hong Kong, China recognized the need to provide adequate technical assistance to
the developing countries to improve their capacity to fulfil their WTO obligations.  The Doha Work
Programme was a step towards better integration of developing and least developed countries into the
multilateral trading system.  Uganda's tariff structure had been simplified through the reduction of
number of tariff the bands.  All tariffs were ad valorem, except on fuel.  Hong Kong, China
encouraged Uganda to increase its tariff bindings, and to reduce the gap between applied and boundrates.  Hong Kong, China hoped that Uganda co uld eliminate the import licencing commission and
withholding tax.  Uganda was considering, inter alia, allowing competition at its airport and
improving its infrastructure to facilitate trade.  Hong Kong, China welcomed this initiative.  Hong
Kong, China invited Uganda to consider giving national treatment to foreign investors in the
insurance sector, and encouraged it to include financial services in its schedule of commitments.
12. The representative of Canada appreciated Uganda's commitment to social development,
poverty reduction, and to the multilateral trading system.  Uganda had simplified its tariff structure;
enhanced the transparency of public procurement;  developed national standards, and participated in
the development of East African harmonized standards;  continued to implement its privatization
programme;  and was revising its legislation on anti-dumping, countervailing, sanitary andphytosanitary measures, and intellectual property.
13. Canada encouraged Uganda to increase the number of bound tariff lines, narrow the gap
between bound rates and applied rates, eliminate the import licence commission and the withholdingWT/TPR/M/93
Page 7
tax, and consider making further commitments under the GATS.  Further, increasing trade and
building stronger linkages among COMESA and the East African Community would help Uganda to
gain secure markets, and access to lower-cost goods and services.  Canada urged Uganda to further
develop its physical and services infrastructures, strengthen its human resource capacity, and expedite
the implementation of privatization programmes, and the development of competition legislation.
Canada supported trade-related technical assistance, through multilateral fora, and was pleased to note
that Uganda would receive assistance under the Integrated Framework Pilot Scheme.
14. The representative of Japan recognized that Uganda had taken measures to encourage foreign
investment, through various tax incentives, and th e establishment the Uganda Investment Authority.
However, Japan noted that the current preferential treatment to foreign enterprises hardly seemed
sufficient, and asked whether Uganda was considering further investment incentive measures to
promote foreign direct investment.  While applied tariff rates were relatively low, bound ratesremained high.  Japan requested Uganda to reduce its bound rates to improve predictability, and to
increase the coverage of bindings, currently at 15.4% of all tariff lines.  Japan appreciated efforts
made to improve the protection of intellectual property rights, including the establishment of a task
force, under the Uganda Law Reform Commission to revise the law on intellectual property rights.
The Copyright Act of 1964 was also under comprehensive review.  Japan asked about the currentsituation of the task force, and the planned schedule for revising the Copyright Act.  Japan shared
Uganda's  view that the viability of the agricultural sector should not be undermined through the
ongoing negotiations on agriculture, and that non-trade concerns, such as food security and rural
development, should be fully addressed in the negotiations.
15. The representative of the United States high lighted the solid economic ties between the two
countries.  A wide range of Uganda's products be nefited from duty-free to the United States.  The
United States had also worked with Uganda, inter alia , to increase the production of subsistence
crops, diversify and expand non-traditional agricultural exports, support micro enterprise
development, and increased access to financial services.  Although Uganda was a least-developed
country, it was showing notable increases in economic growth.  In the past decade growth had
occurred across a number of sectors, such as manufacturing, transport, and communications.  In May
2000 Uganda was the first African country to reach its HIPC completion point.  It had a long-established a Poverty Eradication Action Plan and a Poverty Action Fund.  Meeting its WTO
obligations, at times posed a considerable challenge to Uganda.  Assistance was, therefore, needed.
The United States was committed to providing effective technical assistance to Uganda both
bilaterally and multilaterally.  Uganda was a leading reformer in Africa.
16. The United States also attached great importance to the implementation of the WTO
Agreement on Customs Valuation as a fundamental trade facilitation issue.  The United States
welcomed that as of June 2001, Uganda had discontinued its mandatory preshipment inspection
system, and had converted to the transaction valuation of imports in accordance with the WTO
Customs Valuation Agreement.  Tariffs bindings covered 15.4% of all agricultural products;  the
United States encouraged Uganda to increase the coverage of bound tariffs.  The United States alsourged Uganda to move forward with privatization of the Uganda Electricity Board and other such
entities, and to move forward on the de-regulation programme launched to dismantle "unnecessary"
licensing and regulatory procedures.
17. The representative of the Republic of Korea acknowledged Uganda's efforts to streamline and
liberalize its trade regime.  Its achievements were a model for other countries in the region confronted
with poverty and needing the stimulus of economic growth.
18. The representative of Norway commended Uganda's dedication to the multilateral trading
system, and its recent commitments in services, notably in telecommunications.  Uganda sufferedWT/TPR/M/93
Page 8
from extreme vulnerability to global fluctuations in  commodity markets.  Recent efforts in order to
promote product diversification, both vertically through promotion of value-added activities andhorizontally, through increased product variety would contribute to a more stable export base.  The
initiatives by the EC, Norway and other Members as to offer quota and tariff free market access for all
products from LDCs would make it easier for Uga nda to find markets for new products.  Uganda
participation in regional trade arrangements, would al so help to foster south-south trade.  The need to
clarify the relationship between the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (MTTI) and the Ministryof Finance, Planning and Economic Development (M FPED) was also pointed out.  Norway asked for
clarification on the division of roles and responsibi lities between these two ministries in the trade-
related development strategy, and how Uganda viewed the role of international trade in relation to its
Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP).  Norway  was also interested to know about Uganda's
experience with JITAP.
19. The representative of India noted that Uganda had been able to maintain a high growth in the
GDP despite the fall in terms of trade over the past two years.  Uganda was increasingly
mainstreaming trade into its development policy.  India welcomed this effort, and was confident of
concrete results emerging from its PEAP.  Uganda was primarily dependent on agriculture, with
coffee as main agricultural export, and was, therefore, vulnerable to fluctuations in internationalprices.  Cotton, followed by fish and fish products, fruits, vegetables, and flowers offered great scope
for diversification of the agricultural sector.  The announced diversification policy would help to
promote Uganda's exports.  India hoped that the international community would help LDCs, like
Uganda, with increased technical and financial assistance to facilitate their integration into the
multilateral trading system and to gain meaningfully from participation therein.
20. The representative of Kenya noted major strides in economic development made by Uganda
in the past decade.  Uganda was one of the very few African countries that have attained the target of
6% growth rate set under the UN-NADAF for all African countries in order to enable them to attain
sustainable growth and development necessary for poverty reduction.  Kenya commended Uganda for
the significant economic reforms, including liberalization of the trade regime, over the last decade and
half, which demonstrated Uganda’s commitment to fulfill its obligations and commitments under the
World Trade Organization (WTO).  Uganda had also pursued on liberalization of the trade regimethrough removal of restrictive tariff and non-tariff barriers and abolition of taxes on exports, and had
eliminated all quantitative restrictions, while most of the remaining non-tariff restrictions were
maintained for moral, health, security or environmental reasons.  Kenya appreciated Uganda’s stated
policy objectives deregulation, privatization and participation in regional agreements, and its
determination to mainstream trade into its national development framework.  Kenya encouragedUganda to maintain its widely acclaimed open, market oriented economic policies, and continue on
the path of regional integration.
21. The representative of Mauritius noted the many similarities between the two countries, and
drew attention to the difficulties faced by small delegations in trying to cover the multitude of WTO
activities.  Mauritius congratulated Uganda for introducing a social dimension into its reforms, andtrying to integrate export competitiveness and trade liberalization into poverty alleviation efforts.  The
divestiture by the Sate of 108 out of 140 enterprises should be underscored as this illustrated the
authorities' determination to move closer to a mark et situation and reaffirmed investor confidence in
the economy.  Uganda was one of the largest beneficiaries of the HIPC initiative: this initiative had
reduced Uganda's ratio of debt service to export by more than half.
22. Mauritius hoped that the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health would help Uganda
to address its public health concerns.  Although di versification was under way, agriculture remained
the backbone of Uganda's economy, a major source of employment, and the major contributor to food
security.  Several questions arose regarding the ability of the various sectors of the economy to faceWT/TPR/M/93
Page 9
up to the WTO negotiations, for example how Uganda coffee would measure up to coffee from other
sources;  how the reduction of industrial tariffs would impact on the industrialization process inUganda;  and to what extent the development of the services sector would generate foreign currency
and provide employment.
23. The representative of Tanzania commended Uganda's economic performance over the years.
Uganda was, however, still dependent on a few primary commodities.  He pointed out the difficulties
of small delegations in handling the negotiations ahead, and asked to increase the number of staff ofUganda's delegation in Geneva.
24. The representative of Malaysia commended Uganda's economic performance.  Malaysia
noted Uganda's vulnerability in agriculture.  Malaysia also invited Members to address the issue of
non-trade barriers in order to assist Uganda to achieve strong growth and tackle its current account
deficit.  Malaysia hoped that Uganda's efforts towards further liberalization could be supported byincreased technical assistance.
25. The representative of Switzerland acknowledged Uganda's achievements both in social and
economic areas, and encouraged it to take measures to attract foreign investment, and with regard to
competitiveness.  Switzerland asked whether Uganda shared the view that the private running of
utilities and other essential infrastructure would improve its perspectives.  While significant part ofthe privatization programme had been completed, time schedules for the reminder had not been given.
He requested confirmation of the privatization of the Commercial Bank, and target dates for the
privatization of electricity, telecommunications, railways, and air cargo companies.  Switzerland also
asked whether Uganda intended to join COMESA FTA, why it maintained a higher criterion for
COMESA originating imports (45% ex-factory value- added criterion instead of 35% criterion), and
when Uganda intended to adhere to the 35% criterion.  Switzerland also asked about reasons for the
delay of the start of the EAC FTA, and how Uganda assessed the future regional integration inEastern and Southern Africa.  Switzerland also asked whether any cooperation mechanisms were
planed among the COMESA , the EAC and the SADC.
26. The representative of Zambia commended Uganda's achievements with regard to trade policy,
and noted similarities between the two countries .  Commodity price instability had impeded
agriculture development, and manufacturing and industry had registered flat growth due to worseningterms of trade as well as tariff escalation and non-tariff-barriers, including sanitary and phytosanitary
measures resulting in export bans.  These factors impacted on Uganda's trade and its trade policy.
Zambia invited developed countries to grant duty-free and quota-free market access to vulnerable
Members, like Uganda, and to apply less stringent sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and
favourable rules of origin.  The representative acknowledged the role of the Ugandan delegation incoordinating the work of the LDCs in the post-Doha era.
27. The representative of Burundi acknowledged Uganda's achievements, and expressed his
country's appreciation for the role played by Uganda in the preparation of the Doha Ministerial
Conference.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 10
V. REPLIES FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF UGANDA AND ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS
28. The Chairperson invited the representative of Mauritius to focus his responses on three main
themes:  (i) economic environment;  (ii) trade policies and measures;  and (iii) sectorial policies and
measures.
(i) Economic environment
29. The representative of Uganda presented his delegation's written responses under this theme to
questions raised by Members in advance and during the meeting (WT/TPR/M/93/Add.1).
30. The discussant acknowledged Uganda's efforts towards institutional capacity-building,
economic diversification, and a more rational defence policy.
31. The Chairman asked what kept Uganda from joining the Agreement on Government
Procurement.
(ii) Trade policies and measures
32. The representative of Uganda presented his delegation's written responses under this theme to
questions raised by Members in advance and during the meeting (WT/TPR/M/93/Add.1).
33. The representative of India expressed his delegation's caution with regard to the issue of good
governance.  The WTO was not a world government, therefore, the TPRB should confine its analysis
to trade-related issues.  India also noted that the gap between applied and bound rates enabled
developing countries to respond quickly to external shocks.  Therefore, bridging the gap between
applied and bound rates should not be unduly stressed.
34. The representative of Canada asked whether in the context of the MTCS the Ministry of
Tourism, Trade and Industry would coordinate with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development to ensure coherence , and to elaborate further respective roles.
35. The representative of Kenya shared India's view on good governance.
36. The representative of Zambia joined previous speakers on the issue of good governance.
Technical assistance and capacity building could not replace fundamentals for economic
development, including bound market access, rules of origin, standards, GSP, debt and
implementation of the ATC.  Uganda's efforts should be combined, therefore, with efforts in these
areas.
37. The representative of Uganda recalled that coffee was a small-holder-business.  Uganda had
invited foreign investors to grow large scale production with the view to developing a Uganda's brand.
Uganda had developed a new variety of coffee.  Uga nda was consulting with its regional partners on
adhering to the Agreement on Government Procurement.  He noted that the relevant Ministries
worked together within the MTCS.
38. The representative of Canada recalled that the Conference on LDCS III included the issue of
good governance.  She noted that a decision in this area had not be taken at the present meeting.
Canada supported Uganda's efforts in the area of good governance.
39. The TPRB took note of the statements on good governance.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 11
(iii) Sectoral policies and measures
40. The representative of Uganda presented his delegation's written responses under this theme to
questions raised by Members in advance and during the meeting (WT/TPR/M/93/Add.1).
41. The representative of the European Union asked about the contribution that the services sector
could provide to Uganda's economic growth.
42. The representative of Uganda recalled steps taken to open up his country's services sector.
Uganda hoped that its trading partners would open up their services sector as well.
43. The representative of Zambia noted that while the developing countries had opened up in the
tour operator sector, the European Union had not yet done so.WT/TPR/M/93
Page 12
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
44. We have had a very interesting exchange of views during this second Trade Policy Review of
Uganda.  This was facilitated by the presence of a large Ugandan delegation, headed by
Professor Rugumayo, Minister of Tourism, Trad e and Industry.  Members commented positively on
the impressive growth of the Ugandan economy in recent years, aided by structural reforms and a
strong macroeconomic performance, which resulted in Uganda's early inclusion in the HIPC
Initiative.  Various government programmes put emphasis on poverty alleviation, diversification, andpromotion of the private sector.  However, high production costs, declining terms of trade, climatic
conditions, non-tariff barriers in export markets and appreciation of the Uganda shilling have
negatively affected its economic performance, its export competitiveness in particular.
45. Members observed the seriousness with which Uganda had pursued its privatization agenda,
but noted a slowing in recent years.  It was pointed out that, by speeding up the process for theremaining entities, and by addressing governance and security problems, and regulatory and
institutional weaknesses, Uganda might further facilitate trade and attract investment.  Members were
encouraged by Uganda's assurances and actions in this respect.  Some Members noted, however, that
issues of governance should be treated prudently in the TPRs
46. Members commended Uganda on its active participation in the Multilateral Trading System.
They called on Uganda to provide notification concerning its use of WTO-compatible customs
valuation procedures, and to join the Informati on Technology Agreement, in the context of the
Government's clear emphasis on the economic importance of information technology industries.  They
queried about Uganda’s trade-related priorities, and urged that inter-Ministerial coordination and
coherence be improved in this respect.  Members noted Uganda’s expectations and experience that
non-reciprocal preferential treatment and its region al arrangements were a spur to liberalization,
particularly through the active participation of the private sector.  Concerns were expressed aboutoverlapping membership of regional agreements in which Uganda participated, and the likely
increases that might result from the adoption of common external tariffs under the agreements.
47. Members expressed their appreciation of Uganda's commitment and continued efforts to
liberalize its trade regime.  They commended Uganda for the simplification of its tariff structure
through the reduction of the number of bands to three and of the maximum rate to 15%.  Membersencouraged Uganda to narrow the gap between bound and applied rates, and to increase the coverage
of its tariff bindings on non-agricultural products.  Concerns were expressed about the WTO
compatibility of the import licence commission and the withholding tax, while Uganda had bound
other duties and charges at zero.  Members noted Uganda’s commitment to developing a capability to
create a set of standards, although the effort had been hampered by financial constraints, and madesuggestions for streamlining standardization in Uganda.
48. Members pointed out the heavy dependence of Uganda’s economy on agriculture, particularly
coffee.  Although recent reforms had emphasized diversification and modernization of agriculture,
much more needed to be done in this area.  In manufacturing, low capacity utilization and high
production costs had meant that few of Uganda's manuf actured goods were competitive.  In services,
Members encouraged Uganda to speed up the liber alization reforms and to improve its commitments
under the GATS.
49. Members also sought further clarification on, inter alia :
- customs procedures;
- export bans and controls and their rationale;WT/TPR/M/93
Page 13
- incentives and export financing;
- contingency trade remedies;
- public procurement regime;
- competition policy;  and
- intellectual property protection.
50. Members appreciated the responses provided by the delegation of Uganda during the meeting,
and looked forward to later replies to some questions.
51. In conclusion, as a result of this Review, Members have better understood developments in
Uganda’s trade policies and practices since 1995.  Members commended Uganda for the introduction
of a social dimension in its economic reforms.  However, they urged that trade policies and practices
be further mainstreamed in Uganda’s poverty alleviation strategy.  Members encouraged Uganda to
pursue its reforms and further integrate its economy into the multilateral trading system.  SeveralMembers urged that the Ugandan authorities provide additional resources to their Mission in Geneva
to allow it to fully pursue the interests of Uganda, pa rticularly so that it could play an active role on
the Doha Development Agenda.  Some Members indi cated their willingness to provide Uganda with
trade-related technical assistance.  In my personal capacity, I advocate that all Members support
Uganda in its efforts by providing market access for its products, and assistance for trade-relatedcapacity building and improving competitiveness;  in that respect it is fundamental to ensure full and
active implementation of the Integrated Framework for Uganda.
__________