G/RO/W/179  
 
10 October 2018  
(18-6276) 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 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Utilization rates offer a useful analytical tool for the examination of trade preferences in 
general and of rules of origin in particular. Very high rates of preference utilization signal that 
exporters are able to meet origin requirements and make effecti ve use of preferential trade benefits. 
On the contrary, low levels of preference utilization may indicate that preferential origin 
requirements cannot be met and that they could be operating as a trade barrier.  
1.2 For this reason, p aragraph 4.3 of the 20 15 (Nairobi) Ministerial Decision on prefere ntial rules 
of origin for least -developed countries (LDCs) stated that the Secretariat may calculate the rates of 
utilization of Preferential Trad e Arrangements (PTA) for LDCs. Such calculations may help Members 
identify and promote trade -facilitating origin practices.  
1.3. This note builds on previous notes by the Secretariat on preference utilization rates 
(G/RO/W/168 and G/RO/W/168/Rev.1). It is an attempt to take forward the work of the Committee 
on Rules of O rigin with regard to the linkages between preference utilization and origin requirements.  
2  DEFINITION OF PREFER ENCE UTILIZATION AND  METHODOLOGY FOR THE 
CALCULATION OF UTILIZ ATION RATES  
2.1. A previous note by the Secretariat defined the concept of "preferen ce utilization rates" and 
explained the significance of using that concept as an analytical tool to examine preferential rules of 
origin for LDCs (section 2 of G/RO/W/168/Rev.1). As stated in that note, preference utilization refers 
to the proportion of tr ade, which is eligible for trade preferences, and which, in practice, receives 
preferential treatment. This definition assumes that preferential treatment may only occur if there 
actually is a preference . In other words, in order for a preferential tariff margin to be implemented, 
the Most -Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff rate for a product cannot be zero.  
2.2. 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 from preferences with 
the value of total imports "eligible" for such trade preferences.  
  
                                                
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 . G/RO/W/179  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table 1:  List of PTAs included in the analysis  
Preference -granting Member  PTA Year  
Australia  GSP-LDC 2016 
Canada  GSP-LDC 2016 
Chile LDC-specific  2015 
European Union  GSP-LDC 2016 
India LDC-specific  2015 
Japan  GSP-LDC 2016 
Korea, Rep. of  LDC-specific  2016 
Norway  GSP-LDC 2016 
Switzerland  GSP-LDC 2016 
Chinese Taipei  LDC-specific  2016 
United States  GSP-LDC 2016 
AGOA  2016 
Source:  Preferential Trade Arrangements database ( http://ptadb.wto.org ) 
2.3. The LDC preferential arrangements reviewed  in this report  have been notified under the 
"Enabling Clause"  in the case of developed country Members2 and under the 1999 waiver for 
developing countries.3 The LDC schemes which could be reviewed in this note are those for which 
tariff and import data is available accor ding to the requirements of the PTA Transparency 
Mechanism4. Currently, s uch information is available as follows:  
i. Trade d ata for 2016 is available  for the schemes of the following WTO preference -granting 
Members:  Australia; Canada; European Union ; Japan; Republic  of Korea;  Norway; 
Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and the United States (both US -GSP and AGOA) . Data 
for Chile and India concern 2015 ; and 
ii. Trade d ata is currently not available for the following WTO preference -granting Members: 
Arme nia; China; Iceland; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz Republic; M ontenegro; New Zealand; 
Russian  Federation; Tajikistan; and Turkey . 
2.4 A full report of the tariff and import data available for each preference -granting Member is 
available in document G/RO/W/163/Rev.4.  
3  USING PREFERENCE UTI LIZATION RATES TO EX AMINE PREFERENTIAL R ULES OF 
ORIGIN  
3.1. Preference utilization rates are a useful indicator to analyse the  impact of administrative 
prerequisites related to trade preferences, such as origin requirements. In fact, cu stoms will only 
grant preferential treatment (i.e. the exemption or the reduction of import duties) to goods which 
are deemed to "originate" in the beneficiary country. The criteria which determine when a good 
"originates" or not in the beneficiary country  vary from one preferential scheme to the other but can 
be summarized as follows:  
(i) a good must be wholly obtained in the beneficiary country or comply with minimum  substantial 
transformation requirements  to change its origin (that is, general or product -specific rules of 
origin ); 
(ii) a good must demonstrate compliance with such requirements, particularly by being 
accompanied by a certificate of origin  matching specific prescriptions  (i.e. certificate of orig in, 
e-Certificates, self -certification, etc. ); and  
(iii) a good must be directly consigned from the beneficiary country to the preference -granting 
country  to avoid any risks that it is further processed in third or transit countries (i.e. direct 
transportation requirements or exceptions to it).  
                                                
2 Paragraph 2 of the Decision of 28 November 1979 on Differential and More Favourable Treatment 
Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Members .  
3 Waiver Decision initially adopted by Members in 1 999 (WT/L/304), and extended until 30 June 2019 
(WT/L/759).  
4 According to that Decision (WT/L/806), preference -granting Members must notify the list of tariff lines 
for which a tariff preference is available for LDCs; and the value of imports, at the tari ff-line level under such 
or other preferences.  G/RO/W/179  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2. These three requirements must be simultaneously met so that customs officials in the 
importing country may grant preferential treatment to a product . Hence, low preference utilization 
could  indicate th at the se requirements are  too demanding and cannot be met  in a number of cases . 
Conversely, a high utilization rate necessarily  indicate s that origin requirements can be met and are 
thus not hindering preferential trade . 
3.3. However, other factors, not re lated to rules of origin may also explain low rates of preference 
utilization. One very significant factor is the existence of several competing preferential schemes. In 
fact, sometimes, exporters have the choice between different preferential schemes: one  or more 
non-reciprocal schemes ( PTAs, such as a GSP for LDCs ) and one or more reciprocal schemes 
(regional trade agreements, RTA). For example, the United States "African Growth and Opportunity 
Act (AGOA)" co -exists with the United States General System o f Preferences (GSP). 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 ). 
Similarly, the European Union (EU) grant s preferences to some LDCs through its GSP -LDC Scheme 
("Everything but Arms", EBA) as well as through the reciprocal Economic Partnership Agreement 
(EPA). In the presence of such competing preferential schemes, exporters will prefer to trade under 
whicheve r scheme is most beneficial. As a result, low preference utilization under one scheme does 
not necessarily  indicate problems related to origin requirements in a specific scheme and could rather 
be the result of trade being c hannelled through other schemes available.  Section 8 of document 
G/RO/W/168/Rev.1 contains more detailed notes about each preference -granting Members' trade 
with LDCs.  
3.4. For this reason, it is important to interpret utilization rates in  light of other such factors. 
A comprehensive view for each preferential scheme  depends on the specific patterns  between each 
preference -granting Member and LDC beneficiaries (see, for instance, the factors described in 
section 8 of G/RO/W/168/Rev.1).  
3.5. Graph 1 illustrates total trade between benef iciary LDC countries and each preference -
granting Member from the viewpoint of the duty category : 
i. First, trade could take place outside of the scope of a preferential scheme, typically on products 
that are not covered by the preference. Preferential rul es of origin cannot be a concern for 
this category because they do not apply (MFN conditions apply).  
ii. Second, trade could concern tariff lines for which the MFN tariff rate is zero ("MFN duty free" ). 
In this case, irrespective of whether these lines ar e covered or not by a preferential scheme, 
no preferential  tariff treatment may be granted. As a result, there can be no preference 
utilization. Moreover, preferential rules of origin should also not hinder trade in such products . 
iii. Third, trade could o ccur in tariff lines that are subject to preferential treatment . The focus of 
the Ba li and Nairobi Decisions is non -reciprocal trade preferences for LDCs ("preferential trade 
arrangements", PTA). For imports which are eligible for such preferences, some im ports 
effectively received preferential treatment ( "PTA eligible (used)"). For this category of imports, 
one has to conclude that there were no difficulties in meeting origin requirements . If 
preferences could not be granted, however, there could be two al ternatives: first, preferential 
requirements could not be met ("PTA eligible (not used)"); or other preferential schemes may 
have been used ("PTA eligi ble (other preference used)") . 
  G/RO/W/179  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Graph 1: Import of WTO preference granting Members from LDCs (2016)  
 
Source:  WTO Integrated Database (2018)  
3.6. From the point of view or rules of origin, it is interesting to focus on the portion of trade which 
is eligible for preferences but which does not use them. If a preferential tariff margin is available but 
is not used, the question which arises is whether origin requirements are operating as a trade barrier. 
In other words, origin criteria, documentary requirements or transportation requirements may be 
the reason why such preferences are not being used.  
4  FOCUSING ON  "UNDERUTILIZATION" TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC  DIFFICULTIES RELATE D 
TO PREFERENTIAL RULE S OF ORIGIN  
4.1. The interest of focusing on underutilization (as opposed to focusing on overall utilization) is 
that this approach could help identify, in a more specific ma nner, areas for further attention and 
investigation.  As a result, identifying sectors with underutilization or "pockets of underutilization" as 
precisely as possible vest a strategic interest for an examination of preferential rules of origin to 
guide  the analysis of trade patterns and identify overly restrictive origin requirements.  
4.2. While useful, identifying pockets of underutilization and investigating the reasons which could 
explain them can, nevertheless, be a difficult exercise. A number of variab les may need to be 
considered, including:  
(i) First, a link with rules of origin can only be established if the analysis is made at the most 
disaggregated level. In fact, because rules of origin are often designed at the product -level, a 
correlation with o rigin requirements could only be made if utilization rates (or underutilization 
rates) are analysed at a similarly disaggregated level;  
(ii) Second, the number of exporting firms and the value of trade may vary greatly from one year 
to the other or from  one country to the other. Annual trade variations can induce different 
conclusions about utilization rates. As a result, any analysis would be more reliable if it 
considered data  over a longer period ; 
  0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%USA (AGOA)USA (GSP)Ch.TaipeiSwitzerlandNorwayKorea, Rep. ofJapanIndiaEUChileCanadaAustralia
Not elgible for PTA (MFN dutiable) MFN duty free
PTA eligible (used) PTA eligble (not used)
PTA eligible (other preference used)G/RO/W/179  
 
- 5 - 
 
  (iii) Third, the ability to comply with origin requi rements could vary from one LDC to another and 
from one firm to another. One firm may meet the origin requirements of a preference -granting 
Member while other firms  might not.  This is because firms have different trade integration 
profiles, different productive capacities to access originating suppliers and different capacities 
to access technology and undertake the manufacturing operations that meet substantial 
transformation criteria. As a result, utilization rates should be calculated for each beneficiary 
LDC and should be complemented with an assessment of firm -specific and country -specific 
circumstances.  
4.3. Bearing in mind these objectives and difficulties, Graph 2 below depicts preference utilization 
rates across different sectors.5 It shows the proportion of trade, for each sector, which utilizes 
preferences and which does not.  
4.4. As can be seen from the graph, virtually all product groups or sectors have "pockets of 
underutilization". However, the significance of underutilization varies greatly from one group to the 
other. Underutilization can be very significant in some cases. For instance, close to 50% of all LDC 
exports of "fruits, vegetables, plants" and "chemicals " do not receive preferential treatment despite 
being eligible for preferences. This proportion reaches close to 80% in the case of "sugar  and 
confectionary product s". In other words, only about 20% of all the sugar  and confectionary products  
exported by L DCs meet origin (and administrative) requirements while 80% of sugar exports from 
the LDCs do not.  
  
                                                
5 These sectors correspond to categories used in other databases, research and publications prepared 
by the WTO. The specific product categories of each sector with the corresponding Harmonized System (HS) 
codes can be found here: http://stat.wto.org/idbdata/MTN_product_classification_e.pdf . G/RO/W/179  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Graph 2: Underutilization of LDC preferences: sectoral overview (%, 2016)  
 
Source:  WTO Integrated Database (2018)  
4.5. Interestingly, as the graph shows,  the largest pockets of underutilization concern products or 
sectors which typically are subject to simple origin requirements. For instance, the first two items 
with the largest proportion of underutilization are products which are subject to "wholly obta ined" 
rules of origin: "sugars and confectionery" (HS Chapter 17) and "fruits, vegetables, plants" (HS 
Chapters 07, 08, 13, 14 and Subheadings 1105 -06, 0601 -03, 1211 and 2001 -08). 
4.6. Conversely, some of the sectors that tend to be more sensitive for pref erence -granting 
Members have higher rates of utilization (or constitute small po ckets of underutilization). 
For instance, almost 90% of all LDC exports of "clothing" meet origin requirements and therefore 
use trade preferences.  
4.7. It should be noted, ho wever, that the bars in Graph 2 show percentages ( proportions of 
utilization or underutilization) and do not indicate trade values. As a consequence, a small pocket of -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100CottonAnimal productsCoffee, teaDairy productsOilseeds, fats and oilsOther agricultural productsClothingPetroleumCereals and preparationsFish and fish productsLeather, footwear, etcBeverages and tobaccoMinerals and metalsManufactures n.e.s.Electrical machineryTransport equipmentTextilesWood, paper, etcNon-electrical machineryChemicalsFruits, vegetables, plantsSugars and confectionery
PTA eligible (used) MFN duty free
Not elgible for PTA (MFN dutiable) PTA eligble (not used)
PTA eligible (other preference used)G/RO/W/179  
 
- 7 - 
 
  underutilization may actually conceal large trade values which are being denied trade pr eferences. 
In this regard, the sectors that have the highest value of trade which is not utilizing preferences are: 
"minerals and metals" (14.4% of exports do not use preferences, worth US$2,068 million) and 
"clothing" (6.2% underutilization but worth US$1 ,999 million of exports). Table 1 compares 
underutilization rates and the value of trade not receiving preferences.  
Table 2: Underutilization – sectoral overview  
Product Group  Share of imports (%)  Value of imports (million USD)  
Minerals and metals  14.4 2,068.2  
Clothing  6.2 1,999.3  
Fruits, vegetables, plants  49.3 1,485.5  
Petroleum  6.3 993.2  
Textiles  30.3 529.5  
Chemicals  48.2 365.4  
Leather, footwear, etc  9.5 241.0 
Wood, paper, etc  31.5 224.0 
Transport equipment  27.5 176.7  
Fish and fish products  8.9 169.5  
Sugars and confectionery  78.2 124.6  
Beverages and tobacco  10.6 99.8 
Electrical machinery  25.2 67.4 
Other agricultural products  5.6 66.9 
Manufactures n.e.s.  17.6 65.0 
Non-electrical machinery  37.7 57.0 
Cereals and preparations  7.8 25.4 
Coffee,  tea 1.2 14.1 
Oilseeds, fats and oils  4.2 13.5 
Dairy products  4.1 0.2 
Animal products  0.5 0.1 
Cotton  0 0 
Source:  WTO Integrated Database (2018)  
4.8. Some of the reasons that may explain such patterns may relate to the fact that all LDCs and 
all preference -granting countries are being considered together. Therefore, the rates may be 
influenced by the trade patterns of the beneficiary LDCs with the great est values of trade. For this 
reason, Annex 1 provides a country -by-country break -down. Its examination can provide additional 
information regarding the specific pockets of underutilization and the specific sectors which have a 
particular importance for ea ch least-developed beneficiary country and for each preference -granting 
Member. For each least -developed beneficiary country, the table presents two columns:  
i. Column (1) shows the share of imports eligible for LDC preferences but not receiving 
preferential treatment (non -utilization rates); and  
ii. Column (2) shows the value of imports eligible for LDC preferences but not receiving 
preferential treatment (in thousand USD). 
  G/RO/W/179  
 
- 8 - ANNEX 1  – UNDERUTILIZATION:  COUNTRY -BY-COUNTRY BREAKDOWN  
 
(1) Share of imports eligible for LDC preferences but not receiving preferential treatment (%)  
(2) Value of imports eligible for LDC preferences but not receiving preferential treatment  (in thousand USD ) 
      
WTO LDCs   Australia   Canada   Chile   European Union   India   Japan  
   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)  
 Afghanistan  73.0  69  74.7  610  100.0  12  53.5  3,634  100.0  288,516  100.0  33  
 Angola  100.0  6  100.0  22  1.4  825  56.7  44,650  100.0  106,995  100.0  160  
 Bangladesh  6.9  30,449  10.6  123,580  96.7  45,609  4.2  751,355  100.0  640,663  5.9  66,487  
 Benin  100.0  6  84.5  14  -  -  6.2  350  95.4  62,056  100.0  35  
 Burkina Faso  100.0  2  27.7  4  100.0  9  9.5  1,155  100.0  216,770  56.3  218  
 Burundi  100.0  1  100.0  1  100.0  303  12.8  42  100.0  110  100.0  59  
 Cambodia  38.7  21,460  10.9  89,031  97.7  24,163  8.5  426,979  98.1  48,746  15.3  82,560  
 Central African Republic  100.0  3  100.0  4  100.0  25  99.0  694  100.0  832  100.0  2  
 Chad  100.0  1  100.0  12  100.0  4  100.0  1,206  100.0  1,519  -  -  
 DRC Congo  53.0  18  100.0  46  -  -  62.0  6,437  100.0  46,017  6.4  32  
 Djibouti  100.0  11  100.0  1  -  -  96.2  5,921  100.0  516  -  -  
 Guinea  100.0  3  86.8  30  -  -  74.6  2,636  100.0  258,674  27.2  63  
 Guinea -Bissau  -  -  100.0  0  -  -  100.0  502  100.0  468  -  -  
 Haiti  90.8  1,525  60.8  14,257  100.0  176  14.1  2,419  100.0  3,282  100.0  3,644  
 Lao People's Democratic Republic  80.7  754  19.5  1,387  100.0  209  16.2  36,289  100.0  98,407  27.3  2,439  
 Lesotho  31.9  212  27.3  1,521  -  -  29.1  931  100.0  4,943  71.7  152  
 Liberia  100.0  4  100.0  47  100.0  22  91.9  4,737  100.0  31,944  -  -  
 Madagascar  86.1  2,703  28.0  2,150  100.0  211  98.6  38,459  22.4  29,732  5.5  4,511  
 Malawi  -  -  100.0  125  100.0  20  3.9  9,715  100.0  62,061  0.4  18  
 Mali  100.0  2,837  99.4  86  100.0  17  18.3  1,185  99.6  168,726  73.3  23  
 Mauritania  100.0  11  100.0  46  100.0  507  3.0  7,380  100.0  15,474  3.1  3,529  
 Mozambique  100.0  89  82.2  16  100.0  66  6.5  73,694  99.7  344,119  50.7  3,046  
 Myanmar  51.2  1,554  24.7  12,794  99.4  791  5.7  55,195  99.3  844,333  5.0  21,144  
 Nepal  36.9  652  46.6  2,477  97.7  172  8.0  7,436  100.0  381,805  47.8  4,033  
 Niger  100.0  677  83.5  66  -  -  18.7  783  100.0  321  100.0  613  
 Rwanda  100.0  13  69.5  85  100.0  0  52.8  1,175  41.4  464  98.3  289  
 Senegal  100.0  101  87.9  596  100.0  154  12.1  38,760  99.4  227,396  24.7  1,559  
 Sierra Leone  100.0  1,127  100.0  504  100.0  77  70.4  1,405  100.0  15,837  100.0  62  
 Solomon Islands  85.8  238  100.0  75  -  -  0.2  108  100.0  67,652  99.8  2,227  
 Tanzania  100.0  55  64.0  448  100.0  566  2.7  9,766  94.0  674,730  52.3  3,813  
 The Gambia  -  -  100.0  33  100.0  0  5.8  672  100.0  3,763  -  -  
 Togo  100.0  14  32.4  245  -  -  28.1  10,425  100.0  130,753  74.4  8  
 Uganda  100.0  16  93.0  156  100.0  362  2.2  3,662  84.4  20,677  33.7  434  
 Vanuatu  100.0  50  100.0  6  100.0  22  75.1  1,236  100.0  294  98.7  70,007  
 Yemen  -  -  100.0  4  -  -  34.0  2,609  100.0  5,117  100.0  821  
 Zambia  100.0  170  34.7  6  100.0  0  22.3  22,920  6.9  32,801  8.3  67  
 Grand Total  64,831   
250,488   
74,324   
1,576,522   
4,836,513   
272,086  
 
  
  G/RO/W/179  
 
- 9 - WTO LDCs   Korea, Rep . of   Norway   Switzerland   Chinese Taipei   USA (LDC)   USA (AGOA)  
   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)   (1)   (2)  
 Afghanistan  100.0  18  -  -  98.9  2,344  -  -  85.2  1,432  †  †  
 Angola  51.1  96  -  -  100.0  1  -  -  100.0  467,603  19.0  467,603  
 Bangladesh  14.2  38,675  23.9  51,741  54.0  238,490  57.1  3,416  †  †  †  †  
 Benin  49.1  48  -  -  73.3  343  -  -  43.4  64  91.7  64  
 Burkina Faso  100.0  2  †  †  97.9  640  -  -  22.0  187  98.2  187  
 Burundi  16.4  51  †  †  100.0  -    -  -  0.6  2  †  †  
 Cambodia  77.6  27,212  46.5  18,560  59.1  73,912  90.5  5,727  22.7  53,607  †  †  
 Central African Republic  100.0  1,010  †  †  100.0  30  -  -  97.8  270  †  †  
 Chad  -  -  †  †  -  -  -  -  100.0  8  0.1  1  
 DRC Congo  0.1  145  100.0  1  71.7  69  -  -  10.8  12,211  †  †  
 Djibouti  11.5  62  †  †  100.0  1  -  -  42.7  39  95.4  150  
 Guinea  100.0  77  -  -  42.3  40  -  -  46.8  236  98.8  246  
 Guinea -Bissau  -  -  †  †  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
 Haiti  97.8  836  100.0  51  100.0  3,967  100.0  0  95.4  701  †  †  
 Lao People's Democratic  Republic  48.9  2,825  85.0  955  80.0  4,774  100.0  63  †  †  †  †  
 Lesotho  54.6  43  -  -  †  †  -  -  93.8  900  0.4  1,094  
 Liberia  100.0  219  100.0  3  100.0  157  -  -  56.0  122  93.4  127  
 Madagascar  8.5  6,053  85.7  828  60.2  8,613  100.0  24  42.8  2,060  14.9  13,020  
 Malawi  14.3  3,739  -  -  100.0  44  100.0  0  77.1  504  23.5  512  
 Mali  100.0  34  100.0  1  96.6  264  -  -  42.5  78  95.9  166  
 Mauritania  0.5  148  †  †  100.0  90  -  -  100.0  9  0.1  28  
 Mozambique  95.9  2,966  100.0  15  48.5  16,840  100.0  0  43.4  9,111  94.0  9,072  
 Myanmar  91.5  8,673  23.6  2,062  74.9  26,694  97.5  3,822  94.9  59,139  †  †  
 Nepal  60.5  958  25.5  442  58.4  4,356  50.5  105  19.4  2,246  †  †  
 Niger  100.0  74  -  -  100.0  124  100.0  4  97.9  729  99.6  475  
 Rwanda  36.8  505  †  †  100.0  3  100.0  7  57.1  251  52.6  587  
 Senegal  67.4  796  100.0  208  28.8  2,354  19.2  7  17.1  201  95.0  167  
 Sierra Leone  100.0  290  †  †  -  -  100.0  0  94.4  3,097  87.0  2,328  
 Solomon Islands  100.0  4  †  †  5.5  568  -  -  2.7  32  †  †  
 Tanzania  6.4  2,388  16.6  116  24.8  4,075  5.3  1  47.7  355  2.7  406  
 The Gambia  100.0  9  -  -  -  -  -  -  73.3  43  †  †  
 Togo  100.0  19  -  -  34.1  62  -  -  73.7  308  96.2  377  
 Uganda  16.2  1,170  3.9  35  19.3  449  -  -  25.2  250  84.7  257  
 Vanuatu  100.0  38  †  †  -  -  100.0  2  92.7  57  †  †  
 Yemen  100.0  2,689  †  †  100.0  4  100.0  54  19.0  19  †  †  
 Zambia  0.1  102  11.1  51  100.0  6,435  -  -  13.7  276  98.5  287  
 Grand Total  101,972   
75,068   
395,746   
13,234   
616,151   
497,151  
Source:  WTO Integrated Database, 2018  
Note: 
 Fields showing ' -' indicate that no imports from specific LDC beneficiaries have been recorded.  
 Some LDCs may be excluded from some of the programmes. Country exclusions are marke d with [†] in the table.  
 All schemes shown concern the LDC duty scheme (with the exception of the US -AGOA).  
 
__________