G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
14 Septembe r 2017 
(17-4871) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 UTILIZATION RATES UN DER PREFERENTIAL TRA DE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LEAST 
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  UNDER THE LDC DUTY S CHEME  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1. An examination and better understanding of preference utilization can offer useful insights 
about best practices and limitations of Preferential Trade Arrangements ( PTA). If trade operators  
are not using preference s or only using them to a limited extent, the resulting low preference 
utilization could indicate that  certain conditions are  reducing  the ability of exporters to fully seize 
preferential opportunities . Different factors could explain low utilization of preferences. However, 
because c ompliance with r ules of origin is a central prer equisite to utiliz ing preferences,  low 
preference utiliza tion rates may indicate that origin requirements are overly strict or costly.  
1.2. Acknowledging the usefulness of using utilization rates as a tool to examine preferential 
rules of origin, Paragraph 4.3 of the 2015 (Nairobi) Ministerial Decision on prefer ential rules of 
origin for least developed countries (LDCs)2 stipulate s that WTO preference -granting Members 
should notify the necessary information and data so that the Secretariat may calculate utilization 
rates of PTA imple mented by WTO Members for LDCs  (henceforth referred to as PTA for LDCs) . 
2  DEFINITIO N OF PREFERENCE UTIL IZATION  AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE 
CALCULATION OF UTILIZ ATION RATES  
2.1. "Preference utilization" can be defined  simply as the extent to which imports , which are 
eligible for trade prefer ences , are actually being imported under these preferences.  
2.2. A preferential scheme can only be utilized if there actually is a preference  (that is , a 
preferential tariff margin ). In other words, tariff lines on which the rate is zero on a Most -Favoured  
Nation (MFN) basis, cannot offer a ny preference. In such cases, moreover, preferential rules of 
origin cannot stand as a trade barrier. As a result, MFN -zero tariffs are not taken into account for 
the calculation of preference utilization rates.  
2.3. The Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO)  has adopted, at the end of 2016, modalities for the 
calculation of utilization rates as recommended in paragraph 3.2(a) of document G/RO/W/161.  
The methodology compares the value of imports which "reportedly" benefitted f rom preferences 
with the value of total imports which would have been "eligible" for such preferences. For the 
reasons described above, o nly MFN dutiable lines are considered . 
3  USING PREFERENCE UTI LIZATION TO EXAMINE RULES OF ORIGIN  
3.1. The economic useful ness of trade preferences - and therefore the likelihood of operators to 
utilize them - is contingent on at least two main factors:  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and  is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO . 
2 WT/L/917/Add.1 . G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  (i) First, how attractive a trade preference is : the greater the preferential tariff margin 
(the difference between the MFN and the preferential tariff rates), the more likely it is 
that the operator would seek to comply with all conditions to export under the 
preferential scheme;  
(ii) Second, how costly or difficult compliance with the prescribed  regulations and 
procedures  is: in particular, compliance with the general or product -specific rules of 
origin . 
3.2. This note focuses on the second factor, that is, the impact that preferential rules of origin  
may have on preference utilization . In fact, a preference will be granted on ly when three origin -
related pre-requisites are simultaneously met, namely:  
(i) compliance with the general or product -specific rules of origin (i.e. minimum criteria 
defining origin and substantial transformation ); 
(ii) the presentation of a certificate o f origin  matching specific prescriptions  (i.e. specifi c 
documentary requirements ); and  
(iii) the ability to directly consign the goods from the beneficiary country to the 
preference -granting country  (i.e. to comply with the prescribed transportation 
requir ements ). 
3.3. Only when all three requirements are met will the preference be granted. Hence, l ow 
preference utilization could indicate that the  rules that identify the conditions under which a 
product can acquire the origin of the exporting country are too demanding  and cannot be met. Or 
it could also indicate that certificates are too  costly to obtain. Or that an exporter is not able to 
ship the goods directly to the market of the preference -granting country . Conversely, a high 
utilization rate would indicate that origin requirements do not hinder trade and can be complied 
with most of the time.  
4  LIMITATIONS TO THE U SE OF PREFERENCE UTI LIZATION TO EXAMINE RULES OF 
ORIGIN  
4.1. It should, nonetheless, be noted that there are also limits to the use of preferen ce utilization 
as a tool to examine the restrictiveness  of preferential rules of origin. Rules of origin  are, in fact, 
not the only factor which could explain less -than-full utilization of preferences .  
4.2. For instance, trade preferences may not be utili zed because the preferential margin is not 
sufficiently attractive (that is, the MFN rate is  so low that the preferential margin does no t work as 
an incentive to use the preferences).  
4.3. Moreover , it must be noted that  different trade preference schemes overlap  in practice . 
Exporters may have the choice between different preferential schemes  (non-reciprocal and 
reciprocal, each with different rules of origin). F or example, the U nited States  "African Growth and 
Opportunity Act (AGOA)"  co-exist with the Uni ted States General System of Preferences (GSP) . 
In the presence of such competing preferential schemes , traders will prefer to trade  under 
whichever scheme is most beneficial . As a result, l ow preference utilization under , for instance,  the 
US GSP may conv ey the wrong impression that the scheme is of little value  for beneficiaries  
whereas, in reality, exporters may prefer to use AGOA . Likewise, Australia grants trade 
preferences to Cambodia both under the " Australian System of Tariff Preferences " (ASTP)  and 
under the ASEAN -Australia -New Zealand free trade agreement ( AANZFTA ). Only a combined 
examination of trade under both schemes would enable a comprehensive  overview of preferential 
trade patterns.  
4.4. Finally, an examination of preference utilization is n ot sufficient to consider all 
developmental benefits of a PTA. For that, it would be important to also consider the total trade 
value and the profile of products being traded. For instance, there could be full preference 
utilization on very low trade value s. Conversely, a very large amount of trade could be taking 
place subject to relatively low preference utilization.  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  5  INFORMATION AND DATA  SOURCE  
5.1. Information and data used in this note were drawn from notifications submitted by WTO 
preference -granting M embers pursuing to the requirements of the Transparency Mechanism for 
Preferential trade Arrangements (WT/L/806) . Accordingly, Members must notify as follows:  
(i) The list of tariff lines for which a tariff preference is available under a Member's PTA 
for LDCs; and  
(ii) The value of imports, at the tariff -line level, under:   
a. The PTA for LDCs (i.e. trade having actually received preferences) ; and 
b. Other treatment ( trade having paid MFN duties or having entered under other 
preferences that may be available).  
5.2. The preferential schemes reviewed  in this report  have been notified under the "Enabling 
Clause"  in the case of developed country Members3 and under the 1999 waiver for developing 
countries.4 
5.3. All trade data used in section  9 below refer  to 2015.5 
6  DATA AVAILABILITY AND  MEMBERS EXAMINED IN THIS NOTE  
6.1. Not all WTO preference -granting Members have provided the Secretariat with the necessary 
trade data and information for the calculation of preference utilization rates. Section  9 below only 
report s preference utilization rates for certain WTO preference -granting Members. The status of 
notifications is as follows6:  
 
(i) Trade d ata is available  for the schemes of the following WTO preferenc e-granting 
Members:  Australia;  Canada; Chile; E uropean Union ; India; Republic  of Korea;  
Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and the United States;  
(ii) The data submissions from Japan, Norway  and Switzerland are currently being 
reviewed so the utilization rates reported in this note should be considered as 
preliminary results ; 
(iii) Trade d ata is currently not available for the following WTO preference -granting 
Members: China; Iceland; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz  Republic;  New Zealand; Russian 
Federation; Tajikistan; and Turkey.  
7  DATA LIMITATIONS  
7.1. A number of limitations should be not ed with respect to the data used  in this report . 
7.2. First, data held by the Secretariat  depends on the manner  in which  each WTO Member 
collects their preferential trade statistics . Some Members may record preferential trade on the 
basis of import declara tions. In this case, the fact that a preference was claimed does not mean it 
was eventually granted. As a result, in some instances , there could be a slight overestimation of 
preferential trade.  
7.3. Second, preferential trade values and the utilization of  preferences vary from one year to 
another. As a consequence, a more comprehensive and more accurate picture would require the 
examination of preference utilization over several years. This note only reports on data for one 
year (2015).  
                                                
3 Paragraph 2 of the Decision of 28 November 1979 on Differentia l and More Favourable Treatment 
Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Members .  
4 Waiver Decision initially adopted by Members in 1999 (WT/L/304), and extended until 30 June 2019 
(WT/L/759).  
5 According to paragraph 16 of the Transparency Mech anism (WT/L/806)  Members have until 30 
October of every year to notify their preferential trade statistics for the previous year.  
6 Document G/RO/W/163/Rev.1 contains a summary of notification requirements under the PTA 
Transparency Mechanism (WT/L/806) as  well as a detailed status of notifications received and information 
available with the Secretariat for each PTA.  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  7.4.  Third,  WTO pr eference -granting Members define unilaterally the precise list of beneficiaries 
of their PTA for LDCs . While these lists largely overlap, there may also be some differences. Some 
WTO preference -granting Members  may either permanently  or temporarily  exclude  some LDCs if 
prescribed eligibility criteria are not met . Most schemes  offer preferences to all LDCs officially 
designated as such by the United Nations7, but a few may also include non -LDC low -income 
countries . This note reports preference utilization rates for each PTA for all eligible LDCs,  as 
defined by the preference -granting Member.  
7.5. Finally, this report shows aggregated averages  based on annual trade statistics . Averages, 
however, could conceal significant differences in preference utilization f or some products, sectors 
or countries.  An examination of individual transactions would allow a more detailed consideration 
of the capacity  of individual operators and countries to seize preferential trade opportunities.  
8  NOTES ABOUT THE PREFERENCE SCHEMES  FOR WHICH PREFERENCE  UTILIZATION 
RATES COULD BE REPOR TED IN THIS NOTE  
8.1. The graph and two tables in section 9  below  report the  preference utilization rates  of WTO 
preference -granting Members who have notified all the necessary trade data and information  to 
the Secretariat. These rates should be considered  in light of the trade and tariff specificities of 
each WTO preference -granting Member . As discussed above, there are several  factors which  may 
influence preference utilization  (e.g. the existence of other reciprocal or non -reciprocal trade 
preferences ). Some of these specificities  are described in this section.8 
8.1  Australia: "Generalized System of Preferences"  
8.2. Australia offers duty and quota -free access to 100% of products originating in LDCs . In 
addition, s ome WTO LDC Member s also have preferential market access to the Australian market 
by virtue of the ASEAN -Australia -New Zealand free trade agreement ( AANZFTA9), the 1980 South 
Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA)  and t he recently signed 
(2017) Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus10. Australia applies a n MFN 
rate of zero to 47.6% of its tariff lines. The Australian government is currently conducting a 
comprehensive review of its trade preferences  and preferential rules of origin.  
8.2  Canada: "Least Developed Country Tariff (LDCT) " 
8.3. Canada offers duty and quota -free access  to LDCs  on 98.6% of its tariff lines.  Canada 
applies a n MFN rate of zero to 70.6% of its tariff lines.  
8.3  Chile: "Duty -free treatment  for LDCs " 
8.4. Chile's preferences for LDCs cover 99.5% of tariff lines . Chile applie s an MFN rate of zero to 
0.4% of its tariff lines.  
8.4  The European Union: "Everything But Arms" (EBA)  
8.5. The European Union's  Generalized Scheme of Preferences contains tw o sub -schemes, one of 
which is specifically designed for LDCs. Under the  "Everything But Arms" initiative , LDCs benefit 
from duty and quota -free access on 98.8% of all tariff lines.  In addition, after the negotiation of an 
"Economic Partnership Agreement" (EPA) between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific 
countries, reciprocal trade  preferences are also being introduced  for several WTO LDC Members. 
The EU applies an MFN rate of zero to 25.9% of all its tariff lines.  
                                                
7 https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least -developed -country -category.html  
8 Document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/65 contains further information on the value of imports from LDCs into 
WTO preference -granting Members.  The figures concerning MFN duty -free rates  cited below  were extracted 
from the WTO IDB database (latest year available) . 
9 Cambodia ; Lao People’s Democratic Republic ; and Myanmar.  
10 Solom on Islands.  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  8.5  India: "Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries"  
8.6. India's " Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for LDCs" grants duty and quota -free treatment 
on 94 .1% of India's tariff lines. In  addition, In dia also provides preferences to Bangladesh and 
Nepal under the SAARC (So uth Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Preferential Trading 
Arrangement and under the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA ). India  has concluded a 
preferential  trade agreement with Afghanistan and a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation 
agreement with ASEAN (trade preferences therefore also apply to ASEAN LDC  members:  
Cambodia; Lao People' s Democratic Republic ; and Myanmar).  Finally, India also applies trade 
preferences under the Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSTP). India applies a n MFN rate 
of zero to 2.6% of its tariff lines.  
8.6  Japan:  "Genera lized System of Preferences"  
8.7. Japan's GSP offers duty and quota -free market access to imports originating in LDCs 
covering 97.9% of Japan's tariff lines.  Under the Japan -ASEAN free trade agreemen t, Cambodia; 
Lao People 's Democratic Republic ; and Myanmar can also access the Japanese market under 
preferential conditions. A n MFN  rate of zero applies to 39.7% of Japan's tariff lines.  
8.7  Korea:  "Preferential Tariff for LDCs"  
8.8. Korea's PTA for LDCs cove rs 89.9% of all tariff lines. In addition, Cambodia, Lao People 's 
Democratic Republic , and Myanmar also have preferential access to the Korean market by virtue of 
a Korea -ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Bangladesh and Lao People 's Democratic Republic  are also 
beneficiaries of the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA, formerly known as the Bangkok 
Agreement). Finally, the Republic of Korea also applies trade preferences under the Generalized 
System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) . Korea applies an MFN rate of zero to 16.6% of its tariff lines.  
8.8  Norway:  "Gener alized System of Preference s" 
8.9. Norway offers duty and quota -free access to 100% of  products originating in LDCs. 
In addition, Lesotho enjoys preferential access into the Norwegian market by virtue of a free trad e 
agreement between the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Southern African 
Customs Union (SACU) states. Norway applies a n MFN rate of zero to 85.2% of its tariff lines.  
8.9  Switzerland:  "Generalized System of Preference s" 
8.10. Switzerland offers duty and quota -free access to 100% of  products originating in LDCs. 
In addition, Lesotho enjoys preferential access in the Swiss market by virtue of a free trade 
agreement between the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Southern African 
Customs Union (SACU) states. Switzerland applies a n MFN rate of zero to 20.8% of its tariff lines.  
8.10  Chinese Taipei : "Generalized System of Preferences"  
8.11. Chinese Taipei offers duty and quota -free market access to 30.8% of products originating in 
LDCs. An MFN ra te of zero applies to 29.2% of Chinese Taipei's tariff lines.  
8.11  Thailand:  "Generalized System of Preference s" 
8.12 The Duty -free and Quota -free programme for LDCs covers 74.7% of Thailand's tariff lines. 
In addition, Thailand offers preferences to Cambodia; Lao People 's Democratic Republic ; and 
Myanmar within ASEAN. Thailand also applies trade preferences under the Generalized System of 
Trade Preferences (GSTP). Thailand has informed the Secretariat that no trade with LDCs ha s been 
reported under the GSP in 2 015. Thailand was therefore not included in tables 1 and 2 below. An 
MFN rate of zero applies to 31% of Thailand's tariff lines.  
8.12  United States:  "Generalized System of Preferences"  
8.13. LDCs have preferential market access to the United States under three distinct schemes. 
Sub-Saharan African countries benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which 
covers  up to 97.5% of tariff lines for eligible countries. Haiti benefits from duty -free preferences on G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  all tariff lines by virtue of  the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA)  and specific 
programmes . Other LDCs benefit from preferential market access under the Generalized System of 
Preferences , which covers 8 0.5% of tariff lines . Each scheme has its distinct preferential rules of 
origin  and eligibility criteria. An MFN rate of zero applies to 36.9% of tariff lines in the US.  
 
9  PREFERENTIAL TRADE  AND PREFERENCE UTILI ZATION RATES  
9.1. The graph below shows a decomposition of total imports  of each WTO preference -granting 
Member from LDC beneficiary countries. The bars are split into categories to show the proportion 
of imports which take place under specific conditions: in MFN dutiable  lines (not eligible for 
preferences) ; in MFN -zero lines; under a  PTA for LDC scheme (either utilizing  or no t utilizing  the 
preferences); and under "other" preferences . 
Graph 1: Imports of WTO preference -granting Member from LDCs (2015 ) 
 
 
  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 9.2. Table 1  presents the utilization rates for each preference -granting Member, detailed by 22 product categories11. It shoul d be noted that the utilization 
rates reported below are subject to the limitations described in section s 4, 6 and 7.  Utilization rates range from 0% (no utilization) to 100% (full utilization) for 
each sector. Empty fields are shown when no imports have b een reported  under the specific PTA for LDCs . 
 
Table 1 : Preference utilization rates  by product groups under each PTA ( 2015 ) 
 
Product category11 Australia  
GSP Canada  
LDCT  Chile  
Duty-free 
treatment 
for LDCs  European 
Union  
EBA India  
DFTP 
Scheme 
for LDCs  Japa n 
GSP Korea, 
Republic of  
Preferential 
Tariff for 
LDCs Norway  
GSP Switzerland  
GSP Chinese 
Taipei  
Duty Free 
Market 
Access for  
LDCs United 
States  
GSP 
Animal products     20.4 0 100.0 99.6 100.0   0 
Dairy products   0  0  84.4     0 
Fruits, vegetables, 
plants  61.6 58.5 0 92.6 0.7 98.3 65.3 99.3 8.8 89.2 0.6 
Coffee, tea  24.8 40.6 0 54.5 0 54.7 81.2 100.0 3.0 0 0 
Cereals and preparations  61.7 80.1 0 97.8 0.5 96.6 70.7 99.6 37.9 0 20.2 
Oilseeds, fats and oils  22.0 31.9 0 96.2 65.3 90.3 62.3 100.0 97.5  0 
Sugars and 
confectionery  30.0 23.4  67.0 0 100.0 0  2.1  0.1 
Beverages and tobacco  51.2 23.2 0 99.0 0 53.2 90.1  57.4  0 
Cotton             
Other agricultural 
products   40.7 0 14.8 74.9 99.2 3.2 100.0 2.3  0 
Fish and fish products  0 97.9 57.0 89.7 0.1 73.8 94.3 0  100.0 49.9 
Minerals and metals  29.2 21.4 99.2 98.1 17.7 98.8 94.0  1.5 34.9 0 
Petroleum    100.0 89.9 0      0 
Chemicals  54.7 65.7 0 16.6 0 53.3 19.3  31.6 1.1 1.4 
Wood, paper, etc.  35.5 84.0 0 70.9 0 80.5 58.6  56.7  0 
Textiles  86.5 86.3 1.2 90.8 0 67.8 46.9 98.3 46.3 8.0 0 
Clothing  91.5 88.4 2.9 95.4 0 89.4 32.2 97.2 51.6 0.4 0 
Leather, footwear, etc.  16.0 85.9 3.5 95.9 1.2 94.5 75.3  41.7 48.8 0.1 
Non-electrical machinery  0 0.1 0 0.9 0  0   0 0 
Electrical machinery  0.5 0.1 0 14.3 5.0  49.9   0 0 
Transport equipment  0 82.4 0 65.6 0  0  30.2 0 62.9 
Manufactures n.e.s.  2.5 21.3 0 58.7 0 58.5 9.5  26.9 0.2 1.2 
 
                                                
11 The composition of product categories aligned to the Harmonized System (HS) can be found here: http://stat.wto.org/idbdata/MTN_product_classification_e.pdf .  
  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 9.3. Table 2 presents preference utilization rates for each  WTO preference -beneficiary LDC under each PTA. It should be noted that  the utilization rates 
reported below are subject to the limitations described in sections 4 , 6 and 7 . Utilization rates range from 0% (no utilization) to 100% (full utilization) for each 
sector. Empty fields are shown when no imports have been reported un der the specific PTA for LDCs . 
Table 2 : Preference utilization rates  for each WTO LDC beneficiary under each PTA ( 2015 ) 
WTO LDC Beneficiary  Australia  
GSP Canada  
LDCT  Chile  
Duty-free 
treatment 
for LDCs  European 
Union  
EBA India  
DFTP 
Scheme for 
LDCs Japan  
GSP Korea, 
Republic of  
Preferential 
Tariff for 
LDCs Norway  
GSP Switzerland  
GSP Chinese 
Taipei  
Duty Free 
Market 
Access for  
LDCs United 
States  
GSP 
Afghanistan  79.9 2.9 0 59.0 0 30.4 0 100.0 2.8  10.9 
Angola  0 0 98.6 45.2 0 28.8 0.5 100.0 0  0 
Bangladesh  93.5 89.0 3.3 97.5 0 94.0 87.3 97.7 52.5 55.5  
Benin   2.3  58.0 4.6 0 90.0  8.5  0 
Burkina Faso  0 53.6 0 84.7 0 88.9 0  6.8  0 
Burundi   0 0 89.0 0 0 27.3 100.0 0  0 
Cambodia  64.5 88.7 2.3 93.1 1.9 79.1 24.7 95.3 50.3 13.1 10.3 
Central African Republic  0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0  0  0 
Chad  0  0 0  0  0  0 
Dem. Rep. of the Congo  0 0  39.6 0 0 96.5 100.0 17.0  0 
Djibouti  0 0  0 0  98.9 100.0 0  0 
The Gambia  0 0 0 98.2 0  92.5  0  0 
Guinea  0 0.2  47.2 0 0 0  61.2  0 
Guinea -Bissau   0  0 0    0   
Haiti 7.5 25.8 0 89.0 0 0 0 74.7 0 100.0 0.1 
Lao People's Dem . Rep.  63.4 67.4 0 97.0 0 78.6 36.5 98.2 36.4 0  
Lesotho  97.9 77.2  70.8 0 90.8 0  0  0 
Liberia, Republic of   0  0 0  0 100.0 0  0 
Madagascar  39.8 78.9 0 0.8 77.6 95.4 95.1 98.9 37.2 0 0 
Malawi   31.9 0 92.1 0 100.0 98.3  0  0 
Mali 0 0 0 74.5 0.4 90.4 0 72.1 25.3  0.4 
Mauritania  0 0 0 95.7 0 96.2 95.4 0 0  0 
Mozambique  0 0 0 96.9 0.3 55.9 75.1  83.7  0 
Myanmar  69.2  0.6 94.9 0.7 95.3 7.9 87.2 11.1 0.2  
Nepal  71.3 55.7 2.3 92.4 0 80.4 42.4 99.7 46.9 37.7 0.4 
Niger  0 14.7  81.0 0 0 0  0  0 
Rwanda  0 57.0 0 68.7 58.5 4.7 38.4 17.8 0  0 
Senegal  16.3 12.0 0 97.3 0.6 63.7 48.0 98.3 60.7 98.4 0 
Sierra Leone  0 0 0 83.3 0  0    0 
Solomon Islands  8.6 0  98.0 0 37.3 0  96.3  68.2  
  G/RO/W/168/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - WTO LDC Beneficiary  Australia  
GSP Canada  
LDCT  Chile  
Duty-free 
treatment 
for LDCs  European 
Union  
EBA India  
DFTP 
Scheme for 
LDCs Japan  
GSP Korea, 
Republic of  
Preferential 
Tariff for 
LDCs Norway  
GSP Switzerland  
GSP Chinese 
Taipei  
Duty Free 
Market 
Access for  
LDCs United 
States  
GSP 
Tanzania  19.8 16.2 0 84.5 6.0 74.0 80.5 98.3 80.2 0 0 
Togo 0 79.6  91.1 0 18.8 39.2  51.5  0.2 
Uganda  6.2 6.8 0 97.6 15.6 65.5 93.3 99.9 79.7  1.0 
Vanuatu  0 35.4 0 9.2 0 2.5 0  0  0 
Yemen  40.9 0  41.0 0 0 99.5  0  4.3 
Zambia  0 33.1 0 68.8 93.1 96.3 93.1 95.6 0  0 
 
__________