WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
14 October 2008 
 
 (08-4869) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries  
  
 
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OF EXPORT INTEREST TO 
LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of Contents 
 
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .4 
II. LDC EXPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES....................................................................4  
A. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE ...............................................................6  
1. Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ..........6  
2. Structural changes affecting countries participation in world trade .................................19  
B. LDCS ' PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TR ADE IN COMMERCIAL SERVICES ........................................22  
1. Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ........22  
2. Tourism........................................................................................................................ ............24  
III. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS ..............................................26  
A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................26  
B. TARIFF MEASURES AND DUTY -FREE ACCESS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE ....................................28  
1. Trends in market access for products of export interest to LDCs .....................................28  
2. Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected markets..........................................................31  
C. THE UTILIZATION OF PREFERENCES ...........................................................................................38  
IV. RECENT INITIATIVES TO IM PROVE MARKET ACCESS .........................................40  
A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECISION ON DFQF MARKET 
ACCESS TO LDCS ........................................................................................................................40  
B. OTHER INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................................42  
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... ..43 
ANNEX .......................................................................................................................... .......................45  
 
 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own respon sibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 2  
 
  List of Tables 
 
Table 1: Trends in LDCs exports of goods and services, 2000- 2007...................... ............ 5 
Table 2: Merchandise exports and imports of LDCs by selected country groupings, 2007.. 9 
Table 3: Evolution of the export prices fo r selected primary commodities, 2000-2007....... 11 
Table 4: Share of top three exported products  in total merchandi se exports, 2006............... 13 
Table 5: Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2006...................................................... 15 
Table 6: Imports of agricultural products, fuels, minerals and manufactures from LDCs 
  (selected regions, 2005-2007)................................................................................. 18 Table 7: Decomposition of global market fact ors affecting LDCs' e xports, 2000-2007....... 22 
Table 8: Commercial services exports by LDCs, 2000-2007...... .............................. ............ 24 
Table 9: Exports of tourism services by LD Cs:  main indicators 1990-2006....................... 26 
Table 10: Costs of exporting merchandises, 2007 or most recent surv ey period.................... 27 
Table 11: Trends in tariff treatment and preference margin on merchandises imported by 
  developed countries, 1996-2006...... ........................................................................ 30 
Table 12: Preferential duty-free access for LDC exports to developed countries ................... 32 
Table 13: Tariff treatment of LDC exports in  selected developed markets, 2006................... 33 
Table 14: Market access for LDC exports to  developing countries, 2006............................... 35 
Table 15: Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developing markets, 2006.................. 36 Table 16: Preference utilization for selected  developed markets, 2006................................... 39 
 Annex Tables  
Annex Table 1(a): Imports of agricultural prod ucts, fuels and manufactures of the EFTA, Turkey, 
      and the Russian Federation from least-developed countri es, 2007..................... 45 
Annex Table 1(b): Imports of agricultural prod ucts, fuels and manufactures of Asia from the 
      least-developed countri es, 2007.................. ...................... ...................... ...... 46 
Annex Table 1(c): Imports of agricultural pr oducts, fuels and manufactures of selected 
      developing economies of Asia from least-developed countries, 2007................ 47 
Annex Table 1(d): Imports of agricultural pr oducts, fuels and manufactures of the selected 
      economies in Africa from least-d eveloped countries, 2007........................ ........ 49 
Annex Table 1(e): Imports of agricultural produc ts, fuels and manufactures of the United States, 
      Canada, Mexico and Brazil from least-developed countri es, 2007.................... 50 
Annex Table 2:     Measures in favour of  exports originating from LDCs.................. ..................... 51 
 
List of Charts 
 
Chart 1:  LDCs' share of World GDP and trade in goods and ser vices, 1990-2007.............. 5 
Chart 2:  Comparative evolution of LDC e xports of goods and ser vices, 2000-2007........... 6 
Chart 3:  LDCs' merchandise trade, 1990-2007..................................................................... 7 Chart 4:  Composition of LDC exports by  major product, 2000-2006.................................. 12 
Chart 5:  Share of LDCs' top three exported products in their total merchandise exports,   2006.........................................................................................................................  13 
Chart 6:  Top 15 markets for LDC merc handise exports, 2000-2006.................................... 14 
Chart 7:  Share of developing countries in LDC exports, 2006............................................. 19 
Chart 8:  Share of services in total e xports by LDCs, 2000-200 6....................... ................... 23 
Chart 9:  Share of imports from LDCs entering developed markets under duty-free 
  conditions, 2006 (except arms and oil)................................................................... 28 
Chart 10: Average tariffs faced by LDCs  on processed, semi-processed and unprocessed  
  exports to developed markets, 1996-2006............................................................... 31 Chart 11: Diversification of LDC exports to selected developed markets granting   preferential treatments.............................................................................................. 40  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 3 
 
 
  List of Boxes 
 
Box 1:  Analysing International Trade Using Shift-Share Methodology............................ 21 
Box 2:  Leakages, linkages and net economic benefits of international tourism for  
  recipient countries................................................................................................... 25 
Box 3:  LDCs' competitiveness and export- transaction costs..... .............................. ............ 27 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 4  
 
   
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, extending statistical covera ge and providing analytical indicators on trends 
in both LDC trade and market access conditions.  D espite the effort to cover the major relevant 
aspects affecting LDCs' trade and market access c onditions, this note should not be viewed as a 
stand-alone study by the Secretariat.  It should be r ead in conjunction with the previous notes prepared 
by the Secretariat, in order to gauge the diffe rent factors that condition market access for LDC 
exports.
2  A separate note has been prepared coveri ng the issue of recent rise in agriculture 
commodity prices and its impact on the LDCs (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43). 
2. The note is divided into four main parts, in a ddition to this introduction.  Chapter II provides a 
description of the recent trends of LDC trade flows, both in goods and commercial services. 3  I t  
includes analytical indicators that measure the relati ve effects of global trends and structural changes 
of LDC exports by main products and market destina tion.  The services section includes an analysis of 
tourism activities.  Chapter III analyses the mark et access conditions for LDC exports, including a 
review of preferential schemes.  Chapter IV pr ovides an update of the recent initiatives taken by 
Members to improve market access for products originating from LDCs.  A concluding section summarizes the findings of the note. 
II. LDC EXPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES 
3. In 2007, after increasing at an average annual ra te of 29 per cent for three successive years, 
the growth of LDC total exports of goods and services decreased to 19.6 per cent, which was in line 
with the other developing economies.  Due to thei r estimated trade growth above the world average 
during the 2000-2007 period (18 per cent compared to  12 per cent for world total), LDCs' share in 
world trade would stand at 0.8 per cent in 2007, similar to their contribution to world GDP valued at 
current market exchange rate (Chart 1).  
                                                     
 
2 The previous note by the Secretariat is contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1.  
3 For statistical consistency, this report include s Cape Verde in the LDC group, as this country 
graduated only end of 2007.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Chart 1:  LDCs' share of World GDP and trade in goods and services, 1990-2007 
0.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.85
1990 1995 2000 2005
Share of GDP Share of Trade
 
Source :  WTO 
 
4. Total LDC exports in 2007 tripled their 2000 va lue (Table 1).  This overall performance was 
mainly due to rapid increase in commodity prices during this period, which resulted in higher export 
earnings especially from fuels and mining products (Chart 2).  These products now represent almost 
58 per cent of the LDCs' total portfolio of exports, more than 20 percentage points above their share 
in 2000. 
Table 1:  Trends in LDCs exports of goods  and services, 2000-2007 (billion US$ and percentage) 
 
  Values Annual rate of growth 
  2000 2007 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007a 2000-2007a 
Total goods and commercial services 42.4 137.6 0.4 11.4 13.2 31.2 32.7 23.3 19.6 18.3 
Total goods 36.1 123.6 0.0 12.1 13.9 32.9 35.9 24.2 19.4 19.2 
Commercial services 6.2 14.0 2.7 7.1 9.0 20.4 10.7 16.3 21.2 12.3 
Other goods 20.7 44.4 1.4 8.5 11.5 18.3 11.4 10.4 20.2 11.5 
Fuels and Mining 15.5 79.2 -1.9 17.1 16.8 50.9 59.4 33.4 19.0 26.3 
 a Estimates 
Source: WTO 
 
5. The deceleration of export growth observe d in 2007 was due to a relative slowdown in 
exports of fuels and mining products (19 per cent in 2007, compared to an average of 47 per cent over 
2003-2006).  Sales of other goods (a gricultural and manufactured produc ts) in 2007 were in line with 
their medium-term average, growing around 12 per cent, while receipts from commercial services 
grew 21 per cent during 2007, more than the 2000-2007 annual average of 12 per cent. 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 6  
 
  Chart 2:  Comparative evolution of LDC e xports of goods and services, 2000-2007 (billion US$) 
 
020406080100120140160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Commercial services Other goods Fuels and Mininga
 
 a Estimates  
Source : WTO 
 
A. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE  
1. Global Trends 
(a) Total trade  
6. As mentioned earlier, the export dynamics of LDCs as a group continue to be dominated by 
the movements affecting international trade in primary commodities, especially fuels and other minerals.  This situation has been clearly per ceptible for the period after 2003, when the average 
annual growth rate of exports rose to 30 per cent.  As a consequence, the historical trade deficit that 
characterised the group rapidly diminished and a surplus which emerged in 2006 continued in 2007 
(see Chart 3).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Chart 3:  LDCs' merchandise trade, 1990-2007 
-200-1 00010 0200300400500600700800L DC Trade Bal ance
LDC  Expo rts
LDC  Im po rts
World Exports
 
Source:  WTO 
 
7. In 2007, merchandise export growth of LDCs d ecreased to 19 per cent (see Table 1), a little 
over half their 2004-2006 average growth rate.  This can  be attributed mainly to an intermission in the 
rise of international oil prices that was recorded dur ing this year, and a moderation in those of other 
mineral products.  Despite this pause, the export pe rformance of LDCs was still higher than the world 
average of 15 per cent.  As imports grew more or  less in line with exports, the positive trade balance 
that emerged for the first time in 2006 was preserve d in 2007 (US$2.9 billio n, around 1 per cent of 
total trade).4 
8. From a medium-term perspectiv e, merchandise exports of LDCs have been growing at an 
average annual rate of 12 per cent between 1990 and 2007,  rising to 19 per cent in the recent years of 
2000-2007 period.  These numbers are larger than those recorded for the world as a whole (9 and 12 per cent, respectively).  As a consequence, the share of LDCs in world trade increased from 0.5 per 
cent in 1990 to 0.8 per cent in 2007.  Nevertheless,  this higher rate of growth has also been 
characterised by a greater volatility in year to year  variations.  The standard  deviation of the annual 
growth rate for LDC exports was 13 percent betwee n 1990 and 2007, compared to less than 8 per cent 
for the world during the same period.
5  This larger volatility of export earning signals the vulnerability 
of LDCs in external trade.   
9. The weight of the largest LDC exporters in total LDC trade hides the heterogeneity of 
individual country performances within this group.  One way of reporting trends in trade that are 
closer to the "typical" individual LDC is to use a simple average of individual country performances 
or the median value observed for the group.  These alternative measures of growth in exports show 
                                                      
4 These figures based on revised WTO estimates may not fully coin cide with a document recently 
published by UNCTAD (The Least Developed Countries Report, 2008, Growth, Poverty and the Terms of 
Development Partnership) that reports a small deficit for the LDC group.  The present figures are nonetheless in 
line with the official data released by UNCTAD in its Handbook of Statistics, 2008.  
5 Even on the basis of the coefficient of variation (deviation divided by average), LDCs present higher 
relative fluctuations over the 1990-2007 period (1.11 against 0.93).  Thanks to, inter alia , sustained international 
prices since 2003, the coefficient of variation has lowere d to 0.63 since 2000, compared to 0.69 for the world. 
But this reduced volatility may not last if the present high commodity prices cycle is over. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 8  
 
  that larger LDC exporters outperformed the sma ller ones since 2000 (Table 2).  While total LDC 
exports grew 19 per cent annually from 2000 to 2007,  the simple average of individual country 
performance indicates a smaller value of 13 per cent.  Indeed, half of the countries achieved less than, 
or just about, the 10 per cent mark, implying that th e median figure is almost half the value computed 
for the group total.
6  
10. This heterogeneity is also reflected in the st andard deviation of 12 percentage points across 
individual countries' export performance.  Neverthe less, heterogeneity was less pronounced in 2007 
than it was in the recent past.  The year 2005 saw the widest gap between the export performance of 
the largest exporters and smaller ones, resulting in a growth rate of 36 per cent for the total value of 
LDC exports while median trade growth was only 14 per cent.  By comparison, the median figure for 
2007 growth was 12 per cent, seven percen tage points below the overall total. 
11. The heterogeneous export perform ance of individual LDCs reflect a number of structural 
factors, such as resource endowments and export specialisations, as well as internal policies and 
competitiveness.  Table 2 presents merchandise export and import data according to four categories of 
LDCs, based on their export specialization:  oil, manufactures, agriculture and non-fuel minerals.7  
12. Within the LDC group, exporters of oil and othe r minerals have recorded the fastest growth 
since 2000 (24 and 27 per cent annual growth, respectively, in 2007).  However, compared to exporters of other minerals, oil exporters have been  able to generate a sizable trade surplus.  The 
import coverage ratio by exports exceeded 2.20 for oil exporting countries in 2007, meaning that their 
exports earnings represented more than twice their im port bill.  The exporters of other minerals came 
close to balancing their merchandise trade, but stil l registered a small defi cit (the import coverage 
ratio was 0.92) in the same year, despite a faster rise  in their export receipts than in their import bills 
over the 2000-2007 period (27 versus 21  per cent per year, respectively). 
13. The two other categories of LDC exporters, name ly agriculture and manufactures, registered a 
higher overall trade deficit.  In 2007, exporters of agricultural products registered the largest 
imbalances among the four groups .  The import coverage ratio was only 0.39 for this group of 
exporters, meaning that 61 per cent of their import bill had to be financed from other sources (export 
of services, private and official transfers, foreign investment or debts).  This situation resulted from a lower rate of expansion of their export receipts, compared to imports (12 versus 15 per cent annually 
for 2000-2007).   
14. Exporters of manufactures experienced a reduction in their trade deficit with a coverage ratio 
of 0.73 in 2007, not because the value of their expor ts grew more rapidly than agricultural exporters 
(the growth rate was the same, 12 per cent), but  because their import bill was growing at a slower 
pace (11 per cent).  However, the year 2007 showed a slowdown in exports receipts and an increase in 
imports (14 and 17 per cent, respectively). 
 
                                                     
 
6 Calculations based on data presented in Table 2. 
7 There is obviously some degree of arbitrariness in  this classification, especially for exporters of 
agricultural products. This category is a residual, that may include countries that are not actively specializing in 
agricultural production and generates their balance of payments income from other sources, such as services.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Table 2:  Merchandise exports and imports of LDCs by selected country groupings, 2007 
 
(million dollars and percentage)  
Exports  Imports  
Value  Annual percentage change  Value  Annual percentage change  
  2007  2000-07 2005 2006 2007 2007  2000-07 2005 2006 2007 
LDCs  123,600 19.2 35.9 24.2 19.4 120,723 15.4 20.4 14.7 20 
Oil Exporters 69,489 24.4 58.4 24.1 23.1 31,275 22.2 40.3 13.2 19.9 
Angola  39,900 26 78.9 32.2 25.2 11,400 20.8 43.2 5.1 29.9 
Equatorial Guinea  9,950 37 52 17.5 21.1 3,100 31.7 34.6 24.3 18.3 
Sudan  8,879 25.5 27.7 17.3 57 8,775 28.1 65.8 19.5 8.7 
Yemen  7,310 8.7 37.1 14.1 -0.1 6,500 15.8 22 8.8 22.8 
Chad  3,450 52.1 43.7 8.2 1.2 1,500 24.9 -0.3 37.7 14.7 
Exporters of manufactures 27,138 12.5 17.3 21.5 14 37,315 10.7 12.1 15.7 17.4 
Bangladesh  12,453 10 11.9 26.9 5.5 18,595 11.1 15.4 15.4 16 
Myanmar  6,257 21 60.2 20.3 36.4 3,250 4.4 -12.3 33.1 26.7 
Cambodia  4,100 16.7 10.5 13.7 16.7 5,500 16.1 23 20.9 15.8 
Madagascar  1,190 5.4 -13.6 13.8 22.1 2,590 13.1 1.6 4.9 44.7 
Lao People's Dem. Rep.  923 15.8 52.2 59.5 4.6 1,065 10.3 23.7 20.1 0.5 
Nepal  888 1.4 11.8 -2.9 5.9 2,904 9.2 17.8 9.1 16.6 
Lesotho  805 20.4 -8.1 6.8 15.8 1,730 11.5 -2.1 4.2 17.7 
Haiti  522 7.3 20.2 9.8 1. 1 1,682 7.2 11. 3 11.7 3.5 
Exporters of agriculture and othersa  15,494 12.2 12.6 12.9 15.7 39,652 15 16.7 15.4 20.6 
Tanzania  2,022 15.6 13.3 4 16 5,337 19.6 20.6 29.2 25.7 
Senegal  1,698 9.1 4.6 1 6.5 4,452 16.6 12.6 7.4 29.6 
Uganda  1,623 19.7 34 16.8 36.6 3,466 12.3 19 24.5 35.5 
Mali  1,480 15.3 12.7 40.8 -4.5 2,255 15.8 13.2 17.9 23.9 
Ethiopia  1,284 14.9 33.1 14.7 23.9 5,395 23.1 33.7 16.4 12.3 
Guinea  1,100 7.4 14.6 18.4 8.9 1,190 10 5.1 13.4 28 
Niger  733 14.6 9.3 6.4 44.3 970 13.7 7.3 18 2.1 
Malawi  710 9.4 4 8 30.9 1,450 15.4 25 3.8 19.9 
Togo  690 9.6 9.8 -7.3 12.7 1,440 14.4 36.4 4.2 15.2 
Benin  650 7.5 1.7 -1.8 14.4 1,500 13.6 0 17.4 42.9 
Burkina Faso  607 16.5 -2.4 25.6 3.2 1,650 15.2 8.7 5.1 13.8 
Bhutan  600 28.6 41.1 60.5 44.8 480 15.5 -6 8.6 14.4 
Afghanistan  480 14.6 22.3 6.3 17.6 2,950 14 13.5 4.5 14.3 
Somalia  290 6 0 -3.3 0 680 10.3 0 8.2 3 
Sierra Leone  244 52.1 14.4 45.8 5.8 445 16.9 20.3 12.9 14.3 
Maldives  228 11.2 -10.5 38.9 1.3 1,096 16 16.1 24.4 18.3 
Central African Republic  195 2.8 1.6 23.4 23.4 230 10.1 15.8 15.9 13.3 
Liberia  184 -8 26.5 20.2 16.7 499 -4.1 -8 50.6 6.9 
Rwanda  177 19.1 27 14.4 24 737 19.6 41.3 23.8 48.5 
Solomon Islands  168 13.6 6.4 17.5 38.3 240 14.7 52.4 8 20.1 
Guinea-Bissau  95 6.3 17.7 -17.3 28.4 140 13.1 27.5 20.1 10.2 
Burundi  62 3.2 19.4 4 7.2 319 11.6 52.8 60 -25.9 
Djibouti  60 9.6 4 39.7 8.8 410 10.3 6.1 21.1 22.1 
Vanuatu  30 2.1 1.3 -2.9 -18.2 215 13.8 16.7 6.8 34.8 
Cape Verde  19 8.3 16.7 17.2 -6.9 750 0 1.6 23.7 38.3 
Samoa  15 1.4 11.1 -10.5 45 227 11.5 14.8 16.9 3.8 
Eritrea  15 -12.1 4.8 -4.5 42.9 515 1.3 3.1 2 2 
Gambia  13 -2 -20 43.3 13.4 315 7.7 3.6 9.4 21.5 
Comoros  9 -6.9 -35.5 -17.4 -14.4 120 15.8 15.3 16.8 4.1 
Kiribati  9 13.1 44.7 76.5 34.8 95 13.2 24.7 -14.4 49.8 
Sao Tome and Principe  3 0 -3.7 12.7 -21.5 70 12.9 20.3 42.5 -1.2 
Tuvalu  1 0 -54.5 2686.9 -23.5 14 15.4 13.3 -1.8 7.7 
Timor-Leste  ...  ... ... ... ...  ... ... ... ... ... 
Exporters of non-fuel minerals 11,479 26.5 19.3 53.5 16.7 12,481 20.9 15.9 13.7 26.7 
Zambia  4,619 31.9 14.9 108.3 22.5 3,971 21.9 18.9 20.2 29.2 
Mozambique  2,700 33.1 18.6 33.5 13.4 3,300 16.1 18.4 19.1 15 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  2,650 18.2 18.4 5.9 14.2 3,700 26.9 14.3 20.7 35 
Mauritania  1,510 23 42.2 118.6 10.5 1,510 18.7 9.4 -18.3 29.4 
Memorandum item:              
World b 13,950,214 12 14 16 15 14,244,366 11 13 14 14.6 
 a Include exports without a clear specia lization in a specific category of  goods, or speciali zed in services. 
 b Includes significant re-exports or imports for re-export. 
Note:   Groups and countries ranked by value;  data for 2007 are largely estimated . 
Source: WTO  
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 10  
 
  (b) Major Products  
15. World prices of primary commodities increased by an annual rate of 12.4 per cent between 
2000 and 2007 (see Table 3).  Since many LDCs ar e commodity exporters, the price increases have 
had a major impact on their export performances.  As  already mentioned in the previous section, LDC 
exporters of minerals and oil bene fited most from the upward phase of the cycle that started in 2003.  
Over the 2000-2007 period, average annual price increases of minerals and oil were 17.6 and 
14.1 per cent, respectively.  The short-term dynami cs of these products are, nevertheless, different.  
While the price of non-fuel minerals decreased in the second half of 2007, the price of oil rebounded 
strongly after a negative first quarter. 
16. International prices for food and beverages re gistered a modest increase over the 2000-2007 
period (6.7 per cent annual).  However, 2007 show ed signs of accelerating growth, especially for 
cereals and vegetable oils (15 and 39 per cent, respectively).  The impact of higher cost of feedstuff was eventually transmitted to th e price of meat and dairy produc ts.  Exporters of other raw 
agricultural materials suffered fro m low increase in prices, less than 3 per cent on annual basis, over 
the reference period.  A separate note (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43) examines the impact of these recent 
price development on the LDCs.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Table 3:  Evolution of the export prices for selected primary commodities, 2000-2007 
 
(Annual and quarterly percentage changes) 
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 (QoQ) 
                  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2000-
2007 
(annual 
average) 
Food and beverages -0.4 0.4 2.7 5.1 13.2 1.5 10.3 15.1 3.5 1.7 4.6 7.8 6.7 
Food 1.7 2.3 1.3 5.1 14.3 -0.4 10.5 15.2 3.4 1.6 4.7 8.3 6.7 
Cereals -3.6 4.5 14.3 1.1 8.2 -2.4 21.5 31.2 1.7 0.1 14.8 18.1 10.7 
Wheat 1.7 11.2 17.1 -1.5 7.4 -2.9 25.8 33.1 -4.4 3.7 33.7 24.4 12.2 
Maize -2.3 1.6 10.9 5.8 6.2 -11.9 23.6 34.2 9.6 -7.5 -3.2 12.5 9.2 
Rice -18.2 -15.2 11.1 4 23.2 17.1 5.5 9.5 4 1.4 2.6 7.6 7.2 
Barley 1.7 21.6 16 -3.9 -5.5 -4 22.7 47.8 5.7 9.3 3.6 11.9 12.1 
Vegetable oils and protein 
meals -3.3 -3.7 17.1 17.6 16.1 -10.3 3.4 38.7 10.2 8.5 8.8 17.8 10.3 
Meat 8.6 8 -5.2 2.5 22 -0.4 -4.5 4.2 0.9 5.6 -0.2 -7.3 3.4 
Beef 5.6 10 -1.2 -6 27 4.3 -2.6 2.1 -1.2 -0.8 0.2 -0.3 4.3 
Lamb -2.6 15.4 12.2 9.4 3.8 -2.9 -4.5 5.2 -1.6 1 4.3 2.1 5.3 
Swine Meat 33.5 3.6 -23 12.9 33.1 -4.7 -5.6 -0.3 -0.2 14 -4.1 -21.7 1 
Poultry -0.9 7 -0.9 4.9 14.4 -2.4 -6.3 12.9 6.5 7.6 2.3 -3.9 4 
Seafood 3.1 -12.1 -13.7 -1.1 4.4 13.7 20.5 -6.4 4.5 -3.8 3.5 0.4 0.1 
Fish 2.1 -20.7 1.6 2 11.6 21.6 24.6 -10.2 5.1 -2.6 1.7 -0.1 3.2 
Shrimp 4.5 0.6 -31.4 -5.9 -9.7 -5 4.9 11 2.1 -8.4 10.2 2.4 -6 
Sugar 14.8 0.6 -14.8 9.5 8.5 20.4 32.5 -23.2 -5.6 -7.6 5.8 2.3 3.2 
Bananas 12.9 38.5 -9.8 -28.9 39.9 9.9 18.4 -0.8 7.4 8.9 -1 -6.4 7 
Oranges  -17.1 64 -5.2 21 25.1 -1.4 -2.1 16.2 -10.8 9.1 26.8 -13.5 14.9 
Beverages -15.1 -16.1 16.6 4.9 3 21 8.4 13.7 4.8 3.3 3.8 2.5 6.7 
Coffee -21.7 -28.8 -0.2 10.2 18.2 43 11.5 15.8 0.7 1.6 5.7 5.6 7.9 
Cocoa beans -20.4 20.4 63.5 -1.4 -11.5 -0.5 3 23.1 12.9 11.4 -1 0.2 11.7 
Tea 6.8 -20.2 -9.5 8.4 1.9 9.2 11.7 -12.4 -1.7 -12.2 11.9 -2.1 -2.2 
Agricultural raw materials 4.7 -5 1.8 3.8 5.4 1.6 8.6 5 5.4 0.4 -8.1 2.3 2.9 
Timber -1.6 -8.4 -1 5.3 11.6 4.2 8.1 -1.1 -0.4 -0.5 -8.2 -0.8 2.5 
Cotton 11.1 -18.7 -3.5 36.9 -2.2 -11.1 5.2 9 0.8 1.6 -1.4 2.8 1 
Wool 13.1 -5.5 28.3 12.7 -7.6 -4.6 3.6 38.9 18.4 8.3 -3.3 12.5 8.2 
Rubber 8.8 -13.1 27.3 41.5 20.4 15.2 40.3 8.7 27.2 4.7 -8.5 14.6 18.7 
Hides and skins 11.2 5.5 -4.6 -15.4 -1.7 -2.2 5 4.7 7.5 -1.4 -10.9 0.2 -1.5 
Minerals and non-ferrous 
metals   12.1 -9.7 -2.7 12.3 36.2 26.5 55.9 17.5 1.6 14.4 -9 -6.5 17.6 
Copper 15.4 -12.9 -1.3 14.1 61 28.4 83.1 6 -15.7 28.6 0.8 -6.7 21.6 
Aluminium 14.1 -6.7 -6.7 6.1 19.9 10.6 35.4 2.6 2.6 -1.1 -7.9 -4.1 7.9 
Iron ore 4.4 3.9 -2 9 18.6 71.5 19 9.5 9.5 0 0 0 16.7 
Tin 0.8 -17.4 -9.6 20.5 73.4 -12.9 18.5 65.7 22.7 11 6.1 9.4 15 
Nickel 43.8 -30.8 13.7 41.9 43.6 6.9 63.3 53.9 25.5 15.5 -36.8 -3.2 23.2 
Zinc 4.8 -21.4 -12.2 6.4 26.5 31.8 136.6 -0.5 -17.7 6.6 -12.3 -18.2 16.3 
Lead -9.5 4.9 -5 13.6 71.5 10.5 32.2 100.2 10 22 44.2 2.6 28.2 
Uranium -17.3 4 14.1 14.2 60.6 54.8 70.7 108.1 29.1 53.9 -10.8 -19.9 42.6 
Total of above 4.5 -4 0.8 6.9 18.6 10.3 23.1 14.1 3.4 6.2 -3 1.5 9.6 
Energy 56.1 -11.6 -0.4 16.7 31.1 38.7 19.2 10.5 -2.2 13.4 10.1 18.7 13.7 
Natural Gas 77 -1.3 -19.3 31.5 11.1 42 15.3 1.4 -0.6 -0.4 -2.8 11.6 9.9 
Crude petroleum 57 -14 2.7 15.8 30.7 41.3 20.5 10.6 -3.1 15.6 11.3 19.1 14.1 
Coal 3.1 24.1 -17.8 5.3 99.2 -11.3 4.4 31.8 12.1 7.4 17.5 25.7 14.7 
All primary commodities 32.6 -8.9 0.1 13 26.6 29.1 20.6 11.8 -0.7 10.3 4.7 12.2 12.4 
Note: The indices are period averages based on dollar prices.  The quarterly figures are not seasonally adjusted . 
Source : WTO  
 
17. From a structural perspective, the recent dynami cs of international prices reinforce the already 
high profile of fuels and minerals in the basket of LDC exports.  In 2006, these products have grown 
at an average annual rate of 23 per cent, repr esenting nearly 60 per cent of total LDC exports 
(Chart 4).  It may be noted that although the highe r prices result in much needed export revenues, the 
resulting hard currency inflows may cause a large appr eciation of the real exchange rate that may 
deteriorate the international competitiveness of ot her export products and jeopardise in the long run 
the national export diversification policy.8  The combined weight of clothing and food products in 
LDC exports is now 22 per cent, down from 35 per cent in 2000. 
                                                      
8 This phenomena is known in the literature as the "Dutch Disease".  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 12  
 
  Chart 4:  Composition of LDC exports by major product, 2000-2006 
 
9 -1.8814.48.49.123.4
010203040506070
   Textiles    Other semi-
manufactures   Raw  agr.
materialsOthers    Food    Clothing    Fuels and
minerals2000
2006
 
 
Note:  Fuels & minerals, including ores and concentrates.  The number on top of the 2006 bar indicates the average 
annual growth rate from 2000 to 2006. 
Source:  WTO 
 
18. Export concentration continues to be a distin ctive feature of LDC economies and only a few 
LDCs escape from this feature.  As observed in Ch art 5, in 2006, 17 LDCs depended on only three 
products for 90 per cent or more of their export receipts.  On average, the main three products 
exported by LDCs – which vary from country to co untry – generate more than 70 per cent of export 
revenues, illustrating the vulnerability of these economi es to fluctuations in international markets.  
Concentration is symptomatic of the least-d eveloped nature of LDC economies and does not 
necessarily depend on the size of their economy.  Like in other developing countries, the smaller LDCs tend to have a less diversified export stru cture, as indicated by comparing the median and 
average values reported in Table 4 (dependence on th e three major products is greater than 84 per cent 
of export receipts for half of the countries, compared  to an average of 73 per cent for the LDCs as a 
group).  But export concentration is also higher th an the average in the te n largest LDC economies, 
ranked either in terms of GDP or trade.  Indeed , the oil exporters tend to be the mono-exporters.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Table 4:  Share of top three exported pr oducts in total merchandise exports, 2006 
 
Share of top three exported products Percentage of total 
merchandise exports 
Total LDCs as Group (weighted average) 73.2 
Simple average of  country's shares 78.0 
   - Median value  84.5 
Ten largest economies (ranked by GDP)a 80.9 
Ten largest exporters (merchandise only)a 90.3 
Exporters of agriculturea 75.6 
Oil Exportersa 98.2 
Exporters of non-fuel mineralsa 81.8 
Exporters of manufacturesa 75.9 
 a Simple (unweighted) average of individual country's results in the sub-group. 
Source:  WTO  
 
 Chart 5:  Share of LDCs' top three exported pr oducts in their total merchandise exports, 2006 
 
0102030405060708090100   Tanzania, UR
Nepal  Eritrea    Tuvalu
Afghanistan
Senegal
Djibouti
Uganda
Cape Verde
Madagascar
Somalia
Togo
Gambia
Lao PD Rep.
Bhutan
Burundi
Congo, DR
Benin
Myanmar
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Malawi
Guinea  
Sierra Leone
BangladeshZambia        
KiribatiBurkina FasoMaliSamoaHaitiCambodiaComorosRwandaNigerSao Tome & Pr.C. African Rep.Solomon IsdsVanuatuMauritaniaTimor-LesteSudanMaldivesLesothoGuinea-BissauLiberiaYemenChad     Angola            Equ. Guinea 
 LDC Average
(73 per cent)
 
 
Source:   WTO 
 
(c) Major Markets 
19. While product concentration of LDC exports re mains high, it appears that the geographical 
distribution of major markets for LDC exports has increasingly become diversified.  For example, WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 14  
 
  developing economies, such as China, India and Tha iland have a greater weight in LDC exports than 
one would expect from their share in world total imports (Chart 6).
9  This may be due to a series of 
factors, ranging from geographical proximity, specific bilateral or regional arrangements, to a closer 
match between LDCs' domestic  production capabilities with developing economies' demand. 
20. The United States, which represents 20.5 per cent of world imports (excluding intra-EU 
trade), absorbed 23.5 per cent of LDCs exports in 2006.  The corresponding figures for the European 
Union were 18.1 and 21.3 per cent, respectively.  Here , the greater weight can be attributed to specific 
factors such as preferential treatment. 
 
Chart 6:  Top 15 markets for LDC merchandise exports, 2000-2006 
 
05101520253035
Hong
Ko ng,Chi naMal i Saudi
ArabiaBrazi l South
AfricaChi l e Canada Republ i c
of  K or eaChi nese
TaipeiI ndia Thailand Japan China European
Unio n
(27)Unite d
States2000
2006
 
Source:  WTO 
 
21. Table 5 indicates that in 2006 LDC exports to other developing economies are now 
45 per cent of the total, showing lower depende nce on developed markets.  Developing economies 
have become the major destination for LDC exports  of mineral fuels (55.3 per cent in 2006), copper 
(82 per cent), wood products (80 per cent), cotton (88 per cent) or some food products like vegetables 
and oil seeds (85 and 75 per cent).  Developed economies remain largely a dominant export destination for manufactured articles such as clothing (97 per cent for products under HS 61and 62 chapters), high value-added products of mining such as precious stones (81 per cent) or some 
agricultural products (beverages and tobacco , with 75 and 55 per cent, respectively). 
 
                                                     
 
9 While China imports 29.5 per cent of all LDCs' exports, her weight as world import market 
(excluding intra-EU trade) is only 8.5 per cent. These respective numbers are 4.6 and 1.9 per cent for India and 
4.7 and 1.4 per cent for Thailand.   
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 15 
 
Table 5:  Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2006a 
                (Million dollars and percentage)  
LDC Exports WORLD 
  Share in Exports to   LDCs' 
Value Total Developed Developing Value Share in Product Description (HS02) 
  Exports Economies Economies   Total 
All Commodities (0 to 9)           100,099  100.0             54,574              45,024          8,760,416  1.1 
Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their di stillation  (27)            58,139  58.1             25,989              32 ,150          1,530,456  3.8 
Petroleum oils, crude  (2709)            53,744  53.7             24,840              28,904             931,629  5.8 
Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons  (2711)              2,606  2.6                 415                2,191             175,366  1.5 
Petroleum oils, other than crude  (2710)              1,594  1.6                 724                   870             306,083  0.5 
Articles of apparel and clothing accessories , knitted or crocheted  (61)              8,315  8.3              8,054                   241             109,649  7.6 
Jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, waist-coats and similar articles (6110)              3,496  3.5              3,376                   108              36,903  9.5 
T-shirts, singlets and other vests, knitted or crocheted  (6109)              2,302  2.3              2,243                    53              19,952  11.5 
Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, not knitted or crocheted  (62)              6,865  6.9              6,598                   252             124,379  5.5 
Men's or boys' suits, ensembles, jackets, blazers, tr ousers  (6203)              2,244  2.2              2,169                    70              25,750  8.7 
Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, jackets, blazers,  dresses, skirts  (6204)              1,995  2.0              1,926                    66              40,818  4.9 
Men's or boys' shirts  (6205)              1,045  1.0              1,003                    41                9,748  10.7 
Copper and articles thereof  (74)              2,757  2.8                 488                2,269              94,342  2.9 
Refined copper and copper alloys, unwrought  ( 7403)              2,258  2.3                 365                1,894              41,848  5.4 
Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic inverteb rates  (03)              2,689  2.7              1,814                   832              55,629  4.8 
Crustaceans, whether in shell or not  (0306)                 958  1.0                 850                   102              13 ,998  6.8 
Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets  (0303)                 676  0.7                 161                   478              13 ,117  5.2 
Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced)  (0304)                 420  0.4                 396                    24              12,518  3.4 
Ores, slag and ash  (26)              2,055  2.1              1,168                   846             107,898  1.9 
Iron ores and concentrates  (2601)                 583  0.6                 540                    43              44,724  1.3 
Aluminium ores and concentrates  (2606)                 544  0.5                 504                      0                1,93 3  28.2 
Copper ores and concentrates  (2603)                 501  0.5                    9                   491              32,109  1 .6 
Natural or cultured pearls, precious or semi-precious stones  (71)              1,856  1.9              1,511                   344             197,500  0.9 
Diamonds, whether or not worked, but not mounted or set  (7102)              1,410  1.4              1,241                   16 7              71,734  2.0 
Wood and articles of wood; wood charcoal  (44)              1,768  1.8                 346                1,421              81 ,390  2.2 
Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood,   (4403)              1,169  1.2                 158                1,011              11,530  10.1 
Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled  (4407)                 428  0.4                 107                   321              24,132  1.8 
Aluminium and articles thereof  (76)              1,463  1.5              1,429                    34              94,316  1.6 
Unwrought aluminium  (7601)              1,419  1.4              1,415                      3              44,424  3.2 
Ships, boats and floating structures b  (89)              1,299  1.3              1,163                   136              39,296  3.3 
Cruise ships, excursion boats, ferry-boats, cargo ships, barges and simila r products  (8901)              1,224  1.2              1,154                    70              24,210  5.1 
Coffee, tea, mate and spices  (09)              1,148  1.1                 864                   275              17,617  6.5 
Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated  (0901)                 879  0.9                 736                   136              12,374  7.1 
Cotton  (52)              1,063  1.1                 127                   936              34,622  3.1 
Cotton, not carded or combed  (5201)                 977  1.0                   88                   889              10,123  9 .7 
Edible vegetables and certain roots and tube rs  (07)                 828  0.8                 128                   700              20,839  4.0 
Dried leguminous vegetables, shelled  (0713)                 681  0.7                   27                   653                3,412  19.9 
Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes  ( 24)                 760  0.8                 419                   245              14,833  5.1 
Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse  (2401)                 701  0.7                 416                   188                5,907  11.9  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 16 LDC Exports WORLD 
  Share in Exports to   LDCs' 
Value Total Developed Developing Value Share in Product Description (HS02) 
  Exports Economies Economies   Total 
Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits  (12)                 539  0.5                 134                   405              27,958  1 .9 
Other oil seeds and oleaginous fruits  (1207)                 427  0.4                   84                   343                1,500  28.5 
Inorganic chemicals  (28)                 518  0.5                 162                   130              66,915  0.8 
Other made up textile articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles  (63)                 508  0.5                 40 9                    98              28,006  1.8 
Raw hides and skins (other than fur skins) and leather  (41)                 480  0.5                 198                   281               21,846  2.2 
             
Total of above            93,049  93.0             50,999              41,595          2,667,491  3.5 
 a Based on imports from LDCs by 125 countr ies and economies reporting their trade to the United Nations Comtrade database. 
 b Data includes flags of convenience. 
Source: WTO, based on UNSD Comtrade database. 
 
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 17 
 
 
  22. These global data on the market destination hi de the high degree of heterogeneity among 
LDC exporters.  For many LDCs, South-South trade represents the bulk of their export revenues.  The 
geographical destination of LDC products varies according, inter alia , to their regional characteristics 
and product specialization.  Table 6 and a set of more disaggregated tables by regions in Annex 
Table 1 provide more detailed information for f our regions (Europe and CIS, Asia, America and 
Africa) concerning three main groups of products (agriculture, fuels and mi nerals, manufactures).  
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 18 Table 6:  Imports of agricultural products, fuels, mine rals and manufactures from LDCs  (selected regions, 2005-2007) 
(Million dollars and percentage) 
  European Union (27)    Asiaa     North Americab  
  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change    Value  Annual 
percentage 
change   Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  
  2007 2006 2007   2006 2005 2006   2007 2006 2007 
A. Agricultural products  
Total LDCs      4,470  2 23 Total LDCs     4,743 15 11 Total LDCs            675 9 -5 
Tanzania               457  2 28 Myanmar           1,542 24 19 Bangladesh                      181 34 -14 
Uganda               427  -5 25 Burkina Faso              250 21 9 Liberia                     136 41 -10 
Senegal               400  0 32 Tanzania              243 23 -16 Ethiopia                       86 6 32 
Ethiopia               372  8 27 Ethiopia               231 72 38 Madagascar                       48 -7 16 
Madagascar                312  13 2 Solomon Islands               212 13 15 Malawi                       44 -52 -4 
Bangladesh               308  12 10 Vanuatu               197 10 39 Tanzania                       30 18 43 
Malawi               280  -6 41 Mali               179 -18 30 Haiti                       26 14 6 
Mozambique               269  17 49 Bangladesh               174 37 32 Uganda                        18 -15 -6 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of                 191  29 27 Benin               168 3 -21 Senegal                        12 ... -29 
Togo                177  1 29 Lao People's Dem. Rep.               150 7 31 Lao People's Dem. Rep.                         9 -5 4 ... 
Sudan                 161  -35 47 Mozambique               123 12 7 Sudan                         8 -53 23 
Others (39)               1,117  0 14 Others (39)           1,276 8 1 Others (39)                       75 -2 -32 
B. Fuels and mining products  
Total LDCs     11,004  4 46 Total LDCs    35,461 29 56 Total LDCs        18,697 32 7 
Angola             4,129  -16 82 Angola         14,092 28 82 Angola               13,985 40 11 
Equatorial Guinea            2,765  10 37 Yemen          6,238 23 38 Chad                 2,227 28 12 
Mozambique             1,629  29 15 Sudan          5,264 44 15 Equatorial Guinea                  1,765 -1 -9 
Mauritania               626  22 17 Equatorial Guinea          3,635 26 75 Yemen                    305 59 -35 
Guinea                501  -13 39 Myanmar           2,221 45 31 Guinea                    245 31 102 
Zambia               483  222 27 Zambia           1,236 13 73 Sierra Leone                       60 ... 68 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of                431  -18 75 Lao People's Dem. Re p.              484 ... 238 Congo, Dem. Rep. of                       46 -97 ... 
Yemen               226  25 131 Guinea              459 18 159 Zambia                       44 -12 66 
Others (42)                215  -20 3 Others (42)           1,832 -1 69 Others (42)                        21 177 -89 
C. Manufactures  
Total LDCs     10,759  12 -2 Total LDCs      2,122 25 -1 Total LDCs         8,792 14 12 
Bangladesh            6,644  31 5 Bangladesh              674 11 24 Bangladesh                 3,954 20 5 
Cambodia               924  25 11 Myanmar               281 -5 27 Cambodia                 2,778 25 14 
Liberia               435  -4 -58 Nepal               213 -2 -19 Haiti                    489 8 1 
Madagascar               397  22 17 Cambodia              204 8 7 Lesotho                    462 1 6 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of               362  -18 -9 Angola               162 ... 67 Madagascar                    325 -12 21 
Angola               288  -29 -26 Bhutan                116 34 68 Equatorial Guinea                    224 -41 134 
Myanmar               253  11 -16 Liberia                114 254 -52 Congo, Dem. Rep. of                     156 -37 105 
Niger               242  13 48 Samoa                74 ... ... Vanuatu                       111 -74 ... 
Equatorial Guinea                184  -14 27 Senegal                60 75 -79 Nepal                     108 -8 -9 
Lesotho                168  21 113 Lao People's Dem. Rep.                25 -25 20 Angola                       56 -13 11 
Lao People's Dem. Rep.                159  4 -7 Tanzania                23 -53 40 Malawi                        21 -21 9 
Sierra Leone                120  -14 7 Madagascar                22 62 21 Lao People's Dem. Rep.                        18 49 3 1 
Nepal                 112  0 3 Ethiopia                20 32 10 Tanzania                        15 -18 7 
Others (37)               472  -37 -11 Others (37)               134 -10 -14 Others (37)                       75 -9 -15 
 a Australia; China; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Japan; Korea Rep. of; Malaysia , New Zealand; Philippines; Singapore and C hinese Taipei. 
 b Canada and United States. 
Source: WTO  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Chart 7:  Share of developing countries in LDC exports, 2006 (percentage) 
0102030405060708090100Les otho Haiti
 Niger  Sierra Leone
  Bangladesh 
 Madagascar
 Cambodia
Cape Verde
Chad
Mozambique
Tuvalu
Central African Rep.
Samoa
Liberia
Sao Tome and Principe
Kiribati
Uganda
Malawi
Ethiopia
Burundi
Timor-Leste
 Dem. Rep. of the Congo
 Gu in ea Comoros
RwandaEritrea 
 SudanEquatorial GuineaMauritaniaMaldivesSenegalAngolaUnited Rep. of TanzaniaAfghanistanMaliNepalGamb iaTogoZambiaLao People's Dem. Rep.Solomon IsdsVan u at uBeninBurkina Fas oMyanmarYe me nGuinea-BissauDjiboutiSomalia Bhutan  
LDC Average
(45 per cent)
 
Source:   WTO 
 
2. Structural changes affecting countries participation in world trade 
23. The previous sections showed that the expor t performance of individual LDC is highly 
heterogeneous, which was a result of a country's  degree of product specialisation and due to the 
geographical distribution of their exports.  Obvi ously, countries producing merchandise that are in 
high demand will tend to perform better than those specialised in less dynamic products.  The export 
destinations and changes in the demand for im ports in these markets also influence export 
performance.  The export performance of each count ry also depends on its own domestic economic 
and policy conditions, which may affect productive capacity (e.g., climatic factors determining 
agricultural output) or competitiven ess in international markets, for example through exchange rates.  
24. The present section combines these various parameters, with the objective of measuring more 
precisely whether the evolution of LDC exports can be  attributed to:  (i) the global trends affecting 
international trade;  (ii) the world demand fo r specific products and product groups;  (iii) the 
dynamism of their respective markets of destination;   and (iv) the influence of national and residual 
factors that may have affected the supply and competitiveness of export activity.  The accounting 
methodology known as "shift-share" analysis is used  in this section to disaggregate these components 
and measure their respective contribution to the over all export trends (see Box 1 for an explanation of 
the shift-share analysis).  
25. The shift-share analysis carried out for this section will aggregate LDCs into four groups 
according to their main export specialization:  expo rters of agricultural products, oil, other mineral 
products, and manufactures.  With some exceptions, e xport specialisation is not complete despite the 
lack of diversification that characterises most LD Cs.  As a result, countries pertaining to each one of 
these four sub-categories also export other types of products; their individual export performance will WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 20  
 
  obviously be affected by the respective composition of their exports.  Individual country 
performances within each sub-group may also differ for economic and institutional reasons pertaining 
to each economy (economic policy, business cycle, external shocks, etc.).  
26. Table 7 analyses the structural changes affecting LDC trade between 2000 and 2006.
10  
Considering the LDCs as a group,  the average annual growth of exports at 19 per cent can be 
decomposed as follows:  (i) less than half of this gr owth (47 per cent) is linke d to the overall trends in 
world trade, indicating that the LDCs are more a ffected by world trends than the average traders;11  
and (ii) 10 per cent of the total variation is due  to a favourable initial composition of LDC exports 
(mainly oil and other minerals), while the initia l geographical distribution had a minor negative 
impact (-2 per cent).  According to this methodolog y, the capacity of LDCs to adapt their production 
to the shifts in global demand, redirect their expor ts to the most dynamic markets and the ability to 
gain global competitiveness explain the remaining 45 per cent of the total variation in export revenues 
between 2000 and 2006. 
27. A closer look at Table 7 indicates that this overall picture hides two very different patterns, 
between the exporters of oil and other minerals on one hand, and the exporters  of agriculture products 
and manufactures on the other.  It should be kept in mind that the shift-share analysis is done using 
nominal values.  Hence, the large increase in fuels and mineral prices registered in the international 
market during the reference period explains a good part of the difference between the two groups. 
28. The two sub-groups of countries exporting oil and other minerals registered an increase in 
their total exports (almost 25 per cent), which is mu ch higher than the normal evolution of world trade 
during the period 2000-2006.  In both cases, the globa l trend explains only 32 per cent of the growth 
of exports.  The initial composition of their exports was, naturally, an advantage for these countries, 
as the 2000-2006 period saw a high demand fo r these commodities.  While the geographical 
distribution of their exports in 2000 did not privile ge the most dynamic import markets and influenced 
negatively the overall performance (–3 per cent and –2 per cent, respectively), these countries were 
able to shift their export production accordingly.12  As a result, the "shift" factor explains 48 per cent 
of total export growth of oil producers, and 58 per cent of the exporters of other minerals.  
Nevertheless, a closer look at the results indicates some divergence between the two sub-groups.  In 
particular, the producers of non-fuel minerals were  able to diversify somewhat into agricultural 
exports;  23 per cent of their overall export perform ance is linked to agricultural products (of which 
18 per cent results from an improvement in adapting to  market shifts).  Oil exporters, on the contrary, 
reinforced their specialisation and dependence on fu el products, which explains almost entirely their 
export performance between 2000 and 2006.  
29. The overall export performance of LDCs speci alising in agricultural and manufactured 
products was below 13 per cent per year in the period  2000-2006, half of the previous groups.  Their 
performance was nonetheless 15 per cent higher than the overall world trends.  In a world market 
driven by higher demand for minerals, exporters  of these two groups of LDCs suffered from 
specialising in less dynamic markets.  The negative impact of product composition is especially strong 
                                                      
10 Data coverage is heterogeneous among the countries, and among products.  The indicators are based 
on import statistics compiled for major destinations for LDC exports.  The data coverage for these mirror 
statistics are unequal across time and acr oss reporting countries.  The statistical gaps and their variations may 
affect the measure of shift-share effect s at country and product levels.  For th is reason, the results presented here 
are limited to averages and groupings of countries. 
11 In comparison, a back-of-the-envelope calculati on for the developed economies showed that this 
group underperformed (had they maintained their share in world trade, the exports of developed countries would 
have been 29 per cent higher than their actual performance over the 2000-2006 period). 
12 It should be kept in mind that this is a residual; it captures not only the effect of changes in trade 
competitiveness, but also the influence of other economic and non-economic factors that may affect the 
domestic production of exportable merchandise in each individual countries.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 21 
 
 
  for the exporters of manufactures (–25 per cent).  It is interesting to note that these two groups 
responded differently in terms of adjusting th eir export patterns and shifting towards greater 
opportunities.  It was easier in the case of agricu ltural exporters, which bene fited from the existence 
of other natural products, such as mining (these produc ts contributed almost 40 per cent of the total 
export performance of the sub-group) .  This sub-group did not, unfo rtunately, adapt easily its existing 
export structure to the new demands and the shift fact or showed the lowest contribution (6 per cent) to 
the overall export performance.  On the contrary, in the case of the sub-group of "exporters of 
manufactures", diversification towards more dynami c products (such as fuels and mining) and shifts 
toward new import markets explains 37 per cent of their total export performance. 
Box 1:  Analysing International Trade Using Shift-Share Methodology 
 
Shift-share analysis has been used wide ly since the 1950s.  In recent years, this method has also been used to 
improve the understanding of structural  changes affecting the participation of  countries in international trade. 
Shift-share typically identifies three components of changes in the trade patterns of a given country: 
 Global component:  the change in the value of exports that would have occurred if the country's total 
exports had grown at the same rate as total world trade; 
 Composition component:  the change in the value of a country's exports that would have occurred if 
each productive sector in the economy had followed the same rate as that  sector at global level, less the global 
component previously mentioned. 
 Geographical component:   the export changes that would have oc curred in the country if its exports 
for each sector to each country of destination had followe d the same rate as world exports to that country of 
destination.  
 Differential component:  this is a residual, computed as the difference between the actual variation in 
total exports and the sum of the thr ee other components (measuring, respec tively, the global, composition, and 
geographical effects).  
 
The first three components are related to constant-market-share approach, i.e. what would happen if everything 
changed proportionally.  The last one measures the "shi fts" away from constant shares, hence, the name 
shift-share analysis. 
 
The shift effect, a residual in the methodology, is so metimes referred to as "competitiveness effect", as it 
measures, inter alia , the capacity of exporters to adapt (or "shift ") their export mix and gain new markets.  
Macroeconomic factors, such as exchange rate variations , may also contribute to the gains and losses of market 
shares.  Other effects that are not related to trade its elf – an exceptionally good or bad agricultural year, for 
example– may also play an important ro le, so that one should refrain from an alysing this residual exclusively in 
terms of trade policy performance or overall competitiveness. 
 
The attractiveness of this methodology is due to its simple implementation (it is based on simple 
growth-accounting arithmetic) and its transparency (it does not imply particular economic assumptions or 
sophisticated econometric techniques).  However, despite its widespread use, shift-share methodology suffers 
from several shortcomings.  In particular, results are sensitive to the choice of initial and end year periods as 
well as the degree of product/market disaggregation.  The differential factor (shift effect) can be highly unstable 
between productive sectors, because it is  a residual and captures many unobserved effects.  In our particular 
case, the statistical quality of LDC trade data is heterogeneous, and this will be highly affected by measurement 
errors.  On a more analytical ground , the two structural shif ts (geographical and product components) are not 
mutually independent, thus their respective contribution to total growth is not always easy to separate.  In 
addition, the methodology does not take into account  inter-industry linkages, which may result in 
underestimation of the structural effects. 
 
Despite these limitations, the method is reasonably robust and useful, especially for descriptive purposes.  It 
helps in visualizing and understanding the main structural effects behind the medium term evolution of trade in 
relatively large data sets, such as the group of 49 LDCs.  A separate working paper will be published by the 
Secretariat to provide more details on the methodology and the results obtained. 
 
Sources : Buehler, David (2007) "Enlargement of  a Customs Union: A reduction in tr ade diversion?" University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dinc, Mustafa and Kingsley Haynes (2005) "P roductivity, International Trade and reference Area 
Interactions in Shift-Share Analysis: Some Operational Notes, Growth and Change Vol.36 No3 pp 374-394. Fothergill, 
Stephen and Graham Gudgin (1979) "In Defense of  Shift-Share" Urban Studies, Vol 16, pp 309-319. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 22  
 
  Table 7:  Decomposition of global market  factors affecting LDCs' exports, 2000-2007 
 
  Annual 
growth Total Global 
effect Composition Geographical 
distribution Residual 
         
LDC 19.2 100 47 10 -2 45 
Agricultural products  8 10 -2 0 1 
Fuels and mining  76 20 17 -3 41 
Manufacture  15 17 -5 0 2 
Rounding and others 1 0 0 1 1 
Agricultural exporters 12.6 100 94 -3 3 6 
Agricultural products  31 53 -13 2 -11 
Fuels and mining  42 12 12 -1 19 
Manufacture  23 27 -3 3 -4 
Rounding and others 3 2 0 0 2 
Oil exporters 24.6 100 32 24 -3 48 
Agricultural products  0 2 0 0 -1 
Fuels and mining  99 28 25 -4 49 
Manufacture  1 2 0 0 -1 
Rounding and others 0 0 -1 1 1 
Other Minerals 24.7 100 32 12 -2 58 
Agricultural products  23 5 -1 0 18 
Fuels and mining  77 15 15 -3 50 
Manufacture  1 11 -1 1 -10 
Rounding and others -1 1 -1 0 0 
Manufacture 12.4 100 88 -26 1 37 
Agricultural products  15 17 -5 0 3 
Fuels and mining  20 2 2 0 16 
Manufacture  64 68 -22 0 17 
Rounding and others 1 0 0 0 1 
Note: Due to rounding errors and statistical adjustments, the sum of components do not  always equal totals.  In the case 
of agricultural exporters, a residual item explains  three percentage points of total variation. 
Source:  WTO 
 
B. LDCS ' PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TR ADE IN COMMERCIAL SERVICES  
30. The participation of LDCs in internationa l trade in commercial services is limited.13  
Nevertheless, due to the higher labour content in producing services, the impact of trade in 
commercial services on economic and social developmen ts is considered larger than, for example, 
those of fuel or mineral exports, whic h are the leading LDC export products.   
1. Global Trends  
31. Table 1  shows that between 2000 and 2007, the exports of commercial services grew at an 
average annual rate of 12 per cent.  This progress has been accelerating over the period with a first 
peak in 2004 (20 per cent) and a second one of 21 per cent in 2007.  The dramatic increase in commodity prices that enhanced the nominal va lue of merchandise exports since 2003 overshadows 
the good performance of commercial services, resulting in a lower weight of this sector in total LDC 
exports (10.4 per cent of total expor ts of goods and services in 2007, wh ich is more than 4 percentage 
points lower than in 2000). 
32. This low share of services in the LDCs' total trade, neverthe less, hides the heterogeneity 
among individual LDCs.  As shown in Chart 8, services, especially tourism, dominate the export 
                                                     
 
13 Trade in services in this note refers only to commercial services.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 23 
 
 
  structure of a number of LDCs, in particular, smal ler ones such as Samoa, Vanuatu, Cape Verde and 
the Maldives.14  Services are also an important source of export receipts for some larger LDC 
economics such as Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda.  
Chart 8:  Share of services in total exports by LDCs, 2000-2006 (percentage) 
0102030405060708090100 Equ. Guinea  Angola 
  Sudan 
 Chad 
 Yemen 
 Bangladesh 
 Guinea 
 C. African R.
 Guinea-B. 
 Burundi 
 Lesotho 
 Zambia 
 Ma u r i ta n i a  
 Ma l a wi  
 Mya n m a r  
 Congo, DR. 
 Burkina Faso 
 Nig er 
 Tog o 
 Bhutan 
   M ali   
M ozambique        Benin Lao PDRCambodia  Haiti  Nepal   M adagascar  Senegal  Ug anda  Sierra Leone  Solomon Isl. Rwanda  Gambia  Tanzania  Ethiopia  Sao Tome & Principe  Comoros  Djibouti  Eritrea  M aldives  Cape Verde  Vanuatu  Samoa 
Source:   WTO 
 
33. Travel, a close proxy of tourism receipts, is  the dominant sector of LDC service exports, 
representing 48.7 per cent of total receipts in 2007.  This activity grew steadily since the beginning of 
2000, at an average annual rate of 13 per cent (16 per cent in 2007). 
34. After travel, the category of "other commerc ial services" accounted for 28.8 per cent of 
services exports in 2007.15  In fact, in 2007, it was the most dynamic category, growing at nearly 
29 per cent.  Among LDCs, the five largest exporte rs of "other commercial services" in 2006 (or 
2007) were Bangladesh (14 per cent), Senegal (12 per cent), Madagascar (6 per cent), Ethiopia 
(5 per cent), and Uganda (4 per cent).  The sector is  also important for some smaller LDCs such as 
                                                      
14 The average GDP of the eight LDCs where serv ices exports are higher than goods export is 
US$652 million, compared to an average of US$14,685 million for the group of predominantly merchandise exporters (exports of goods greater than 90 per cent of total exports). 
15 This category includes, inter alia , incomes for licenses and royalties, as well as transactions such as 
construction, computer and information, and other business services (legal, accounting, management and public relation services). These services are sometimes traded involvin g the presence of natural persons in the recipient 
countries (mode 4).
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 24  
 
  Kiribati and the Solomon Islands.  For these count ries, as well as for the other LDCs, the largest 
export sub-sectors are telecommunications services and other business services. 
35. Transportation services are the smallest component of LDCs' services exports representing 
22.5 per cent of the balance of payment receipts.  Over the 2000-2007 period, they registered average 
annual growth close to 14 per cent, and nearly  19 per cent in 2007.  Transportation services are 
especially important for LDCs such as Djibouti, Ethiopia and Myanmar, where they are responsible 
for more than half of services exports.  
Table 8:  Commercial servi ces exports by LDCs, 2000-2007 
 
(Million dollars and percentage) 
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
a. Value          
Commercial services 6226 6394 6849 7467 8991 9950 11567 14025 
Transport 1262 1312 1424 1583 1823 2255 2660 3160 
Travel 2910 3224 3530 3852 4690 5232 5899 6829 
Other commercial services 2055 1858 1895 2032 2478 2462 3008 4036 
b. Composition          
Commercial services 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Transport 20.3 20.5 20.8 21.2 20.3 22.7 23.0 22.5 
Travel 46.7 50.4 51.5 51.6 52.2 52.6 51.0 48.7 
Other commercial services 33.0 29.1 27.7 27.2 27.6 24.7 26.0 28.8 
Source:  WTO (September 2008) 
 
2. Tourism 
36. Data for international tourism receipts are sketchy for a number of developing countries, 
especially the LDCs;  receipts from international tour ism are usually collected on the basis of travel 
data as reported in the balance of payments.16  Based on available data presented in Table 8, between 
2000 and 2006, receipts from international tourism in  LDCs expanded by almost 13 per cent annually, 
higher than the growth rate for other developi ng economies (10 per cent) and the world in total 
(8 per cent).  
37. LDCs are still minor players in the world t ourism, but their growing market share from a 
small base (1.4 per cent of tourist arrivals;  0.8 pe r cent of international receipts in 2006) indicate the 
possible existence of comparative advantage in this  line of export activity.  A common concern about 
the development of international to urism in LDCs is the high import content of this activity, resulting 
in a significant share of gross income leaking out  of the economy.  Recent research on this topic, 
however, seems to indicate that the importance of leakages outside the receiving economy is 
overstated when total receipts from tourism are factored-in.  Typically, more than 50 per cent of the 
total holiday cost paid by the visiting tourists  remain in the receiving country (see Box 2).  
Considering the labour intensive nature of most activ ities related to tourism services, and its indirect 
positive linkages to the rest of the economy, the economic and social impact of export earnings from 
tourism is at least comparable, if not greater, than those received from exporting more conventional 
products. 
 
                                                      
16 In the Balance of Payments, travel is defined as the acquisition of goods and services for own use or 
to give away, which are acquired by non-residents during visits to that economy. To maintain his/her condition 
as non-resident, his/her visit should usually last less than a year.  This definition is larger than what could be 
defined more strictly as "international tourists".    WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 25 
 
 
   
Box 2:  Leakages, linkages and net economic benefits  of international tourism for recipient countries 
 
One negative factor affecting tourism activities in LDCs is that the vast majority of benefits leaks out of the 
economy in the form of food and other imports, expatriate wages and repatriation of profits.  Marketing, 
insurance, retailing, packaging, and long-haul flights are often 50 to 70 per cent of package cost.  These services 
are normally provided by tour operat ors and airline companies that are us ually not resident in the receiving 
country.  
 
But the package cost used in  the previous example is an inappropriat e measure as it underestimates the total 
holiday cost paid by the visiting tourists.  ODI's resear ch estimates indicate that out -of-pocket spending can be 
around one-third of the total cost.  This component is most likely to be paid to local residents, and the leakage 
on the combined package and out-of-pocket spe nding is 50 per  cent in the worst cases. 
 
In practice, on a net receipt approach, tourism perf orms reasonably well when co mpared to other export 
activities.  Comparing African tourism w ith coffee, the mentioned research foun d that over half of total holiday 
spending (packages bought in Europe pl us out-of-pocket spending) accrues to goods and service providers in the 
receiving country (from restaurants to  farmers and craftsmen).  Furthermor e, about 14 per cen t of these local 
expenditures (or 7 per cent of total cost) accrue directly to  the poor.  In the case of coffee, it has been calculated 
that only 1.5 per cent of the price of a cup of coffee sold in a café in Europe benefits th e producer (7 per cent for 
fair trade coffee).  This suggests that even "package" tourism is as effective as fair trade coff ee for transferring 
resources from retail expenditure in Europe to poor African producer households, and much better than the 
conventional commodity. 
 
The second shortcoming is that this stereotype misleads policy-makers to focus on reducing "leakages" to 
non resident economies instead of pursuing a more productive strategy of deepening the linkages between 
tourism activities and the domestic economy.  Linkages relate to how intermediate and final consumption from 
tourism activity and related infrastructure investments aff ect other productive sectors of the economy, as well as 
how much the whole economy benefits from tourism grow th.  Increasing "linkages" and reducing "leakages" are 
associated concepts, but have different policy implications (maximizing the "out-of-pocket spending" by 
deepening and diversifying domestic offers of products and services for international tourists can be done 
without changes in the existing travel services provided  by foreign tour operators and airline companies).   
 
UNCTAD reports, for example, show that the backward linkages from the thriving tourism industry in Kenya 
has increased the demand for high-quality horticultural products, while the development of Nairobi as a tourist 
destination has improved its international transportati on infrastructure, thereby facilitating the export of non-
traditional agricultural products to European markets.  Matching tourism policies with domestic capabilities is 
also important in increasing linkages and reducing leakages (five-star hotels and resorts typically have lower 
linkage and higher leakage ratios than other segments of international tourism markets, such as eco-tourism). 
 
Sources :  Dale Honeck (2008) Poverty Alleviation and the Doha  Development Agenda: is T ourism being Neglected, WTO 
Staff Working Paper. Jonathan Mitchell and Caroline Ashl ey (2007) ‘Leakage’ claims: Muddled thinking and bad for 
policy? Overseas Development In stitute, opinion 81, June.  
http://www.odi.org.uk/public ations/opinions/81_tourism_leakages_june07.pdf 
UNCTAD (2008) Export competitiveness and development in LDCs, UNCTAD/ALCD/2008/1  
 
38. LDCs have become an increasingly attractive d estination for internati onal tourists, and the 
number of arrivals grew around 13 per cent on averag e between 2000 and 2006.  In fact, in contrast to 
the slow down experienced at the world level in cluding in other developing countries, the LDCs 
registered an acceleration of this trend comp ared to the previous decade (Table 8).  
39. During the last six years, the average per capita spending by tourists raised 4.1 and 4 per cent 
for total world and developing country, respectively.  While tourist spent US$884 per stay in 2006, as a world average (US$743 when considering only de veloping countries), the corresponding figure was 
only US$494 for the LDCs.  Nevertheless, as it was mentioned in Box 2, the low value per visitor 
may hide greater economic impact on the receiving economy if it reflects better linkage with the local production capacities.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 26  
 
  Table 9:  Exports of tourism services by LDCs:  main indicators 1990-2006 
 
International tourist arrivals                 
  Millions of arrivals  Market share (%)  Average annual growth (%) 
  1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006 1990-2000 2000-2006 
World 436 683 847 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.6 3.6 
Least-developed countries  2. 9 5.8 12 0.7 0.8 1.4 7.0 12.8 
Developing countries * 112 233 335 25.8 34.1 39.5 7.6 6.2 
           
International travel receipts US$ billion  Market share (%)  Average annual growth (%) 
  1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006 1990-2000 2000-2006 
World 265 473 749 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.0 8.0 
Least-developed countries  1. 2 2.9 5.9 0.4 0.6 0.8 9.7 12.5 
Developing countries ** 62.1 137.0 248.5 23.4 29.0 33.2 8.2 10.4 
* World Tourism Organization definition. 
** World Trade Organization definition. 
Source:    World Tourism Organization (internati onal tourist arrivals) and World Trad e Organization estim ates (July 2008). 
 
 
III. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS 
A. INTRODUCTION  
40. The chapter presents a series of descriptive a nd analytical indicators on the evolution in 
market access conditions, includi ng duty-free access to LDC products, and the average tariffs on 
products of specific interest to LDCs.  The most recent situation concerning the tariff treatment of 
LDC exports in developed and developing markets has also been examined.  
41. The duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market acces s has been a long-standing objective of the 
LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  Traditi onally, LDCs have benefited from non-reciprocal 
preferences for their merchandise exports in develope d country markets.  More recently, a number of 
developing countries have granted preferences to  LDCs, under a series of bilateral or regional 
preferential market access schemes, including in the context of the Global System of Trade 
Preferences Among Developing Countries (GSTP).  S outh-South trade has grown rapidly since 1990 
and its value represents now 16 per cent of worl d trade (43 per cent of total developing countries 
exports).  As mentioned earlier in this note,  LDC exports to developing countries represented 
45 per cent of their total exports in 2007.  As a result, the issue of mark et access to developing 
countries is of great importance for LDCs. 
42. While improving market access for LDCs' products, in particular by granting non-reciprocal 
trade preferences, can contribute to the strategy of diversifying LDC expor ts and strengthening the 
trade-development linkages, it is often not sufficien t.  A series of structural constraints limit the 
capacity of LDCs of seizing the opportunities offered by improved market access.  These structural 
constraints are compounded by additional transacti on costs that greatly reduce the competitiveness of 
LDC exports.  The comparison with other countri es confirms that LDCs face a comparative 
disadvantage when exporting goods (see Box 3).  Tabl e 10 shows that the higher unit costs that LDCs 
face (almost US$1,600 per container in 2007, which is  76 and 80 per cent more than in the OECD and 
East Asia and Pacific, respectively) greatly reduce the effective preference margins that LDCs enjoy 
for their exports.  Time required by export pro cedures, including the waiting time between procedures 
and during unloading of the cargoes, is particularly high compared with other groupings.  Some 
experts signal that reducing these transaction cost s might bring more benefits than further 
liberalization of tariff in Europe and North Amer ica, where LDCs benefit already from preferential 
treatment.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Table 10:  Costs of exporting merchandises, 2007 or most recent survey perioda 
 
Grouping or Region b Documents for export 
(number) c Time for export   
(days) Cost to export   (US$ 
per container)d 
World (country average) 7.0 26.1 1,230 
Least Developed Countries 8.0 37.4 1,595 
East Asia & Pacific 6.9 24.5 885 
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 7.0 29.3 1,393 
Latin America & Caribbean 7.0 22.2 1,108 
Middle East & North Africa 7.1 24.8 992 
OECD 4.5 9.8 905 
South Asia 8.6 32.5 1,180 
Sub-Saharan Africa 8.1 35.6 1,660 
 
 a Procedural requirements for exporting and importing a standardized cargo of goods by ocean transport.  
 b Defined according to World Bank definition, which may not coincide with WT O regional denominations; 
countries part of the LDC group may also be included their regional groupings.  
 c Documents include bank documents, cu stoms declaration and clearance docum ents, port filing documents, import 
licenses and other official documents.  
 d Cost is recorded as the fees levied on a 20-foot container, excluding tariffs or trade taxes.  
Source :  World Bank Doing Business Project 
 
Box 3:  LDCs' competitivene ss and export-transaction costs 
 
Transaction costs in trade include not only tariffs but also a series of additional costs that  influence 
competitiveness of exports.  When these transaction costs are significantly higher than those of the competitors, 
as it is often the case in LDCs, they may lead to loss of market share or missed business opportunities.  These 
costs are part of the supply constraints that frequently  reduce the international competitiveness of LDCs and 
limit their trade potential. Indeed, according to research results, the cost of export delays exceeds tariff costs in 
every region but East Asia and Western Europe.a 
 
Trade facilitation is not only about improving the physical infrastructure for trade: only around a quarter of the 
delays surveyed by the report is due to poor road or port  infrastructure, while the remaining 75 per cent is due to 
administrative hurdles - numerous customs procedures, tax procedures, clearances and cargo inspections - often 
before the containers reach the port. The problems are magnified for landlocked LDCs, whose exporters need to 
comply with different requ irements at each border.  
 
According to a recent study, a one-da y reduction in delays before a cargo sails to its export destination is 
equivalent to reducing the distance to trading partners by about 70 km.b  For the authors, this may explain why 
Mauritius has enjoyed success as an exporter. At 16 days to process cargo, the efficiency of its trade 
infrastructure is identical to that of the United Kingdom and better than France's. Reducing export times by 
10 days is likely to have a bigger impact on exports (expanding them by about 10 percent) of developing 
countries than any feasib le liberalization in Europe or North America.  
 
"Doing Business 2007" estimates that – on global average – each day a product is delayed in transit reduces 
trade by at least 1 per cent, and that reducing trad e costs by 50 per cent could increase global trade in 
manufacturing by up to US$377 billion a year and triple the benefits for consumers from tariff reductions.c This 
report refers also to a study which estimates that Bangl adesh’s garment exports could earn 30 per cent more if 
congestion and other difficulties at the port of Chittagong were resolved. 
 
 a World Bank and the International Finance Corporation: "Doing Business 2008". 
 b Simeon Djankov, Caroline Freund and Cong S. Pham, "Trading on Time", 2008.  
 c WB and IFC: "Doing Business 2007". 
 
 
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 28  
 
   
B. 
TARIFF MEASURES AND DUTY -FREE ACCESS IN MERCHANDISE TRADE  
1. Trends in market access for products of export interest to LDCs 
43. As shown in Chart 9, most LDCs already benefit from duty-free access under the various 
preferential agreements in developed markets.  The remaining gap is concentrated in a few countries, 
especially Asian LDCs due to the presence of tariff s imposed on their exports of textile and clothing 
products in the US market.  It is important to mention that these indicators are based on the assumption that existing preferences are fully utilised by LDCs.  Some preferential regimes have conditions that impede their full utilisation, for ex ample rules of origins, and the actual rate of 
utilization may be as low as 40 per cent for products such as textiles and clothing.
17   
Chart 9:  Share of imports from LDCs enteri ng developed markets unde r duty-free conditions, 2006 
(except arms and oil)   
0102030405060708090100Van uat uCambodia
  Myanmar
  Kiribati
Bangladesh
Maldives
Nepal
Yemen
So m alia
Malawi
Bhutan
Benin
Burkina Faso
.Lao P.Dem.R
Sudan
Zambia
Sen egal
Tanzania
Sier r a L eo n e
Ethiopia
Mozambique
  Tog o
  Madagascar
   Eritrea
GuineaBissau  So lo m o n  Is  Sam o aNigerLiberiaCongo, Dm.RTu valuAfghanistanComorosCape VerdeAngolaMaliMauritaniaGam biaSao  T o m e P rnUgandaBurundiGuineaHaitiEast TimorCent.Afr.RepDjiboutiLesothoEq.Guinea    Chad    Rwanda
 
 
Note: The calculation is based on a full utilization of existing preferences. 
Source:  WTO, on the basis of CAMAD data base compiled by the ITC, UNCTAD and WTO. 
 
44. Table 11 shows trends in the tariff treatment th at LDC exports received  in developed country 
markets between 1996 and 2006.  Aggregate results should be interpreted by taking into account the 
                                                      
17 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/37.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 29 
 
 
  trends and fluctuations affecting in ternational trade.  The rapid rise of international commodity prices 
since 2003 has distorted the structure of LDC trade in favour of oil and minerals exports.  In order to 
reduce the impact of these fluctuations in the indicat ors, duty-free indicator is computed excluding oil 
and arms, while average tariffs were weighted us ing a standard export structure based on 2000-2001 
data.   
45. Table 11 shows that 79 per cent of LDC exports entered developed country markets duty-free 
in 2006.  However, the overall trend since 1996 indicates that the share of duty-free imports by developed countries from LDCs has been stagnati ng, which was not the case for other developing 
countries.  While the share of duty-free exports by  developing countries increased from 54 per cent in 
1996 to 77 per cent in 2006, the duty-free indi cator for LDCs remained unchanged from 78 to 
79 per cent during the same period. 
46. Imports originating from LDCs, neverthel ess, enjoy more favourable market access 
conditions vis-à-vis other developing countries for certain labour intensive products, such as 
agricultural products, textiles and clothing.  Table 11 shows that the differential of duty-free treatment 
between LDCs and all developing countries is high for agricultural products.  In 2006, ninety-
three per cent of LDC exports of agricultural produc ts benefited from duty-free treatment, compared 
to only 66 per cent for all developing countries.  The case of textile shows a similar gap (71 per cent 
versus 34 per cent), while it is slightly lower in th e case for clothing (63 per cent versus 29 per cent).  
47. Table 11 also shows that the average tariffs charged by developed countries on agricultural 
goods, textiles and clothing, fell over the period 1996-2006.  Many LDCs be nefit from preferential 
access in all these products.  The scope of preference  is especially significant in case of agricultural 
products, where the preference margin for LDCs comp ared to other developing countries is higher by 
6 percentage points, while the margin of preference on products such as textiles and clothing is less 
significant (around two percentage points above the average tariffs faced by developing countries).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 30  
 
  Table 11:  Trends in tariff treatment and pref erence margin on merchandises imported by developed 
countries, 1996-2006 (percentages)  
 
 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
a. Duty free treatment on exports (excluding arms and oil)  
Developing countriesa 54 55 54 63 65 64 69 71 76 76 77 
Least Developed Countries 78 77 78 72 70 71 74 78 80 80 79 
Agricultural goods             
Developing countriesa 65 67 65 63 63 64 62 63 66 66 66 
Least Developed Countries 93 92 96 86 88 98 96 94 92 92 93 
Textiles             
Developing Countriesa 17 17 18 24 24 22 26 26 38 34 34 
Least-developed Countries 68 66 62 55 50 47 47 57 66 67 71 
Clothing             
Developing Countriesa 8 8 9 14 14 14 22 22 34 31 29 
Least-developed Countries 57 53 51 47 45 46 52 60 66 63 63 
 
b. Average tariffs on exports on key products 
Agricultural goods  
Developing Countriesa 10.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 9.3 9. 3 9.5 9.4 9.2 8.9 8.6 
Least-developed Countries 4.0 3.8 3. 6 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.8 
Textiles  
Developing Countriesa 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.6 6. 6 6.0 5.8 5.2 5.3 5.2 
Least-developed Countries 4.5 4.5 4. 3 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 
Clothing  
Developing Countriesa 11.4 11.3 11.2 10.9 10.8 11. 3 10.0 9.7 8.6 8.3 8.2 
Least-developed Countries 8.1 8.1 8. 0 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.0 6.4 6.4 6.4 
 
 a All developing countri es, including LDCs.  
Note : The preference is compared to the applied tariffs (MFN and preferential) granted to developing countries. 
Source :  Based on CAMAD compiled by ITC, UNCTAD and WTO.  
 
 48. Chart 10 provides an examination of the issue of tariff escalation by comparing average tariffs 
on unprocessed commodities (excluding oil), semi-processed and processed goods in developed markets.  The Chart confirms the findings from Table 11 which shows that LDC manufactures of 
textiles and clothing face a higher tariff than unprocessed commodities like agriculture.  While 
commodities benefit from duty-free or very low tariff (0 .3 per cent in 2006), the average tariff rises to 
2.8 per cent for semi processed goods and goes up to 6.4 per cent for manufactures (mainly clothing).  The remaining tariffs are largely concentrated on im ports from Asian LDCs, that weigh heavily in the 
LDC total shipments of manufactures, especially fo r their exports of clothing to the US market.  
49. It is interesting to note that tariff escalation is steeper on products of interest to LDCs than for 
the rest of developing countries.  The average tari ff faced in 2006 by all developing countries for their 
exports of unprocessed commodities (excluding oil) to the developed market was 0.9 per cent, slightly 
higher than for the LDCs.  On the contrary, th e tariffs faced by developing countries for semi-
processed and processed goods, 1.8 and 2.5 per cent resp ectively, were lower than those faced by the 
LDCs.  This difference shows that the composition of LDC exports of manufactures is limited to a 
range of products with sensitivities, like clothing,  while other developing countries were able to 
diversify into a range of manufactures (such as IT) or intermediate goods (such as goods for 
processing) that face low tariffs, or benefit from duty-free treatment.    WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Chart 10:  Average tariffs faced by LDCs on pr ocessed, semi-pro cessed and unprocessed exports to 
developed markets, 1996-2006 (per cent)  
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Processed Semi-Processed Unprocessed
 
Note: Average tariff (excluding arms and oil). 
Source:     ITC/UNCTAD/WT O based on CAMAD. 
 
2. Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected markets 
(a) Market access conditions facing LDC exports in selected developed countries  
50. The review of selected importing developed country markets reveal that on average 
(weighted), LDCs benefit from preferential duty-fr ee treatment on nearly 84 per cent of the dutiable 
MFN tariff lines (see Table 12).  The coverage is 100 per cent or close to it for non-agricultural 
commodities (raw materials and minerals, including fuels).  Over 88 per cent of manufactured products benefit potentially from the preferential duty -free treatment, while this percentage drops to 
68 per cent in the case of agriculture. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 32  
 
  Table 12:  Preferential duty-free access for LDC exports to developed countries (per cent) 
 
 
Duty free treatment  
Tariff regimea  
Tariff lines with imports  
Imported values 
Total 83.6 88.6 86.6 
Agriculture 68.4 88.5 92.7 
Manufactured and others 88.2 88.6 69.7 
Ores 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Petroleum 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Raw materials 95.3 100.0 100.0 
 
 a Percentage of tariff lines exempted of duty under prefer ential LDC schemes in relation to dutiable tariff lines 
under MFN regime (excluding all MFN duty-free treatment).  The data referred to the LDC as a Group. 
Source :  WTO  
 
51. Table 12 also shows that in terms of values, th e bulk of agricultural trade (93 per cent) is 
realised by LDCs on duty-free basis, while this pe rcentage drops to only 70 per cent in the case of 
manufacture.  This low value is almost entirely due  to the tariffs faced by  Asian LDC exporters of 
clothing into the US market where the applied tariff on textile and clothing remains high (over 
11 per cent on average).  
52. Table 13 presents detailed information on ma rket access conditions in selected developed 
markets for the year 2006.  The Table is organized in  three sets of indicators.  The first set of four 
columns compares the number of duty-free tariff li nes granted to LDCs with regard to the MFN 
regime.  Given supply considerations, not all these opportunities are utilised;  the next four columns 
show the same information, but based on those ta riff lines where trade was reported for the reference 
year.  Finally, the third indicator complements the information at tariff line level by presenting the 
results based on monetary values. 
53. In 2006 many developed countries provided total or nearly total duty-free status to LDC 
exports, both in terms of tariff lines and import valu e.  This was in particular the case for Australia, 
Canada, EC, New Zealand and Norway.  Japan and Switzerland provided duty-free access for over 
95 per cent of imports from LDCs, while the perc entage of duty-free tariff lines were 67.5 and 
85.4 per cent respectively.  It should be noted that  both Japan and Switzerland further improved their 
market access schemes in 2007 (see Annex Table 2)18  Deviations from this general pattern can be 
found in the US, which provided duty-free status to 82.8 per cent in terms of tariff line and 72.4 per 
cent in terms of import value in 2006.  Duty-free entry was particularly low for non-agriculture 
products in the US market at 14.6 per cent of tota l import value in 2006, which reflects the tariffs 
imposed mainly in textiles and clot hing products for some Asian LDCs.   
 
                                                      
18 Oil in Japan is subjected to a specific Petroleum and Coal Tax 2,040yen/kl under the Petroleum 
Stockpiling Law, but it is not considered as import duties stricto sensu .  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 33 
 
Table 13:  Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developed markets, 2006 
 
    NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORT S (mio. US $ and percentage) 
   TARIFF REGIME WITH IMPORTS LDC 
   MFN LDC LDC Beneficiaries 
   TOTAL Dutiable Dutiable % duty 
free All 
partners Number Dutiable 
MFN Dutiable 
LDC 
scheme All partners TOTAL Dutiable 
imp. % duty 
free Weighted 
applied duty 
* 
Total 6,124 3,209 0 100.0 5,600 914 571 0 131,701.8 231.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Agriculture 775 215 0 100.0 640 110 42 0 5,644.2 24.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Non-agriculture 5,193 2,984 0 100.0 4, 829 783 528 0 114,663.6 166.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Ores 33 0 0 100.0 25 1 0 0 356.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 4 0 0 100.0 2 1 0 0 9,988.3 38.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 Australia 
  
 
  
Raw materials 119 10 0 100.0 104 19 1 0 1,049.0 2.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 8,607 4,133 96 98.9 8,409 1,819 1,018 1 341,639.4 1,586.7 2.0 99.9 0.4 
Agriculture 1,389 837 96 93.1 1,287 260 113 1 19,518.6 21. 5 0.0 100.0 0.1 
Non-agriculture 7,063 3,279 0 100.0 6,970 1,515 903 0 294,030.2 793.6 2.0 99.7 0.4 
Ores 33 0 0 100.0 31 8 0 0 2,521.4 27.1 0. 0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 1 0 0 100.0 1 1 0 0 20,565.9 740.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Canada 
 
 
   
Raw materials 121 17 0 100.0 120 35 2 0 5,003.3 4.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 9,842 7,357 67 99.3 9,537 3,545 2,683 29 1,529,178.5 20,960.7 436.9 97.9 0.3 
Agriculture 2,061 1,670 44 97.9 1,829 548 383 24 81,571.6 1,967. 7 153.6 92.2 0.0 
Non-agriculture 7,587 5,659 23 99.7 7,520 2, 917 2,292 5 1,094,166.9 12,623.6 283.3 97.8 0.3 
Ores 41 0 0 100.0 38 17 0 0 20,762.6 929.4 0. 0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 2 0 0 100.0 2 2 0 0 255,869.0 4,040.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 European 
Communities  
 
  
Raw materials 151 28 0 100.0 148 61 8 0 76,808.4 1,399. 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 9,111 5,369 2,965 67.5 7,419 765 490 164 521,474.3 5,315.3 111.3 97.9 1.1 
Agriculture 1,859 1,389 1,085 41.6 1, 374 98 49 35 41,098.9 230. 5 8.7 96.2 2.4 
Non-agriculture 7,084 3,969 1,873 73.6 5, 901 648 441 129 312,152.7 829.5 102.7 87.6 0.9 
Ores 37 0 0 100.0 30 4 0 0 20,557.5 36.0 0. 0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 2 0 0 100.0 2 2 0 0 98,053.3 4,215.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 Japan 
  
 
  
Raw materials 129 11 7 94.6 112 13 0 0 49,611.9 3.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 7,236 3,060 39 99.5 5,908 524 356 2 24,410.3 19.5 0.2 99.1 0.2 
Agriculture 1,025 414 36 96.5 773 62 23 2 2,100.0 3.6 0.2 95.7 0.0 
Non-agriculture 6,063 2,639 3 100.0 5, 033 457 332 0 19,978.0 12. 5 0.0 99.8 0.2 
Ores 33 0 0 100.0 12 0 0 0 0.8 0.0 0.0 . . 
Petroleum 1 0 0 100.0 1 0 0 0 2,092.6 0.0 0.0 . . New Zealand 
  
 
  
Raw materials 114 7 0 100.0 89 5 1 0 238.8 3.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 7,202 1,163 1 100.0 6,098 584 219 1 58,507.4 142.2 0.9 99.4 0.4 
Agriculture 1,368 835 0 100.0 1,083 64 20 0 3,671.9 6. 9 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Non-agriculture 5,676 328 1 100.0 4, 891 517 199 1 53,758.6 125. 8 0.9 99.3 0.5 
Ores 33 0 0 100.0 19 1 0 0 454.8 9.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 2 0 0 100.0 2 0 0 0 144.4 0.0 0.0 . . Norway 
 
  
 
Raw materials 123 0 0 100.0 103 2 0 0 477.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 34     NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORT S (mio. US $ and percentage) 
   TARIFF REGIME WITH IMPORTS LDC 
   MFN LDC LDC Beneficiaries 
   TOTAL Dutiable Dutiable % duty 
free All 
partners Number Dutiable 
MFN Dutiable 
LDC 
scheme All partners TOTAL Dutiable 
imp. % duty 
free Weighted 
applied duty 
* 
Total 8,553 7,103 1,246 85.4 7,921 930 792 36 140,797.8 286.4 12.4 95.7   
Agriculture 2,303 1,991 1,235 46.4 1, 872 173 136 36 7,813.9 43.4 12.4 71.5   
Non-agriculture 6,084 5,051 11 99.8 5, 912 742 646 0 126,187.2 179.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Ores 33 0 0 100.0 19 0 0 0 2.3 0.0 0.0 . . 
Petroleum 2 0 0 100.0 1 1 0 0 2,724.3 60.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Switzerland 
 
  
Raw materials 131 61 0 100.0 117 14 10 0 4,070.1 3.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Total 10,507 6,628 1,809 82.8 10,138 1,708 1,103 589 1,774,938.3 23,006.9 6,347.1 72.4 5.8 
Agriculture 1,808 1,424 274 84.8 1,561 213 128 5 68,499.9 281. 3 14.6 94.8 0.6 
Non-agriculture 8,520 5,176 1,535 82.0 8,405 1, 459 968 584 1,465,679.6 7, 418.2 6,332.5 14.6 6.6 
Ores 43 10 0 100.0 38 6 2 0 2,541.6 102.5 0. 0 100.0 0.0 
Petroleum 2 2 0 100.0 2 2 2 0 161,687.4 14,865.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 United States 
 
 
  
 
Raw materials 134 16 0 100.0 132 28 3 0 76,529.8 339.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
 * Excludes non ad valorem  duties 
Source: WTO, UNCTAD, ITC. 
 
 
 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 35 
 
 
  (b) Market access conditions facing LDC exports in selected developing countries 
54. The analysis presented in Table 14 is based on data available for developing countries whose 
information on existing preference schemes is limite d.  The analysis of market access conditions in 
developing countries is therefore reduced to studying the treatment actually received by the LDC exports to these markets, mostly on an MFN basis.  
Table 14:  Market access for LDC exports to developing countries, 2006 (per cent) 
 
  
Tariff 
regimea Tariff lines with 
imports Imported 
values  
 
Weighted import 
duties 
Total 31.4 34.9 68.5 10.1 
Agriculture 28.3 31.5 26.5 18.4 
Manufactured and others 31.6 35.3 42.2 10.5 
Ores 46.5 68.7 73.4 0.7 
Petroleum 41.4 50.0 82.9 0.9 
Raw materials 38.9 37.3 12.7 1.3 
 a Percentage of tariff lines exempted of duty under MFN regime. 
Source : WTO 
 
55. The general pattern emerging from Table 14 is that in 2006, LDC exports entered developing 
country markets duty-free on 34.9 per cent of the tariff lines, which accounted for 68.5 per cent of their export value.  The share of duty-free access is  the largest for minerals and ores (69 per cent of 
tariff lines and 73 per cent of the value) and petrol eum (50 per cent and 83 per cent, respectively).  
Indeed, the weighted average tariffs imposed on raw material and non agricultural commodities are 
very low (around 1 per cent).  Exports of agricultu ral products faced an weighted average tariff of 
18 per cent, while manufactures faced a lower average of 10 per cent in 2006.   
56. These averages mask a significant degree of heterogeneity between markets (Table 15).  For 
example, Honk Kong, China grants duty-free acces s on all products, under the MFN regime.  The 
duty-free coverage of LDC exports to South A frica is 81 per cent.  For agricultural products, 
98 per cent of the value imported into Singapore from LDCs are MFN duty free; the respective 
percentages are 84 per cent for Malaysia, 79 per cent for Chinese Taipei, and 67 per cent for Thailand.  
Likewise, 91 per cent of LDC manufactured produc ts entered Chinese Taipei free of duty.  These 
examples of favourable duty-free treatment for agri culture and manufactured goods, when compared 
to an average of only 27 and 42 per cent, respec tively, for the group of selected developing countries 
in Table 15, illustrate the wide dispersion of tariffs  facing South-South trade.  It indicates also the 
existing potential for improving LDCs mark et access in developing countries.  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 36 Table 15:  Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developing markets, 2006 
 
    NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (mio. US$ and percentage) 
   TARIFF REGIME WITH IMPORTS LDC 
   MFN LDC LDC Beneficiaries 
    TOTAL Dutiable Dutiable % duty 
free All 
partners Number Dutiable 
MFN Dutiable LDC 
scheme All 
partners TOTAL Dutiable 
imp. % duty 
free Weighted 
applied duty * 
Brazil Total 9,793 9,107 - - 8,284 210 198 - 90,240.5 726.5 31.8 95.6 15.0 
  Agriculture 963 884 - - 699 17 17 - 4,098.9 13.4 13.4 0.0 8.8 
  Non-agriculture 8,644 8,075 - - 7, 440 189 180 - 71,742.0 18. 5 18.3 1.0 16.2 
  Ores 45 45 - - 26 1 1 - 1, 499.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 
  Petroleum 2 0 - - 2 1 0 - 9,086.1 679.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 139 103 - - 117 2 0 - 3,814.0 15.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
Chile Total 7,902 7,867 - - 6,644 214 214 - 34,643.7 1,323.5 1,323.5 0.0 6.0 
  Agriculture 1,058 1,058 - - 772 10 10 - 2,356.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 6.0 
  Non-agriculture 6,677 6,642 - - 5, 750 203 203 - 25,354.1 5. 7 5.7 0.0 6.0 
  Ores 42 42 - - 17 0 0 - 797.4 0.0 0.0 . . 
  Petroleum 2 2 - - 2 1 1 - 4,864.6 1,317.2 1, 317.2 0.0 6.0 
  Raw materials 123 123 - - 103 0 0 - 1,271.6 0.0 0.0 . . 
China Total 7,605 6,958 - - 7,400 1,531 1,290 - 716,111.8 20,420.8 1,231.0 94.0 8.3 
  Agriculture 1,092 1,011 - - 999 210 187 - 28,082.2 796.4 694.4 12.8 12.6 
  Non-agriculture 6,322 5,800 - - 6,218 1, 254 1,059 - 579,081.4 1, 016.6 507.4 50.1 7.9 
  Ores 39 11 - - 34 22 1 - 32, 069.2 519.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 1 1 0 - 66,411.9 18,058.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 151 136 - - 148 44 43 - 10,467.0 30.3 29.2 3.6 4.0 
Hong Kong, China Total 7,037 0 - - 6,050 723 0 - 333,127.0 568.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Agriculture 952 0 - - 800 53 0 - 9,019.3 36.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Non-agriculture 5,913 0 - - 5,134 657 0 - 313,499.7 310. 7 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Ores 34 0 - - 15 1 0 - 23.1 6.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . 
  Raw materials 137 0 - - 101 12 0 - 10,585.0 214.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 
India Total 11,692 11,375 - - 9,805 1,619 1,542 - 183,112.0 4,852.1 4,647.7 4.2 15.7 
  Agriculture 1,490 1,444 - - 961 289 267 - 6,965.9 940.3 739.5 21.4 30.6 
  Non-agriculture 9,906 9,635 - - 8,627 1,277 1,222 - 107,423.2 1,252. 7 1,249.2 0.3 12.3 
  Ores 60 60 - - 38 8 8 - 5, 732.8 119.0 119.0 0.0 3.4 
  Petroleum 1 1 - - 1 1 1 - 47,032.0 2,446.8 2, 446.8 0.0 5.0 
  Raw materials 235 235 - - 178 44 44 - 15,958.1 93.3 93.3 0.0 10.3 
Kenya1 Total 5,430 3,480 - - 4,558 883 606 - 6,148.3 110.8 84.3 23.9 13.7 
  Agriculture 732 606 - - 568 162 136 - 579.3 46.9 43.7 6.8 18.6 
  Non-agriculture 4,550 2,805 - - 3, 897 709 465 - 4,859.2 58. 4 35.4 39.4 12.7 
  Ores 33 0 - - 14 2 0 - 4.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 1 0 0 - 682.0 0.0 0.0 . . 
  Raw materials 114 69 - - 78 10 5 - 23.5 5.4 5.2 4.3 11.3 
Korea, Republic of Total 11,261 9,763 9,534 15.3 10,093 818 750 699 305,895.4 1,880.2 1,359.4 27.7 9.6 
  Agriculture 1,537 1,507 1,447 5.9 1, 217 95 95 86 12,040.7 26. 0 13.3 48.7 24.6 
  Non-agriculture 9,443 7,975 7,822 17.2 8, 630 699 631 592 207,609.6 652.0 147.4 77.4 8.3 
  Ores 48 48 41 14.6 36 3 3 3 8,121.1 82.3 82. 3 0.0 1.3 
  Petroleum 10 10 10 0.0 9 6 6 6 55,864.9 1,096.7 1, 096.7 0.0 5.0 
  Raw materials 223 223 214 4.0 201 15 15 12 22,259.1 23.1 19.6 15.2 2.5 
Malawi Total 5,573 5,079 - - 3,845 1,628 1,486 - 1,207.3 238.3 190.4 20.1 16.9 
  Agriculture 755 669 - - 453 161 143 - 186.4 93.3 62.4 33.0 17.8 
  Non-agriculture 4,672 4,287 - - 3,337 1,449 1,335 - 1,012.9 143.8 127.8 11.1 16.9 
  Ores 33 33 - - 2 0 0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 . .  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 37    NUMBER OF TARIFF LINES IMPORTS (mio. US$ and percentage) 
   TARIFF REGIME WITH IMPORTS LDC 
   MFN LDC LDC Beneficiaries 
    TOTAL Dutiable Dutiable % duty 
free All 
partners Number Dutiable 
MFN Dutiable LDC 
scheme All 
partners TOTAL Dutiable 
imp. % duty 
free Weighted 
applied duty * 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 0 0 0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . 
  Raw materials 112 90 - - 53 18 8 - 8.0 1.2 0.1 89.2 3.1 
Malaysia Total 12,583 6,435 - - 11,871 1,344 690 - 127,438.2 377.0 40.2 89.3 8.0 
  Agriculture 1,564 609 - - 1,442 277 127 - 6,578.9 77.8 12.6 83.8 8.0 
  Non-agriculture 10,832 5,807 - - 10,251 1,058 560 - 114,318.5 250.5 27.5 89.0 8.1 
  Ores 39 0 - - 34 3 0 - 371.3 4.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 3 2 - - 3 1 0 - 4,839.3 43.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 145 17 - - 141 5 3 - 1,330.2 0.0 0.0 50.7 7.0 
Pakistan Total 6,804 6,804 - - 5,911 725 725 - 29,544.3 352.9 352.9 0.0 16.2 
  Agriculture 807 807 - - 587 170 170 - 3,484.3 189.5 189.5 0.0 9.5 
  Non-agriculture 5,839 5,839 - - 5, 222 543 543 - 21,854.3 162. 4 162.4 0.0 19.0 
  Ores 33 33 - - 14 1 1 - 85.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 
  Petroleum 1 1 - - 1 0 0 - 3,758.7 0.0 0.0 . . 
  Raw materials 124 124 - - 87 11 11 - 361.3 0.9 0.9 0.0 9.5 
Singapore Total 10,688 6 - - 9,449 1,948 2 - 233,750.7 386.8 1.7 99.6 0.0 
  Agriculture 1,216 6 - - 1,000 251 2 - 5,926.5 81.6 1.7 97.9 0.0 
  Non-agriculture 9,294 0 - - 8,306 1, 683 0 - 206,230.0 295. 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Ores 36 0 - - 20 1 0 - 41.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 2 0 - - 2 2 0 - 20,393.1 10.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 140 0 - - 121 11 0 - 1,160.2 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 
South Africa Total 6,664 3,140 - - 5,807 1,748 859 - 57,899.1 1,055.9 156.0 85.2 11.4 
  Agriculture 880 507 - - 761 202 110 - 3,128.0 114.8 104.1 9.3 8.7 
  Non-agriculture 5,633 2,614 - - 4,929 1,504 747 - 43,947.9 265. 5 51.4 80.7 12.0 
  Ores 33 0 - - 27 14 0 - 374.7 51.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 1 1 0 - 9,239.7 584.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 117 19 - - 89 27 2 - 1,208.8 39.5 0.6 98.6 0.3 
Chinese Taipei Total 8,839 6,073 5,952 32.7 8,027 607 453 393 197,424.9 3,156.8 39.8 98.7 7.0 
  Agriculture 1,421 1,085 1,075 24.3 1, 133 60 38 32 7,351.9 65. 6 13.9 78.9 6.9 
  Non-agriculture 7,210 4,947 4,836 32.9 6, 724 532 413 359 156,230.4 299.1 25.9 91.3 7.2 
  Ores 40 0 0 100.0 21 3 0 0 1,199.1 0.1 0. 0 100.0 0.0 
  Petroleum 2 1 1 50.0 2 1 0 0 23,541.4 2,765.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 166 40 40 75.9 147 11 2 2 9,102.1 26.2 0.0 100.0 0.2 
Thailand Total 5,505 4,489 - - 5,208 1,111 1,015 - 125,770.9 4,890.1 3,233.2 33.9 15.2 
  Agriculture 768 726 - - 659 145 138 - 4,468.9 156.7 52.1 66.8 17.1 
  Non-agriculture 4,592 3,677 - - 4,418 931 855 - 96,636.6 1,321. 0 1,140.0 13.7 15.6 
  Ores 33 21 - - 26 8 7 - 277.6 9.9 9.8 0.8 0.8 
  Petroleum 1 0 - - 1 1 0 - 19,809.1 1,355.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 
  Raw materials 111 65 - - 104 26 15 - 4,578.7 2,047.0 2,031.2 0.8 1.0 
 '-' Data on preferential treatment of LD C exports if not available/not relevant. 
 * Excludes non- ad valorem  duties 
 1 2005 data. 
Source : WTO, UNCTAD, ITC 
 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 38  
 
  C. 
THE UTILIZATION OF PREFERENCES  
57. The previous section indicates that most LDCs benefit from duty-free access to the developed 
markets under various non-reciprocal preferentia l arrangements.  Howe ver, in some cases, 
prerequisites attached to these preferential schemes may impede their full utilization.  This, however, 
is not the case as many preferential regimes may have pr erequisites that impede their full utilization.  
Numerous non-tariff measures (NTMs), such as rul es of origin, have a direct impact on the low 
utilization of preferences.19  Other factors may reduce the attractiveness of preferential treatment such 
as increased administrative burden to demonstrate exporter's eligibility that is not outweighed by a clear gain in market access.
20  
58. Another obstacle to the utilisation of preferentia l schemes is closely linked to the capacity of 
LDCs to diversify their exports on a competitive basi s, and to supply internationally tradable goods.  
Indeed, preferential tariff were initially granted with  a view to encouraging product diversification, 
rather than providing an additional margin of pr eference for existing production and trade.  Thus, the 
success of preferential scheme may eventually be ju dged through their capacity to diversify the export 
base in the preference beneficiary countries.  
59. Estimating an indicator on utilization of preferences involves several statistical and 
conceptual difficulties.  One is the availability of  comprehensive and comparable official data on 
preferential schemes.  In addition, LDC products entering developed markets are often eligible to 
more than one preferential regime.  Because the act ual import is reported only under one of them, 
leaving the other options unutilised, the larger th e number of preferential schemes, the lower will be 
the rate of utilization for any specific regime.  Therefore, as a way to overcome this problem, all 
preferential regimes are merged into the analysis. 
60. Table 16 presents the aggregate rates of pref erence utilization obtaine d for three developed 
economies:  Canada, the European Union and the Unite d States.  As it can be seen, rates of utilization 
vary according to coverage of different preference programmes.  In the EU, where for a large number 
of transactions the tariff regime applied was not re ported, the rate of utilization falls within a 69-83 
range in 2006;  if these unknown treatments are excl uded, the rate of utilization was 81 per cent.  
However, it may be noted that LDC exports to th e EU are more diversified (LDCs exported into 
37 per cent of all traded tariff lines) while this indicat or stands at only 17 per cent in the US.  Canada 
has a high rate of utilization (88 per cent), pe rhaps reflecting the effort made to reduce the 
administrative burden involved in relevant impor t procedures.  Canada attracts a fairly well 
diversified range of LDC products, as shown by a diversification rate of  22 per cent.  This is high if 
one considers the small size of its market compared to the EC or the US. 
 
 
                                                      
19 See WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 for an in-depth analysis of NTMs. 
20This may occur, for example, when new preferences are granted for a limited period of time; 
exporters may prefer to stick to the previous regime if the administrative burden associated to the new scheme is 
high.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Table 16:  Preference utilization for selected developed markets, 2006 
 
Importing country a Coverage of preferences Rate of 
 utilization (%) 
 Use of  
tariff lines (%) b 
Canada  General Preferential Tariff (GSP) and LDC tariffs 88   22 
 
European Union Including a ll preferential programmes c [69 – 83] d 37 
 
United States Including a ll preferential programmes e 79 17 
 
 a Results 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 coun tries include LDCs, excluding Timor Leste, Eritrea, 
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Myanmar, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sudan. 
 b Number of tariff lines (under pref erential and MFN regimes) used by  LDCs for their exports to the 
reporting country, divided by total number of tariff lines used by all trade partners.  
 c Include GSP and other preferential schemes such as Everything But Arms and the Cotonou 
Agreement. 
 d The 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 all imputed to preferential treatment s, the lower bound is obtained when "unknown treatments"  are treated as 
non-preferential. Excluding all un known treatments, the rate of utilization for EC is 81 per cent. 
 e All 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 
 
61. As shown in Chart 11, developed markets re latively small in size tend to attract a less 
diversified set of LDC exports, despite the prefer ential regimes granted to them.  For example, 
New Zealand or Norway offer full duty-free treatment  to all LDC products, but were able to attract 
trade with LDCs only on a small range of products.  This can be explained by the existence of high 
transaction costs that are not compensated by the po ssibility of high volumes due to the small market 
size.  In other cases, like Japan or the US, other fact ors (specificity of the retail market or presence of 
NTMs) influence probably the low diversification of  LDC exports to these mark ets, despite they are 
big in size.21   
 
                                                      
21 It is well known that exporters must be able to guarantee large volumes of merchandise to their 
clients in order to enter the US market. This is not always possible for the small and medium firms that 
constitute the bulk of the industry in most LDCs and explain, inter alia , the difficulties of African LDCs in 
strengthening and diversifying their cl othing exports, despite the preferentia l treatment they receive in the US 
compared to their Asian counterparts. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 40  
 
  Chart 11:  Diversification of LDC exports to selected developed markets granting preferential 
treatments 
051015202530354045
European Communities
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
Canada
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
United States
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
Australia
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
Switzerland
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
Japan
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
Norway
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
New Zealand
Agriculture
Manufactures
Other Commodities
 
Source:   WTO 
 
IV. RECENT INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS  
62. This section focuses on recent mark et access initiatives in favour of LDCs which have been  
taken by Members since the previous report by the Secretariat issued in October 2007.  Annex Table 2 
provides an updated, non-exhaustive list of mark et access initiatives taken by Members since 2000, 
based on notifications by Members and other in formation made available to the Secretariat.22  While 
since the last review the number of new initiatives by Members have been limited, the implementation of the Hong Kong Decision on DFQF market acce ss for LDCs, has remained a priority for WTO 
members.
23   
A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECISION ON DFQF MARKET ACCESS TO 
LDCS  
63. As per the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration,  Members have notified the implementation of 
the schemes adopted under the Decision on DFQF ma rket access to LDCs (herein after "the DFQF 
Decision") to the Committee on Trade and Developmen t (CTD).  Since the adoption of the Decision 
in December 2005, Japan and Switzerland informed their implementation in 2007.24  T h e  
United States kept the CTD informed of the procedural steps to implement the Decision.25  It should 
also be noted that other developed country Memb ers such as Australia, Canada, the EC, New Zealand 
                                                      
22 A non-exhaustive list of market access initiatives in favour of LDCs taken prior to 200 0 is contained 
in the previous note by the Secretariat in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38.  
23 The decision on DFQF market access is containe d in Annex F of the Ministerial Declaration 
(WT/MIN(05)/DEC).  
24 Japan's notification is contained in WT/COMTD/N /2/Add.14.  Switzerland  informed the Special 
Session of the CTD in April 2007, and the note of the m eeting is contained in TN/C TD/M/28.  Switzerland is 
yet to submit a formal/written notification. 
25 Contained in WT/COMTD/W/149 and its addenda.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 41 
 
 
  and Norway had already met the conditions set out in  the Decision prior to the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference, although Norway submitted its formal notification on its DFQF market access initiative 
for LDCs that had been in place since 1 July 2002 to the CTD in April 2008.26  Based on these 
notifications by Members, the CTD has conducted two annual reviews of the implementation of the 
Decision, in 2006 and 2007.   
64. One of the notable developments since the last report by the Secretariat is India's 
announcement of its Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme for LDCs during the India-Africa 
Forum Summit in April 2008.  This is the first announcement made by a developing country Member 
to implement the Hong Kong decision, although there ha ve been indications of such intent by some 
other developing country Members.  According to th e Indian authorities, the scheme is envisaged to 
provide DFQF market access for all LDCs on 85 per cent of its tariff lines at the HS 6-digit level 
within a five-year time frame, covering 92.5 pe r cent of the LDC exports to the country.27  In addition, 
limited tariff concessions in the range of 10 to 100 per cent are available on 9 per cent of the tariff 
lines, while the remaining 6 per cent of the lines are excluded from any preferential treatment.   
65. In addition to the regular monitoring exercise of  the implementation of the DFQF Decision at 
the CTD, the LDCs as a group have continued their efforts to ensure that the key elements of the 
decision are duly reflected in the modalities of th e negotiations in agriculture and non-agricultural 
products.28  The two proposals submitted by the LDC Group in 2006 - one on the implementation of 
DFQF market access and the other on rules of origin - have provided the basi s for their efforts in 
operationalizing the DFQF Decision.29  The Maseru Declaration, adopted by LDC Trade Ministers in 
February 2008, has further articulated specificities in their demand for the operationalization of the 
Decision, including on "commercially mean ingful" market access for LDC products.30 
66. The negotiations on the implementation of the Hong Kong Decision have largely taken place 
at the Negotiating Group on Market Access (NGMA).  To operationalise the Decision, the LDC Group has sought  information from developed c ountry Members on the products which will be 
covered by the commitment to provide DFQF ma rket access for at least 97 per cent of products 
originating from LDCs, defined at the tariff line leve l, by 2008 or no later than the start of the 
implementation period of the Round.
31  More specifically, the Group has demanded that this 
information be provided by the time Members su bmit their draft schedules of concessions for the 
Doha Round.  Furthermore, LDCs have asked th at developed country Members should phase-in the 
remaining 3 per cent of tariff lines under the DFQF co verage by the end of the implementation period 
of the Round.  Developing countries have also been  requested to provide LDCs with DFQF market 
access by the end of the implementation period.  As  regards rules of origin, the LDC Group  have 
asked Members to use its proposal as the model for designing the preferential rules of origin 
applicable to imports from LDCs.  
                                                      
26 Norway's notification is contained in document WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4, 10 April 2008.  See 
Annex Table 2 for the notifications by other Members.  
27 Note of the Meeting of 5 May 2008, contained in document WT/COMTD/M/69.  India is yet to 
submit a formal/written notification to the CTD.  
28 The latest versions of draft modalities are contai ned in document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3 for agriculture 
and TN/MA/W/103/Rev.2 for NAMA.   
29 The proposals are contained in document TN/MA/W/78 (also TN/AG/GEN/23 and TN/CTD/W/31) 
and TN/MA/W/74 (also TN/AG/GEN/20  and TN/CTD/W/30), respectively.  
30 The Maseru Declaration is contained in document WT/L/719.  
31 LDCs have been concerned about the uncertainty that  the product coverage for at least 97 per cent of 
tariff lines may not include their major exports, given the narrow baskets of products they produce and export.  
This uncertainty about the product coverage, coupled with the proposed treatment of preference erosion in the 
draft NAMA modalities, has led some LDCs, namely, Bangl adesh, Cambodia and Nepal to add their names to 
those countries claiming to be potentially  "disproportionately affected members" as a result of granting a longer 
implementation period of tariff cuts on the tariff lines identified in Annex 3 of the draft modalities in NAMA. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 42  
 
  67. During the recent informal Ministerial mee ting on the draft modalities on agriculture and 
NAMA held between 21 to 29 July 2008, there was convergence on the specific modalities language 
on market access for LDCs.
32  In his report to the Trade Negotiations Committee, the Chair of the 
NGMA outlined the following elements as agreed  in the draft modalities on market access for 
LDCs33:: (i) a provision for meaningfully enhanced market  access for all LDCs;  (ii) a date to be 
negotiated, prior to the date of the Special Session of the Ministerial Conference to be held to take 
decisions on all "Single Undertaking" issues, to in form WTO Members of the 97 per cent coverage of 
DFQF market access to LDCs;  and (iii) the NG MA to negotiate the details of the monitoring 
procedure by the time of the submission of final sch edules.  The monitoring exercise, envisaged at the 
CTD should cover both (i) the implementation of DF QF market access, including the steps taken and 
possible timeframes established to progressively  achieve the 100 per cent product coverage; and 
(ii) the corresponding rules of origin.  It should ho wever be noted that in the end, Members in the 
informal Ministerial meeting in July 2008 did not reach agreement on the modalities on Agriculture 
nor on NAMA. 
B. OTHER INITIATIVES  
68. In addition to the initiatives take n in pursuit of the DFQF Decision at the multilateral level, 
some Members have taken steps to improve market access in favour of LDCs in regional or bilateral 
trade contexts.   
69. China submitted a communication to the CTD in February 2008 on the latest developments 
taken within the Framework of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), whose Summit 
was held in November 2006.  According to the Ch inese authorities, by 1 January 2008, DFQF market 
access is provided to 27 African LDCs having diplomatic relations with China.34  In addition, China 
also grants duty-free market access to its LDC partners within the Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic Co-operation with A SEAN – Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar from 
1 January 2006, as well as to other LDCs, name ly Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Samoa, 
Vanuatu, Yemen through different bilateral and regional initiatives.   According to the latest 
Secretariat's report on the Trade Policy Review for China 2008, the average rates of unilateral special 
preference tariffs offered to 37 LD Cs under different schemes ranged fro m 9.0 to 9.5 per cent, slightly 
lower than the overall simple average a pplied MFN rate of 9.7 per cent in 2007.35 
70. A notable development in the area of market acce ss for LDCs since the last Secretariat report 
is the conclusion of full and interim Economic Part nership Agreements (EPAs) at the end of 2007 
between the EC and six ACP regions, which include a number of LDCs.36  Prior to the EPAs, the 
trade relations of LDCs with the EC have traditi onally been governed by the Everything But Arms 
(EBA).  Whilst most of full EPAs are still under ne gotiation with a view to finalisation by the end of 
2008, the 2007 agreements mark the first departur e, for those LDCs which have initialled the 
                                                      
32 Contained in JOB(08)/96.  
33 As indicated in the report by the Chairman of the Special Session of th e Committee on Agriculture, 
contained in JOB(08)/95, the treatment  of LDC market access in the agricu ltural modalities is envisaged to be 
resolved on an equivalent basis as and when the issue is resolved in NGMA. 
34 Contained in document WT/COMTD/W/164, 21 February 2008.  
35 The report is contained in document WT/TPR/S/199 , 16 April 2008.  According to Table III.3, the 
average rates range from 9.5 per cent for 28 African LDCs; and 9.2 per cent for Afghanistan, the Maldives, 
Samoa, Vanuatu.  For the LDCs which benefit from pref erences from more than on e scheme, the average rates 
are lower, including  8.9 per cent for Bangladesh; 8.0 per cent for Lao PDR; 8.6 per cent for Cambodia; and 5.9 per cent for Myanmar. 
36 This section is based on information available on the EC website at 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/index_en.htm.  Out of 79 ACP count ries, 40 are LDCs classified as such by the UN.  In 
addition, Cape Verde, which graduated from the LDC categ ory in December 2007, has been granted a period of 
transition allowing to benefit from EBA for three years.     WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 43 
 
 
  agreements, away from a trade relationship based on unilateral preferences from the EC, to eventually 
one based on the reciprocity principle.37  By the end of 2007, the EC initialled a full EPA with the 
Caribbean Forum of ACP states (CARIFORUM) wh ich includes Haiti; interim EPAs with the East 
African Community (EAC) which includes four LD Cs – Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda; 
with Comoros and Madagascar in the Eastern a nd Southern Africa (ESA); with Lesotho and 
Mozambique in the Southern African Development Community (SADC).  For the other LDCs in the 
ACP Group, non-reciprocal DFQF market access under the EBA c ontinues to govern their trade 
relations with the EC, until interim or full EPAs with the EC are signed. 
V. CONCLUSION 
71. Despite growing at a slower rate than previous years, LDCs' exports of goods and services 
registered a growth rate of 19.6 per cent in 2007.  This is the seventh c onsecutive year whereby the 
growth rates of LDC exports outperformed those of world trade.  During this period (2000-2007), LDCs tripled their export earning from US$42 billion to US$138 billon.  A major source of this 
impressive growth is the rapid price increases since 2003 of fuels and mining products, which account for some 58 per cent of the total LDC exports today.  This has enabled the LDCs as a Group to 
maintain the trade surplus in merc handise trade in 2007, which had been registered for the first time 
only one year earlier.  Prior to 2006, trade deficit ha d long been a main feature of LDC trade profile.  
While fuels and mineral products has dominated the recent performance of LDC exports, the receipts 
from commercial services also grew, reaching 21 pe r cent in 2007, which was higher than the average 
rate of 12.3 per cent registered during the 2000-2007 period.  Desp ite the recent dynamic 
performance, nonetheless, the LDCs remain a margin al player in world trade, with their share 
accounting around 0.8 per cent in world trade.  
72. Export concentration continues to be the distinctive feature of LDC trade, although the 
relative weights of major products and markets have  changed over the period 2000-2006.  In terms of 
LDCs' major products, the share of oil and other mi neral products expanded by  20 percentage points, 
accounting for over 60 per cent of LDC exports in 2006 , while that of clothing and food items has 
witnessed a gradual decline, and together they acc ounted for 22 per cent of LDC trade in 2006.  In 
terms of market destinations for LDC products, th e United States replaced the 27-members EC for the 
first time as the single most important market in 2006.  Another feature is the increasing importance of developing country markets, which absorbed 45 per cent of total exports of LDCs in 2006, up from 
38 per cent in 2005.  In particular, China dramati cally increased its share from 11 per cent in 2000 to 
19 per cent in 2006, and now stands at the third pl ace not far behind the EC.  The LDC products that 
feature prominently in the imports of developi ng countries include minera l fuels, wood products, 
cotton, copper, vegetables and oil seeds.  The onl y important category for which developed country 
markets remain a dominant export destination is  that of textiles and clothing products.   
73. The shift-share methodology has identified several  factors which can explain the evolution of 
LDC exports between 2000 and 2007.  The results s how that the recent dynamism of LDC exports 
was due to the overall trend in world trade (47 per cent), as well as a favourable initial composition of 
LDC exports on products of high demand, such as mainly oil and other minerals (10 per cent).  
However, the initial geographical distribution in 2000, with an over-weight of developed economy 
markets in comparison to emerging ones, had a small negative (–2 per cent) impact.  More importantly, the capacity of LDCs to adapt their produc tion to the shifts in global demand, gain global 
competitiveness and redirect their exports to the mo st dynamic markets explain some 45 per cent.  
                                                     
 
37 It should be noted that a number of bilateral and regional trade agreements between developing and 
least-developed countries are being governed by the prin ciple of reciprocity, often with additional flexibilities 
granted to LDC partners.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 44  
 
  74. In terms of market access, 79 per cent of LDC exports entered de veloped countries on a 
duty-free basis in 2006.  Most of LDC products enjoy duty-free market access to these markets under 
various preference schemes.  The notable exceptions are the textiles and clothing products from some 
LDCs in Asia which continue to f ace high tariffs in  the US market.  As a result, only 70 per cent of 
LDCs' non-agricultural products entered develope d countries duty-free, in contrast to 90 to 
100 per cent of duty-free entry of agricultural and mineral products.  LDCs' exports to developing 
countries have been conducted mostly on an MF N basis, although the developing countries have 
recently come forward to enhance market ac cess for LDC products through a variety of 
channels-bilateral, regional and mu ltilateral.  In 2006, the duty-fr ee imports of developing countries 
from LDCs was 69 per cent.   
75. The opportunities to take advantage of preferentia l market access available to LDCs can be 
conditioned by different factors.  For instance, di fferent utilisation rates across preference schemes by 
developed countries indicate the existence of no n-tariff measures such as rules of origin and 
administrative burden which may prevent LDC export ers from using available market access.  The 
lack of productive capacity is another hindrance fo r LDC exports as a series of  structural factors, 
supply-side constraints and high transaction cost s reduce the competitiveness of LDC exports in the 
world market.  Therefore, enhancing trade in LD Cs not only relies on improved and effective market 
access opportunities but needs to be accompanied by th e provision of adequate trade infrastructure 
and measure that can facilitate trade.  While th e market access issues are being addressed at the WTO 
negotiations, the LDCs as well as the international comm unity should continue to give full attention to 
enhance the capacity of LDCs to produce more trad able products at competitive prices, such as for 
example through the Enhanced IF and the Aid for Trade initiative.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 45 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
Annex Table 1(a):  Imports of agricultural produc ts, fuels and manufactures of the EFTA, Turkey and 
the Russian Federation from least-developed countries, 2007  
         (Million dollars and percentage) 
EFTA a  Turkey b Russian Federation  
Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change    
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  2007 2006 2007 
A. Agricultural products            
Total LDCs  89 0 30 Total LDCs  162 ... ... Total LDCs  240 22 45 
Tanzania  22 1 54 Ethiopia  43 ... ... Mauritania  62 -9 33 
Ethiopia  17 -16 81 Tanzania  14 ... ... Malawi  50 15 39 
Mozambique  9 24 54 Malawi  23 ... ... Tanzania  34 35 45 
Senegal  8 119 -18 Afghanistan  11 ... ... Mozambique  31 129 43 
Bangladesh  8 35 -5 Mozambique  12 ... ... Bangladesh  23 120 207 
Madagascar  5 42 16 Sudan  11 ... ... Zambia  11 220 98 
Uganda  5 3 -12 Central African 
Republic  8 ... ... Ethiopia  8 62 63 
Malawi  4 -48 55 Uganda  18 ... ... Afghanistan  7 183 -35 
Togo  3 4 61 Somalia  1 ... ... Uganda  5 -50 26 
Sudan  1 70 -39 Myanmar  2 ... ... Sudan  2 183 161 
Cambodia  1 -100 ... Equatorial 
Guinea  2 ... ... Congo, Dem. 
Rep. of  2 263 450 
Others (39)  6 -56 20 Others (39)   17 ... ... Others (39)  4 -40 1 
B. Fuels and mining products           
Total LDCs  313 137 190 Total LDCs  35 ... ... Total LDCs  200 -19 16 
Angola  205 ... 239 Equatorial 
Guinea  6 ... ... Guinea  198 -19 15 
Equatorial Guinea  98 ...   Zambia  0 ... ... Sierra Leone  1  236 
Mauritania  9 3 -3 Afghanistan  0 ... ... Rwanda  1   
Sierra Leone  1   ... Angola  12 ... ... Congo, Dem. 
Rep. of  0   
Zambia  0   16 Bangladesh  0 ... ... Madagascar  0  4 
Mali  0     Cambodia  8 ... ... Vanuatu  0 -87 283 
Guinea  0     Central African 
Republic  0 ... ... Lao PDR  0 180 -43 
Eritrea  0   -82 Congo, Dem. 
Rep. of  0 ... ... Uganda  0   
Others (42)  0 490 -100 Others (42)   9 ... ... Others (42)  0 -99 ... 
C. Manufactures             
Total LDCs  290 30 23 Total LDCs  205 ... ... Total LDCs  109 324 5 
Bangladesh  175 21 14 Bangladesh  142 ... ... Bangladesh  64 156 95 
Liberia  58 ... 199 Nepal  6 ... ... Cambodia  18 39 127 
Cambodia  31 0 16 Comoros  1 ... ... Liberia  10 59 ... 
Nepal  7 6 25 Cambodia  5 ... ... Niger  7 ... -87 
Lao PDR  3 0 20 Lao PDR 1 ... ... Myanmar  2 43 -24 
Angola  3 46 -61 Madagascar  0 ... ... Sierra Leone  2 -79 ... 
Haiti  3 71 25 Myanmar  2 ... ... Uganda  1 -100 ... 
Madagascar  3 114 -10 Afghanistan  1 ... ... Madagascar  1 ... 196 
Afghanistan  2 132 127 Haiti  0 ... ... Angola  1 ... ... 
Myanmar  1 -6 -31 Angola  0 ... ... Lao PDR  1 70 64 
Sierra Leone  1 ... ... Benin  0 ... ... Nepal  1 58 61 
Senegal  1 129 14 Burundi  0 ... ... Sudan  0 ... -77 
Mali  1 104 107 Central African 
Republic  0 ... ... Guinea  0 308 -32 
Others (37)  4 24 -67 Others (37)   47 ... ... Others (37)  1 32 -64 
 a Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. 
 b Secretariat estimates. 
Source: WTO 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 46  
 
   
Annex Table 1(b):  Imports of agricultural produ cts, fuels and manufactures of Asia from the 
least-developed countries, 2007  
          (Million dollars and percentage) 
Asiaa   Developed Asiab Developing Asiac 
Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change    
  
  2006 2005 2006   
  
  2006 2005 2006   
  2006 2005 2006 
A. Agricultural products            
Total LDCs  4743 15 11 Total LDCs  645 5 5 Total LDCs  4099 17 12 
Myanmar  1542 24 19 Myanmar  132 6 22 Myanmar  1410 26 19 
Burkina Faso  250 21 9 Mauritania  98 12 -22 Burkina Faso  240 23 9 
Tanzania  243 23 -16 Ethiopia  96 2 24 Solomon 
Islands  186 17 12 
Ethiopia  231 72 38 Tanzania  62 25 17 Tanzania  181 22 -24 
Solomon Islands  212 13 15 Vanuatu  32 -1 70 Mali  176 -18 30 
Vanuatu  197 10 39 Malawi  31 160 -25 Benin  168 3 -21 
Mali  179 -18 30 Solomon Islands  26 -16 46 Vanuatu  165 12 34 
Bangladesh  174 37 32 Bangladesh  24 -6 22 Bangladesh  150 48 34 
Benin  168 3 -21 Maldives  21 -2 -1 Lao PDR  143 8 30 
Lao PDR  150 7 31 Madagascar  21 -17 -13 Ethiopia  135 312 49 
Mozambique  123 12 7 Mozambique  16 -4 -7 Mozambique  106 16 9 
Others (39)  1276 8 1 Others (39)  86 -14 -2 Others (39)  1038 9 6 
B. Fuels and mining 
products            
Total LDCs  35461 29 56 Total LDCs  4422 61 62 Total LDCs  31039 26 55 
Angola  14092 28 82 Sudan  2994 43 64 Angola  13399 28 74 
Yemen  6238 23 38 Angola  693  ... Yemen  5948 14 49 
Sudan  5264 44 15 Equatorial Guinea  321 375 43 Equatorial 
Guinea  3314 16 79 
Equatorial 
Guinea  3635 26 75 Yemen  290 210 -44 Sudan  2269 44 -17 
Myanmar  2221 45 31 Zambia  44 -42 -20 Myanmar  2221 45 31 
Zambia  1236 13 73 Tanzania  35 -37 49 Zambia  1192 23 81 
Lao PDR  484 ... 238 Timor-Leste  14 ... -66 Lao PDR  484 ... 239 
Guinea  459 18 159 Chad  12   Guinea  459 18 159 
Others (42)  1832 -1 69 Others (42)  19 -60 -21 Others (42)  1752 1 75 
C. Manufactures             
Total LDCs  2122 25 -1 Total LDCs  528 16 24 Total LDCs  1593 28 -7 
Bangladesh  674 11 24 Bangladesh  161 7 1 Bangladesh  513 12 34 
Myanmar  281 -5 27 Myanmar  130 15 26 Nepal  203 -3 -19 
Nepal  213 -2 -19 Cambodia  124 9 12 Angola  161 ... 67 
Cambodia  204 8 7 Samoa  56 ... 421 Myanmar  151 -18 28 
Angola  162 ... 67 Nepal  10 26 3 Bhutan  116 35 68 
Bhutan  116 34 68 Mali  8 ... 44 Liberia  114 255 -52 
Liberia  114 254 -52 Madagascar  8 -2 87 Cambodia  80 5 0 
Samoa  74 ... ... Niger  6 428 131 Senegal  58 75 -80 
Senegal  60 75 -79 Lao PDR  5 2 39 Tanzania  21 -57 50 
Lao PDR  25 -25 20 Sierra Leone  4 147 410 Ethiopia  20 31 10 
Tanzania  23 -53 40 Togo  3 -6 ... Lao PDR  20 -29 16 
Madagascar  22 62 21 Tanzania  2 2 -11 Zambia  19 16 -29 
Ethiopia  20 32 10 Haiti  2 43 0 Samoa  18 -73 ... 
Others (37)  134 -10 -14 Others (37)  10 40 -4 Others (37)  99 -17 -20 
 a Australia; China; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia;  Japan; Korea Rep. of; Malaysia; New Zealand; 
Philippines; Singapore and Chinese Taipei. 
 b Australia; Japan and New Zealand. 
 c China; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Korea Rep. of; Malaysia, Philippines; Singapore and Chinese Taipei. 
Source:  WTO 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 47 
 
 
  Annex Table 1(c):  Imports of agricultural produc ts, fuels and manufactures of selected developing 
economies of Asia from least-developed countries, 2007  
(Million dollars and percentage) 
China  Thailand     India  
Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  
  2007 2006 2007   
  2007 2006 2007  2006 2005 2006 
A. Agricultural products           
Total LDCs  1418 19 0 Total LDCs  626 5 -6 Total LDCs  1309 26 15 
Myanmar  293 -9 39 Vanuatu  173 32 10 Myanmar  774 33 48 
Solomon Islands  182 29 46 Myanmar  143 -7 -18 Nepal  88 65 -27 
Burkina Faso  155 18 -20 Lao PDR  70 10 -27 Tanzania  75 -2 -29 
Equatorial Guinea  130 30 40 Maldives  50 35 -18 Benin  68 -5 9 
Mozambique  113 34 70 Burkina Faso  37 -9 67 Bangladesh  60 110 42 
Benin  90 -35 8 Mali  27 12 -8 Guinea-Bissau  49 39 -49 
Ethiopia  67 66 -41 Cambodia  27 -27 49 Afghanistan  34 25 -41 
Lao PDR  56 137 37 Solomon 
Islands  23 -24 90 Bhutan  30 59 190 
Bangladesh  54 32 36 Mozambique  10 37 40 Mozambique  19 -6 -46 
Cambodia  39 85 61 Bangladesh  9 72 12 Gambia  17 24 49 
Zambia  36 79 -35 Tanzania  9 -36 -30 Togo  16 402 -9 
Others (39)  203 26 -45 Others (39)  46 -13 -26 Others (39)  78 -19 29 
B. Fuels and mining products          
Total LDCs  22221 35 18 Total LDCs  4327 46 4 Total LDCs  2980 38 ... 
Angola  12880 66 18 Myanmar  2134 35 0 Yemen  1999 -82 ... 
Sudan  4152 -27 121 Yemen  1419 26 21 Guinea  333 -33 ... 
Yemen  1736 -16 -22 Lao PDR  369 222 -3 Angola  245 324 ... 
Equatorial Guinea  1566 79 -36 Zambia  249 203 -10 Sudan  76 71 ... 
Mauritania  565 ... 42 Angola  84 16 -34 Zambia  72 436 257 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  453 105 27 Sudan  25  ... Togo  60 62 -3 
Zambia  356 -3 67 Cambodia  15 156 23 Bhutan  59 133 108 
Tanzania  171 -8 82 Haiti  11 6 ... Bangladesh  28 275 365 
Others (42)  344 15 3 Others (42)  21 333 -39 Others (42)  107 43 -2 
C. Manufactures            
Total LDCs  174 24 28 Total LDCs  100 21 -25 Total LDCs  551 50 -37 
Bangladesh  58 19 1 Lao PDR  28 1 107 Nepal  191 -2 -21 
Myanmar  39 70 96 Bhutan  24 290 ... Bangladesh  139 123 75 
Ethiopia  12 2 -15 Myanmar  24 76 27 Senegal  57 74 -80 
Cambodia  12 -23 12 Bangladesh  7 15 -74 Bhutan  51 -3 4 
Uganda  11 ... 403 Cambodia  6 91 116 Liberia  41 213 -66 
Angola  9 -62 293 Angola  3 282 -65 Tanzania  16 -41 60 
Yemen  6 172 257 Madagascar  3 49 28 Zambia  13 26 -35 
Nepal  4 11 -9 Tanzania  2 43 90 Vanuatu  8  -83 
Lao PDR  4 120 93 Nepal  1 -42 41 Myanmar  7 157 36 
Tanzania  4 80 11 Senegal  0 -95 ... Niger  4 -69 ... 
Madagascar  3 23 53 Togo  0 163 ... Somalia  3 19 163 
Zambia  3 50 36 Burkina Faso  0 -99 ... Madagascar  3 5 85 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  3 ... -68 Sudan  0 -9 -73 Comoros  2  -14 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 48  
 
  Annex Table 1(c) (continued) 
  Taipei, Chinese   Korea, Republic of   Malaysia 
 Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change 
  2006 2005 2006   2007 2006 2007   2007 2006 2007 
A. Agricultural products          
Total LDCs  113 23 -19 Total LDCs  99 -2 28 Total LDCs  208 7 21 
Myanmar  44 28 7 Solomon Islands  25 -10 -10 Myanmar  120 -7 12 
Mali  21 47 -1 Malawi  20 182 380 Cambodia  19 112 29 
Burkina Faso  9 41 -54 Myanmar  11 -4 8 Bangladesh  12 14 7 
Senegal  5 -56 35 Senegal  8 29 94 Togo  9 255 83 
Bangladesh  5 62 42 Guinea  6 29 0 Solomon 
Islands  9 5 199 
Malawi  4 142 -11 Bangladesh  5 36 47 Yemen  6 127 -18 
Lao PDR  3 -38 -21 Ethiopia  5 -51 84 Tanzania  6 27 -4 
Yemen  3 8 88 Lao PDR  3 214 66 Liberia  6 151 74 
Zambia  3 ... -56 Tanzania  3 -47 413 Malawi  4 52 -25 
Cambodia  3 2 44 Mozambique  2 244 303 Guinea  2   ... 
Tanzania  2 155 -70 Sudan  2 4 -71 Uganda  2 81 ... 
Others (39)  12 -11 -52 Others (39)  10 -20 0 Others (39)  12 -29 67 
B. Fuels and mining products          
Total LDCs  3015 2 88 Total LDCs  1859 74 8 Total LDCs  162 43 -7 
Angola  1866 14 90 Zambia  604 73 40 Sudan  41 -97 ... 
Equatorial Guinea  870 -24 78 A ngola  341 ... 56 Lao PDR  35 286 -28 
Zambia  151 -47 308 Sudan  341 74 49 Tanzania  31 84 2 
Chad  57   -29 Yemen  255 53 -49 Yemen  22 -3 -49 
Lao PDR  35 ... ... Guinea  124 -22 -1 Zambia  13 23 -71 
Tanzania  14 -99 ... Bangladesh  85 ... 226 Rwanda  6 -95 ... 
Yemen  9 173 ... Lao PDR  67   373 Congo, Dem. 
Rep. of  6 62 59 
Haiti  4 ... 7 Myanmar  27 113 -46 Myanmar  3 -43 102 
Others (42)  7 -11 353 Others (42)  15 31 -88 Others (42)  3 -14 331 
C. Manufactures          
Total LDCs  48 -11 56 Total LDCs  114 -6 30 Total LDCs  337 -52 ... 
Bangladesh  19 -31 34 Bangladesh  52 0 32 Liberia  299 -86 ... 
Samoa  16 -63 ... Myanmar  42 64 20 Bangladesh  18 -6 75 
Cambodia  5 28 73 Cambodia  7 -1 43 Myanmar  15 7 -4 
Myanmar  4 118 -57 Niger  5 39 251 Cambodia  2 344 -55 
Lao PDR  1 62 60 Guinea  2 407 161 Ethiopia  1 ... 157 
Nepal  1 30 -8 Madagascar  1 13 10 Tanzania  0 -14 290 
Madagascar  1 -3 -25 Mali  1 -48 ... Nepal  0 -9 84 
Vanuatu  0   20 Nepal  1 27 -40 Sudan  0 144 18 
Yemen  0 ... -61 Lao PDR  0 18 -83 Timor-Leste  0 -86 ... 
Guinea  0 -59 2 Angola  0 -88 393 Niger  0 -78 ... 
Lesotho  0   -84 Samoa  0 373 144 Djibouti  0 ...   
Liberia  0 100 109 Senegal  0 116 -16 Eritrea  0 222 -27 
Ethiopia  0   ... Sao Tome and 
Principe  0 -92 243 Maldives  0 -5 -47 
Source: WTO   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Annex Table 1(d):  Imports of agricultural products , fuels and manufactures of the selected economies 
in Africa from least-developed countries, 2007  
(Million dollars and percentage) 
South Africa Egypt Morocco 
Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value  Annual 
percentage 
change    
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  2006 2005 2006 
A. Agricultural products            
Total LDCs  180 14 33 Total LDCs  124 -17 26 Total LDCs  80 24 29 
Malawi  56 32 11 Malawi  34 -26 89 Guinea  14 17 108 
Mozambique  43 48 83 Sudan  30 -1 3 Senegal  9 14 38 
Zambia  36 -38 28 Yemen  20 3 50 Burkina Faso  8 -4 47 
Tanzania  13 76 8 Mauritania  11 -42 44 Mali  8 7 37 
Uganda  11 59 106 Togo  8 -88 311 Madagascar  5 38 43 
Benin  5 64 30 Djibouti  5 450 -34 Benin  5 -4 54 
Liberia  4 274 76 Guinea  3  167 Togo  5 104 -56 
Ethiopia  4 224 21 Ethiopia  2 -42 -62 Central African 
Republic  4 22 281 
Guinea  3 142 48 Myanmar  2 19 -60 Cape Verde  4  153 
Madagascar  1 -1 74 Afghanistan  2 -28 29 Uganda  2 52 -22 
Togo  1 -79 ... Liberia  2 131 14 Congo, Dem. Rep. 
of  2 55 -15 
Others (39)  2 21 -25 Others (39)  7 8 -6 Others (39)  14 5 14 
B. Fuels and mining products           
Total LDCs  2325 91 136 Total LDCs  83 -11 -16 Total LDCs  2 -73 -61 
Angola  1643 25 347 Uganda  20   Senegal  1   
Mozambique  277 94 ... Mauritania  19   Congo, Dem. Rep. 
of  0  316 
Zambia  244 56 16 Sudan  15 -10 -51 Mauritania  0 ... 45 
Yemen  144 15 61 Zambia  15 -63 -37 Guinea  0   
Tanzania  5 -64 ... Ethiopia  13 ... -17 Ethiopia  0  ... 
Togo  4   -39 Afghanistan  0   Mali  0  ... 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  4 132 -27 Yemen  0 238 -99 Mozambique  0  ... 
Equatorial Guinea  2 ...   Lesotho  0   Niger  0   
Others (42)  2 ... -99 Others (42)   0 -100 ... Others (42)  0 -75 ... 
C. Manufactures             
Total LDCs  192 16 39 Total LDCs  19 -22 59 Total LDCs  7 48 44 
Zambia  45 49 23 Zambia  7 -94 ... Bangladesh  5 100 33 
Tanzania  34 3 4 Bangladesh  4 102 -7 Guinea  1 -34 47 
Malawi  23 -17 -10 Sudan  3 -31 183 Madagascar  0 239 274 
Bangladesh  23 78 121 Yemen  2 -74 135 Mali  0 113 138 
Mozambique  20 56 17 Ethiopia  1 -29 -38 Cambodia  0 176 400 
Myanmar  14 135 383 Liberia  1 344 -76 Mauritania  0 ... -9 
Uganda  6 -68 ... Djibouti  0  ... Burkina Faso  0  ... 
Cambodia  5 156 183 Myanmar  0 -33 ... Angola  0 124 -35 
Madagascar  5 24 306 Haiti  0   Tanzania  0 ... 120 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  4 -11 141 Malawi  0 -91 ... Benin  0 -94 ... 
Angola  3 -27 49 Tanzania  0 -94 -35 Eritrea  0  ... 
Burundi  3 ... ... Togo  0 -94 55 Sierra Leone  0 62 -44 
Sierra Leone  1 2 104 Benin  0 ...  Uganda  0 69 203 
Others (37)  6 -1 28 Others (37)  0 -19 -72 Others (37)  0 -73 -36 
Source:  WTO  
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 50 Annex Table 1(e): Imports of agricultural products, fuels and manufactures of the Unite d States, Canada, Mexico and Brazil from  least-developed countries, 2007 
                (Million dollars and percentage) 
United States  Canada  Mexico  Brazil  
Value  Annual 
percentage 
change  Value Annual 
percentage 
change  Value Annual 
percentage 
change  Value Annual 
percentage 
change    
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  
  2007 2006 2007   
  2007 2006 2007   
  2007 2006 2007 
A. Agricultural products                
Total LDCs  613 9 -8 Total LDCs  61 5 22 Total LDCs  39 62 13 Total LDCs  38 161 169 
Bangladesh  175 36 -15 Liberia  18 56 7 Sudan  17 34 18 Mali  11  153 
Liberia  118 40 -12 Ethiopia  8 -19 36 Equato rial Guinea  5   Cape Verde  10 -46 ... 
Ethiopia  78 9 32 Bangladesh  6 -27 69 Mozambique  4 -95 ... Benin  5  -8 
Malawi  43 -53 -5 Madagascar  6 8 46 Malawi  4 20 -28 Burkina Faso  5 -100 ... 
Madagascar  42 -9 13 Myanmar  6 -3 54 Vanuatu  2  -60 Malawi  5 -52 115 
Tanzania  29 19 42 Haiti  5 0 26 Tanzania  1 -43 91 Togo  1 ...   
Haiti  20 17 2 Togo  2 269 50 Senegal  1 5 -39 Bangladesh  0 ... -66 
Uganda  16 -17 -7 Uganda  2 17 14 Kiribati  1   Myanmar  0  ... 
Senegal  12 ... -33 Malawi  2 16 33 Solomon Islands  1 ... -61 Madagascar  0 64 -3 
Lao PDR  9 -55 ... Tanzania  1 0 76 Liberia  1 -60 208 Senegal  0  -68 
Sudan  8 -54 24 Timor-Leste  1 40 29 Ma dagascar  0 101 -59 Sudan  0 -33 78 
Others (39)  64 0 -36 Others (39)  3 -35 -38 Others (39)  1 31 -52 Others (39)  0 7 -87 
B. Fuels and mining products                
Total LDCs  17312 34 4 Total LDCs  1385 3 80 Total LDCs  55 -92 ... Total LDCs  1347 132 93 
Angola  12867 38 6 Angola  1118 94 110 Angola  53   Angola  945 ... 103 
Chad  2227 28 12 Equatorial Guinea  141 -54 -32 Uganda  1 ...  Equatorial Guinea  209 -68 126 
Equatorial Guinea  1624 14 -6 Guinea  117 48 334 Haiti  1  15 Congo, Dem. Rep. of  174 ... 32 
Yemen  305 59 -35 Sierra Leone  9 113 ... Sierra Leone  0  289 Togo  10 -42 117 
Guinea  128 27 35 Uganda  0 40 -53 Madagascar  0 -9 23 Zambia  8 18 287 
Sierra Leone  51 ... 44 Zambia  0 -71 129 Ethiopia  0 ...  Uganda  1  17 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  46 -97 ... Madagascar  0 356 203 Senegal  0 -50 -22 Rwanda  0    
Zambia  44 -12 66 Congo, Dem. Rep. of  0   Afghanistan  0 26 -98 Haiti  0 ...   
Others (42)  21 178 -89 Others (42)  0 -46 91 Others (42)  0 -100 -35 Others (42)  0 101 -87 
C. Manufactures                 
Total LDCs  7930 14 10 Total LDCs  862 16 29 Total LDCs  143 42 31 Total LDCs  35 21 109 
Bangladesh  3453 20 5 Bangladesh  501 19 5 Bangladesh  89 54 44 Bangladesh  25 48 127 
Cambodia  2589 25 12 Cambodia  189 21 44 Cambodia  23 56 37 Cambodia  4 107 267 
Haiti  474 9 0 Vanuatu  111 -93 ... Haiti  11 76 2 Congo, Dem. Rep. of  1 -99 ... 
Lesotho  455 2 6 Haiti  15 -20 16 Myanmar  6 -21 87 Myanmar  1 85 17 
Madagascar  315 -13 21 Nepal  13 11 13 Mali  4 98 126 Cape Verde  1 245 -61 
Equatorial Guinea  224 -41 134 Madagascar  11 25 10 Nepal  2 -8 42 Afghanistan  1 14 99 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of  155 -37 106 Lesotho  7 - 22 -22 Madagascar  2 4 18 Rwanda  0 ...   
Nepal  95 -10 -11 Lao PDR  6 -16 27 Senegal  1 -12 -3 Nepal  0 49 69 
Angola  56 -14 13 Sierra Leone  2 2 31 Afghanistan  1 306 -24 Guinea  0 ... ... 
Malawi  21 -21 9 Myanmar  2 -30 -54 Centra l African Republic  1 -53 482 Haiti  0 64 -6 
Tanzania  14 -18 5 Tanzania  1 -28 126 Lao PDR  1 67 19 Senegal  0 -59 ... 
Lao PDR  12 155 33 Afghanistan  1 71 -5 Lesotho  0 -24 20 Lao PDR  0 -18 225 
Niger  9 ... 38 Niger  1 222 -64 Tanzania  0 35 -16 Sierra Leone  0  440 
Others (37)  58 -17 -18 Others (37)  4 68 -33 Others (37)  3 -10 -67 Others (37)  1 -78 -32 
Source : WTO 
 
  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 51Annex Table 2:  Measures in favour of exports originating from LDCs1   
 
Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  References 
 
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 access for all products WT/TPR/S/170   
Canada GSP – Least-developed Countries' 
Tariff Programme (LDCT) 
Entry into force:  January 2003, 
extended until 30 June 2014  LDCs  Duty-free and quota-free acce ss for all products with the 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)2– amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 1,697 products (with av erage margin of preference of 
26.7%) available to all APTA members, tariff concessions granted 
exclusively to LDC members on 161 products with average margin 
of preference of 77.9% WT/COMTD/N/22  
(26 July 2007) 
 
  Bangladesh On top of Asia-Pacific 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 Information received from the 
Government of China 
  Cambodia On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN a nd China, unilateral special 
preferential tariffs (zero rated) are offered on additional 420 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 Lao PDR Duty-free treatment on 330 tari ff lines Information received from the 
Government of China 
  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 received 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 tariff lines Information received from the 
Government of China  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 52 Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  References 
 
  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 received from the 
Government of China 
 Forum on China-Africa Co-operation, 
November 2006 27 LDCs Duty-free and quota-fre e market access WT/COMTD/W/164 
 Special preference tariff  Afghanistan, Maldives, Samoa, 
Vanuatu and Yemen Unilateral special preferential tariffs  (zero rated) are offered on 286 
categories of products Information received from the 
Government of China 
European Communities GSP - Everything But Arms (EBA) 
initiative 
Entry into force:  5 March, 2001   LDCs  All products except arms a nd ammunition, with rice and sugar 
subject to phase-in periods unt il 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 cl ause  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 2002 
  LDCs  Essentially all products with some exceptions in agricultural 
products (HS chapters: 04, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22) and non-
agricultural products (HS sub-he adings:  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 
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%) available 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) 
 
 Duty-Free Tariff Preference Scheme 
(DFTP) all LDCs  Duty-free access on 85 per cent tariff lines at HS 6-digit level 
within a five year time frame CTD meeting 
 South Asian Free Trade Agreement 
(SAFTA)3 
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 subj ect to rules of origin.  Imports 
of certain goods (vanaspati, copper  products, acrylic yarn and zinc 
oxide) are subject to annual quota.     WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 53Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  References 
 
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 
 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 av erage margin of preference of 
35.4%) available to all APTA members, tariff concessions granted 
exclusively to LDC members on 306 products with average 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 
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4 
Pakistan  South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA)  
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal Special concessions available for least-developed contracting 
states.  Tariffs are to be reduced to a 5 per cent ce iling on imports 
from LDC members by 2009. SAARC Secretariat website 
(www.saarc-sec.org) 
WT/TPR/S/193 
Sri Lanka   
 South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA) 
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal Special concessions available 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 margin 
of preference of 12% WT/COMTD/N/22  
(26 July 2007) 
 
Switzerland GSP – Revised 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 with progressive 
tariff cuts TN/CTD/M/28  
WT/COMTD/N/7/Add.2  
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42 
Page 54 Preference 
granting country Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference  References 
 
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  Duties are eliminated for LDCs on the basis of EC's Everything 
But Arms (EBA) Initiative  
WT/TPR/S/192 
Russia  Harmonized system of preference by 
the Eurasian Economic Community 
(ECEA) 
 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 20074 In addition to the standard GSP coverage of  nearly 5,000 products, 
1,450 articles exclusively availabl e for LDC beneficiaries for duty-
free treatment  WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.4 & Add.5 
(1 March 2007) 
WT/TPR/S/160 
 GSP - African Growth and 
Opportunities Act (AGOA)  
Entry into force:  extended in 2004 
until 20155 38 designated Sub-Saharan 
African Countries (including 
26 LDCs6) in 2007  In addition to the standard GSP coverage of 4,650 products, 1,835 
tariff items, including textiles and apparel7, available for duty-free 
treatment   WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3 
(1 March 2001) 
WT/TPR/S/160 
WT/TPR/S/200 
 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 te xtiles and apparels.  WT/TPR/S/160 
WT/TPR/S/200  
Uzbekistan  
 
 Harmonized system of preference by 
the Eurasian Economic Community 
(ECEA) 
 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42
 Page 55 
 1 This table updates the inform ation contained in the previous report by the Se cretariat, as contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W /41/Rev.1.  For those meas ures taken in favour of 
exports originating from LDCs prior to 2001, please see document WT /COMTD/LDC/W/38.   
 2 Members of the APTA are: Bangl adesh, China, India, Lao PDR, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka 
 3 Members of SAFTA which superseded the Sout h Asian Preferential Trade Ag reement (SAPTA) in 2006 are:  Bangladesh, Bhutan, India , Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. 
 4 Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, B hutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape  Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, C omoros, Democratic Republ ic of Congo, Djibouti, 
Timor Leste, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho,  Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi,  Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, 
São Tomé and Principe, Sierra Leone , Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia. 
 5 The Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006 or AGOA IV has extended the third-coun try fabric provision from September 2007 unt il September 2012; adds an abundant supply 
provision; designates certain de nim articles as being in abundant supply; and al lows lesser developed be neficiary Sub-Saharan A frican countries export certain te xtile articles under AGOA.  See 
more information on th e official AGOA website at www.agoa.gov.    
 6 Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde,  Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibout i, 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. 
 7 Twenty-six Sub-Saharan countries, including 17 LDCs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, Lesot ho, Madagascar, Mal awi, Mali, Mozambique, Ni ger, Rwanda, Senegal, 
Sierra Lesotho, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia), are eligible for AGOA apparel benefits in 2007.   
 
 
 
 
__________