G/RO/W/204  
 
7 May 2021  
(21-3926) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
UTILIZATION OF TRADE PREFERENCES BY LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES:  
2015 -2019 PATTERNS AND TRENDS  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Previous calculations of utilization rates by the Secretariat have highlighted that significant 
proportions of preferential imports originating in  Least Developed Countries ( LDCs) do not receive 
tariff preferences despite being eligible for preferences und er at least one preferential scheme. 
The under utilization of trade preferences by LDCs is in fact spread across preferential schemes, 
sectors and LDCs , even for products subject to simple rules of origin .  
1.2.  Previous analyses , however, focused on individual years.2 As a result , one argument could be 
that the levels of underutilization observed reflected circumstantial  rather than structural  patterns . 
In other words, the under utilization of trade preferences could be explained by annual variations 
and, as a result,  no general conclusions could be drawn.  This note intends to investigate that 
possibility. It reports  under utilization rates for the 2015-2019 period to verify some of the findings 
described  in previous notes . 
2  DATA  CONSIDERED IN THIS NOTE  
2.1.  The scheme s reviewed in this note are non-reciprocal preferential trade arrangements for LDCs 
(LDC-PTAs, henceforth) . Import statistics for five years (2 015-2019) were considered for all those 
preference -granting Members who have submitted notifications to the WTO as described in Table 1.  
For greater consistency, bilateral  annual imports at the national tariff line level of  a value lower than 
USD 1,000 have been ignored.  As a result, a total  of 101,587 observations were considered.3  
2.2.  The LDC -PTAs of the following preference -granting Members could  not be considered since no  
preferential  import statistics have been notified: Eurasian Economic Union ( Armenia ; Kazakhstan ; 
Kyrgyz Republic ; and the Russian Federation4); Iceland;  Montenegro;  New Zealand; and Tajikistan.  
Data for Turkey could not be considered because it has been notified recently but not yet integrated 
in the WTO databases.  In addition, import statistics were available for India for one year only  (2015) 
and two years for  China (2016 and 2018) .5 Given in particular the importance of China, and to a 
lesser extent of India; New Zealand ; the Russian Federation ; and Turkey as an export destination 
to many or some LDCs, these limitations hampered the ability of the Secretariat to identify 
comprehensive patterns and trends  across the time period of 2015 -2019.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and  is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO . 
2 See in particular documents G/RO/W/179 ; G/RO/W/185 ; G/RO/W/187/Rev.1 ; and G/RO/W/203.  
3 An "observation" refers to a single tariff line for which preferential trade is recorded in a given year 
between a preference -granting importing Member and an exporting LDC.  
4 It should be noted that the mem bers of the Eurasian Economic Union have implemented a 
comprehensive reform of their LDC -PTA in 2019. As a result, an analysis of import statistics for the years 
before that date would not have reflected the conditions applicable at present.  
5 Document G/R O/W/163/Rev.8 contains a full summary of the availability of information regarding 
preferential rules of origin, tariffs and import statistics.  G/RO/W/204  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table 1: List of PTAs included in the analysis  
Preference -granting Member  Availability  of tariff 
and import statistics  Preferential Trade 
Arrangement  
1. Australia  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
2. Canada  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
3. Chile 2015-2019 LDC-specific  
4. China  2016 & 2018  LDC-specific  
5. European Union  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
6. India 2015 LDC-specific  
7. Japan  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
8. Korea, Republic of  2015-2019 LDC-specific  
9. Norway  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
10. Switzerland  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
11. Chinese Taipei  2015-2019 LDC-specific  
12. Thailand  2015-2019 LDC-specific  
13. US (GSP)  2015-2019 GSP-LDC 
14. US African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)  2015-2019 AGOA  
Source :  Preferential Trade Arrangements database ( http://ptadb.wto.org ). 
2.3.  It is worth  recalling that , in line with existing notification requirements, preference -granting 
Members notify  to the WTO Secretariat total annual imports from each LDC partner  at the tariff line 
level.6 The result is that calculations only show average rates of utilization/ under utilization  across 
all economic operators  in a single year.  That can be misleading and conceal significant variations in 
utilization over the months of  the same year or across economic operators.  For instance, 44% of all 
jewellery imports (HS 711311) originating in Nepal did not receive any tariff preference in the EU  in 
2018 (i.e. an under utilization rate of 44%).7 Nevertheless, i t is not possible to i nfer from that figure 
that the under utilization of preferences was 44% for all economic operators importing jewellery into 
the EU that year. A few operators might have received tariff preferences on all their imports 
(an under utilization rate of 0%) while a few others might not have claimed or received preferences 
on any of their transactions (an under utilization rate of 100%). More detailed statistics such as 
transaction -level data (not notified to the WTO) would  have the advantage of allowing for a more 
precise examin ation of patterns of utilization among businesses.  
3  VOLATILITY IN LDC IMPORTS UNDER NON -RECIPROCAL PREFEREN CES 
3.1.  Despite significant annual fluctuations, preferential imports from LDCs to preference -granting 
Members ha ve increased from 2015 to 2019 under most LDC -PTAs as can be seen in Table 2 below. 
The European Union is by far the largest preferential market for LDCs, followed by China. The United 
States;  India;  and Japan are also important destinations by value of pref erence eligible trade . 
Imports under more recent schemes, such as those of Chile ( in force since February 2014 ) and 
Thailand ( in force since  April 2015), witnessed a substantial progression . Variations of trade under 
the US PTA -LDC scheme  and AGOA  (in part icular the  decrease of imports in 2019) are attributable 
to a reduction in imports of crude oil from Angola and Chad.  
Table 2: Imports eligible for PTA benefits  included in the analysis  in million USD  
 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 average annual growth  
2015-2019 
Australia   775   805   803   876   981  6% 
Canada   1,968   2,146   2,332   2,546   2,887  10% 
Chile  133   108   148   184   404  41% 
China   n.a.    4,748  n.a.    
11,345  n.a.    
EU  25,942   
28,000   
30,361   
33,973   
34,917  8% 
India  5,657  n.a.   n.a.   n.a.   n.a.    
Japan   3,031   3,403   3,519   4,366   4,583  11% 
Korea, Republic of   2,175   1,750   2,067   2,165   1,894  -2% 
Norway   247   287   319   351   363  10% 
 
6 These n otification  requirement s arise from the Preferential Trade Arrangements Transparency 
Mechanism (WT/L/80 6). 
7 See Table 2 of document G/RO/W/203.  G/RO/W/204  
 
- 3 - 
 
   2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 average annual growth  
2015-2019 
Switzerland   620   727   918   1,059   1,159  17% 
Chinese Taipei   18   17   16   22   32  18% 
Thailand   495   699   799   743   795  14% 
USA (AGOA)   4,817   3,898   3,816   3,893   1,839  -18% 
USA (GSP)   4,755   3,787   3,897   4,331   3,363  -7% 
Source :  Preferential Trade Arrangements database ( http://ptadb.wto.org ).  
3.2.  Much greater heterogeneity can be observed w hen examining individual LDCs, ( Figure 1 ): 
average annual growth has been 4. 4% for total LDC preferential exports over the 2015-2019 
timeframe . Bangladesh and Cambodia are, by far, the largest exporting LDCs and both experienced 
a stable increase of their exports  under preferences . Similarly, a relatively steady increase of exports 
can also be obs erved for Afghanistan ; Burkina Faso ; Lao PDR ; Madagascar ; and Senegal. However, 
total preferential exports decreased for 16 LDCs ( 43% of the group) . For others, as illustrated  in 
Figure 1, significant annual fluctuations can be observed . 
Figure 1: Total tr ade eligible for preferences, by origin, selected LDCs , in million  USD 
 
Source :  WTO Integrated Database, 2021  
Note: All annual trade values above USD 1,000, all goods, in US D million for the years 2015 -2019. 
Data for China and India are excluded from this figure since data is not available for all years.  
3.3.  In general, greater fluctuations can be observed for smaller export values. In other words, 
given the small values of prefe rential trade originating in many  LDCs, a new export product or its 
absence in a given year can lead to significant fluctuations. Such fluctuations have an impact on 
utilization rates and confirm that a multiple -year analysis can be useful to identify gene ral patterns.  
4  VOLATILITY IN THE UNDER UTILIZATION OF PREFERENCES BY LDCS  
4.1.  When the analysis focuses specifically on underutilization rates8, a similar picture emerges:  
small annual variations are observed in under utilization rates when preference -granting M embers 
are analysed (importer side) but much greater fluctuations in under utilization can be observed for 
individual LDCs (exporter side) .  
4.2.  On the importer side, Figure 2 shows  the under utilization rates for each LDC -PTA. As can be 
seen, under utilization of trade preferences is relatively stable for Australia ; Canada ; the EU ; Japan ; 
 
8 All under utilization rates presented in this note are trade weighted.  
 - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Benin Burundi Central
African
RepublicDjibouti Gambia,
theGuinea Liberia Mali Sierra
LeoneTogoMillions
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019G/RO/W/204  
 
- 4 - 
 
  and Korea , slightly  more variable for the United States9, and more fluctuating only in the case of 
Chile.  Although trade statistics are only available for two year s for China, an increase in 
under utilization  can be noted . Similarly, underutilization rates have been steadily increasing under 
the LDC -PTAs of  Norway and Switzerland . A trend  for India cannot be described since preferential  
import statistics are availabl e for a single year  only. 
Figure 2: Preference under utilization, by preference -granting Member , in percent  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2021  
Note: All annual trade values above USD 1,000 for all goods are considered in the calculation, under utilization in 
percentage for the years 2015 -2019.  
4.3.  On the exporter side, greater fluctuations  can be observed . Generally speaking, it is possible 
to affirm that the higher the fluctuation  over time  is in values of preference eligible trade, the higher 
the fluctuation is in under utilization rates as well.10 However, no clear correlation of higher trade 
values with the fuller utilization of trade preferences can be observed.  
4.4.  In fact, LDCs can be split int o three different groups: those that were able to better utilize 
trade preferences since 2015 (lower average under utilization in 2018 -2019 is lower by more than 
5 percentage points when compared to the average of 2015 -2017) , those for which the 
under utilization of preferences remained relatively stable  (a fluctuati on of not more than 
5 percentage points)  and those for which the utilization  of preferences deteriorated  (average 
under utilization in 2018 -2019 is higher by more than 5 percentage points whe n compared to 2015 -
2017) . Figure 3 illustrates the case of 12 LDCs whose preference under utilization improved or 
worsened.  As can be seen, there is a noticeable improvement in the utilization of trade preferences 
in the case of Afghanistan ; Burkina Faso ; and Rwanda, for instance. However, there is also a 
noticeable deterioration of under utilization rates for some LDCs, such as Lesotho ; Niger ; and 
Sierra  Leone. Annex 1 shows th e variations in underutilization rates for all LDCs.  
 
9 In the case of the United States, as noted above, the higher overall under utilization rates are driven 
by petroleum and oil imports.  
10 The relationship between fluctuations in under utilization rates and in import values over time can be 
compared and correlated to verify the type of mechanics that exist between both. At the level of importer, 
exporter and tariff sub -heading, the coefficient of  variation of value of imports eligible for preferences, is 
correlated with the coefficient of variation of the value of imports eligible but, paying MFN duties despite being 
eligible for preferences. This correlation equals to 0.55 and suggests that there  is in fact a significant positive 
correlation between the two variables. Variations in value lead to variations in under utilization rates. This is 
also true if measured at tariff line level (correlation equals 0.45) or at the heading level (correlation eq uals 
0.65).  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019G/RO/W/204  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Figure 3: LDCs with improveme nt or deterioration of under utilization , in percent  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 20 21. 
Note: Trade values above USD 1,000 for all goods are considered in the calculation, under utilization in percentage 
for the years 2015 -2019. Information on all LDCs can be found in Annex 1. Data for China and India are excluded 
from this figure since data is not available for all years.  
4.5.  Fluctuations in utilization rates are  difficult to explai n, especially at the aggregate level.  There 
were no significant changes to the rules of origin during the period being analysed . Consequently, 
deterioration or improvement of utilization cannot be explained by changes to the applicable rules 
of origin . The  EU; Norway;  and Switzerland introduced the REX System of self -certification for 
registered exporters. However, the previous "Form -A" certificates were still accepted during a 
transitional period, so the statistics do not reflect  these changes  yet. Thailan d engaged in  a 
comprehensive review of its LDC -PTA but the process started after 2019  only. Japan simplified 
certain origin criteria, but th e changes only concerned articles of HS Chapter 61 and were introduced 
in 2015 . Canada also implemented some changes  to its requirements for apparel in 2017,  but the  
changes were limited. During the 2015 -2019 period, some preference -granting Members also 
introduced additional cumulation possibilities. Having considered these developments, it is not 
possible to attribute  fluctuations in utilization to changes in origin requirements.  
4.6.  A potential mechanism  about under utilization rates over time is that exporting and importing 
firms learn by doing , i.e. they improve their capacity to utilize trade preferences  year after year. 
As a result, under utilization rates should gradually fall. This is indeed be observed in at least one 
case:  LDCs made steady progress in better utilizing Chile's new PTA-LDC (under utilization rates 
dropped from 85% in 2016 to 19% in 2019 as seen in F igure 2).  Similarly, there has been steady 
improvement in the utilization of preferences for imports originating from Afghanistan ; Burkina Faso ; 
Burundi ; the Central African Republic ; Guinea -Bissau ; Liberia ; and Rwanda. However, and more 
surprisingly, unde rutilization of trade preferences also worsened in the case of many LDCs, including 
Chad; Guinea ; Lesotho ; Niger ; and Sierra Leone. In the case of other LDCs, annual fluctuations are 
such that it is  difficult to judge whether change s can be clearly classif ied as either a  deterioration or  
an improvement.  
4.7.  A particularly interesting case is Rwanda, which managed to increas e the total value of 
preferential exports (from a mere USD 3 million in 2015 to USD 28 million in 2019 ) while at the 
same time making better use of trade preferences ( under utilization rates were reduced from 38% 
to only 9% ). Interestingly, the utilization of trade preferences improved with almost all preferential 
trade partners and in most sectors, including in sectors subject to more co mplex origin requirements, 
such as textiles, clothing and footwear.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Improvement                                                                                                                  DeteriorationG/RO/W/204  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.8.  Better studying these fluctuations and better understanding the differences in  utilization among 
LDCs would provide insights about  the factors that drive or hinder the utilization of trade  preferences 
by LDCs. 
5  UNDER UTILIZATION : A SECTORAL ANALYSIS  
5.1.  Previous  notes by the Secretariat analysed two sectors: agricultural products (with a focus on 
fresh fruits and vegetables)11 and minerals and metals12. In both sectors , trade preferences were 
underutilized. For instance, it had been noted that 82% of all imports of f ruits, vegetables, and 
plants originating in LDCs did not receive any tariff preference. It had also been noted that 
under utilization in these sectors was counterintuitive because both sectors were subject to the 
simple "wholly -obtained origin criterion" .  
5.2.  A multi -year analysis confirms those findings. LDCs faced difficulties in fully utilizing trade 
preferences particularly in the case of agricultural products. The EU and Thailand are, by far, the 
two largest importers of fruits and vegetables originating in the LDCs. In the case of the EU, there 
is almost full utilization (an under utilization rate of only 3 -5% in 2015 -2019).  However, there is 
almost no utilization of preferences under Thailand 's PTA -LDC (an under utilization rate of close to 
100% throughout this period).13 More generally , and, despite relatively small trade values, a 
deterioration of utilization is observed under all other LDC -PTAs (Australia ; Korea ; Norway ; 
Switzerland ; and US). A deterioration of utilization is also observed for China (only 2016 and 2018 
considered).  As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that there are structural reasons explaining 
that utilization of preferences in this sector is challenging . In addition, it is also possible to conclude 
that low levels of utilization for these products are not related to the origin criterion (wholly obtained 
rules). I nstead, direct consignment  obligations , certification requirements or other factors not 
related to origin must explain these challenges . 
5.3.  In the case of minerals  and metals , the phenomenon of under utilization is more circumscribed.  
On the one hand, trade preferences are almost fully used ( under utilization rates of 10% o r below) 
in the EU ; Japan ; Republic of Korea ; and the US. On the other hand, preferences are not heavily 
utilized under the PTA -LDCs of Australia ; Canada ; Chile; China ; Switzerland ; Chinese Taipei ; and 
Thailand. China is by far the largest importer of metals and minerals from LDCs so overall utilization 
rates in this sector are driven by the performance of LDCs in that market. While statistics for China 
are available only for two years, calculations  indicate an under utilization of 96% and 99% (2016 and 
2018 respectively). Given that polarization, LDC -PTA-specific features  may be influencing 
under utilization rates, such as specificities related to direct consignment or certification obligations.   
5.4.  Figure 4 below provides an overview of under utilization rates in  all 22 sectors14. It aggregates 
all LDCs and all LDC -PTAs. A s can be seen, under utilization rates are very high, above 50%, in 
several sectors (for instance: for animal products; non -electric al machinery; electrical machinery, 
fruits and vegetables; sugar and confectionery; and wood and paper). Interestingly, under utilization 
rates are low in some sectors known for having restrictive or complex rules of origin such as clothing; 
textiles; leath er and footwear; and fish and fish products. In the textiles and clothing sectors, the 
good performance of LDCs can be explained mainly by the intense use of trade preferences by 
Bangladesh and Cambodia in the EU.  This could suggest that it is the ability of economic operators 
to comply with rules of origin  (rather than the type of the rule) that influences utilization . While this 
may be an obvious statement, it highlights the importance of focusing policy makers' attention on 
two factors. First, deploying efforts to strengthen the capacity of economic operators to ensure they 
can comply with preferential origin requirements. Second, facilitating administrative procedures  
related to origin (e.g. facilitating the documentary requirements, reducing administrative costs and 
improving access to a proof of origin).  
 
11 See document G/RO/W/185.  
12 See document G/RO/W/203.  
13 It is likely that these observations for Thailand's LDC -PTA stem from a statistical inaccuracy (imports 
under free trade agreements, such as ASEAN, might not be reflected in the statistics  notified to the 
Secretariat).  
14 These sectors correspond to the 22 "Multilateral Trade Negotiations" product categories used in the 
Uruguay Round and used in various statistical reports prepared by the WTO Secretariat. See page 40 of the 
World Tariff Prof iles for a breakdown of the sectors and list of HS codes covered in each of them (Available 
here: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles20_e.pdf ) G/RO/W/204  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 4: Preference under utilization  by MTN sector, 2015 -2019 , in percent  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2021.  
Note: Trade values above USD 1,000 are considered in the calculation, under utilization in percentage for the 
years 2015 -2019. Data for China and India are excluded from this figure since data is not available for all years. 
Cotton, the 22nd MTN sector is not reflected because preferential import s were only recorded in 2019 . 
6  UNDER UTILIZATION RATES BY LDC GROUPS: LANDLOCKED VS SEA ACCESS  
6.1.  In a previous note , the Secretariat discussed direct consignment requirements and associated 
such requirements to the under utilization of trade preferences.15 Sharp difference s in 
under utilization rates between the EU, Norway and Switzerland, for instance, were attributed to such 
requirements. Figure 5 shows the under utilization rates for landlocked LDCs and compares it with 
the rates for LDCs wit h sea access over the 2015 -2019 period. As can be seen, the difference in 
under utilization between both groups has been widening since 2017, becoming very significant in 
2019. LDCs with sea access have slightly improved their ability to utilize trade prefe rences  since 
2015 (aggregate under utilization rates dropped from 12% to 9%). On the contrary, however, 
under utilization rates increased for landlocked LDCs  in the same period  (under utilization rates 
increased from 8% to 24%). 
6.2.  The steep increase of under utilization for landlocked LDCs in 2019  is driven mainly by higher 
under utilization rates for petroleum products  primarily from Chad  and, to a lower extent , higher 
underutilization for fruits and vegetables , plants  as well as beverages and tobacco . It should be 
noted, again, that in the absence of full statistics for India and China, these figures are strongly 
influenced by imports into the EU . Interestingly, a calculation for the two years for which data is 
available for China confirms  that landlocked LDCs face higher impediments to utilizing trade 
preferences in that market too ( on the basis of the data reported by China, the under utilization of 
trade preferences of landlocked LDCs was 88% in 2015 and 93% in 2019 , as opposed to 78% and 
91% for LDCs with sea access) . This confirms a clear pattern of deterioration of preference utilization 
by landlocked LDCs  from 2015 to 2019 . 
  
 
15 See document G/RO/W/187/Rev.1.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019G/RO/W/204  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Figure 5: Preference under utilization, LDCs with sea access vs landlocked LDCs , in percent  
 
Source : WTO Integrated Database, 2021.  
Note: Trade values above USD 1,000 for all goods are considered in the calculation, under utilization in percentage 
for the years 2015-2019. Data for China and India are excluded from this figure since data is not available for 
all years.  
6.3.  Another  interesting observation is that under utilization rates are strongly binary: either full or 
close to full utilization or no utilization at a ll. All in all, 26% of observations have full utilization 
(under utilization <=1% ) and  47% of observations have no utilization at all ( under utilization 
>=99% ). As a result, there is "some" utilization of trade preferences in only 27% of observations. 
This could be another indication that the utiliz ation of  trade preferences does not depend on the 
ability of LDC firms to adjust their suppliers to comply with mini mum requirements related to 
originating materials and components. Instead, it seems to hinge on the ability of firms to comply 
with "all or nothing" obligations, such as direct consignment or certification requirements.  
6.4.  Further analysis on  the impact of di rect consignment obligations on preference utilization would 
require the collaboration of preference -granting Members. For instance, Switzerland, after a detailed 
examination of its imports from LDCs, reported that directly consigned goods received trade 
preferences in almost all cases ( close to full utilization) but indirectly consigned goods did not ( high 
under utilization).16 
7  POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS  
7.1.  Following the analysis of under utilization rates in the  2015-2019 period , it is possible to affirm 
that: 
a. Volatility of trade values  and under utilization rates  are significant for LDCs, which  confirm s 
the benefits of examining multiple year s in order to  identify structural patterns and trends. 
This also reinforces the need for the timely notification of comprehensive data to the WTO 
Secretariat ( data covering all years, all preferential trade, including under  reciprocal 
preferences (RTAs) and covering all preference -granting Members);  
b. The examination of 2015-19 data confirms that  there is ample scope to improve preference 
utilization and that  under utilization  rates do change over time . Under utilization is widespread 
across sectors, and can be significant for some PTA -LDCs and some sectors;  
 
16 See paragraph 3.33 of document G/RO/M/74.  
0% 
5% 
10% 
15% 
20% 
25% 
2015 
 2016 
 2017 
 2018 
 2019 
sea access  
 landlocked  G/RO/W/204  
 
- 9 - 
 
  c. In this respect, the analysis also confirmed that  the utilization of trade preferences varies 
greatly from one LDC to another. Better understanding these differences – and particularly 
the case of LDCs who managed to imp rove their utilization rates (e.g. Afghanistan  or Rwanda ) 
- can yield useful insights about the mechanics behind better preference utilization. Similarly, 
this note showed that there might be a "learn ing by doing effect" in the case of at least one 
PTA-LDC (i.e. Chile). It would be useful to study in greater detail the measures that were 
deployed to increase awareness about and compliance with preferential origin requirements;  
d. The a nalysis also confirm ed that landlocked LDCs find it more difficult to benefi t from trade 
preferences.  In fact, the analysis showed that there is a slight improvement in utilization by 
LDCs with sea access , while a noticeable deterioration in the case of landlocked LDCs  can be 
observed . It is important to investigate further this d eterioration and identify possible solutions 
to reverse this trend ; 
e. Finally, during the 2015 -2019 period , there were no major reforms of rules of origin, so it is 
difficult to identify the specific impact that product -specific rules of origin might have ha d. 
This seems to confirm that direct consignment and certification obligations could have a strong 
influence on the utilization of trade preferences by LDCs. Better understanding such linkages 
could also help identify best practices.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  
  G/RO/W/204  
 
- 10 - ANNEX 1 – UNDER UTILIZATION RATES OF TRADE PREFERENCES  2015 -2019: BY LDC BENEFICIARY , IN PERCENT  
 
 
 
Source: WTO Integrated Database, 2021.  
Note: Trade values above USD 1,000 for all goods are considered in the calculation, under utilization in percentage for the years 2015 -2019. Data for China and India are excluded 
from this figure since data is not available for all years.  
 
__________  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019