WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1  
 21 February 2008 
 
 (08-0774) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries 
  
 
 
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OF EXPORT INTEREST TO 
LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
 
     Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Revision2 
 
Table of Contents 
 
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .3 
II. LDC EXPORT PROFILE........................................................................................................3  
A. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE ...............................................................4  
1. Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ..........4  
2. Major Products ................................................................................................................. ........8  
3. Major Markets .................................................................................................................. ......11  
B. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TRADE IN SERVICES .................................................................15  
1. Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ........15  
2. Tourism........................................................................................................................ ............18  
III. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS ..............................................19  
A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................19  
B. TARIFF MEASURES AND DUTY -FREE ACCESS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE ....................................21  
1. Tariff Measures................................................................................................................ .......21  
2. Duty-free Tariff Lines on Imports from LDCs ....................................................................22  
C. THE UTILIZATION OF PREFERENCES ...........................................................................................30  
1. An Overview.................................................................................................................... ........30  
2. Preference Utilization on Selected Sectors of Interest to LDCs..........................................32  
IV. RECENT INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS .........................................36  
A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG DECISION ON DFQF MARKET ACCESS TO LDCS ............36  
B. OTHER INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................................38  
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... ..39 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 The document has been revised in view of comments received at the 48th Session of the 
Sub-Committee on LDCs. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 2 
 
 
  List of Tables 
 Table 1:   Relative importance of goods a nd services in LDC total exports, 2000-2006...................4 
Table 2:   Merchandise exports and imports of  LDCs by selected country grouping, 2006 ..............6 
Table 3:   Evolution of the export prices for selected primary commodities, 2000-2005..................7 
Table 4:   Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2005.................................................................9 
Table 5:   Imports of agricultural products, fuels and manufactures of the EU,  
 Asia and North America from LDCs, 2005 .....................................................................12 Table 5(a) Imports of agricultural products , fuels and manufactures of developed and  
 developing economies in Asia from LDCs, 2005 ............................................................14 
Table 6:   Relative importance of services categories in LDC services exports, 2000-2006 ...........17 Table 7:   Exports of tourism services  by LDCs:  main indicators 1990-2005 ................................19 
Table 8:   Tariff profile of selected markets, 2005...........................................................................2 1 
Table 9(a):   Tariff treatment of LDC expor ts in selected developed markets, 2005 ...........................26 
Table 9(b):   Tariff treatment of LDC expor ts in selected developing markets, 2005..........................28 
Table 10:   Preference utilization fo r selected developed markets, 2005...........................................31 
Table 11:   Imports of textiles and cl othing into Quad markets 2000-2006.......................................34 
Table 12:   Agriculture and food products:  u tilization rate of preferences in the EU and the 
 United States, 2002 ..........................................................................................................3 5 
  Annex Tables  
Annex Table 1: Availability of LDC tariff and trade data...............................................................44 Annex Table 2: Measures in favour of ex ports originating from LDCs since 2000........................45 
Annex Table 3(a): Tariff profiles of LD Cs (agricultural pr oducts), 2006 ...........................................50 
Annex Table 3(b): Tariff profiles of LD Cs (non-agricultural products), 2006 ....................................52 
  List of Charts 
 
Chart 1: Comparative evolution of LDC exports of goods a nd services, 1995-2006 ......................4 
Chart 2: LDCs' merchandise trade, 1990-2006................................................................................5 
Chart 3: Exports of LDCs by major product, 2005..........................................................................8 Chart 4: Share of LDCs' top three exported produ cts in their total merchandise exports, 2005....10 
Chart 5: Top 10 markets for LDC exports  of goods, 2000-2005 (percentage) ..............................11 
Chart 6: Share of developing countries in LDC exports, 2005. .....................................................15 
Chart 7: Services exports by LDCs, 2000-2005 (million US$) .....................................................16 
Chart 8: Share of services in tota l LDC exports, 2000-2005 average............................................17 
 
 
List of Boxes 
 
Box 1: LDCs' competitiveness and export transaction costs .......................................................20 
Box 2: LDC market access indicators in the Millennium Development Goals ...........................23 Box 3: Assessing the scope of the problem of Non-Reciprocal Preference Erosion...................32 
Box 4: Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration:  Decision on Measures in Favour of LDCs...........37 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
I. INTRODUCTION  
1. This note prepared by the Secretariat responds  to paragraph 7 of the WTO Work Programme 
for Least-Developed Countries (LDCs), which ma ndates an annual review of market access for 
products originating from LDCs (WT/COMTD/LDC/11).  It builds on previous Secretariat studies by 
updating the information on trends in LDC trade and market access conditions, covering goods and, to 
some extent, services.3  In addition, the issue of preference u tilization has received special attention.  
2. The review of market access conditions focus la rgely on tariff measures.  However, it is 
recognized that the degree of market access in a given market is determined by a combination of tariff 
and non-tariff measures.  Non-tariff measures have been covered in previous studies, including in 
document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 and its addendum.  Similarly, market access issues for LDCs in 
the area of trade in services are briefly examined in  a separate note contained in JOB(07)/32 and its 
revision.4  This note, therefore, should not be viewed as a stand-alone study by the Secretariat on the 
overall market access issues for LDCs.  It should be read in conjunction with the previous notes 
prepared by the Secretariat, in order to gauge the different factors that condition market access for 
LDC exports.  
3. The note is divided into four main parts, in a ddition to this introduction.  Section II provides a 
description of the recent trends of LDC trade flows, both in goods and commercial services.  It 
includes an update of LDC exports by main products  and market destination. Section III is devoted to 
market access conditions facing LDC exports, including  a review of the utilization of preferences.  
Section IV provides an up-date of the recent in itiatives to improve mark et access for products 
originating from LDCs.  A concluding section summa rizes the findings of the note, while a series of 
annexes provides Members with additional backgr ound information and references, including data 
sources and the statistical methodology used in the note as well as a table on LDC tariff profiles. 
II. LDC EXPORT PROFILE 
4. This section presents the recent trends in LDC e xports of goods and services.  This review of 
the global trends is supplemented with a more deta iled analysis of products or services of specific 
interest to the LDCs.  The scope of the analysis is , however, restricted by the statistical information 
available, which is elaborated in Annex B, and is  naturally more detailed in the case of merchandise 
trade (based on customs data) than in servi ces (based on balance-of-payments data).  
5. Trade in goods dominates the export portfolio of 50 LDCs taken as a group.  Commercial 
services (thereafter referred also simply as "services") represent only 12 per cent of the total LDC export receipts on average over the 2000 to 2006 peri od, lower than the world average (19 per cent).
5  
As seen in Chart 1, exports of goods increased dram atically since 2003, thanks to the rapid increase in 
the international prices of oil and mineral products  outpacing the growth of other goods (principally 
agriculture and manufacture) and services exports. 
                                                      
3 The previous note issued in 2006 is contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38 and its 
corrigenda. 
4 Additional information on trade flows and trade policy measures in services trade of LDCs has been 
provided in document JOB(07)/148. 
5 The balance-of-payments data for trade in services  measure flows related to modes 1, 2 and 4 of the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  Flows relating to the size of commercial presence are 
measured through a different framewo rk, that is, Foreign Affiliated Trad e in Services statistics (FATS).  
However, these data are not available for the LDCs. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  Chart 1:  Comparative evolution of LDC exports of goods and services, 1995-2006 
(Million USD) 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006p
Commercial services Other goods Fuels and Mining
 
Note : Secretariat estimates based on customs and balance- of-payments data; data for 2006 are preliminary.  
Source : WTO 
 
6. Over the 2000 to 2006 period, the value of LDC expor ts of fuels and minerals increased by an 
annual average of 26 per cent, compared to an annual increase of 13 per cent for other goods and 
11 per cent for services.  As a result, the relative im portance of the latter groups in the total exports 
has been decreasing (see Table 1).  Nonetheless, the contribution of these other goods (mainly agricultural goods and manufactures) and of servi ces to LDCs' economic growth may probably be 
much higher than their financial importance from a ba lance of payments perspective, because of their 
larger labour content.  
Table 1:  Relative importance of goods and ser vices in LDC total exports, 2000-2006 (percentage) 
 
Exports
 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 a
Total goods and services 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
   Fuels and Mining 36.5 35.8 37.5 38.9 44.8 53.8 53.2
   Other goods 48.8 49.5 48.1 47.7 42.7 35.7 36.7
   Commercial services 14.7 14.7 14.4 13.4 12.5 10.5 10.1
 a Preliminary data. 
Notes : Secretariat estimates based on cust oms and balance-of-payments data. 
Source : WTO 
 
A. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE  
1. Global Trends 
7. Merchandise exports from LDCs fared relatively well since 2000, as shown in Chart 2, with 
an average annual growth of 19 per cent, eight pe rcentage points above world average.  This 
favourable outcome was due to an acceleration of the positive trend since 2003, when the rhythm of 
growth of LDC export began to outpace the wo rld average.  The years 2005 and 2006 were WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  particularly favourable years, with export value rising by more than 30 per cent in each year.  
However, despite this rapid growth, the LDCs as a group still accounted for less than 1 per cent of 
total world exports in 2006 (0.9 per cent, to be exact). 
8. During the same period, the negative trade ba lance in merchandise trade witnessed a rapid 
reduction since the growth of imports of goods di d not respond fully to the higher hard currency 
revenues provided by increased exports.  The value of exports almost balanced (95 per cent) that of 
imports in 2005 when considering the total LDC trade,  and is estimated to have surpassed the value of 
the import bill in 2006.  It should be noted that 2006  was the first year since comparative data were 
collected, that LDCs as a group register such a positive trade balance. 
Chart 2:  LDCs' merchandise trade, 1990-2006, (Indices 1990=±100) 
 
-200-1000100200300400500600
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006LDC Trade Balance
LDC Exports
LDC Imports
World Exports
 
 
Source : WTO 
 
9. Nevertheless, the robust growth performan ce registered by the LDCs as a group is 
concentrated in the oil and commodity LDC exporters , which in general happen also to be the largest 
LDC exporters (Bangladesh, Cambodia or Myanmar be ing notable exceptions), that weigh more in 
the group's aggregate statistics (see Table 2).  For example, the exports from the largest LDC, Angola, 
increased by an annual 28 per cent between 2000 and 2006,  thanks in particular to a very high growth 
in 2005 (79 per cent).  Equatorial Guinea, the third la rgest exporter, registered an increase in its export 
revenues of 41 per cent over the 2000 to 2006 period.  At the other extreme, the average variation for 
the ten smallest LDC exporters6 was barely positive (1.3 per cen t) over the 2000 to 2006 period, many 
registering negative values.  This shows that the aggr egate growth rates hide a substantial variation in 
the export performance across LDCs.  
                                                      
6 Excluding Tuvalu's outlier 2006 data. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  Table 2:  Merchandise exports and imports of LDCs by selected country grouping, 2006 
(million dollars and percentages) 
 Exports Imports 
 Value Annual percentage change Value Annual percentage change 
Countries  2006 2000-06 2004 2005 2006 2006 2000-06 2004 2005 2006 
World a 12081000 11.0 21.5 13.7 15.4 12412000 10.8 21.6 13.4 14.5
Least developed countries  106262 19.7 32.4 35.9 28.0 101884 15.1 17.9 22.1 17.8
Oil exporters  60292 26.0 48.2 58.5 32.5 28359 24.3 16.0 42.2 22.2
Angola  35000 28.1 41.7 78.9 45.2 11600 25.0 6.4 43.2 38.9
Equatorial Guinea  8600 40.9 64.1 55.3 20.5 2500 33.0 26.8 34.6 18.5
Yemen  7285 10.1 19.2 37.1 13.6 4935 13.4 8.5 22.0 1.5
Sudan  5657 20.9 48.6 27.7 17.3 8074 31.6 41.4 65.8 19.5
Chad  3750 65.4 264.6 38.4 23.7 1250 25.7 8.7 30.0 11.9
Exporters of manufactures  23640 12.1 16.7 17.5 20.6 31263 17.1 15.8 11.0 17.4
Bangladesh  11802 10.8 18.8 11.9 26.9 16086 10.4 15.4 15.4 15.8
Myanmar  4250 17.1 -4.1 60.2 11.4 2460 0.4 5.0 -12.3 27.7
Cambodia  3800 18.3 32.1 14.4 18.8 4900 16.7 24.7 23.0 24.8
Madagascar  953 2.5 15.7 -15.8 14.3 1487 6.9 32.3 -2.7 4.2
Lao P.D.R.  874 17.6 0.4 40.2 72.8 1060 12.1 5.0 59.8 31.0
Nepal  760 -0.9 14.2 9.8 -8.4 2100 4.9 6.6 -0.5 12.9
Lesotho  694 21.1 44.7 -7.5 6.9 1465 10.4 29.4 -4.9 10.2
Haiti  507 8.1 12.9 20.2 7 .8 1705 8.7 10.0 11.3 17.3
Exporters of commodities  22330 16.1 25.8 14.1 24.7 42262 15.2 20.7 20.0 15.2
Zambia  3689 33.0 49.0 26.7 99.2 2920 19.7 28.2 27.7 13.4
Mozambique  2398 36.9 43.9 16.0 37.4 2807 15.9 9.9 25.0 16.6
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  2300 18.7 34.6 18.4 5.0 2800 26.1 24.6 14.3 23.3
Tanzania  1690 14.9 21.1 13.8 0.8 4253 18.7 18.3 22.4 38.2
Senegal  1550 9.1 20.0 1.8 0.9 3434 14.6 19.2 12.2 7.4
Mali  1350 16.3 5.3 16.2 18.9 1860 15.0 7.3 18.9 14.7
Mauritania  1290 23.8 37.9 33.6 128.7 974 20.9 44.2 140.7 -27.5
Ethiopia  1014 13.0 36.7 33.1 12.3 4594 24.0 45.7 33.7 11.3
Uganda  1004 13.9 25.9 21.7 16.3 2505 8.5 25.5 19.0 21.9
Guinea  970 6.5 19.2 22.6 9.0 930 7.2 7.8 18.8 13.4
Togo  617 9.2 0.5 -2.5 5.3 1100 11.8 13.5 13.6 10.0
Benin  560 6.1 5.0 0.2 -1.6 990 8.3 0.2 0.0 10.7
Malawi  540 6.1 -8.0 4.1 7.4 1209 14.7 18.7 23.9 4.7
Niger  540 11.4 24.1 14.4 8.0 950 15.7 20.6 7.3 18.0
Burkina Faso  440 13.2 49.5 -27.6 26.8 1450 15.5 37.3 0.8 13.3
Afghanistan  430 15.1 118.1 21.0 13.2 2960 16.6 3.6 14.8 18.4
Bhutan  350 22.6 37.7 41.1 35.6 320 10.6 65.1 -6.0 -17.2
Somalia  290 7.0 34.5 0.0 -3.3 660 11.5 18.0 0.0 8.2
Maldives  225 12.9 19.1 -10.5 38.9 927 15.6 36.3 16.1 24.4
Sierra Leone  216 59.7 50.2 14.4 36.3 389 17.3 -5.6 20.3 12.9
Liberia  181 -9.5 -4.7 26.5 37.9 444 -6.6 98.5 -8.0 43.3
Rwanda  138 17.6 57.1 26.3 10.2 501 15.5 10.0 41.4 24.4
Solomon Islands  120 9.7 31.4 6.4 16.4 200 13.8 29.4 52.4 8.0
Central African Republic  120 -4.8 -1.6 1.6 -6.3 240 12.7 25.4 15.5 40.4
Guinea-Bissau  75 3.2 16.9 30.3 -24.2 110 10.9 27.7 43.4 -7.6
Burundi  59 2.7 24.5 21.4 3.1 431 19.5 12.5 51.6 61.3
Djibouti  50 7.9 2.0 4.0 26.6 346 9.0 9.7 6.1 24.8
Vanuatu  50 11.5 40.7 2.6 28.2 140 8.3 21.9 9.4 0.0
Cape Verde  21 11.4 18.5 16.7 19.2 542 15.4 10.3 13.2 23.7
Comoros  11 -3.9 -30.0 -26.2 -20.3 110 16.9 22.9 10.5 15.8
Samoa  11 -4.4 -28.5 11.1 -10.5 219 12.8 18.6 14.8 16.9
Gambia  10 -6.5 25.0 -20.0 25.0 255 5.3 46.3 3.6 7.6
Eritrea  10 -19.6 36.0 11.1 0.0 540 2.3 10.9 3.1 9.1
Kiribati  6 9.9 -14.8 44.7 76.5 63 8.0 15.2 24.7 -14.4
Sao Tome and Principe  4 4.1 -46.4 -3.7 12.7 71 15.4 1.6 20.3 42.5
Tuvalu  2 135.4 41.1 -54.5 ... 19 24.9 -26.9 13.3 47.1
Timor Leste  ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
 aIncludes significant re-exports or imports for re-export. 
Notes :   Data for 2006 are largely estimated. 
Source : WTO 
 
 
10. Evidently, the rise in oil and commodity pr ices, especially since 2003 (see Table 3), has 
created a strong heterogeneity in the comparative evolution of individual countries within the LDC 
group, according to their export orientation. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  • The five oil producing LDCs – Angola, Equa torial Guinea, Yemen, Sudan and Chad –
recorded an annual increase of 26 per cent in th e value of their exports during the 2000 to 
2006 period.  As a group, the oil exporters impr oved their trade-in-goods surplus in 2006 as 
their import-coverage ratio in terms of goods was greater than 210 per cent.  Within this 
group, Sudan is the sole country that recorded a trade deficit, equivalent  to 17 per cent of total 
trade, because its imports grew more rapi dly than its exports, especially in 2005.  
 
• Thirty-seven LDC exporters of commodities experienced a more heterogeneous growth 
pattern, due to the wider variance in interna tional prices between mineral and agricultural 
commodities.  When ores and minerals represented a higher share of the commodity exports, 
the rate of growth tended to be higher than for countries exporting more agricultural 
commodities.  For example, taking the four larg est exporters of each category from Table 2, 
the average growth rate over the period 2000 to 2006 was 28 per cent in the case of the four 
largest non-agricultural commodity exporters (Z ambia, Mozambique, De mocratic Republic of 
Congo and Mauritania) compared to only 13 pe r cent for the four largest exporters of 
agricultural commodities (Tanzania, Senegal, Mali and Ethiopia).  The first group of countries 
also experienced a positive trade balance in goods (their import cove rage coefficient is 
107 per cent), while the second group suffered from a deficit, covering only 57 per cent of 
their imports with their exports.  
 
• Eight exporters of manufactures – mostly clothing – registered moderate growth rates, slightly 
higher than world average (annual average of 12 per cent over the 2000 to 2006 period);  an 
estimate for 2006 indicates a better conjuncture for this group with a rise of 21 per cent.  On 
average over the 2000 to 2006 period, the import bill grew faster than the export receipts, leading to a deterioration of the trade balance.   As a group, their import coverage from export 
receipts is better (73 per cent) than for the exporters of commodities (57 per cent), but still 
represents a significant deficit in trade in goods. 
 
Table 3:  Evolution of the export prices for selected  primary commodities, 2000-05 (percentage)
a 
 
  Annual growth rate  Annual growth rate  
  2000-05 2003-2005  2000-05 2003-2005 
Food and beverages 4.5 4.7 Agricultural raw materials 1.5 2.3
Food 4.4 4.4 Timber 2.1 5.1
Cereals 5.0 1.8 Cotton -1.4 -4.5
Wheat 6.0 1.4 Wool 3.8 -4.1
Maize 2.2 -2.2 Rubber 16.8 11.5
Rice 7.2 13.0 Hides and skins -3.9 -1.3
Barley 4.2 -3.2      
Vegetable oils and protein meals 6.7 1.4 Minerals and non-ferrous metals b 11.2 19.9
Meat 5.0 6.7 Copper 15.2 27.4
Beef 6.2 9.8 Aluminium 4.1 9.9
Lamb 7.4 0.2 Iron ore 17.7 26.7
Swine meat 2.7 8.2 Tin 6.3 14.7
Poultry 4.4 3.7 Nickel 11.4 15.3
Seafood -2.3 5.9 Zinc 4.1 18.6
Fish 2.2 10.7 Lead 16.5 23.7
Shrimp -11.1 -5.0 Uranium 27.5 35.5
Sugar 4.2 9.3 Total of above 6.2 9.4
Bananas 6.4 15.4 Energy 13.3 22.1
Oranges 18.3 7.2 Natural gas 10.6 16.4
Beverages 5.0 7.6 Crude petroleum 13.6 22.7
Coffee 5.8 19.1 Coal 13.6 20.9
Cocoa beans 11.3 -4.1      
Tea -2.7 3.6 All primary commodities 11.0 17.8
 aVariations are calculated in relation to prices in US$. 
 bExcluding fuels. 
Source : WTO WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
   
2. Major Products 
11. The LDC export profile (see Table 4) indicates th at mineral fuels and oils (HS 27) represented 
more than 50 per cent of the total external sales in 2005.  Due to their high international prices, oil and 
other fuels consolidated their dominant position in the structure of LDC exports (see Chart 3).  The 
LDCs in Africa are particularly represented in th e group of oil and other commodity exporters as 
commodities make up to 86 per cent of their total ex port.  Clothing (HS 61 and 62), the second most 
important item (and certainly the larger in relation to  direct job creation), lost relative – and in some 
cases absolute – ground during the 2000 to 2005 peri od.  Textile fibres, fabrics and clothing are 
particularly relevant for the LDCs in As ia, representing 45 per cent of their exports.7 
Chart 3:  Exports of LDCs by major product, 2005 
(Percentage of total value) 
0102030405060
Textiles Other semi-
manufacturesRaw materials Food Others Clothing Fuels2000 2005
 
 
Source : WTO 
 
                                                      
7 See Section III, in particular Table 11 (Imports of textiles and clothing into Quad markets 
2000-2006). WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Table 4:  Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2005a 
 
(Million dollars and percentage)  
LDC Exports  WORLD  
Exports to: Product Description (HS96) 
 Value  Share in  
Total 
Exports  Developed  
Economies  Developing 
Economies Value LDCs' 
Share in  
Total 
All Commodities (0 to 9) 78176  100.0  46273  31330 10195023 0.8  
Mineral fuels, oils, distillation products, etc (27) 41440  53.0 20521  20918 1439811 2.9  
Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals, crude (2709) 38455  49.2 19531  18925 798237 4.8  
Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons (2711) 1668  2.1 125 1542 182807 0.9  
Oils petroleum, bituminous, distillates, except crude (2710) 1211  1.5 860 351 320462 0.4  
Articles of apparel, accessories, knit or crochet (61) 6828  8.7 6648  171 122076 5.6  
Jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, etc, knit or crochet (6110) 3021  3.9 2939  78 40408 7.5  
T-shirts, singlets and other vests, knit or crochet (6109) 1835  2.3 1799  33 23334 7.9  
Articles of apparel, accessories, not knit or crochet (62) 6041  7.7 5846  184 142987 4.2  
Mens or boys suits, jackets, trousers etc not knit (6203) 1793  2.3 1741  50 30641 5.9  
Womens, girls suits, jacket, dress, skirt,  etc, woven (6204) 1786  2.3 1735  49 47021 3.8  
Men's or boys' shirts (6205) 1024  1.3 996 28 10884 9.4  
Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquati c invertebrates nes (03) 2611  3.3 1745  819 62305 4.2  
Crustaceans (0306) 884  1.1 785 97 14695 6.0  
Fish, frozen, whole (0303) 639  0.8 126 467 14057 4.5  
Fish fillets, fish meat, mince except liver, roe (0304) 418  0.5 399 19 12790 3.3  
Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins, etc (71) 2095  2.7 1834  260 183180 1.1  
Diamonds, not mounted or set (7102) 1670  2.1 1568  101 79395 2.1  
Ores, slag and ash (26) 1784  2.3 1062  567 86810 2.1  
Aluminium ores and concentrates (2606) 629  0.8 479 0 2021 31.1  
Iron ores and concentrates, roasted iron pyrites (2601) 506  0.6 464 42 40638 1.2  
Ships, boats and other floating structures (89)  b 1470  1.9 1126  344 38239 3.8  
Passenger and goods transport ships, boats (8901) 1254  1.6 1113  142 20862 6.0  
Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal (44) 1459  1.9 307 1151 103716 1.4  
Wood in the rough or roughly squared (4403) 996  1.3 132 865 12821 7.8  
Aluminium and articles thereof (76) 1322  1.7 1296  25 102080 1.3  
Unwrought aluminium (7601) 1288  1.6 1287  1 38299 3.4  
Copper and articles thereof (74) 1271  1.6 112 1159 74168 1.7  
Refined copper and copper alloys, unwrought (7403) 1041  1.3 80 961 26488 3.9  
Cotton (52) 1161  1.5 171 987 39545 2.9  
Cotton, not carded or combed (5201) 1079  1.4 125 951 9204 11.7  
Coffee, tea, mate and spices (09) 1137  1.5 883 240 18574 6.1  
Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes (0901) 861  1.1 745 107 12679 6.8  
Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes (24) 764  1.0 451 225 26445 2.9  
Tobacco unmanufactured, tobacco refuse (2401) 723  0.9 451 186 7142 10.1  
Inorganic chemicals, precious metal compound, isotopes (28) 695  0.9 142 341 74105 0.9  
Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers (07) 562  0.7 129 433 33452 1.7  
Vegetables, leguminous dried, shelled (0713) 411  0.5 30 381 3150 13.0  
Oil seed, oleagic fruits, grain, seed, fruit, etc, nes (12) 487  0.6 145 341 32928 1.5  
Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits nes (1207) 385  0.5 103 282 1583 24.3  
Edible fruit, nuts, peel of citrus fruit, melons (08) 482  0.6 101 377 53413 0.9  
Raw hides and skins (other than furskins) and leather (41) 431  0.6 169 262 24752 1.7  
Other made textile articles, sets, worn clothing etc (63) 429  0.5 345 83 30685 1.4  
           
Total of above  72468  92.7 43035  28890 2689270 2.7  
 
 a Based on imports from LDCs by 134 countries and economies reporting their trade to the UNSD Comtrade Database. 
 b Data includes flags of convenience. 
Source : WTO, based on UNSD Comtrade database. 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 10 
 
 
  12. Export concentration continues to be the typical  feature of the LDCs' export profile as their 
export structure is limited to a few tariff lines.  Th ree main products represented almost 80 per cent of 
total export revenues in 2005 for over half of the 50 LDCs.  The dependence rati o is above 90 per cent 
for some 15 countries (see Chart 4).  Very few LDCs  have a diversified export structure that could 
evenly spread the risks inherent to international market fluctuations.  In 2005, only four countries 
(Djibouti, Eritrea, Nepal and Tanzania) had belo w the 50 per cent export revenues dependence ratio 
with respect to their three leading export products.  It may also be noted that the three main export 
products for each individual LDC vary from one to  another showing the variation of the export 
structure across LDCs. 
 
Chart 4:  Share of LDCs' top three exported pr oducts in their total merchandise exports, 2005 
(Percentage) 
 
0102030405060708090100 NepalTanzania
 Eritrea
 Djibouti
 Tuvalu
 Afghanistan
 Lao PDR
 Bhutan
 Togo
 Madagascar
 Gambia
 Benin
 Sao Tome & Principe
 Senegal
 Samoa
 Cape Verde
 Uganda
 Myanmar
 Somalia
 Sierra Leone
 Malawi
 Kiribati
 Zambia
 Mozambique
 Ethiopia Guinea Congo, DR Comoros Bangladesh Mali Haiti Maldives Burkina FasoC. African RepSolomon Isl Liberia Niger Vanuatu Cambodia Rwanda SudanTimor Leste Burundi Yemen Chad Mauritania Guinea Bissau Lesotho AngolaEqu. Guinea
 LDC Average 
(78 per cent)
 
 
 
 
Source :  WTO 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  13. Contrary to what is usually expected in the trade literature on developed or emerging 
economies, export concentration in most LDCs is not  fundamentally linked to the small size of the 
country (population or territory).  Most highly speci alized LDCs are oil or commodity producers, as 
exemplified by Angola.  Also, Bangladesh stands out as a large non-oil country whose export revenue 
is almost exclusively dependent on a few labour in tensive products (apparel and leather products) in 
addition to crustaceans.  The above shows that, irresp ective of the size of an LDC, continued efforts to 
diversify the LDCs' export base need to be made. 
3. Major Markets 
14. The European Union (EU) and the United Stat es jointly account for nearly 50 per cent of 
LDC exports in 2005 (Chart 5).  This is obviously due to the ec onomic weight of these two large 
markets, but also, as will be analyzed in more detail la ter in this note, to a series of preferential market 
access schemes given to the LDCs. 
15. Nevertheless, this "duopsonistic" pattern has gr adually changed since the late 1990s by the 
emergence of China as a third largest destination fo r LDC exports, absorbing 18 per cent of their total 
exports in 2005.  In 2005, as noted in Table 4, LD Cs' fuel exports to developing countries were even 
slightly higher than to developed economi es (US$20.9 billion against US$20.5 billion).  
16. A few other products of significant importance to the LDC group (i.e., those weighting more 
than 3 per cent of the value of total non-oil LD C export) were predominantly exported to other 
developing countries.  These included copper and ar ticles thereof (HS 74), cotton, not carded or 
combed (HS 5201) and wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal (HS 44).  Developed economies, to the contrary, are the main destination of articles of apparel (HS 61 and 62), and of  food products in 
general - e.g., fish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquatic invertebrates nes (HS 03), coffee, tea, mate and 
spices (HS 09).  
Chart 5:  Top 10 markets for LDC exports of goods, 2000-2005 (percentage) 
05101520253035
Indonesia
Canada
Republic of Korea,
India
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Thailand
China
United States
European Union
(25)2000
2005
 
Source : WTO 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 12 
 
 
  Table 5:  Imports of agricultural products, fuels and manufactures of the EU , Asia and North America 
from LDCs, 2005 
 
(Million dollars and percentage) 
European Union (25)   Asia a  North America b 
Value Annual changes  Value Annual changes   Value Annual changes    
    2005 2004 2005   2005 2004 2005   2005 2004 2005 
A.  Agricultural 
products                  
Total LDCs 3550 3.0 11.7 Total LDCs 4280  22.3 15.7 Total LDCs 658 14.1  -6.8 
Uganda 357 9.8 22.7 Myanmar 1292  13.1 23.6 Bangladesh 158 107.6  -17.3  
Tanzania 347 4.9 16.8 Tanzania 289  14.1 23.0 Liberia 107 58.3  12.6 
Senegal 304 -7.1 -2.9 Burkina Faso 228  110.0  20.6 Malawi 96 -39.0  166.7  
Ethiopia 269 20.3 41.6 Benin 213  26.8 2.4 Ethiopia 61 26.5  41.9 
Madagascar 267 0.3 -29.0 Solomon Is 185  41.2 14.9 Madagascar 45 -19.6  -71.2  
Bangladesh 250 -5.7 7.3 Ethiopia 168  51.6 73.2 Cambodia 29 2250.0  -38.3  
Malawi 210 -14.2 8.2 Vanuatu 141  225.0  8.5 Uganda 22 -35.9  -12.0  
Sudan 166 23.1 15.3 Mali 138  53.2 -17.4  Haiti 21 0.0  16.7 
Mozambique 154 2.5 27.3 Mauritania 134  35.2 8.9 Tanzania 19 -12.5  35.7 
Togo 136 22.2 106.1 Bangladesh 133  6.7 38.5 Chad 16 75.0  128.6  
Mauritania 119 -7.3 4.4 Nepal 127  5.4 62.8 Sudan 14 33.3  250.0  
Congo,Dem.Rep. of 117 62.7 41.0 Mozambique 115  13.3 12.7 Mozambique 10 33.3  25.0 
Others (38) 854 3.6 12.8 Others (38) 1117  10.3 4.6 Others (38) 60 -32.6  -3.2 
B.  Fuels and Mining 
Products                  
Total LDCs 7211 25.0 70.4 Total LDCs 24362  63.3 34.6 Total LDCs 13200 21.1  80.3 
Angola 2701 5.8 155.1 Angola 8749  74.4 35.8 Angola 9054 6.1  90.4 
Eq.Guinea 1837 -1.3 106.6 Sudan 4736  55.2 45.5 Eq.Guinea 1959 19.6  38.9 
Mozambique 1105 65.3 20.2 Yemen 4605  8.7 23.0 Chad 1559 3990.0  90.6 
Mauritania 440 30.6 43.3 Eq.Guinea 2079  346.1  26.3 Yemen 295 -7.7  391.7  
Guinea 376 17.5 27.5 Myanmar 1701  49.9 45.5 Congo,Dem.Rep. of 142 -25.2  32.7 
Congo,Dem.Rep.of 299 -5.1 32.9 Zambia 716  161.7  12.6 Guinea 92 -10.8  10.8 
Chad 159 ... -22.8 Rwanda 397  ... 32.0 Niger 61 ...  144.0  
Zambia 118 130.4 -8.5 Chad 304  ... 36.9 Zambia 30 180.0  7.1 
Others (42) 176 36.0 -13.7 Others (42) 1075  80.6 56.9 Others (42) 8 -35.1  -78.4  
C.  Manufactures                  
Total LDCs 9787 23.0 0.0 Total LDCs 2148  25.3 24.1 Total LDCs 6888 9.0  13.3 
Bangladesh 4853 30.7 -4.4 Bangladesh 541  12.4 10.6 Bangladesh 3126 11.8  18.0 
Liberia 1076 17.4 -14.7 Senegal 286  19.0 75.5 Cambodia 1951 18.6  18.2 
Cambodia 651 31.4 -11.5 Nepal 261  27.8 -2.2 Haiti 452 13.0  20.9 
Angola 547 -48.2 277.2 Liberia 236  800.0  227.8  Lesotho 431 17.8  -14.1  
Congo,Dem.Rep.of 486 -4.6 -3.4 Myanmar 221  26.1 -4.7 Madagascar 307 64.2  -14.2  
Senegal 316 132.0 444.8 Cambodia 192  9.8 7.3 Eq.Guinea 162 -3.7  57.3 
Madagascar 278 32.1 12.6 Angola 97  -85.7  4750.0  Nepal 129 -13.2  -21.8  
Myanmar 271 34.3 -45.5 Bhutan 70  37.8 37.3 Congo,Dem.Rep.of 120 -40.5  445.5  
Eq.Guinea 170 -16.1 20.6 Vanuatu 50  55.6 19.0 Angola 58 57.1  75.8 
Lao P.Dem.R 165 20.5 3.8 Zambia 25  43.8 8.7 Afghanistan 25 -16.7  400.0  
Niger 144 63.1 5.1 Lao P.Dem.R 20  62.5 -23.1  Malawi 24 20.0  -20.0  
Sierra Leone 132 21.0 3.9 Madagascar 19  10.0 72.7 Tanzania 17 8.3  30.8 
Nepal 109 18.6 -5.2 Ethiopia 18  133.3  28.6 Guinea 14 -36.4  100.0  
Others (37) 589 25.8 0.7 Others (37) 112  33.3 -30.0  Others (37) 72 -61.9  -56.1  
 
 aAustralia; China; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Japan; Korea Rep. of; Malaysia; New Zealand; Philippines; Singapore; 
Chinese Taipei;  and Thailand.  
bCanada and United States. 
Source :  WTO 
 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  17. For many LDCs, the importance of developing country markets is increasing as a destination 
for their exports.  They are the dominant export d estination (i.e., representing 50 per cent or more of 
the external sales) for 21 out of the 50 LDCs in 2005, as can be seen in Chart 6.  By comparison, this 
number was 15 countries in 2003, showing that Sout h-South trade is not only important, but also 
increasing.  
18. While manufactured products (dominantly textil es and clothing) are principally exported to 
developed country markets, one of the challenges f acing LDCs is to increase the share of value-added 
products exported to the developing countries.  Most of these exports are concentrated on 
commodities and low value-added products (food, raw materials and oil represent about 85 per cent of 
these exports).8 
19. Table 5 shows the cross tabulation of products a nd markets of destination for LDC exports for 
the year 2005.  In 2005, fuels and mining produc ts were the top two fastest growing LDC export 
products in all three destination markets reviewed in Table 5.  Asia incr eased its demand from LDCs 
by 66 per cent in 2004 and was by far the most dynamic market as far as these products are concerned.  In 2005, demand from the EU and No rth America increased rapidly (70 per cent and 
80 per cent, respectively), due to a surge of  exports from Angola and Equatorial Guinea. Asian 
demand, in parallel, kept on increasing by a hefty 40  per cent in 2005.  It should be noted that Asia 
(including Oceania) now represents the major destin ation for fuels and other minerals exported from 
LDCs (US$21.5 billion compared to US$13.2 billion  and US$7.2 billion exported, respectively, to 
North America and Europe in 2005). 
20. Asia is also becoming a major destination fo r LDCs' agricultural exports, albeit by a much 
lower margin than fuels and other minerals.  Th is position is being consolidated, as this market 
increased by 20 per cent in 2004 and 17 per cent in 2005, showing greater dynamism than in the case of the EU or North America (in the latter case, imports from LDCs retreated 7 per cent in 2005). 
21. On the contrary, in 2005, manufactured produc ts were principally exported to Europe 
(US$9.8 billion) and North America (US$6.9 billion).  The average growth rates for 2004 and 2005 
show that these two markets increased their imports of manufactured products by 11 per cent 
annually.  Demand from Asia increased more than tw ice this growth rate (25 per cent), albeit starting 
from a lower basis of the value of US$2.0 billion in 2005. 
22. The above shows that the EC and the US con tinue to dominate as the export destination for 
LDCs with China in the third position.  LDC expor ts to developing countries have been increasing 
over the last five years reaching 38 per cent of LDC exports in 2005.  In term s of regions, Asia is 
becoming an increasingly important destination fo r LDC exports.  Both de veloped and developing 
economies in Asia are increasing their imports from LDCs as a group (see Table 5(a)). 
                                                     
 
8 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 14 
 
 
  Table 5(a):  Imports of agricultural products, fuel s and manufactures of developed and developing 
economies in Asia from LDCs, 2005 
 (Million dollars and percentage) 
 
  Value  
Annual  
percentage change    
Value  
Annual  
percentage change 
 2005 2004 2005  2005 2004 2005 
 Developed economies a  Developing economies b 
A.  Agricultural products 
Total LDCs 611 17 6 Total LDCs 3669 23 18 
Mauritania 126 44 13 Myanmar 1184 12 26 
Myanmar 108 28 6 Tanzania 236 14 22 
Ethiopia 77 63 3 Burkina Faso 219 120 23 
Tanzania 53 14 26 Benin 213 27 2 
Malawi 42 -56 163 Solomon Is 167 51 20 
Madagascar 24 -6 -17 Mali 137 55 -18 
Maldives 21 38 -5 Nepal 124 4 63 
Bangladesh 20 11 0 Vanuatu 122 255 11 
Vanuatu 19 122 -5 Bangladesh 113 6 49 
Solomon Is 18 0 -18 Lao PDR 109 3 8 
Mozambique 18 20 0 Guinea Bissau 98 35 40 
Senegal 16 50 -11 Mozambique 97 12 15 
Others (38) 69 -14 -17 Others (38) 850 16 10 
B.  Fuels and Mining Products 
Total LDCs 2724 81 58 Total LDCs 21638 62 32 
Sudan 1825 151 43 Angola 8737 78 36 
Yemen 520 -10 210 Yemen 4085 10 14 
Eq.Guinea 225 ... 379 Sudan 2911 25 47 
Zambia 55 64 -42 Eq.Guinea 1854 333 16 
Dem. Rep. of  
Timor-Leste 40 46 -3 Myanmar 1697 50 45 
Tanzania 23 -42 -38 Zambia 661 192 22 
Angola 12 -100 ... Rwanda 397 281 32 
Togo 10 -5 -52 Chad 304 ... 37 
Others (42) 14 583 -66 Others (42) 992 110 82 
C.  Manufactures 
Total LDCs 426 9 15 Total LDCs 1722 31 26 
Bangladesh 159 9 7 Bangladesh 382 14 12 
Cambodia 112 13 10 Senegal 286 19 75 
Myanmar 103 31 16 Nepal 252 28 -3 
Samoa 11 -100 ... Liberia 236 800 228 
Nepal 9 14 13 Myanmar 118 23 -17 
Mali 5 ... ... Angola 97 -86 4750 
Madagascar 4 100 0 Cambodia 80 5 4 
Lao PDR 3 50 0 Bhutan 70 38 37 
Mauritania 3 0 200 Vanuatu 49 71 20 
Niger 3 -100 ... Zambia 25 38 14 
Haiti 2 100 0 Ethiopia 18 133 29 
Tanzania 2 50 -33 Lao PDR 17 64 -26 
Afghanistan 1 -100 ... Madagascar 15 -13 114 
Others (37) 9 -58 13 Others (37) 77 64 -48 
 aAustralia, Japan and New Zealand. 
 bChina; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Korea Rep. of; Malaysia; Philippines; Singapore; 
Chinese Taipei; and Thailand.  
 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Chart 6:  Share of developing countries in LDC exports, 2005 (percentage) 
0102030405060708090100Lesotho
NigerSierra Leone
Cambodia
Burundi
Cape Verde
Bangladesh
Madagascar
Haiti
Chad
Samoa
Congo, DR
Guinea
Mozambique
Mauritania
Liberia
C. African R
Uganda
Sao Tome & Principe
Malawi
Tuvalu
Equ. Guinea
Comoros
Ethiopia
RwandaEritreaTimor LestAngola TanzaniaSenegalMaldivesAfghanistanLao PDRSudanNepalMaliGambiaDjiboutiTogoKiribatiVanuatuZambiaSolomon IslYemenBurkina FasoMyanmarBeninGuinea BissauSomaliaBhutan
LDC Average
(44 per cent)
 
Note : Calculation based on Developing Countries' imports, as the share of LDCs in all reported total imports. 
Source : WTO 
 
 
B. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TRADE IN SERVICES  
1. Global Trends 
23. Exports of commercial services from LDCs have  been increasing steadily with an average 
growth rate of 10 per cent over the 2000 to 2006 peri od.  As mentioned earlier, their evolution closely 
follows that of the merchandise exports, excluding fuels and minerals.  The share of LDCs in world 
trade in commercial services was 1 per cent in 2005, up from 0.4 per cent in 2003. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 16 
 
 
  Chart 7:  Services exports by LDCs, 2000-2005 (million US$)  
 
01000200030004000500060007000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Transportation Travel Others 
 
 
Source : WTO  
 
24. As was previously indicated in Chart 1, the share of LDC trade in services in LDC total 
exports of goods and services was 12 per cent in th e 2000 to 2006 period.  However, this general 
picture covers a large heterogeneity at the country  level.  As can be seen in Chart 8, for some 
countries, services activities are a dominant part of their export structure.  For example, in 2005, 
services accounted for almost 90 per cent of Samoa's exports, a typical feature of many small 
developing islands that have generally an important tourism sector.  However, the share of services 
can also be important for larger LDCs such as Et hiopia (49 per cent) where the bulk of the services 
exported is related to transportation. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Chart 8:  Share of services in total LDC exports, 2000-2005 average 
 
0102030405060708090Equ. Guinea
SudanAngola
Yemen
Bangladesh
C. African R
Guinea
Congo, DR
Guinea Bissau
Burundi
Chad
MalawiLesotho
Mauritania
Myanmar
Zambia
Togo
Niger
Mali
Burkina Faso
Bhutan
CambodiaBenin
MozambiqueLao PDRMadagascarHaitiSenegalNepalSolomon IslUgandaRwandaGambiaTanzaniaSierra LeoneEthiopiaComorosKiribatiDjiboutiEritreaMaldiv esCape VerdeSao Tome & PrincipeVanuatuSamoa
 
 
 
Source:  WTO 
 
 
25. As can be seen in Table 6, travel is the most important service export for the LDCs by a wide 
margin (more than 50 per cent of total services in  2006), which has been increasing steadily since the 
year 2000.  Transportation followed the same path , while the receipts from other commercial services 
have been stagnating during the past three years.  
 
Table 6:  Relative importance of services categories in LDC services exports, 2000-2006 
 
 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Commercial Services 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0
  - Transportation 20.3 20.6 20.9 21.7 20.8 22.6 23.5
  - Travel 46.8 50.7 51.5 51.3 52.3 53.6 53.3
  - Other commercial services 32.8 28.7 27.6 27.0 26.9 23.8 23.2
 
Note :  Based on balance-of-payments data. 
Source : WTO 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 18 
 
 
  26. The category "other commercial services" account s for nearly a quarter of LDCs' commercial 
services exports in 2006.  It includes transactions su ch as construction, computer and information, and 
other business services (e.g. legal, accounting, mana gement and public relations services) which are 
often traded involving presence of natural persons (m ode 4).  The LDCs that contribute the most to 
this services category are Senegal (13 per cen t of total LDC commercial services exports) and 
Bangladesh (12 per cent).  
27. The following section will focus on one specific sector, tourism,  where several LDCs have a 
comparative advantage in service exports. 
2. Tourism 
28. As mentioned earlier, LDCs' participation in services trade is heterogeneous.  Where it is a 
dominant sector, it is typically due to the presen ce of tourism activities, a sector that has been 
recognized to be of strategic value for its devel opment potential by the Brussels Programme of Action 
for the LDCs for the decade 2001-20 10.  These exports of services correspond principally to mode 2 
(GATS). 
29. LDCs are still marginal players in the tourism world market (1.2 per cent of the world market 
share in terms of international tourism arrival in 2005, according to the World Tourism Organization 
(UNWTO).  However, their market is growing rapidly: between 2000 and 2005, tourist arrival 
increased by a cumulated 48 per cent compared to  only 17 per cent worldwide.  The corresponding 
financial receipts for host countries grew during the same period by 76 per cent against a world 
average of 41 per cent (see Table 7).  As a result, tourism receipts calculated by UNWTO represented in 2005 almost 8 per cent of total exports of goods and services for a group of 33 LDCs (where 
information is available).  This ratio may incr ease up to 80 per cent in the case of Samoa, the 
Maldives (70 per cent), Sao Tome and Principe  (56 per cent) and Vanuatu (43 per cent).  
30. It should be noted that net receipts from tourism exports are usually much lower than the 
above-mentioned figures, because a significant share of  gross income leaks out of the LDCs, in the 
form of repatriation of benefits by  foreign investors, and the imports of related inputs.  Nevertheless, 
economic and social benefits from th e export of tourism services are considered much greater than the 
net financial flows, due to the labour intensive nature of the i ndustry, and its diverse indirect 
economic impact on local communities, especially for micro and small enterprises (see UNWTO, 
2007). WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Table 7 :  Exports of tourism services by LDCs: main indicators 1990-2005  
 
A. International tourist 
arrivals  Millions of arrivals Market share (%)  Average annual 
growth (%)  
 1990 2000 2005 a 1990 2000 2005 a 1990-
2000 2000-
2005 
World   439 689 808 100 100 100 4.6 3.3 
Least -developed countries   2.9 6.4 9.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 8.4 8.2 
Developing countriesb  126 243 326 28.6 35.2 40.3 6.8 6.1 
         
B. International tourist 
receipts US$ billion Market share (%)  Average annual 
growth (%)  
 1990 2000 2005 a 1990 2000 2005 a 1990-
2000 2000-
2005 
World   273 483 682 100 100 100 5.9 7.1 
Least-developed countries  1.1 3.0 5.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.5 12.0 
Developing countriesb  50 126 205 18.1 26.1 30.1 9.8 10.2 
 a Or latest year with available data. 
 b Excluding high-income developing economies. 
Source : World Tourism Organization 
 
 
31. The LDCs' market share has been  increasing in terms of arrivals, but this increase has not 
been reflected in a proportional increase in receipts,  due to a lower amount spent by a person.  While 
the average world tourist spent US$844 during his or her stay in 2005, the corresponding amount was 
only US$558 for LDCs (US$629 per person, for all developing countries).  
32. While the statistics shown above reveal that trav el (mostly tourism) is the major service sector 
of export interest to LDCs, it should be noted th at a large number of LDCs have identified other 
sectors and modes of supply with great potential such as mode 4.  It is recognized that trade in 
services through mode 4 is difficult to capture in statistics. 
III. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS 
A. INTRODUCTION  
33. While the previous section reviewed the recent trends in LDC exports of goods and services, 
the objective of this section is to analyse the trade policy measures adopted by importing countries on 
products from LDCs.  Generally, LD Cs benefit from non-reciprocal preferences as far as trade in 
goods is concerned, especially in developed country markets.  These preferences are not always 
utilized by the LDCs, for a number of reasons that are touched upon in this section.   
34. The idea of non-reciprocity as a way of strengt hening the trade-development relationship in 
developing economies has been present since the Ke nnedy Round of multilateral trade negotiations, in 
the early 1960s.  Since then, the rise in the world trade scenario of newly industrialized countries and 
emerging economies contributed to a modification and enrichment of the analysis of the preferential 
tariffs, specifically for LDCs.  Consequently, the present section will review the preferential tariff 
measures affecting LDC exports to both  developed and developing countries. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 20 
 
 
  35. It should be kept in mind that non-reciprocal  trade preferences are often not sufficient to 
create conditions for export-led growth in LDCs, due to a series of often cited structural constraints.9  
These constraints are usually compounded by a series of additional transaction costs that greatly reduce the comparative advantage of LDC export, as indicated in Box 1.  This set of limitations is 
being addressed by the international community thro ugh Aid for Trade, and the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework (EIF) in particular, as a necessary complement to non-reciprocal preferential regimes to 
boost exports from the LDCs. 
Box 1:  LDCs' competitiveness and export-transaction costs 
 
 
Trading involves a series of transaction costs — dela ys, documents and administrative fees — that increase 
domestic prices and may lead to loss of market share or missed business opportunities.  These costs are part of 
the supply constraints that frequently reduce the in ternational competitiveness of LDCs and limit their trade 
potential.  
 
To give a measure of the importance of transaction costs in gaining or loosing competitiveness, one can refer to 
the recent international study by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (Doing Business 
2007:  How to Reform), which estimates that – on globa l average – each day a produ ct is delayed in transit 
reduces trade by at least 1 per cent, and that reducing tr ade costs by 50 per cent could increase global trade in 
manufacturing by up to US$377 billion a year and triple th e benefits for consumers from tariff reductions.  This 
report refers also to a study which estimates that Bangladesh’s garment exports could earn 30 per cent more if 
congestion and other difficulties at the port of Chittagong were resolved. 
 
The comparison of transaction costs confirms that LD Cs face a comparative disadvantage when exporting goods 
(see the table below).  Time required by export procedures, including the waiting time between procedures and 
during unloading of the cargoes, is particularly high compared with other groupings.  The higher unit costs that 
LDCs face (almost US$1,500 per container, which is 83 a nd 68 per cent more than in the OECD and  East Asia 
and Pacific, respectively) greatly re duce the effective preference margins th at LDCs receive for their exports. 
Table - Costs of exporting, 2006 or most recent survey period 
Grouping or Region a Documents for export 
(number) b Time for export (days)  Cost to export 
(US$ per container) c 
World average 7.2 27.6 1,192 
Least Developed Countries 8.2 41.5 1,484 
East Asia & Pacific 6.9 23.9    885 
Europe & Central Asia 7.4 29.2 1,450 
Latin America & Caribbean 7.3 22.2 1,068 
Middle East & North Africa 7.1 27.1   924 
OECD 4.8 10.5   811 
South Asia 8.1 34.4 1,236 
Sub-Saharan Africa 8.2 40.0 1,561 
 aDefined according to World Bank definition, which may not coincide with WTO regiona l denominations; countries part of the 
LDC group may also be included their regional groupings .  
 bDocuments include bank documents, customs declaration and clearance documents, port filing documents, import licenses and 
other official documents.  
cCost is recorded as the fees levied on a 20-foot  container, excluding tariffs or trade taxes.  
Source : World Bank  Doing Business Project -Trading Across Borders website  
(http://www.doingbusiness.org/E xploreTopics/TradingAcro ssBorders)  August 2007.  
 
 
 
                                                      
9 As far as non-tariff measures (NTMs) are concer ned, an extensive analysis of the economics of 
standards, and their effect on internatio nal trade is presented in the 2005 issue of the World Trade Report.  More 
recently, a note was prepared by the Secretariat (WT/COM TD/LDC/W/39), presenting an  in-depth analysis of 
NTMs.  Since (i) relevant information is limited and he terogenous, and (ii) notifications by LDCs regarding 
NTMs are limited, the results of the above mentioned note can still be considered as providing a reasonable 
picture of NTMs faced by LDCs  in their export markets. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  B. TARIFF MEASURES AND DUTY -FREE ACCESS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE  
1. Tariff Measures  
36. Table 8 provides a first evaluation of the releva nce of special treatment for LDC exports in 
selected major destinations in 2005.  The data provi de information on the theoretical tariffs the LDCs 
would face if the usual MFN treatment on their exports were applied, when the destination is either a 
developed or a developing country (second column).  The last two columns refer to the hypothetical 
MFN tariffs that would be paid by LDCs, using two weighting structures.  The weights in the fourth 
column are based on the actual exports of LDCs to each respective market destination, while the fifth 
column weights the national tariffs using the total e xport structure of all LDCs.  The latter indicator is 
less sensitive to the endogeneity bias on actual bilatera l trade flows that are due to the specific tariff 
advantages.10 
 
Table 8:  Tariff profile of selected markets, 2005 
 
Trade weighted average  
Marketsa Simple average All partners LDC partners Typical  LDC 
structure 
Australia 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.2
Canada 3.6 2.8 6.0 3.8
European Union 4.2 2.7 5.3 3.1
Japan 3.1 2.2 6.8 4.6
New Zealand 3.1 3.7 0.4 3.5
Norway 1.1 0.8 17.5 2.0
United States 3.6 2.7 9.7 6.6
Average Developed b 3.2 2.6 7.0 3.8
Brazil 12.4 8.5 0.8 5.9
China 10.0 5.1 1.6 5.4
India 18.5 13.4 20.0 14.8
Indonesia 7.0 5.2 2.1 3.8
Korea, Republic of 11.2 7.0 4.9 7.6
Mexico 14.5 12.8 21.9 14.8
Singapore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Africa 7.7 6.0 3.1 7.9
Chinese Taipei 5.8 2.4 1.4 4.5
Thailand 9.6 4.7 1.7 5.7
Average Developing b 9.7 6.5 5.8 7.0
 
aMarkets were selected on the basis of their re levance for LDCs and the information available. 
bSimple average. 
Note :  All calculations are at the 6-digit level; non- ad valorem  duties are excluded. 
Source : WTO, based on WTO, UNCTAD and ITC data.  
                                                      
10 Based on the assumption that trade is price (and ta riff) elastic, endogeneity bias (sometimes referred 
also to as simultaneity bias) refers to the fact that hi gh (alternatively, low) tariff s will induce low (high) trade 
flows, leading to a lower weighted average.  Using a weighting structure that is independent of the tariff 
structure (i.e., the actual exports of LDCs to all markets) reduces this bias.  The difference between the two 
results is therefore an indicator of the impact the (actual) preferential ta riffs applied to LDCs had on their 
bilateral trade flows. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 22 
 
 
   
37. The simulation indicates that without prefer ential treatment, the LD C exports would in 
general be subject to higher tariffs than the ot her trading partners in developed markets.  The 
existence of preferences has an impact on the LDCs' export structure, as indicated by the positive 
difference between the average tariff weighted by the actual exports (7 per cent) and the expected 
value based on average trade stru cture (3.8 per cent).  This means that goods exported to these 
countries from LDCs were predominantly facing hi gher MFN tariff.  The economic explanation of 
this result is that the LDCs actually had a great er preference margin over MFN for these products.  
This pattern is confirmed by data provided in Box 2, which shows that LDCs benefit from lower 
tariffs in developed markets, compar ed to other developing countries. 
38. This is not the case for destinations other th an developed markets (developing and transition 
economies), where LDCs predominantly export pr oducts facing low MFN tariffs, i.e. without 
preference margins.  The actual weighted tariff based  on MFN is 5.8 per cent while the expected value 
based on average trade structure would be 7 per cen t, meaning that the actual respective MFN tariff 
structure for each destination market is the determin ing factor (i.e., that LDC exporters actually face 
these tariffs, and do  not usually benefit from specific treatment). 
2. Duty-free Tariff Lines on Imports from LDCs  
39. Duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access fo r products originating from LDCs has been 
a long-standing aspiration of LDCs in the multilateral trading system11 and indeed the shared 
objective of the international community as expr essed in the Millennium Development Goals in 
addressing the special needs of LDCs (see Box 2).  The WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference held in 
Hong Kong, China in December 2005 agreed to prov ide DFQF market access at  least for 97 per cent 
of products originating from LDCs (see Section IV).   
 
                                                      
 11 DFQF market access has been one of the priorities reflected in all Declarations adopted by LDC 
Trade Ministers in Zanzibar, Tanzania in July 2001, as contained in document WT/L/409;  Dhaka, Bangladesh 
in June 2003, as contained in WT/L/521; Dakar, Senegal in May 2004, as contained in WT/L/566; and in 
Livingstone, Zambia, June 2005, as contained in WT/ L/ 614.  It was also one of the common objectives agreed 
to by WTO Members, as expressed in paragraph 42 of  the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1). 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Box 2:  LDC market access indicator s in the Millennium Development Goals 
 
 
Information contained in this box is based on the join t work done by the International Trade Centre (ITC), 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
to research the market access conditions granted by developed countries, as part of the monitoring exercise of 
the Millennium Development Goals. *  Market access conditions are monitore d by a series of indicators that 
reflect the level and structure of tariffs faced by developing and least-developed country exports in selected 
developed country markets (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the US).  Incidentally, 
a close comparison of the situation of developing and least-developed countries on the same indicators draws 
interesting light on the evolution of preference marg ins within the broader group of developing economies. 
 
Two indicators are being used : (i) the degree of duty-free access in te rms of the value of developing and 
least-developed country exports entering developed countrie s;  and (ii) the average tariffs imposed by developed 
countries on products of special interest to developing and least-developed countries, such as imports of 
agricultural, textile and clothing products.  
 
1. Duty-free access  
The degree of duty-free access is measured  by the share of imports entering duty free, using a standard export 
structure to correct for possible endogeneity problems. ** 
 
Table - Duty-free access for developing an d least-developed countries, 2000-2005  
(percentage)a
Coverage and beneficiaries: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Excluding arms:       
  Developing countries b 63 67 66 71 76 76 
  Least-developed countries 75 78 75 78 81 82 
Excluding arms and oil:       
 Developing countries b 65 64 68 70 75 75 
 Least-developed countries 70 71 70 73 79 79 
 
The Table above shows that the LDCs receive some margin of preference in relation with other developing 
countries, and over 82 per cent of their total exports (excluding arms) entered duty free into developed country 
markets in 2005, showing a marginal increase over the previous year.  Nevertheless, the relative advantages 
offered to the LDCs are less pr onounced when arms and oil ar e excluded from the calculation. ***  Excluding 
arms and oil, the proportion of duty-free exports from LD Cs is less than 4 percentage points higher than the 
average for developing countries (78.7 per cent against 75.3 per cent in 2005).  
 
 aProportion of developed country imports from deve loping countries and least-developed countries, 
entering free of duty. 
 bIncluding least-developed countries. 
Source : Calculations prepared by th e ITC, UNCTAD and the WTO. h ttp://www.mdg-trade.org/Index.aspx 
 
 *This activity is part of an inter-agency commitment for the monitoring of the Millennium 
Development Goals.  More detailed statistical and analy tical information on market  access can be found at the 
inter-agency website: http://www.mdg-trade.org/ 
 **For this reason, the indicators are computed using standard import weights (i.e., standard for all 
LDCs and all markets, to correct partially the bilate ral bias caused by the product composition of imports). 
Using the proportion of duty free tariff lines (TL) to pr ovide an unbiased estimator might be misleading, as a 
small proportion of protected TL on such "sensitive" produc ts as food or clothing runs the risk of excluding a 
considerable part of LDCs' export potentia l. 
 *** Five LDC oil exporters  account for more than 55 per cent of total LDCs exports in 2005.  
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 24 
 
 
  Box 2 (cont.) 
 
2. Tariffs on agriculture, textiles and clothing 
The Table below presents information on developed countries' average tariffs on agriculture, textiles and 
clothing products.  As illustrated in the impact of o il exports on the duty-free access indicator, average tariffs 
which take account of preferences vary in relation to pr oduct composition.  It should be noted that agriculture 
products and clothing in general are taxed more by developed countries than other products.****  Tariff peaks, 
for example, are often concentrated in products that developing countries export – staple food, tobacco, 
beverages, clothing and footwear – albeit that the situation is better for agricultural products exported by LDCs, 
compared to those exported by other developing countries.  This may be explained because preferential tariff 
rate quotas (TRQs) are fairly common among agricultural products (e.g., European Union' Cotonou Agreement 
or the US Caribbean Basin Initiative).  The benefit of a re duced (or zero) tariff within a quota is limited to a set 
of preference receiving countries, gi ving rise to potentially substan tial advantages for some recipient 
countries.*****  For other products, LDCs' preference margin over other developing countries is moderate.  It 
should be noted that, as a rule of thumb, a 5 per cent margin of preference is usually considered a minimum 
threshold to compensate for non-tari ff transaction costs (e.g ., additional administrative documentations) and 
generate an actual preference or induce the exporters to claim preferential rate  instead of MFN. ****** 
 
Table - Developed countries' average tariffs on imports on key products from developing and least-developed 
countries, 2000-2005   
(percentage) 
Products and beneficiaries:  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Agricultural goods       
Developing countries a 9.4 9.3 9.5  9.4  9.2  8.9 
Least-developed countries 3.7 2.7 2.8  2.8  3.2  3.1 
Textiles        
Developing countries a 6.6 6.6 6.0  5.8  5.2  5.3 
Least-developed countries 4.0 3.8 3.8  3.4   3.2 3.2 
Clothing        
Developing countries a 10.8 11.3 10.7  10.4  9.2  8.9 
Least-developed Countries 7.8 7.7 8.1  7.7  6.6  6.6 
 aIncluding LDCs. 
Source : Calculations prepared by the ITC, UNCTAD  and WTO (http://www.mdg-trade.org/Index.aspx) 
 
 **** From an economic and social perspective, the composition of exports has a large impact on the 
trade-development linkage.  Labour-intensive activities like agriculture and textiles are more conducive to 
sustainable economic and social development than the export of oil and minerals, non-renewable commodities 
whose extraction relies largely on investment in, often imported, physical capital. 
 **** (Bouët et al., 2005). 
 ****** See for example, François, Hoekman and Manchin (2005).  
(a) Developed Countries 
40. Table 9(a) presents a disaggregation of market  access conditions facing LDC exports both in 
terms of tariff lines and trade valu e, by groups of products, in selec ted developed country markets for 
the year 2005. 
41. In 2005, Australia, Canada, EC, New Zealand a nd Norway, provided total or nearly total 
duty-free status to imports from LDCs.  When imports  are not totally allowed duty free, dutiable tariff 
lines are usually concentrated in agriculture a nd in manufactured products (i.e., non-agriculture, 
excluding ores, petroleum and other raw materials).  Indeed, the basic pattern of MFN tariffs reveals 
that many importing countries do not tax minerals  and petroleum products under the MFN regime, 
therefore LDCs do not enjoy additional preference under those lines. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  42. Table 9(a) also shows that in 2005, Japan, Sw itzerland and the US were the three countries 
that were yet to provide total or nearly total dut y-free status to LDC exports.  The percentage of 
duty-free tariff lines for the US was 84 per cent, while  that of duty-free imports was 70 per cent.  For 
Switzerland, the respective figures were 86 per cent a nd 97 per cent.  The incidence of dutiable tariff 
lines is concentrated in the non-agricultural sector  for the US, while in the case of Switzerland the 
dutiable tariff lines are concentrated in the agriculture sector.  In the case of Japan, the percentage of 
duty-free tariff lines was 86 per cent, while the percen tage of duty-free imports was 27 per cent.  For 
Japan, it is the tariff they levy on petroleum products that explain the overall small percentage of their 
duty-free imports from LDCs.  It may also be not ed that both Japan and Switzerland have recently 
improved their market access schemes for LDCs (See Section IV).  
43. It can also be seen from Table 9(a) that a high number of duty-free tariff lines does not 
necessarily ensure a high percentage of duty-free impor ts.  Moreover, even if the overall percentage of 
duty-free imports is high, there may be substantia l variation between impor ts of agriculture and 
non-agricultural products from LDCs.  
(b) Developing Countries 
44. The recent trends in world trade revealed the increasing importance of developing countries' 
demand as a source of growth for international trad e.  Growth in South-South trade has generally 
exceeded that of world trade over the past 15 years.  With this strong trend, share of South-South 
trade in total world trade climbed from 8 per cent in 1990 to more than 16 per cent in 2005.  As a 
result, the issue of market access to developing co untries is of growing importance to the LDCs. 
45. Since 1989, some developing countries have been providing duty-free access to a limited 
number of products from LDCs under the Global System of Trade Preference (GSTP).12  These 
preferences, which are still of limited importance,  are complemented by a series of bilateral or 
regional preferential market access schemes, as well as a few non-reciprocal preferential schemes.13  
Since much of South-South trade, especially for processed goods, occurs at intra-regional level, trade 
preferences given under these regional trade agreem ents have gained relevance in some cases. 
46. Although a number of developing countries ha ve some measures in favour of LDCs, 
preferential access granted by developing countries  to the LDCs as a group is still limited (see 
Table 9(b).  The general pattern emerging from the table is that dut y-free access is usually granted on 
an MFN basis.  It focuses on raw commodities a nd petroleum rather than on manufactured or 
agricultural goods.  It may also be noted that duty-free treatment, including preferential and MFN, 
across these goods is asymmetric.  While Thailand is  accepting 64 per cent of agricultural imports on 
a duty-free basis, in Korea the dut y-free access is principally granted to non-agricultural products 
(75 per cent in terms of import value). 
                                                      
12 In the first round of GSTP, 11 developing countries made specific concessions to their LDC partners.  
A new round was launched at UNCTAD XI in Brazil in 2004, with the objective of  extending the commitments 
in favour of LDCs.  
13 See also Annex Table 2 for market access initiativ es granted by developi ng countries to LDCs.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 26 Table 9(a):  Tariff treatment of LDC e xports in selected developed markets, 2005 
 
NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (Million US$ and percentage) 
LDC Beneficiaries LDCs MFN LDC Scheme Duty-free status (%) Market Sector 
Total With 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines With 
imports Dutiable MFN 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines Dutiable 
imports Total Total Dutiable Tariff lines Imports 
Total 6,124 5,669  3,209  853 536 0 0  118,200.9  153.0  0.0 100.0  100.0 
Agriculture 775 637  215 100 29 0 0  5,086.3  16.9 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Non-agriculture 5,193 4,894  2,984  735 507 0 0  104,320.5  94.6 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Ores 33 26  0 2 0 0 0  209.9  0.1 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 4 3  0 2 0 0 0  8,037.1  39.3 0.0 100.0  100.0 Australia 
Raw materials 119 109  10 14 0 0 0  547.1  2.1 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Total 8,607 8,371  4,133  1,758  981 96 1  306,331.7  1,566.7  5.3 98.9 99.7 
Agriculture 1,389 1,281  837 271 124 96 1  17,211.7  22.8 0.0 93.1 100.0 
Non-agriculture 7,063 6,939  3,279  1,449  857 0 0  263,655.8  798.6  5.3 100.0  99.3 
Ores 33 30  0 6 0 0 0  1,817.7  17.9 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 1 1  0 1 0 0 0  18,096.2  726.0  0.0 100.0  100.0 Canada 
Raw materials 121 120  17 31 0 0 0  5,550.3  1.4 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Total 10,096 9,817  7,365  3,595  2,703  30 5  1,316,478.0  19,621.1  399.6  99.7 98.0 
Agriculture 2,073 1,858  1,682  544 389 7 3  76,374.0  1,962.6  147.7  99.7 92.5 
Non-agriculture 7,829 7,770  5,655  2,982  2,307  23 2  946,330.9  10,578.8  251.9  99.7 97.6 
Ores 41 39  0 13 0 0 0  16,764.9  861.6  0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 2 2  0 2 0 0 0  209,383.5  4,734.1  0.0 100.0  100.0 European 
Communities 
Raw materials 151 148  28 54 7 0 0  67,624.6  1,484.0  0.0 100.0  100.0 
Total 9,255 8,205  5,539  791 496 1,284 81  507,975.7  3,476.2  2,532.6  86.1 27.1 
Agriculture 1,852 1,442  1,407  121 61 940 32  42,791.5  214.1  5.6 49.2 97.4 
Non-agriculture 7,235 6,610  4,119  648 433 341 47  328,178.9  786.3  77.4 95.3 90.2 
Ores 37 31  0 4 0 0 0  14,275.6  23.6 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 2 2  2 1 1 2 1  79,772.9  2,449.6  2,449.6  0.0 0.0 Japan 
Raw materials 129 120  11 17 1 1 1  42,956.8  2.6 0.0 99.2 99.9 
Total 7,432 6,560  3,197  541 370 47 1  26,032.3  139.9  0.1 99.4 99.9 
Agriculture 1,026 806  365 65 21 43 1  1,992.6  4.1 0.1 95.8 97.0 
Non-agriculture 6,258 5,642  2,828  465 349 4 0  22,147.7  7.8 0.0 99.9 100.0 
Ores 33 11  0 0 0 0 0  1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0  n.a. 
Petroleum 1 1  0 1 0 0 0  1,624.0  118.6  0.0 100.0  100.0 New Zealand 
Raw materials 114 100  4 10 0 0 0  267.1  9.3 0.0 100.0  100.0  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
Page 27NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (Million US$ and percentage) 
LDC Beneficiaries LDCs MFN LDC Scheme Duty-free status (%) Market Sector 
Total With 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines With 
imports Dutiable MFN 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines Dutiable 
imports Total Total Dutiable Tariff lines Imports 
Total 7,198 6,593  1,161  609 232 0 0  55,306.4  138.7  1.3 100.0  99.1 
Agriculture 1,362 1,104  833 73 26 0 0  3,410.0  16.6 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Non-agriculture 5,678 5,370  328 533 206 0 0  50,611.8  83.1 1.3 100.0  98.4 
Ores 33 13  0 1 0 0 0  323.5  9.3 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 2 2  0 1 0 0 0  441.1  29.8 0.0 100.0  100.0 Norway 
Raw materials 123 104  0 1 0 0 0  520.0  0.0 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Total 8,482 7,879  7,037  754 641 1,172 31  126,115.2  146.1  5.0 86.2 96.6 
Agriculture 2,232 1,822  1,925  134 107 1,161 31  7,317.3  44.0 4.9 48.0 88.9 
Non-agriculture 6,084 5,913  5,051  610 527 11 0  113,168.8  98.0 0.1 99.8 99.9 
Ores 33 24  0 0 0 0 0  2.6 0.0 0.0 100.0  n.a. 
Petroleum 2 1  0 0 0 0 0  1,931.4  0.0 0.0 100.0  n.a. Switzerland 
Raw materials 131 119  61 10 7 0 0  3,695.0  4.1 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Total 11,202 10,666  6,623  1,653  1,078  1,812 585  1,597,342.7  18,184.9  5,379.2  83.8 70.4 
Agriculture 1,810 1,547  1,424  208 125 274 4  61,303.5  260.9  0.8 84.9 99.7 
Non-agriculture 9,212 8,948  5,171  1,411  947 1,538 581  1,329,428.5  6,741.6  5,378.4  83.3 20.2 
Ores 43 38  10 4 1 0 0  2,541.4  62.3 0.0 100.0  100.0 
Petroleum 2 2  2 2 2 0 0  129,081.6  10,804.4  0.0 100.0  100.0 United States 
Raw materials 135 131  16 28 3 0 0  74,987.6  315.8  0.0 100.0  100.0 
n.a.: not applicable. 
Source : WTO, UNCTAD, ITC.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 28  
Table 9(b):  Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developing markets, 2005 
 
NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (000'000s US $) 
LDC Beneficiaries LDCs 
MFN LDC Scheme Duty-free status (%) Market 
Sector Total With 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines With 
imports Dutiable MFN 
imports Dutiable 
tariff lines Dutiable 
imports Total 
Total Dutiable Tariff 
lines Imports 
Total 7,550 6,945 6,912 684 581 - - 602,731.7 15,267.1 1,138.8 8.5 92.5 
Agriculture 1,085 826 1,004 79 77 - - 24,909.2 672.7 672.5 7.5 0.0 
Non-agriculture 6,277 5,950 5,761 555 475 - - 494,917.1 903.1 450.3 8.2 50.1 
Ores 37 27 11 19 0 - - 25,937.4 363.8 0.0 70.3 100.0 
Petroleum 1 1 0 1 0 - - 47,722.8 13,311.5 0.0 100.0 100.0 China 
Raw materials 150 141 136 30 29 - - 9,245.2 15.9 15.9 9.3 0.2 
Total 11,693 9,854 11,406 1,585 1,511 11,406 1,511 148,339.5 2,278.5 2,264.1 2.5 0.6 
Agriculture 1,490 998 1,452 299 278 1,452 278 5,472.2 793.9 781.9 2.6 1.5 
Non-agriculture 9,907 8,631 9,658 1,243 1,190 9,658 1,190 85,922.3 1,384.5 1,382.1 2.5 0.2 
Ores 60 41 60 7 7 60 7 1,550.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 0.0 
Petroleum1 1 1 1 0 n.a 1 n.a 39,099.5 n.a n.a 0.0 n.a. India 
Raw materials 235 183 235 36 36 235 36 16,295.4 86.6 86.6 0.0 0.0 
Total 11,261 10,136 9,763 791 703 9,547 654 261,236.5 1,122.3 810.4 15.2 27.8 
Agriculture 1,537 1,238 1,507 78 77 1,460 70 10,982.2 26.4 19.4 5.0 26.4 
Non-agriculture 9,443 8,655 7,975 696 609 7,822 568 184,372.0 408.5 103.6 17.2 74.6 
Ores 48 33 48 2 2 41 2 5,157.0 103.6 103.6 14.6 0.0 
Petroleum 10 9 10 4 4 10 4 42,605.8 583.7 583.7 0.0 0.0 Korea, 
Republic of 
Raw materials 223 201 223 11 11 214 10 18,119.4 0.2 0.2 4.0 7.4 
Total 10,688 10,284 6 2,393 2 - - 198,299.1 459.3 1.1 99.9 99.8 
Agriculture 1,216 1,106 6 285 2 - - 5,256.2 71.6 1.1 99.5 98.4 
Non-agriculture 9,294 9,025 0 2,093 0 - - 172,058.4 274.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 
Ores 36 22 0 0 0 - - 44.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 n.a. 
Petroleum 2 2 0 2 0 - - 18,504.4 112.2 0.0 100.0 100.0 Singapore 
Raw materials 140 129 0 13 0 - - 2,435.9 1.2 0.0 100.0 100.0  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
Page 29NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (000'000s US $) 
LDC Beneficiaries LDCs 
MFN LDC Scheme Duty-free status (%) Market 
Sector Total With 
imports Dutiable tariff 
lines With 
imports Dutiable MFN 
imports Dutiable 
tariff lines Dutiable 
imports Total 
Total Dutiable Tariff 
lines Imports 
Total 8,839 8,015 6,108 601 463 - - 177,585.0 1,768.0 51.0 30.9 97.1 
Agriculture 1,421 1,144 1,085 77 51 - - 7,307.0 95.9 15.6 23.6 83.7 
Non-agriculture 7,210 6,695 4,979 515 411 - - 143,191.4 122.5 35.4 30.9 71.1 
Ores 40 27 0 2 0 - - 947.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 
Petroleum 2 1 1 1 0 - - 18,235.7 1,549.3 0.0 50.0 100.0 Chinese Taipei 
Raw materials 166 148 43 6 1 - - 7,903.5 0.3 0.0 74.1 99.7 
Total 5,505 5,214 5,256 1,065 1,012 - - 115,672.9 3,595.0 2,369.2 4.5 34.1 
Agriculture 768 666 727 156 148 - - 4,370.8 179.8 64.6 5.3 64.1 
Non-agriculture 4,592 4,417 4,401 884 847 - - 90,367.0 855.5 789.0 4.2 7.8 
Ores 33 25 33 4 4 - - 292.8 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 
Petroleum 1 1 0 1 0 - - 16,903.6 1,038.1 0.0 100.0 100.0 Thailand 
Raw materials 111 105 95 20 13 - - 3,738.7 1,512.5 1,506.4 14.4 0.4 
 
Notes : 1Imports of crude petroleum are not broken down by partner country. 
 n.a.:  not applicable. 
 ''-':  data on preferential treatment  of LDC exports is not available. 
Source : WTO, on the basis of WTO, UNCTAD and ITC data.  
 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 30 
 
 
  C. THE UTILIZATION OF PREFERENCES  
1. An Overview  
47. Benefits of non-reciprocal preferential market acc ess can occur only to the extent it is actually 
utilized.  From an accounting point of view, a pr eference utilization rate measures what has been 
saved in terms of tariff lay-outs due to the use of the preference, instead of entering the market 
through an MFN rate.  From a development ec onomics perspective, it measures the effective 
utilization of the margin of additional comparative advantage given to the LDC exports in relation to 
other countries receiving the MFN treatment.  
48. If a preferential rate is fully utilized, then it is an accurate market access indicator; if not, then 
it is an indicator that the preferential regime ma y have conditions that impede its use (for example 
rules of origin), or limit its interest for expor ters relative to other options (for example, when 
preferences are granted for a limited period of tim e and may not justify the administrative costs of 
shifting from one scheme to another).  
49. Effective utilization of non-reciprocal preferenc es requires the fulfilment of certain conditions 
defining the extent of eligibility.14  There is a strong indication in th e literature that the NTMs, such as 
rules of origin, have a direct bearing on the low utilization of preferences.15  I t  i s  a l s o  w i d e l y  
recognized that the limited capacity of LDCs fo r producing and processing internationally tradable 
goods is another factor for low utilization. 
50. The computation of an indicator on utilization of  preferences poses sever al difficulties.  One 
is the availability of comprehensiv e and comparable official data on preferential schemes, especially 
for the EU.16  In addition, there are several ways to de fine the utilization of preferences, which may 
bias the interpretation of results.  Since a product is  often eligible to more than one preferential 
regime, while the export can only take place under one of them, a low rate of utilization for one 
specific regime is not always an indication of a low rate of preference utilization.17  
51. Table 10 presents the aggregate results obtai ned for three developed economies, Canada, 
European Union and the United States.  As can be  seen, rates of utilization vary according to the 
definition and coverage used.  For example, in 2 005, 10 per cent of LDC exports to the US did not 
enter under the LDC specific programme (referred to as "GSP for LDBC countries only"), but used 
other preferential treatments (e.g., AGOA or CBI).  In  addition, favourable treatment for oil represents 
a large part of the LDC specific preference in  the US (more than 30 percentage points).  
                                                      
14 In practice, it is difficult to estimate the degree of preference utilization.  The lack of comparable 
data on trade taking place under preference schemes co mplicates the study of pref erence utilization, and the 
broader issue of the value of preferences.  Nevertheless, the available information is a guide to identify some 
stylized characteristics.  See WT/COMTD/LDC/W/35 fo r more detailed information on the conceptual and 
statistical issues related to preference utilization. 
15 As mentioned, see WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 for an in-depth analysis of NTMs. 
16 There is no official compilation of detailed da ta on EU imports under preferential regimes. 
17 On the contrary, in some cases, the non-preferen tial tariffs may be prohibitive and the rate of 
utilization would be close to 100 per cent even when the preferential tariff is not very low in absolute term and 
limits potential exports. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Table 10:  Preference utilization for selected developed markets, 2005 
 
Importing country a Coverage of preferences Rate (%) 
 
General Preferential Tariff (GSP) 
and LDC tariffs   
89  Canada  
  
Including all preferential 
programmes b [68 - 76] c European Union 
  
Including all preferential 
programmes d 83 
- Excluding oil 66 
GSP for Least-developed 
beneficiary countries  programmes 
only   
73 United States 
- Excluding oil 41 
 
  aResults are not directly comparable between preferential schemes,  due to difference in coverage and 
reporting.  Indicators for Canada includes imports from LDCs, excluding Myanmar and Timor Leste;  the EC 
includes LDCs, excluding Myanmar;  US beneficiary co untries include LDCs, excluding Timor Leste, Eritrea, 
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Myanmar, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sudan. 
 bInclude GSP and other preferential schemes such  as Everything But Arms and the Cotonou 
Agreement. 
 cThe range depends on the handling of many "unknown treatments" that were compiled for the 
European Union countries, due, inter alia,  to the variety of their preferential schemes and the unsystematic 
publication of their preference.  The higher bound of the interval was obtained when the "unknown treatments" 
are imputed to preferential and non-preferential in same proportions as known treatments, the lower bound is 
obtained when "unknown treatments" are treated as no n-preferential. 
 dAll preferential programmes:  African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); Caribbean Basin 
Initiative (CBI);  Generalized System of Preferences  (GSP);  and GSP for Least-developed beneficiary 
developing countries (GSP-LDBC). 
Source : WTO 
 
 
52. The rate of utilization also depends on the t ype of products exporte d.  On the one hand, 
granting preference to a country only on products that are already part of its natural basket of exports 
provides an immediate margin of advantage.  On th e other hand, this may reinforce the tendency to 
specialize in a limited range of products, which ma y not encourage export diversification and reduce 
the potential for broad-based export-led growth (esp ecially when preferences are granted in oil and 
mineral products).  
53. Another issue closely related to the utilization is  the erosion of preferences, which has been 
brought up by preference beneficiaries within the c ontext of the Doha negotiations on agriculture and 
for non-agricultural market access (NAMA).  As a c ontribution to the negotiations, the Secretariat 
prepared an evaluation of the potential vulnerabilit y to preference erosion for ACP countries and the 
LDCs that might emerge as a consequence of the negotiation on MFN liberalization, by comparing 
margins of preferences with rate of utilization in  two preference-granting countries (see Box 3).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 32 
 
 
  Box 3:  Assessing the scope of the problem of Non-Reciprocal Preference Erosion 
 
 
The Secretariat has developed several papers on the issue of preference erosion. Two Working Papersa were 
published on preference erosion in agriculture and in NAMA in 2005 and 2006.  A noteb was prepared for the 
NAMA negotiations in 2007, with a view to identifying pr oducts which are potentially vulnerable to preference 
erosion.  The papers analyse the impact of reduction of  preference margin due to a cut in MFN rates following 
the current round of negotiations.  
 
Using a simulation on single tariff-cutting scenario in agriculture, Low et al. (2006) find that the risk of 
preference erosion in the QUAD markets is small.  The most affected products are bananas, sugar, beverage and 
spirits; much of the impact occurs in  the EU market.  As a group, the LDCs would register some moderate 
gains.  Nevertheless, a few countries would be negativel y affected, according to thei r product and geographical 
specialization in the EU market.  The most affected co untries would be Angola (2.4 per cent of imports), 
Malawi (1.7 per cent) and Tanzania (1.1 per cent). 
 
For NAMA, Low et al (2005) find that not all LDCs lose from preference erosion because their exports at 
present are largely entering these markets MFN duty free.  The main s ectors where preference erosion may 
occur are in textiles, fish and fish products, leather and leather products, electrical machinery, wood and wood 
products. 
 
The note prepared for the NAMA negotiations led to the definition of four categories of "risks", from a NAMA 
perspective: 
(1) Members trading mostly in agricultural products:  th ese Members appear evidently to be at a low risk of 
being affected by preference erosio n in non-agricultural products.  
(2) Members trading mostly in MFN duty-free lines: many of  them are exporters of oil and other raw materials, 
and are less or not likely to be affected by preference erosion.  
(3) Members trading mostly in lines which are not "vul nerable to preference erosion" (i.e. Members trading 
mostly in tariff lines that ar e bound at or below 5 per cent). 
(4) Members with a higher risk of being affected by preference erosion in NAMA.  These Members are defined 
as the remnant countries, ex cluding categories 1 to 3. 
 
A total of 12 LDCs (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Djib outi, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti,  Madagascar, Maldives, 
Mozambique, Nepal, Senegal, Solomon Island, Tanzania) were identified as category 4, as far as the EU-25 
market is concerned.  Five LDCs (Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Uganda) were identified as higher 
vulnerability (category 4) in the US market.   
 
 aLow, Piermartini and Richtering, 2005 and 2006;   
 bJOB(07)/80 
 
 
2. Preference Utilization on Selected  Sectors of Interest to LDCs 
54. As mentioned before, preferences affecti ng labour intensive products have a special 
importance from a economic perspective, as they have a more direct impact on employment and 
poverty.  Two labour intensive sectors – textiles and clothing, and agriculture – are of particular 
interest to the LDCs.  
55. As the range of products expor ted under preferences cover various degrees of transformation 
and value-addition and as those preferences are ge nerally higher for un-processed goods, it is also 
interesting to analyse them from a comparative pe rspective.  The following Section provides reviews 
of those sectors, including based on the results of sect oral studies done by the Secretariat and external 
research institutes. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  (a) Textiles and Clothing 
56. The utilization of preferences by the LDCs on e xports to the Quad (Canada, EC, Japan and 
the US) markets, as well as other developed economies, can be reviewed in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/37, entitled "Options for LDCs to improve their competitiveness in textiles and 
clothing business".  According to this study, ra tes of utilization (based on 2004 figures) fluctuated 
widely among different preference schemes, rangi ng from 38 per cent to 98 per cent, reflecting both 
the difficulties of benefiting from the preferential sc hemes, as well as the supply-side constraints of 
the beneficiary countries.  Rules of origin were found to be relatively flexible for the US's AGOA, 
Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), and the EC's Cotonou Agreement.  Utilization was 
generally higher for apparels compared to tex tile products, because the latter requires more fixed 
capital that limits LDCs' production capacity.  
57. Even when the preference sch emes are used to a satisfactory level on relative terms, the 
export flows from most LDCs to the EU and the US  are small.  Excluding Bangladesh and Cambodia, 
which are mainly competing on an MFN basis, the LDCs' market share for textiles and clothing in 
main developed country markets was about 0.6 pe r cent in 2006.  As can be seen from Table 11, 
excluding Bangladesh and Cambodia, the LDC exports of textiles and clothing to the Quad are not 
significant (US$2.5 billion in 2006, or 15 per cent of  total imports from LDCs) and their sales have 
been decreasing slightly over the 2000 to 2006 pe riod due to a reduction in the Canadian and US 
markets (-2.2 and -0.9 per cent, r espectively).  The table also shows the trends in textiles and clothing 
exports by non-LDCs to the Quad markets during the period 2000 to 2006.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 34 Table 11:  Imports of textiles and clothing into Quad markets 2000-2006   
 
  TOTAL  CANADAa   EUROPEAN UNION (25) b   
          Growth Rate         Growth Rate         Growth Rate 
Origin of imports: 2000 2004 2005 2006 2000-2006 2000 2004 2005 2006 2000-2006 2000 2004 2005 2006 2000-2006 
World 175122 220020 233843 251169 6.2 7822 9339 10296 11200 6.2 59529 87002 92585 103450 9.6 
Least-developed countries 8473 12333 12422 15188 10.2 177 537 555 646 24.1 3648 6470 5986 7616 13.1 
Bangladesh 5041 7490 7705 9794 11.7 111 370 393 468 27.1 2516 4843 4618 6050 15.7 
Cambodia 1144 2296 2541 3125 18.2 11 105 107 130 50.9 263 647 593 694 17.6 
Other LDCs 2288 2547 2176 2269 -0.1 55 62 55 48 -2.2 869 980 775 872 0.1 
Non LDCs 166649 207687 221421 235981 6.0 7645 8802 9741 10554 5.5 55881 80532 86599 95834 9.4 
Developed economies 26344 29826 28624 28622 1.4 3920 3689 3739 3748 -0.7 8311 11506 11147 11660 5.8 
of which:                            
United States 5991 4802 4997 5150 -2.5 3211 2801 2865 2852 -2.0 1966 1475 1572 1752 -1.9 
European Union (25) 8516 9231 8874 8707 0.4 604 748 722 734 3.3          
Developing economies 140305 177861 192797 207359 6.7 3725 5113 6002 6806 10.6 47570 69026 75452 84174 10.0 
of which:                            
China 39212 61653 79831 90122 14.9 1163 2331 3376 4100 23.4 10428 20004 27973 31743 20.4 
Turkey 8927 15306 15638 15982 10.2 71 135 151 150 13.3 7228 13200 13671 14304 12.0 
India 8245 11002 13132 14564 9.9 362 477 507 535 6.7 4202 5921 6915 7861 11.0 
Mexico 10727 9245 8701 7948 -4.9 225 394 410 439 11.8 81 131 128 145 10.2 
Other countries 73194 80655 75495 78743 1.2 1904 1776 1558 1582 -3.0 25631 29770 26765 30121 2.7 
  JAPAN   UNITED STATES   
          Growth Rate         Growth Rate 
Origin of imports: 2000 2004 2005 2006 2000-2006 2000 2004 2005 2006 2000-2006 
World 24648 27286 28353 30049 3.4 83123 96393 102609 106470 4.2 
Least-developed countries 68 100 109 138 12.5 4580 5226 5772 6788 6.8 
Bangladesh 31 33 36 37 3.0 2383 2244 2658 3239 5.2 
Cambodia 2 10 8 14 38.3 868 1534 1833 2287 17.5 
Other LDCs 35 57 65 87 16.4 1329 1448 1281 1262 -0.9 
Non LDCs 24580 27186 28244 29911 3.3 78543 91167 96837 99682 4.1 
Developed economies 3115 3123 3040 3001 -0.6 10998 11508 10698 10213 -1.2 
of which:                   
   United States 814 526 560 546 -6.4          
   European Union (25) 2196 2448 2319 2287 0.7 5716 6035 5833 5686 -0.1 
Developing economies 21465 24063 25204 26910 3.8 67545 79659 86139 89469 4.8 
of which:                   
China 16750 20323 21280 22916 5.4 10871 18995 27202 31363 19.3 
Turkey 33 56 67 81 16.1 1595 1915 1749 1447 -1.6 
India 314 278 298 339 1.3 3367 4326 5412 5829 9.6 
Mexico 36 23 30 32 -1.9 10385 8697 8133 7332 -5.6 
Other countries 4332 3383 3529 3542 -3.3 41327 45726 43643 43498 0.9   
 a Imports are valued f.o.b. 
 bExcludes trade from members of the European Union (25) 
Source :  WTO  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  (b) Agriculture 
58. Exports of agriculture and food products are of particular importance in order to sustain 
export-led growth pattern in LDCs, especially because of their direct impact on the rural areas.  But, 
as was the case with the textiles and clothing sector, th e agricultural sector is also protected in many 
developed economies.  
59. The data presented in Table 12 refer to the u tilization of preferences on agricultural and food 
products in the EU and the US.  In 2002, the EU-15 was a bigger importer of LDC agricultural 
products, absorbing 29 per cent of total LDCs agri cultural exports, as compared to the US, which 
imported only 5 per cent. 
60. Due to the multiplicity of the preferential schemes,  the rate of utilization of a specific regime 
may be small in several case (e.g., EC's Everyt hing But Arms (EBA) or US's Andean Trade 
Preference Act (ATPA), because the eligible exporte rs or the custom services have the possibility of 
choosing other preferential schemes.  The relevant figures are therefore given by the actual rate of 
utilization (second column of the table), irrespectiv e of the various alternative preference schemes. 
Table 12:  Agriculture and food products: utiliza tion rate of preferences in the EU and the 
United States, 2002  
 Rate of utilization under each 
scheme a  Actual rate of utilization b 
European Union   
Total  89 ... 
  Cotonou (ACP)  93 95 
  GSP (regular)  50 86 
  GSP-Drug  94 95 
  EBA  17 96 
United States    
Total 87 ... 
  AGOA  85 85 
  ATPA  43 65 
  CBI  96 99 
  GSP (regular) 58 94 
  GSP-LDCs 21 87 
 aImports eligible and entering under a particular scheme.  
 bImports eligible to a particular regime but en tering under any of the preferential regimes.  
Source : Based on Bureau, Chakir and Gallezot (2006). 
61. According to Bureau et al. (2006), overall rate  of utilization for non-reciprocal preferences 
was high in both cases (89 per cent in the EU, 87 per cen t in the US) in 2002.  When exporters to the 
EU or the US had the choice, they favoured the Cotonou Agreement, in the case of EU, or the CBI in 
the case of the US.  Considering that tariffs are no t a variable in this case, the authors infer that 
administrative requirements, rules of origin or pr edictability of the respective regimes are potential 
determinants of the choice between regimes.18   
62. As in the textiles and clothing sector, the example of the US AGOA scheme shows that the 
total value of imports of agricultural and food pr oducts from LDCs can be very small despite a high 
rate of utilization.  Privileged market access is ofte n not sufficient to create or increase trade flows.  
According to the survey, the disappointing level of LDC exports may also depend on factors other 
                                                      
18 In particular, there are signif icant differences between agreem ents regarding the geographical 
cumulation of origin rules. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 36 
 
 
  than tariffs.  Sanitary requirements in the im porting countries, supply-side constraints and 
administrative inefficiencies in the exporting LDCs are often cited as some of the main obstacles.19 
63. It is evident from the above that utilization of preference schemes vary from one scheme to 
another.  The conditions attached to preference sch emes, non-tariff measures such as rules of origin or 
standards, administrative requirements and weak su pply capacity all factor into the actual rate of 
utilization of preference schemes.  Moreover, it should be noted that a high rate of utilization does not 
always reflect a high level of impor ts from LDCs, in terms of value. 
IV. RECENT INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS 
64. Annex Table 2 provides a non-exhaustive list of initiatives which have been taken by 
developed and developing countries since 2000 to improve market access for products originating 
from LDCs.20  This section focuses on initiatives taken since the circulation of the previous note by 
the Secretariat issued in  early 2006, and is based on notificati ons by Members and other information 
made available to the S ecretariat.  During the period under revi ew, the issue of DFQF market access 
for LDCs has gained momentum multilaterally, due to a decision reached by Trade Ministers at the 
WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference in December 2005.   At the same time, several initiatives have 
been taken by developed and deve loping countries to improve market access for their LDC partners 
within regional trade agreemen ts, or on a bilateral basis. 
A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG DECISI ON ON DFQF MARKET ACCESS TO LDCS  
65. The decision on DFQF market access reached  at the Sixth Ministerial Conference in 
Hong Kong, China was a response by the WTO membership to one of the long standing demands by the LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  The De cision, contained in Annex F of the Ministerial 
Declaration (WT/MIN(05)/DEC), states that "developed-country Members shall, and 
developing-country Members declaring themselves in a position to do so should:  (a)(i) Provide 
DFQF market access on a lasting basis, for all produc ts originating from all LDCs by 2008 or no later 
than the start of the implementation period in a manner that ensures stability, security and 
predictability".  It further states that "(a)(ii) Memb ers facing difficulties at this time to provide market 
access as set out above shall provide duty-free and quot a-free market access for at least 97 per cent of 
products originating from LDCs, defined at the tariff lin e level, by 2008 or no later than the start of 
the implementation period" (see Box 4).  
                                                     
 
19 Bureau et al. (2006) identify sp ecific issues, for example, the fact that many LDCs have not been 
declared free from a series of animal diseases and are not allowed to export meat and dairy products. Meeting 
quality and traceability requirements imposed by the EU and US  importers also appear in the list of obstacles for 
LDC exporters. 
20 Initiatives taken prior to 2000 are listed in the previous note by the Secretariat contained in 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Box 4:  Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration:   Decision on Measures in Favour of LDCs  
 
 
We agree that developed-country Members shall, and developing-country Members declaring themselves in a 
position to do so should:  
(a) (i) Provide duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis, for all products originating from all 
LDCs by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period in a manner that ensures stability, 
security and predictability. 
 (ii) Members facing difficulties at this time to provide market access as  set out above sh all provide duty-
free and quota-free market access for at least 97 per cent  of products originati ng from LDCs, defined at 
the tariff line level, by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period.  In addition, these 
Members shall take steps to progressively achieve  compliance with the obligations set out above, 
taking into account the impact on other developing countries at similar levels of development, and, as 
appropriate, by incrementally building on the initial list of covered products. 
 (iii) Developing-country Members shall be permitted to phase in their commitments and shall enjoy 
appropriate flexibility in coverage. 
(b) Ensure that preferential rules of origin applicab le to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, 
and contribute to facilitating market access. 
Members shall notify the implementation of the scheme s adopted under this decision every year to the 
Committee on Trade and Development.  The Committee on Trade and Development shall annually review the 
steps taken to provide duty-free and quota-free market access to the LDCs and report to the General Council for 
appropriate action. 
We urge all donors and relevant international institutions to increase financial and technical support aimed at the 
diversification of LDC economies, while providing additional financial and technical assistance through 
appropriate delivery mechanisms to meet their implementation obligations, including fulfilling SPS and TBT 
requirements, and to assist them in managing their adjustment processes,  including those necessary to face the 
results of MFN multilateral trade liberalization". 
 
Source : WT/MIN(05)/DEC  
 
66. Since the Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, several WTO Members have provided 
information regarding their implementation of, or steps taken to implement the Hong Kong Decision.  
It should be noted that Table 9(a) shows that, several developed countri es, including Australia, 
Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand and Norway, had already met the conditions set 
out in paragraphs (a)(i) or (a )(ii) of the Decision, prior to the Ministerial Conference.21  In 2006, Japan 
and the United States provided information on the pro cedural steps that they would take to implement 
the Hong Kong Decision.22  Furthermore, Japan, in April 2007 notified amendments to its GSP which 
resulted in the expansion of prod uct coverage, in compliance with the conditions set out in the 
Decision.23  Switzerland also provided information, annou ncing that it had amended its existing GSP, 
as of April 2007, which would provide DFQF mark et access for all products originating from all 
LDCs by 2009.24  Furthermore, several developing countri es, such as Brazil, China, India and the 
                                                      
21 The latest notifications are contained in WT /COMTD/N/18 for Australia;  WT/COMTD/N/15/Add.1 
and Add.2 for Canada;  WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.2 for the EC;  WT/COMTD/27 for New Zealand.  No formal 
notification was received from Norway .  Furthermore, in May 2007, Ca nada provided information on its 
implementation of the DFQF Decision, contained in WT/COMTD/W/159, providing an overview of its market 
access initiative for LDCs. 
22 The communications are contained in, WT/COMTD/W/150 for Japan and WT/COMTD/W/149 and 
its addenda 1 to 4 for the United States.    
23 The notification is contained in WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.14.   
24 From the Notes of the 28th Session of the Special Session  of the Committee on Trade and 
Development held on 26 April 2007, contained in document TN/CTD/M/28.  According to the statement made 
by Switzerland, the ordinance provided  DFQF market access for all products originating from all LDCs.  There 
was, however, a phasing in until September 2009 for broken rice, animal feed, cane and beet sugar and 
chemically pure sucrose in solid form, with progressive tariff cuts.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 38 
 
 
  Republic of Korea have indicated their intenti on to improve market access for LDCs, although no 
formal notifications have been made.25  
67. Apart from the initiatives taken to implemen t the Hong Kong Ministerial Decision by 
developed and developing countries as described a bove, the LDCs as a group submitted two proposals 
to operationalize the Decision;  one on the implementation of DFQF market access and the other on 
rules of origin.26  In their first proposal, LDCs called on Members to implement the Decision on 
DFQF market access in a way which is "commerc ially meaningful and will contribute to the 
expansion of LDC exports".  In particular, in order to meet th e minimum 97 per cent benchmark, 
LDCs requested developed countries to provide DFQF market access, first in all tariff lines in which 
positive duties are still applied to LDC existing expo rts, with a view to progressively achieving the 
100 per cent coverage.  Similarly, they requested developing countries in a position to do so to make 
their intention to provide DFQF market access known by the end of 2006 or in the shortest possible 
time, and provide, as a first step, DFQF market ac cess to products of export interest to the LDCs.27  
Finally, the LDCs proposed the establishment of  a monitoring and review mechanism of the 
implementation by requiring those countries which provided preferential market access to submit 
preferential data to the WTO Secretariat, wh ich is currently done on a voluntary basis. 
68. The LDC proposal on rules of origin was su bmitted in pursuance to the call made by 
Ministers in Hong Kong, who stressed the need to ensu re that "preferential rul es of origin applicable 
to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access".  In the 
view of LDCs, the rules of origin should be simple  and transparent, based on value addition or local 
content method, so as to reduce trade diversion and tr ade deflection to a minimum.   In parallel to the 
two proposals which have been pursued primarily in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development, the LDC Group has been active so as to ensure that the key elements of the Hong 
Kong Decision are duly reflected in the modalities of the negotiations in agriculture and NAMA.28 
B. OTHER INITIATIVES  
69. In addition to the initiatives taken in pursuit of the Hong Kong Decision on DFQF at the 
multilateral level, several devel oped and developing countries have taken steps to improve market 
access in favour of LDCs in regional or bilateral trad e contexts.  In 2007, the US notified that it had 
extended its existing GSP until December 2008, co ntaining special provisions for least-developed 
beneficiaries.29  In the case of the EC, ch anges in market access conditio ns for LDCs have been a 
result of the expansion of the Customs Union.  On 1 January 2007, the EC added Bulgaria and 
Romania to its 25 member States, thereby effec tively expanding the market destination for LDC 
exports which enjoy DFQF market access under the EB A initiative.  In addition to the expansion of 
the market destination for LDC products, the EC expa nsion brought together the rules and regulations 
                                                      
25 See the notes of different meetings, for instance: documents TN /CTD/M/26 for Brazil; 
TN/CTD/M/28 for Brazil, China and India; WT/COMTD /M/63 for India; WT/COMTD/M/59 for the Republic 
of Korea. 
26 The proposals were submitted to the Special Se ssion of the Committee on Trade and Development as 
documents TN/CTD/W/31 and TN/CTD/W/30, respectively; also to the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture as documents TN/AG/GEN/23 and TN/AG/GEN/20 and to the Negotiating Group on 
Non-Agricultural Market Access as documents TN/MA/W/78 and TN/MA/W/74. 
27 More specifically, developed and developing countries were requested to provide (i) a provisional 
list of products that would be initiall y excluded from DFQF market access,  (ii) the steps which would be taken 
to progressively achieve compliance with the obligatio n to cover the 100 per cent coverage; and (iii) the 
time-frame by which these steps would be completed.   
28 The first draft modalities, contained in docume nts TN/AG/W/3 for agriculture and TN/MA/W/80 for 
NAMA, were circulated to Members in June 2006, and the second drafts, issued in July 2007 as contained in 
TN/AG/W/4 and JOB(07)/126, respectively, are currently being discussed by WTO Members. 
29 The notification is contained in document WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.4. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  governing various preference schemes into a single set of rules, such as for origin and other 
administrative requirements.  Also related to the EC is the entry into force of the Customs Union with 
Turkey on 31 December 2005, which resulted in Tu rkey's alignment to the EC's GSP, thereby 
granting duty-free and quota-free access to all industrial products from the LDCs.30   
70. Market access initiatives in favour of LDCs ta ken by developing countries can generally be 
divided into two categories: (i) providing special concessions to LDC partners within regional trade 
arrangements among developing countries; and (ii) unilateral concessions provided to LDCs.  With 
regard to the first category, for instance, Chin a, on behalf of other Members, notified certain 
amendments to the Bangkok Agreement, rena med as the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA),which as of September 2006, incorporated  the results of the Third Round of traffic 
concessions, covering 4,270 products with an aver age margin of preference of 26.8 per cent.31  
Additional 587 products are granted by the devel oping members – China, India, Republic of Korea 
and Sri Lanka – exclusively to their LDC partne rs (Bangladesh and Lao PDR), resulting in overall 
58.8 per cent of preference margin for the latter.  Within the context of the South Asian Free Trade 
Agreement (SAFTA), whose results of the latest  round of negotiations came into effect in 
January 2006, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka grant their LDC partners – Bangladesh, Bhutan, 
Maldives and Nepal – concessions additional to tho se applicable among the developing partners.  
Furthermore, in the Framework Agreement on Co mprehensive Economic Cooperation with ASEAN, 
China improved market access for its LDC partners – Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar – by 
increasing the numbers of duty-free lines from 335, 239 and 133, respectively to 418, 330 and 220, as of 1 January 2006.  
71. As for bilateral initiatives taken in favour of  LDCs by developing countries, China provided 
information that duty-free market access has been granted for most of the exports from Samoa and 
Vanuatu as of 1 July 2006.  With regard to its 30 African least-developed partners
32, China also 
improved their market access by increasing duty-free treatment to 454 tariff lines to 26 countries, as 
of 1 July 2007.  The remaining four countries, na mely the Democratic Republic of Congo, Comoros, 
Angola and Senegal, which are still receiving duty- free treatment on 194 tariff lines, will get same 
treatment once the bilateral exchange of letter is completed.  Furthermore, China grants duty-free 
market access to 286 categories of products expor ted from five LDCs, namely Afghanistan, Maldives, 
Samoa, Vanuatu and Yemen as of July 2006 and al so grants duty-free trea tment on 420, 399, 226 and 
87 tariff lines to Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Bangladesh, respectively.   
V. CONCLUSION 
72. Over the 2000 to 2006 period, exports of goods fro m LDCs increased by an annual average of 
20 per cent, compared to an annual increase of  11 per cent for commercial services.  As a 
consequence, the negative trade balance in mercha ndise trade has witnessed a rapid reduction since 
2003;  preliminary estimates indicate that the trade balance in goods was even slightly positive in 
2006.  The LDCs accounted for 0.9 per cent of  world merchandise exports in 2006, up from 
0.6 per cent in 2004.  The share of LDCs in world trade in commercial servi ces has also witnessed an 
                                                      
30 The Custom Union Agreement between the EC a nd Turkey does not cover essential economic areas, 
such as agriculture, to which bilateral trade concessions apply, services or public procurement. 
31 The notification on APTA, contained in document WT/COMTD/N/22, is made pursuant to 
Paragraph 4(a) of the 1979 Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatme nt, Reciprocity and Fuller 
Participation of Developing Countries ("Enabling Clause"). 
32 Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, 
Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda , Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, 
Togo, Uganda and Zambia. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 40 
 
 
  increase.  In 2005, LDCs accounted for 1 per cent of world exports of commercial services, up from 
0.4 per cent in 2003.  
73. The overall trends in LDC exports continue to exhibit the same pattern s since the last note 
prepared by the Secretariat in 2006.  Aggreg ate export performance of LDCs has continued its 
positive trend since 2000, registering a growth rate of more than 30 per cent in both 2004 and 2005.  
This robust export performance, however, is attrib uted to a few products.  Mineral fuels and oil 
continue to remain the most important export items for LDCs, especially due to their high 
international prices since 2003.  They represented more  than 50 per cent of to tal LDC exports in 2005, 
up from 36 per cent in 2003.  As a consequence, five  LDC oil exporters consolidated their position in 
LDC exports.  While in 2004 these five LDCs account ed for 47 per cent of total LDC exports, they 
accounted for more than 55 per cent of total LDC expor ts in 2005.  The share of clothing - the second 
most important item in the LDC export profile - in the total of LDC exports experienced a decline in 
2005 compared to 2003.  Over the 2000 to 2006  period, the LDC exporters of manufacturers 
registered moderate growth rates, while  exporters of commodities e xperienced a heterogeneous 
growth  pattern due to wider variance in interna tional prices between mineral and agricultural 
commodities.  
74. Since the last review, there h as not been any change in the major markets for LDC exports. 
The EC and the US remain the dominant destin ation of LDC exports while China continues its 
position as the third most important market for LDCs .  Other developing countries are also gaining 
importance as a market destination for LDC expor ts:  38 per cent of LDC exports in 2005 was 
destined to developing countries.  However, most of LDC exports to developing countries remained 
concentrated on commodities and low-value added pr oducts.  In fact, in 2005 LDCs' fuel exports to 
developing countries were slightly higher than to  developed countries.  The products exported to 
developed countries are concentrated in articles of apparel and in food products.  
75. Market access conditions for LDC exports demons trate the trends reported in the last study.  
Preference schemes primarily determine market access conditions in develo ped country markets.  
While a number of developing countries have ta ken initiatives to improve market access for their 
LDC partners within regional trade agreements, or on a bilateral basis, some developing countries 
have chosen to offer duty-free access on an MFN b asis.  The note makes the point that a number of 
developed as well as developing countries do not le vy duty on mineral and petroleum products under 
the MFN regime thereby offering no additional preferences to the LDCs under those lines.  
76. The DDA negotiations present a unique opportunity to address the needs of LDCs.  The issue 
of DFQF market access for LDCs has gained moment um multilaterally due to a Decision reached by 
Trade Ministers at the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in December 2005.  Developed countries 
which are yet to comply with the Decision have take n steps to implement it.  The LDCs have also put 
forward proposals to operationalize the Decision.  It is expected that full and effective implementation 
of this Decision  would contribute to the expansion and dive rsification of LDC merchandise exports 
and thereby enhance the participation of LDCs in world trade.   
77. However, the opportunities arising from the DF QF market access, wh ich in most cases is 
granted through non-reciprocal preference schemes, ca n bear fruit only up to the extent to which it is 
actually utilized.  It has been found that the u tilization of non-reciprocal preference schemes vary 
from one scheme to another due to a variety of reasons including the design of such programmes and 
existence of non-tariff measures.  In addition, stru ctural constraints often limit the capacity of LDCs 
to benefit from the preferences, which call for a coor dinated effort aimed at providing aid for trade, 
including through initiatives such as the EIF, in order to boost exports from the LDCs. 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
A. BIBLIOGRAPHY  
Bouët, Antoine, Lionel Fontagné and Sébastien Jean (2005) 'Is Erosion of Tariff Preference a Serious 
Concern?', CEPII 2005. 
 
Bureau, Jean Claude, Raja Chakir and Jacques Galle zot (2006) 'The utilisation of EU and US Trade 
Preferences for Developing Countries in the Agri-Food Sector', Institute for International Integration 
Studies, (Discussion Paper 193). 
 Doha Ministerial Declaration (2001), WTO (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1). 
 
Francois, Joseph, Bernard Hoekman and Miri am Manchin (2005), "Preference erosion and 
multilateral liberalization", CEPR discussion paper 5153. 
 
Low, Patrick, Roberta Piermartini and Jürgen Rich tering (2005) 'Multilateral Solutions to the Erosion 
of Non-Reciprocal Preferences in NAMA', WTO Working Paper (ERSD-2005). 
 
Low, Patrick, Roberta Piermartini and Jürgen Rich tering (2006) 'Non-Reciprocal Preference Erosion 
Arising from MFN Liberalisation in Agriculture : What Are the Risks?', WTO Working Paper 
(ERSD-2006). 
 Orozco Manuel (2005) 'Conceptual Considera tions, Empirical Challenges And Solutions In 
Measuring Remittances',  CEMLA, Mexico.. 
 
UNCTAD (2003) 'Trade preference for LDCs: An Early Assessment of benefits and Possible 
Improvements', Geneva.  
UNCTAD (2007) The Least-Developed Countries Report "Knowledge, Technological Learning and 
Innovation for Development", Geneva.  
United Nations General Assembly (2001) Third UN Conference on the Least-Developed Countries, 
"Brussels Programme of Action" (A/CONF.191/11).  
UN-WTO (2007) 'Tourism and Least-Developed Countries: A Sustainable Opportunity to Reduce 
Poverty', Madrid.  
World Bank and International Finance Corporatio n (2006) 'Doing Business 2007: How to Reform', 
Washington D.C. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 42 
 
 
  B. DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY 
 
1. To prepare the present note, the Secretariat gathered all the information available from 
recognized national and international sources, as we ll as the specialized information published in 
selected case studies.  Sources are systematically documented and the statistical metadata explained in 
the document.  But in some cases, in order to ad dress the issue of lack of data on LDC trade and 
market access, a number of assumptions have been made.  Also, the Secretariat had to do some data 
imputations to provide Members with updated estimates.   For example, the lack of recent export data 
for some LDCs led to their estimation using impor t data, when goods were concerned. Services were 
only available at aggregated balance-of-payment s (BOP) level for most LDCs, and the indicators 
build for specific sectors should be considered as indicative.  
2. On the tariff side, the key issue is that a number of major markets do not supply their 
preferential data to the WTO, hence the degree of market access is estimated using data from other 
sources.  The information of preferences granted by importing countries is not always complete nor 
comparable.  Furthermore, lack of ad valorem  equivalents for many countries that make use of non 
ad valorem  lines has made cross-market comparisons of market access difficult. 
3. The Secretariat has been actively involved in closing these data gaps.  In particular, the 
coverage and quality of the statistical information used in this report has greatly benefited from the 
results of an active inter-agency cooperation with ITC and UNCTAD, inter alia , in the monitoring of 
the Millennium Development Goals referring to ma rket access conditions for developing countries, 
and the recent publication of  the World Tariff Profile .  The results of these joint efforts are reflected 
in this document. 
4. On merchandise trade data, the Secretariat's meth odology is to first estimate trade at total 
level from various sources such as the IMF's International Financial Statistics,  the United Nations 
Statistics Division's  (UNSD)  Comtrade database, national statis tical offices, central and regional 
banks.  IMF figures for some LDCs in Africa are sourced from regional banks such as the Banque des 
Etats d'Afrique Centrale (BEAC) and Banque Centra le des Etats de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (BCEAO) 
which are compiled using the balance-of-payments con cepts.  These figures are considered to be more 
complete as they include estimates for unrecorded trade.  However, to be able to publish trade 
developments for the LDC at an aggregate level, the Secretariat had to supplement these figures with 
own estimates.  For producing an analytically usef ul data set, the WTO and UNCTAD, in the context 
of an inter-agency project to develop a Common Dataset (CDS) on total merchandise trade values by 
country, have been further cooperating to reconcile  their trade data on LDCs by exchanging data 
sources and information.  
5. The LDC trade in goods is then further broken down by product, origin and destination.  In 
this regard, the Secretariat's primary source is the UNSD Comtrade database.  This central repository 
currently contains merchandise trade data for mo st LDCs, however, it is difficult to construct 
consistent time-series over time .  Out of 50 LDCs, only 31 countri es reported data until 2005 and only 
17 countries provided time-series data with at leas t five consecutive years, making it difficult to 
construct a full data set – see Annex Table 1.  
6. To complement these data, the present study uses "mirror" data, i.e. partner countries' trade 
statistics or inverted trade flows.  This methodolog y involves estimating the total exports of a country 
by summing the imports from that country in all mark ets for which data is available.  While valuable 
in yielding an estimated value, this approach shoul d be considered as a second-best approach.  It is 
particularly ineffective when trade is conducte d predominantly between non-reporting countries.  
Thus, intra-trade between LDCs, as well as trad e of LDCs with other non-reporting developing 
countries cannot be adequately reflected.  Also, due to the time-lag in reporting by some developing 
economies, the coverage of LDC trade flows by in verted trade tends to d ecrease for the most recent 
years (e.g. 90 per cent in 2001 versus 79 per cent in 2003).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  7. The note made a special effort to include trade in services.  Statistics on trade in services in 
LDCs are particularly scarce and difficult to compile.   In addition, there is an increasingly blurred 
frontier between trade in goods and trade in servi ces in the new international business models.  A 
large share of multinational intra-firm trade in cludes goods for processing.  In many developing 
countries, including LDCs, this processing is being undertaken under special custom arrangements, 
sometimes in dedicated export-processing zones.  It is particularly the case for apparels, a strategic 
sector of LDCs exporters of manufactures.  Several countries report this trade under the special 
system on a net basis, as export of services.33   
8. Trade in commercial services is derived from the countries' balance of payments which 
records international transactions between residents and non-residents.  The main source is the IMF's  
balance-of-payments statistics.  For services, these transactions are classified by ten main components 
covering commercial services, plus government servi ces which are not included elsewhere.  The latter 
component is excluded in compiling a country's total trade in commercial services.34  Flows measured 
through this statistical framework relate to mode s 1, 2 and 4 of GATS and should ideally be broken 
down by country of origin and destination.  Howe ver, these detailed data are only sparsely available 
for LDCs, as well as for many other developing count ries.  For tourism exports, the main source of 
data is the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 
9. The information relevant to market access is  based mainly on a mapping of the duties faced 
by exports from LDCs in their major markets.  MFN tariffs are available from the WTO Integrated 
Data Base (IDB).  However, data on applied MFN ta riffs need to be complemented by estimates for 
ad valorem  equivalents of non ad valorem  duties.  In addition, information on preferential duties that 
are not subject to WTO notification requirement is not systematically covered by IDB. 
10. To give a complete and comprehensive picture of market access conditions for LDCs, it was 
necessary to update and systematize this informati on from national data providers.  This has been 
made possible as a joint effort of WTO, UNCTAD and ITC Secretariats, which set up in 2005 a joint 
Common Analytical Market Access Data Base (CAMAD).35  
11. Preferences and their utilization stand out as particularly difficult areas, from a statistical 
perspective.  While preferential duty rate is theore tically public information, their notification is not 
systematic, which means that retrieving this informat ion is sometimes difficult and partial.  This leads 
to imperfect statistical coverage in certain cases,  especially when several different preferential 
schemes coexist as is the case, for example, for the EU.  
12. The utilization of preferences is another complex issue.  In many cases, the data concerning 
the regime used is not collected or not made publicly  available.  When official public information is 
not available or its interpretation requires implemen ting complex statistical analysis, a number of case 
studies from the WTO Secretariat or recognized r esearch institutes have been used to provide 
estimates on related topics.  
                                                      
33 The special trade system does not take into accou nt merchandise that go through customs processing 
zones and records only imports of goods that go to domestic circulation.  Exports exclude those goods that go 
through these processing zones.  The recommendations for the next balance-of-payments manual provides for 
recording of trade in goods on the basis of a change of ownership; while other type of intra-firm trade be 
registered on a net value-added basis, as services. 
34 The term "services" refers to comm ercial services in this document. 
35 See World Tariff Profile 2006 for a synthesis of market access conditions for 150 countries and 
custom territories. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 44 
 
 
  Annex Table 1:  Availability of LDC tariff and trade data  
 
Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Afghanistan a           
Angola        T T  
Bangladesh  T M*T M*T* M*T* M*T*X M*T*X M*TX T  
Benin  X X X X X TX X X  
Bhutan a   X         
Burkina Faso     X X TX X   
Burundi      T TX X X  
Cambodia b    X X X X X   
Cape Verde a X X X X X X X X X X 
Central African Republic b X X X X X X X  X  
Chad b           
Comoros a           
Democratic Republic of the 
Congo b           
Djibouti  T T      T  
Equatorial Guinea a           
Eritrea a       X     
Ethiopia a     X X X    
Gambia X X X X X X TX X X  
Guinea  TX X X MX X  T T  
Guinea-Bissau b           
Haiti b X           
Kiribati a         X   
Lao PDR a           
Lesotho b           
Liberia a           
Madagascar MTX MTX X M*TX X TX TX TX TX X 
Malawi   X TX X MX TX X X X 
Maldives MX MX MX MX MX MTX M*T*X M*T*X M*T*X M*T*X 
Mali M*T M*TX TX X X X X X   
Mauritania   M* X MTX X X    
Mozambique b   X X X X X X X X 
Myanmar T T T T MT M*T M*T*    
Nepal  X X X  T TX    
Niger  X X X X TX X X X  
Rwanda   M T MX MTX MTX M*   
Samoa a     X X X X   
Sao Tome and Principe a   X X X X X    
Senegal    M M M*T     
Sierra Leone        T    
Solomon Islands  T          
Somalia a           
Sudan a   X X X X X X X  
Tanzania X X X MX MX MX MTX X TX X 
Timor Leste a           
Togo MT M*T*X MTX MTX MTX MTX X TX X  
Tuvalu a           
Uganda X X X X TX X X X TX X 
Vanuatu a           
Yemen a        X X X 
Zambia M*T*X X X MX MTX MT*X MT*X MT*X M*TX T*X 
Notes :  The following symbols are used in the table:   a not a WTO Member; bno submission received. 
 IDB related symbols : M import data received and disseminated;   
    M* import data received but not yet disseminated;      T tariff data received and disseminated;      T* tariff data received but not yet disseminated;  
 COMTRADE related symbol
:  X trade data available by product, origin and destination in HS96. 
Source : UNSD Comtrade database, August 2007 and WTO IDB, August 2007.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
 Page 45C. Annex Table 2:  Measures in favour of exports originating from LDCs since 200036   
Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  Reference 
(latest notification in bold) 
Australia 
 Duty- and quota-free entry   
Entry into force:  1 July 2003 LDCs  All products WT/COMTD/N/18 
(21 January 2004) 
 
Belarus Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (EAEC) 
Entry into force:  May 2001  47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170   
Canada GSP – Least-developed 
Countries' Tariff Programme   
Entry into force:  January 2003, 
extended until 30 June 2014  LDCs  Duty-free access for all pr oducts with exception of over-
quota access for supply-managed  products in the dairy, 
poultry and eggs sectors WT/COMTD/N/15/Add.1  
(13 February 2003) and Add.2 
(11 May 2004) 
WT/COMTD/W/159 
(25 May 2007)  
China  Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA)37 – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 1,697 products (with average margin of 
preference of 26.7%) availa ble to all APTA members, 
tariff concessions granted exclusively to LDC members 
on 161 products with averag e margin of preference of 
77.9% WT/COMTD/N/22  
(26 July 2007) 
 
  Bangladesh On top of Asia-P acific Trade Agreement (APTA), 
unilateral special preferential tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on additional 87 tariff lines  Information received from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006 
 Cambodia  Duty-free treatment on 418 tari ff lines Informati on received from the 
Government of China 
  Cambodia On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive 
Economic Co-operation between ASEAN and China, 
unilateral special preferential tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on additional 420 tariff lines  Information recei ved from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006 Lao PDR Duty-free treatment on 330 tari ff lines Informati on received from the 
Government of China 
                                                      
36 This table updates the information contained in the previous report by the Secretariat, as contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/ W/38.  For those measures taken 
in favour of exports originating from LDCs prior to 2001, please see documen t WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38.   
37 Members of the APTA are: Bangladesh, China, I ndia, Lao PDR, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 46 Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  Reference 
(latest notification in bold) 
  Lao PDR On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive 
Economic Co-operation between ASEAN and China, 
unilateral special preferential  tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on additional 399 tariff lines Information recei ved from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006  Myanmar  Duty-free treatment on 220 tari ff lines Informati on received from the 
Government of China 
  Myanmar On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive 
Economic Co-operation between ASEAN and China, 
unilateral special preferential  tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on additional 226 tariff lines Information recei ved from the 
Government of China 
 Special preferential tariff 
agreement,  announced by 
President Hu Jintao at the China –
Africa Summit, November 2006  30 LDCs38 Unilateral special preferential tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on 454 tariff lines to 26 countries; 
The remaining 4 countries (Democratic Republic of 
Congo, Comoros, Angola and Senegal), which are still 
receiving duty-free treatment on  194 tariff lines, will get 
same treatment once bilateral exchange of letters is 
completed . Information recei ved from the 
Government of China  
 Special preference tariff  Afghanistan, Maldives, 
Samoa, Vanuatu and 
Yemen Unilateral special preferential tariffs (zero rated) are 
offered on 286 categories of products Information recei ved from the 
Government of China 
European Communities GSP - Everything But Arms 
(EBA) initiative 
Entry into force:  5 March, 2001   LDCs  All products except arms and ammunition, with rice and 
sugar subject to phase-in periods until 1 September and 1 
July 2009, respectively   WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.2 
(5 October 2001) 
WT/TPR/S/177/Rev.1 
 Cotonou Agreement  
Entry into force:  1 April 2003 79 African, Caribbean and 
Pacific (ACP) countries, 40 
of which are LDCs Duty-free treatment on industrial, certain agricultural, 
and fishery products, subject to a safeguard clause  
Certain products (bananas, beef and veal, and sugar) 
governed by commodity protocols WT/TPR/S/177/Rev.1  
Iceland GSP – Tariff Preferences in 
Regard to the Importation of 
Products Originating in the 
World's Poorest Developing 
Countries  
Entry into force:  29 January 2002LDCs  Essentially all products with some exceptions in 
agricultural products (HS chapters: 04, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 
22) and non-agricultural products (HS sub-headings:  
3502 and 3823, and all of HS 16 with the exception of 
sub-headings 1603 to 1605)    WT/COMTD/N/17 (10 October 
2003) and Corr.1 (20 January 
2004)  
WT/TPR/S/164 
                                                      
38 Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatoria l Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somali a, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and 
Zambia.    
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
 Page 47Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  Reference 
(latest notification in bold) 
  
India   
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 570 products (with average margin of 
preference of 23.9%) availa ble to all APTA members, 
tariff concessions granted exclusively to LDC members 
on 48 products with average margin of preference of 
39.7% WT/COMTD/N/22 (26 July 
2007) 
 
 South Asian Free Trade 
Agreement (SAFTA)39  
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal 
 
 
 In addition to tariff concessions on 2,940 line at the 
HS 6-digit level to all SAFTA members, special 
concessions exclusively granted to LDC members.  In 
2006/2007, preferential rates were granted on 84.4% of 
all tariff lines at average rate of 10.6% (while 15% for 
non-LDC members)     WT/COMTD/10 (25 April 1997) 
WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 Bilateral agreement 
Entry into force: 13 May 2003 Afghanistan 
 Tariff reductions on 38 HS 6-digit lines, with margins of 
preferences of 50% or 100% of MFN tariff  
 WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 Free Trade Agreement 
Entry into force: extended on 29 
July 2006 for 10 years  Bhutan All products 
 WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 Bilateral agreement Nepal 
 Tariff exemptions for all goods subject to rules of origin.  
Imports of certain goods (vanaspati, copper products, 
acrylic yarn and zinc oxide) ar e subject to annual quota.    WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 
Japan GSP – Enhanced duty- and quota-
free market access 
Entry into force:  1 April 2007 LDCs Duty-free on 8,859 tariff lines (or 98% of the tariff line 
level), covering over 99% in terms of the import value 
from LDCs. WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.14 (12 
April 2007) 
Kazakhstan Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (EAEC) 
Entry into force:    47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Korea, Rep. of 
 Presidential Decree on 
Preferential Tarriff for LDCs 
Entry into force:  1 January 2000 LDCs Duty-free access is granted on 87 tariff items  
(HS 6-digit).  WT/COMTD/N/12/Rev.1  
(28 April 2000)  
WT/TPR/S/137 
                                                      
39 Members of SAFTA which superseded the South Asian Preferential Tr ade Agreement (SAPTA) in 2006 ar e:  Bangladesh, Bhutan, India , Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan 
and Sri Lanka.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 48 Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  Reference 
(latest notification in bold) 
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 1,367 products (with average margin of 
preference of 35.4%) availa ble to all APTA members, 
tariff concessions granted exclusively to LDC members 
on 306 products with averag e margin of preference of 
64.6% WT/COMTD/N/22  
(26 July 2007) 
 
Kyrgyz Republic Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (EAEC) 
Entry into force:  May 2001  47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Moldova GSP  LDCs Duty-free for all products WT/ACC/MOL/37  
Morocco Preferential tariff treatment for 
LDCs 
Entry into force:  1 January 2001 33 African LDCs  Duty-free access on 61 products (at the HS 4 to  
10-digit level)  WT/LDC/SWG/IF/18 and G/C/6 
(9 May 2001) 
 
New Zealand GSP- Tariff  Treatment for LDCs 
Entry into force:  1 July 2001 LDCs All products WT/COMTD/27 
(20 November 2000) 
WT/TPR/S/115 
Norway  GSP – Duty-  and quota-free 
market access 
Entry into force:  1 July 2002 LDCs All products  WT/TPR/S/138 
Pakistan 
 South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA)  
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal 
 
 Special concessions availa ble for least-developed 
contracting states SAARC Secretariat website 
(www.saarc-sec.org) 
Sri Lanka   
 South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA) 
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal 
 
 Special concessions availa ble for least-developed 
contracting states SAARC Secretariat website 
(www.saarc-sec.org) 
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 427 products (with average margin of 
preference of 14%) available to all APTA members, tariff 
concessions granted exclusively to LDC members on 72 
products with average marg in of preference of 12% WT/COMTD/N/22  
(26 July 2007) 
 
Switzerland GSP – Re vised Preferential 
Tariffs Ordinance  
Entry into force:  1 April 2007  LDCs Duty free for all products, with broken rice,  animal feed, 
cane and beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid 
form which are subject to phase in period until 
September 2009  TN/CTD/M/28  
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
 Page 49Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  Reference 
(latest notification in bold) 
Tajikistan Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (ECEA) 
Entry into force:  May 2001 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Turkey 
 GSP 
Entry into force:  
31 December 2005 All LDCs Duty free and quota-free access to all industrial products, 
in-line with EBA Upcoming TPR 
Russia  Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (ECEA) 
Entry into force:    47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
United States GSP for least-developed 
beneficiary developing countries 
Entry into force: extended until  
31 December 2008  43 designated LDCs in 
200740  In addition to the standard GSP coverage of 4,650 
products, 1,450 articles exclusively available for LDC 
beneficiaries for duty-free treatment  WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.4 
(1 March 2007) 
WT/TPR/S/160 
 GSP - African Growth and 
Opportunities Act (AGOA)  
Entry into force:  extended in 
2004 until 201541 38 designated Sub-Saharan 
African Countries 
(including 26 LDCs42) in 
2007  In addition to the standard GSP coverage of 4,650 
products, 1,835 tariff items, including textiles and 
apparel43, available for duty-free treatment   WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3 
(1 March 2001) 
WT/TPR/S/160 
 US Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act (CBTPA) 
Entry into force:  1 October 2000 24 designated beneficiaries 
(including one LDC, i.e. 
Haiti) in Central America 
and the Caribbean  Duty free for most products, including textiles and 
apparels.  WT/TPR/S/160  
Uzbekistan  
 
 Harmonized system of preference 
by the Eurasian Economic 
Community (ECEA) 
Entry into force:    47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
                                                      
40 Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, C omoros, Democratic Republic of 
Congo, Djibouti, Timor Leste, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gamb ia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Ma dagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, 
Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tomé and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu,  Yemen and Zambia. 
41 The Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006 or AGOA IV has extended the third-country fabric provision from September 2007 unt il September 2012; adds an 
abundant supply provision; designates certain denim articles as be ing in abundant supply; and allows lesser developed beneficia ry Sub-Saharan African countries export certain 
textile articles under AGOA.  See more information on the official AGOA website at www.agoa.gov.    
42 Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Repub lic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau , Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, 
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.  
43 Twenty-six Sub-Saharan countries, including 17 LDCs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mal awi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Lesotho, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia), are eligible for AGOA apparel benefits in 2007.    
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 50 D. LDC Tariff Profiles 
Annex Table 3(a):  Tariff profiles of LDCs (agricultural products), 2006  
Simple average Duty-free Non ad valorem 
duties Duties > 15 % Duties > 3 * AVG Maximum duty Number of 
distinct duty ratesCoefficient of 
variation 
Bound MFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
appliedBound MFN 
appliedBound MFN 
applied Concessions 
not yet 
implemented 
in 2006 BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied BoundMFN 
applied Country/Territory Year of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff   Share of HS 6 digit subheadings in per cent Share of HS 6 digit subhdgs in per 
cent       Number of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff lines 
Afghanistan  2006   5.5  1.2  5.6  8.0  0.7  20 46 75 708  
Angola  2006  52.8  9.6  0  0  0  0  94.7  7.4  0  5.0  0  55  30 3 6 18 73 726  
Bangladesh  2006  188.5  17.3  0  11.5  0  0.6  98.0  55.2  0  0  0  200  25 9 8 24 50 1,005  
Benin  2006  61.8  14.3  0  0  0  0  98.2  56.5  0  0  0  100  20 7 3 20 47 810  
Bhutan  2005   41.3  0  0  96.6  0  100 5 41 715  
Burkina Faso  2006  98.1  14.3  0  0  0  0  98.3  56.5  0  0  0  100  20 6 3 13 47 810  
Burundi  2006  95.1  10.5  3.1  0  0  0.1  96.0  20.7  0  0  0  100  30 5 6 23 95 781  
Cambodia  2006  28.1  18.1  0  5.1  0  0  72.1  35.1  0  0  0.6  60  35 13 4 43 72 1,216  
Cape Verde  2005   11.7  32.2  0  35.7  5.2  50 8 113 776  
Central African Republic  2005  30.0  22.1  0  0.7  0  0  100.0  67.9  0  0  0  30  30 1 5 0 43 871  
Chad  2005  80.0  22.1  0  0.7  0  0  100.0  67.9  0  0  0  80  30 1 5 0 43 871  
Comoros  2006    26.2   0.1   0.2   74.7   0.2    150  10  38 730  
Democratic Republic  
  of the Congo  2006  98.2  12.8  0  0  0  0.3  99.7  37.6  0  0  0  100  20 3 5 13 45 749  
Djibouti  2005  48.4  21.7  0  0  0  0  99.7  74.3  3.7  0  0  450  33 10 3 98 44 738  
Equatorial Guinea  2005   22.1  0.7  0  67.9  0  30 5 43 871  
Eritrea  2006    10.0   0   0.3   23.6   0    25  5  91 683  
Ethiopia  2006   17.3  0  0.3  44.7  0  35 7 59 728  
Gambia     103.5  0  0  100.0  0  0  110 6 21  
Guinea  2005  39.7  14.6  0  0.1  0  1.9  98.3  58.0  0  0  0  75  20 6 18 14 45 808  
Guinea-Bissau  2006  40.0  14.3  0  0  0  0  100.0  56.5  0  0  0  40  20 1 3 0 47 810  
Haiti  2006  21.3  5.7  16.8  39.2  8.8  0. 7  64.9  0  0.3  0  0  70  15 105 11 72 102 722  
Kiribati  2006   24.9  30.0  6.1  63.0  3.0  483 66 165 705  
Lao PDR  2005   19.5  0  0.7  51.2  0  40 15 69 1,216  
Lesotho  2006  200.0  9.0  0  44.8  0  15.1  100.0  24.0  0  7.6  0  200  96 1 166 0 129 880  
Madagascar  2006  30.0  14.7  0  2.5  0  0  100.0  59.2  0  0  0  30  20 1 4 0 46 854  
Malawi  2006  121.3  14.7  0  11.9  0  0  100.0  39.7  0  0  0  125  25 6 4 14 62 757  
Maldives  2006  48.0  18.4  0  0.4  0  0.1  100.0  28.6  6.7  0.1  0  300  145 2 8 141 45 1,183  
Mali  2006  59.2  14.3  0  0  0  0  98.3  56.5  0  0  0  75  20 6 3 14 47 810   
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
 Page 51Simple average Duty-free Non ad valorem 
duties Duties > 15 % Duties > 3 * AVG Maximum duty Number of 
distinct duty ratesCoefficient of 
variation 
Bound MFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
appliedBound MFN 
appliedBound MFN 
applied Concessions 
not yet 
implemented 
in 2006 BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied BoundMFN 
applied Country/Territory Year of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff   Share of HS 6 digit subheadings in per cent Share of HS 6 digit subhdgs in per 
cent       Number of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff lines 
Mauritania  2006  37.7  12.4  0  8.9  0  0.5  98.3  48.9  0  0  0  75  20 7 10 45 63 796  
Mozambique  2006  100.0  16.4  0  0.6  0  0  100.0  58.3  0  0  0  100  25 1 4 0 65 748  
Myanmar  2006  102.2  8.7  0.6  7.6  0.6  0  85.7  3.9  3.4  3.2  0  550  40 29 12 92 98 1,216  
Nepal  2005  41.4  14.9  0  1.7  0  1.6  96.5  17.9  0.9  1.4  0  200  184 12 25 53 120 714  
Niger  2006  83.1  14.3  0  0  0  0  98.3  56.5  0  0  0  200  20 7 3 76 47 810  
Rwanda  2006  74.3  14.6  3.2  0  0  0  94.8  27.2  0  0  0  80  30 7 3 27 72 829  
Senegal  2006  29.8  14.3  0  0  0  0  99.0  56.5  0  0  0  30  20 2 3 5 47 810  
Sierra Leone  2006  40.3  16.4  0  0.6  0  0.2  100.0  66.5  0  0  0  80  30 3 10 12 48 799  
Solomon Islands  2006  76.3  17.5  0  3.2  3.4  0  86.0  84.0  1.5  0  0  684  20 33 4 64 35 741  
Sudan  2006   30.6  2.1  0.3  84.1  0  40 10 43 772  
Tanzania  2006  120.0  19.0  0  17.0  0  1.2  100.0  64.9  0  1.7  0  120  100 1 15 0 69 729  
Togo  2006  80.0  14.3  0  0  0  0  100.0  56.5  0  0  0  80  20 1 3 0 47 810  
Uganda  2006  77.7  19.0  0  17.0  0  1.2  100.0  64.9  0  1.7  0  80  100 5 15 11 69 729  
Vanuatu  2006   33.2  21.8  9.6  51.9  3.6  > 1000 92 310 714  
Yemen  2006   10.2  0.7  9.5  16.4  0  25 89 71 895  
Zambia  2005  123.3  18.8  0  1.9  0  0  100.0  58.6  0  0  0  125  25 4 4 9 44 803  
 
Notes:  All simple averages are based on pre-aggr egated HS six-digit averages ;  pre-aggregation means that duties at the tariff-line l evel are first averaged to HS six-digit 
subheadings and that subsequent calculations are based on these pre-aggregated averages.  For more information on methodology a nd concepts, please refer to the original WTO 
source publication and its technical annexes. 
 
Source : Based on WTO, ITC and UNCTAD , World Tariff Profiles 2006 (http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/ statis_e/its2006_e/its06_toc_e.ht m).  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1 
Page 52  
Annex Table 3(b):  Tariff profiles of LDCs (non-agricultural products), 2006 
 Simple average Duty-free Non ad valorem 
duties Duties > 15 % Duties > 3 * 
AVG Maximum duty Number of 
distinct duty 
rates Coefficient of 
variation 
Country/Territory Bound MFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
appliedBound MFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied Concessions
not yet 
implemented
 in 2006 BoundMFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied
 Year of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff 
  Share of HS 6 digit subheadings in per cent Share of HS 6 digit subhdgs in 
per cent       Number of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff lines 
Afghanistan  2006   5.7  0.4  0.1  2.4  0.2  25 14 59 4,668  
Angola  2006  60.1  6.8  0  0.0  0  0.9  100.0  9.9  0  1.8  0  80  30 3 50 3 95 4,659  
Bangladesh  2006  33.8  14.9  0.0  6.7  0  0.1  2.5  37.6  0.0  0  0  125  25 12 10 58 58 5,632  
Benin  2006  11.4  11.6  0.7  1.5  0  0  5.4  38.0  1.4  0  0  50  20 11 4 90 58 4,849  
Bhutan  2005   19.2  4.1  0  58.3  0.1  100 7 53 4,539  
Burkina Faso  2006  13.1  11.6  0.7  1.5  0  0  5.2  38.0  1.2  0  0  100  20 11 4 141 58 4,849  
Burundi  2006  26.6  13.1  0.4  0.1  0  0  6.7  20.3  1.4  0  0  100  30 10 6 114 71 4,775  
Cambodia  2006  17.7  13.7  1.1  5.6  0  0  40.3  16.9  0  0  0.5  43  35 19 4 53 73 9,473  
Cape Verde  2005   10.2  45.5  0  30.0  6.3  320 12 132 4,810  
Central African Republic  2005  37.9  17.4  0  1.3  0  0  56.8  46.0  0  0  0  70  30 7 5 25 51 5,301  
Chad  2005  75.0  17.4  0  1.3  0  0  0.2  46.0  0  0  0  75  30 1 5 0 51 5,301  
Comoros  2006    29.3   0.9   0.0   97.4   0.0    113  12  15 4,505  
Democratic Republic 
  of the Congo  2006  95.9  11.9  0  .  0  0.3  98.9  34.8  0  0  0  100  30 8 16 19 51 5,045  
Djibouti  2005  39.9  29.1  0.0  .  0  0  99.6  90.6  0.0  0  0  230  33 9 3 13 27 4,380  
Equatorial Guinea  2005   17.4  1.3  0  46.0  0  30 5 51 5,301  
Eritrea  2006    7.6   0.0   0.3   16.6   16.6    25  16  110 4,586  
Ethiopia  2006   16.7  3.8  0.1  46.8  0  35 9 70 4,856  
Gambia   56.1   0  0  0.5  0   0  80 4 36   
Guinea  2005  10.0  11.5  0.7  1.9  0  0.7  4.9  37.1  0.2  0  0  40  20 14 40 68 59 4,922  
Guinea-Bissau  2006  50.0  11.6  0  1.5  0  0  97.4  38.0  0  0  0  50  20 2 4 0 58 4,849  
Haiti  2006  18.3  2.4  3.3  71. 4  9.3  1.4  51.4  0  0  14.5  0  50  15 815 66 56 178 4,573  
Kiribati  2006   16.3  39.5  0.8  35.6  12.3  100 75 118 4,618  
Lao PDR  2005   8.2  .  0.1  7.6  2.8  40 11 84 9,474  
Lesotho  2006  60.0  7.8  0  58.8  0  0.4  100.0  20.7  0  8.7  0  60  60 1 87 0 137 5,784  
Madagascar  2006  25.3  13.1  0.0  1.8  0  0  16.3  38.1  0  0  0  30  20 13 4 28 43 5,291  
Malawi  2006  42.4  13.3  0  8.2  0  0  20.7  36.3  0  0.0  0  85  > 1000 9 7 16 275 4,839  
Maldives  2006  35.1  20.5  0  0.0  0  0.1  96.7  64.2  1.8  0.9  0  300  200 2 17 105 62 7,812  
Mali  2006  14.2  11.6  0.7  1.5  0  0  6.9  38.0  2.9  0  0  60  20 11 4 106 58 4,849   
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1
 Page 53 Simple average Duty-free Non ad valorem 
duties Duties > 15 % Duties > 3 * 
AVG Maximum duty Number of 
distinct duty 
rates Coefficient of 
variation 
Country/Territory Bound MFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
appliedBound MFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied Concessions
not yet 
implemented
 in 2006 BoundMFN 
applied BoundMFN 
appliedBoundMFN 
applied
 Year of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff 
  Share of HS 6 digit subheadings in per cent Share of HS 6 digit subhdgs in 
per cent       Number of 
MFN 
applied 
tariff lines 
Mauritania  2006  10.5  10.5  0.7  9.6  0  0.6  5.4  32.9  0.0  0  0  50  20 12 59 70 68 5,105  
Mozambique  2006  6.6  11.4  0  2.4  0  0  0  31.5  0  0  0  15  25 2 5 57 82 4,629  
Myanmar  2006  21.1  5.1  1.0  2.8  0  0  3.4  5.7  0.0  5.7  0  165  40 10 15 79 131 9,473  
Nepal  2005  23.7  13.7  3.1  0.8  0  0.2  86.9  16.4  0  0.7  3.3  60  80 10 25 34 73 4,633  
Niger  2006  38.1  11.6  0.7  1.5  0  0  72.0  38.0  0  0  0  50  20 11 4 50 58 4,849  
Rwanda  2006  91.9  19.4  0.6  6.9  0  0.2  97.3  40.4  0  0  0  100  30 13 14 31 50 5,230  
Senegal  2006  30.0  11.6  0  1.5  0  0  100.0  38.0  0  0  0  30  20 2 4 1 58 4,849  
Sierra Leone  2006  48.5  13.1  0  0.4  0  0.3  100.0  42.3  0  0  0  80  30 6 18 11 71 4,798  
Solomon Islands  2006  79.6  14.1  0  0.4  1.1  0  98.0  49.4  0.0  0  0  455  20 56 5 17 44 4,551  
Sudan  2006   18.5  7.2  0.0  47.0  0  40 6 79 4,690  
Tanzania  2006  120.0  11.7  0  39.4  0  0.1  0.1  37.1  0  0.3  0  120  55 1 10 0 95 4,696  
Togo  2006  80.0  11.6  0  1.5  0  0  0.8  38.0  0  0  0  80  20 1 4 0 58 4,849  
Uganda  2006  50.6  11.7  0  39.4  0  0.1  2.9  37.1  0  0.3  0  80  55 3 10 22 95 4,696  
Vanuatu  2006   13.8  16.4  0.4  28.7  0.7  250 43 112 4,554  
Yemen  2006   6.6  1.2  1.8  2.5  2.5  25 90 55 5,308  
Zambia  2005  42.2  13.2  0  21.3  0  0  4.0  29.3  0  0  0  60  25 5 4 18 76 5,400  
 
Notes:  All simple averages are based on pre-aggr egated HS six-digit averages;  pre-aggreg ation means that duties at the tariff line l evel are first averaged to HS six-digit 
subheadings and that subsequent calculations are based on these pre-aggregated averages.  For more information on methodology a nd concepts, please refer to the original WTO 
source publication and its technical annexes. 
 
Source : Based on WTO, ITC and UNCTAD, World Tariff Profiles 2006 (http://www .wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2006_e/its06_toc_e.htm ). 
 
 
 
__________