RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/324 
29 October 2010 
 (10-5713) 
Council for Trade in Services   
  
 
 
ROAD FREIGHT T RANSPORT SERVICES 
 
Background Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
This Note has been prepared at the request  of Members, with a view to stimulating 
discussions on road freight transport services.  It updates and expands on the re levant sections of a 
previous Note that covered all land transport ser vices (S/C/W/60, dated 28 October 1998).  This Note 
focuses on developments and issues considered to be most relevant to the GATS, and is not intended 
to provide a comprehensive account of the sector. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/W/324 
Page 2  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  
I.
 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................4  
II. DEFINITION OF THE SECTOR.......................................................................................5  
III. ECONOMIC CHAR ACTERISTICS..................................................................................7  
IV. TRADE IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT SERVICES ............................................12  
V. REGULATORY ASPECTS...............................................................................................15  
A. MARKET ACCESS REGULATIONS  16  
1. Overview of the market access regulations  applicable to domestic transport, 
including establishment......................................................................................................16  
 
(a) Genera l trend.............................................................................................................. ...........16 
(b) Historical trends in developed and emer ging countries - OECD Road Freight Regulation 
Database....................................................................................................................... .........17 
(c) Conditions of establishmen t and operation - World Bank Services Policy Restrictiveness 
Database....................................................................................................................... .........19 
 
2. Overview of the market access regulations applicable to international transport .......21 
 
(a) The system of b ilateral agreements.......................................................................................21  
 
(i) Historical background and scope of  the bilateral syst em............................... ................21 
(ii)  Standard structure of a bilat eral agreement...................... ............................ ................22 
(iii) Operation of bilateral agreements in combination.........................................................26 (iv) Variations relative to the ECMT  model agreement............... ............................ ..............31 
(v) Regimes applicable in the absence of a bilateral agreement..........................................32 
(vi) Economic effects of the bilatera l system............................... ............................ ..............33 
 
(b)
 Regional agreements partially liberaliz ing international road transport ...............................33 
 
 (i) European Union............................................................................................................ ..34 
 (ii) "Multilateral" quota of the ECMT..................................................................................35 
 (iii) Andean Community........................................................................................................ .37 
 (iv) Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization............................................................37 
(v) ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Fa cilitation of Inter-State Transport and 
Cross-Border Transport Agreement of th e Great Mekong Sub-Re gion.......... ...............37 
(vi) North American Free Trade Ag reement (NAFTA)..................... ...................... ..............38 
(vii) Other agreements and cases of preferen tial treatment......... ............................ ..............38 
 
(c) Situations in which international road tran sport is prohibited or severely restricted............38 
 B. O
THER REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................39 
1. Regulations at the border................................................................................................... 39  S/C/W/324 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Regulations behind the border ..........................................................................................41 
 
(a) Environmental regulations.................................................................................................. ..42 
(b) Regulation of weights and dimensions .................................................................................43  VI. OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS AND MFN EXEMPTIONS.................................44 
A. S
PECIFIC COMMITMENTS ........................................................................................................44 
B. MFN  EXEMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................45 
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... .............46  
 
ANNEXES  ...................................................................................................................... ..............50  
 
  
_______________ 
 S/C/W/324 
Page 4  
 
   
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Similarly to other infrastructural services, su ch as telecommunications and energy, road 
freight transport provides key inputs to a country's  production and trade of goods and a number of 
services (postal, distribution and logistics services, for instance).  The sector plays a fundamental role 
in market integration, and directly determines tr ansaction costs for economic agents.  Road freight 
transport also is a highly cyclical activity.  Re flecting changes in the structure and location of 
manufacturing industries, and the ensuing need fo r "just in time" deliveries, changes in Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) imply proportionally larger ch anges in the demand for road freight transport 
services. 
2. There is huge variation in the types of servi ces provided in terms of frequency of trips, 
complexity, distance travelled and vehicles used.  For instance, international road freight trips 
between Belgium and the Netherlands are regular, simple (due to the absence of border controls within the European Union), short-distance and not  always reliant on maximum weight articulated 
vehicles.  By comparison, trips between Europe and Asia tend to be occasional, highly complex 
(because of the numerous border crossings), over very  long distances, and generally undertaken using 
maximum weight, fully laden articulated vehicl es that minimise the unit cost of transport.
2   
3. Road freight transport suppliers compete not onl y with each other for traffic, but also with 
operators of other transport modes.3  This inter-modal competition, particularly in land-based 
transport, has strongly influenced the regulatory re gime governing the road freight industry, as will be 
discussed in Section V.A.   
4. Though a services activity, it is useful to recall that road freight transport is also subject to the 
rules of the GATT.  Article III.1 of the GATT sti pulates that "rules, regulations and requirements 
affecting … the internal transportation of produc ts … should not be applied … so as to afford 
protection to domestic production".  Article III.4 est ablishes a national treatment principle in this 
respect, specifying that "[these] provisions shall not prevent the application of differential internal 
transportation charges which are based exclusiv ely on the economic operation of the means of 
transport and not on the nationality of the products".  These stipulations have been interpreted in the 
context of several WTO panels.    
5. Article V of the GATT also establishes rules c oncerning transit.  Although this Article has 
sometimes been invoked during consultations, in par ticular in connection with pipelines, it had never 
been subject to a detailed interpretation by a panel until the recent Colombia - Ports of Entry  case.4  
Road freight transport lies at the heart of the trad e facilitation work currently being undertaken as part 
of the Doha Development Agenda (D DA).  Article V itself is under re view in the negotiations, in line 
with the mandate contained in Annex D of th e General Council's so-called "July package".5  Pursuant 
to Annex D, the newly-established Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation is tasked to "clarify and 
                                                      
2 See, for instance, OECD (2010). 
3 Compared with maritime shipping, road and rail are currently transporting relatively small quantities 
of freight traded internationally, particularly between different continents.  Just under one quarter of global trade 
(measured in value) takes place between countries shar ing a land border, where surface modes are assumed to 
be dominant.  However, as land-based transport has a relative advantage in terms of cost per transit-time 
compared to water and air transport, this is expected to result in increased demand for international movements 
via this mode (see also OECD (2010)). 
4 See "Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry", Report by the Panel, document 
WT/DS366/R, dated 27 April 2009. 
5 Document WT/L/579, dated 2 August 2005.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 5 
 
 
  improve relevant aspects of Article V".6  As a result of this mandate, Members have submitted a 
number of legal proposals, which are containe d in a draft consolidated negotiating text.7 
II. DEFINITION OF THE SECTOR 
6. In the Services Sectoral Classification List (document MTN.GNS/W/120, hereinafter W/120), 
road freight transport is one of the sub-sectors lis ted under category 11.F, "Road Transport Services".  
The corresponding UN Provisional Central Product Classi fication (CPC Prov) c ode is 7123, which is 
further subdivided, at the five-digit level, into  seven sub-categories (see Table 1 and Annex 1). 
Table 1:  Summary of the classification of Road Freight Transportation according to W/120 
 
11 TRANSPORT SERVICES  
 
11.F Road Transport Services 
11.F.b Freight Transportation (7123) 
 
This comprises the transportation of:  frozen or refrigerated goods (71231), bulk liquids or 
gases (71232), containerized freight (71233),  furniture (71234), mail (71235) and other freight 
(71239), as well as freight transportation by man- or animal-drawn vehicles (71236). 
 
Note: Codes in parenthesis refer to the UN Provisional Central Pr oduct Classification. 
Source :  WTO Secretariat 
 
7. Distinctions between the five-digit categories ar e mostly based on the type of freight being 
transported.  The only exception concerns sub-cat egory 71236, "freight transportation by man- or 
animal-drawn vehicles", which is defined on the basis of the means of transport. 
8. CPC Prov 71235 covers "transportation of mail by any land mode of transport other than by 
railway".  Though there are meant to be no duplicati ons across the various CPC categories, this item 
appears to overlap with the way in which posta l and courier services are classified under category 
CPC Prov 75111, 75112 and 75121.  (See also paragr aphs 8 and 9 of the Background Note on Postal 
Services, in document S/C/W/319, dated 11 August 2010).  
9. Since its publication in 1991, the CPC Prov has been revised three times (versions 1.0, 1.1 
and 2).  In the second revision (CPC Ver.2), a numb er of changes have been introduced to the road 
freight transport category (see Table 2).  Notably, the focus on means of transport has been substituted 
by references to the nature of the good transpor ted in a number of cases, and the residual category 
(CPC Prov 71239, "transportation of other freight") has been broken down and further elaborated (e.g. 
transportation of dry bulk, transportation of live anim als).  This, however, does not substantially alter 
the scope of the sector, with the exception of th e widening of category 71 234 "transportation of 
furniture" which becomes "moving services of house hold and office furniture and other goods".8  The 
only other exception is the redefiniti on of "mail transportation" into "road transport services of letters 
and parcels", which has to be explicitly undertaken " on behalf of  postal and courier services" 
[emphasis added]. 
                                                      
6 Paragraph 1 of Annex D, document WT/L/579. 
7 The latest version is contained in document TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2, dated 4 May 2010. 
8 The CPC Prov did not contain any specific item for removals. S/C/W/324 
Page 6  
 
  Table 2:  Treatment of freight road tran sport services in CPC Prov and CPC Ver.2 
 
Provisional CPC CPC Ver. 2 
71231 Transportation of frozen or refrigerated goods  
 Transportation by road of frozen or 
refrigerated goods, in specially refrigerated 
trucks and cars. 
71232 Transportation of bulk liquids or gases  
 Transportation by road of bulk liquids or 
gases in special tank trucks. These vehicles 
may also be refrigerated. 
71233 Transportation of containerized freight  
 Transportation by road of individual articles 
and packages assembled and shipped in specially constructed shipping containers 
designed for ease of handling in transport. 
71234 Transportation of furniture
 
 Transportation of furniture by road over any 
distance. 
 Exclusion :  Furniture transportation by 
transoceanic shipment is classified in 
subclass 72123 (Transportation of 
containerized freight). 
71235 Mail transportation  
 Transportation of mail by any land mode of 
transport other than railway. 
71236 Freight transportation by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles  
 Transportation of freight by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles. 
71239 Transportation of other freight  
 Transportation by land modes of transport 
other than railway, of freight, not elsewhere 
classified. 
 65111 Road transport services of freight by 
refrigerator vehicles  
 Transportation by road of frozen or 
refrigerated goods, in specially refrigerated 
trucks and cars 
65112 Road transport services of freight by tank trucks 
or semi-trailers  
 Transportation by road of petroleum products 
(crude oil, natural gas and refined petroleum 
products) in special tank trucks.  Transportation 
by road of other bulk liquids or gases in special tank trucks. 
65113 Road transport services of intermodal 
containers  
 Transportation by road of individual articles 
and packages assembled and shipped in 
specially constructed shipping containers designed for ease of handling in transport 
65114 Road transport services of freight by man- or 
animal-drawn vehicles  
 Transportation of freight by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles. 
65115 Moving services of household and office 
furniture and other goods  
 This subclass includes:  household goods and 
furniture removal services;  office equipment, 
machinery and furniture removal services;  
ancillary services, such as packing and carrying and in-house moving. 
65116 Road transport servi ces of letters and parcels
 
 Transportation of letters and parcels by any 
mode of land transport, other than railway, on 
behalf of postal and courier services.  This 
subclass does not include:  messenger services of bicycle couriers (cf. 68120);  courier delivery 
services, (cf. 68120);  local delivery services 
(cf. 68130) 
65117 Road transport services of dry bulk
 
 Transportation by road of dry bulk goods such 
as cereals, flours, cement, sand, coal, etc. 
65118 Road transport se rvices of live animals  
 Transportation by road of live animals 
65119 Other road transport services of freight  
 Transportation by road of other freight in other 
specialized vehicles not elsewhere classified, 
such as:  transport of concrete and tarred 
macadam;  transport of ca rs;  transportation by 
road of other freight not elsewhere classified, in non-specialized vehicles.  This subclass does 
not include armoured car services (cf. 85240) 
 
Note: Items in italics are those for which the definiti on has remained unchanged fro m CPC Prov to CPC Ver.2. 
Source : WTO Secretariat  S/C/W/324 
 Page 7 
 
 
  III. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 
10. Information on the road freight industry is scattered across various sources, with different 
geographical coverage and reliant  on different, and often not fully  defined, methodologies.  As a 
result, more often than not, data is not  directly comparable internationally.9   Whenever available, this 
section will present the information with the widest geographical coverage.  More detailed or more 
recent data for selected countries or regions will also  be shown, with the caveat that this will not 
necessarily be directly comparable with the more aggregate information.   
11. A very rough calculation10 suggests that road freight transport accounts for over one-third of 
total inland freight transport (on rail, road, in land waterways and pipelines, measured in tonne-
kilometres), a slightly lower share than that for ra il transport.  For the 51 countries that are members 
of the International Transport Forum (ITF)11, for instance, in 2007 the share of road transport stood at 
over 36 per cent and that of rail transport at near ly 43 per cent, while pipelines accounted for around 
16 per cent and inland waterways for the remaini ng 5 per cent (measured in  tonne-kilometres). 
12. This overall pictures, however, hides signifi cant variations.  Data collected by the 
International Road Federation (IRF) provides what would appear to be the most comprehensive and 
comparable information on the modal split of inla nd freight transport (on road, rail and inland 
waterways only) across several countries.12  Accordingly, in 2007 road  freight transport accounted for 
around 95 per cent of total inland freight transport in  Pakistan and Turkey, 88 per cent in Mexico and 
76 per cent in the EU-27, but only 35 per cent in the United States, 22 per cent in China, 11 per cent in Morocco and 3 per cent in Mongolia.
13  (See also Annex 2.) 
13. The share of road haulage in total road freight tr ansport is attributable to a variety of factors, 
such as the relative efficiency of other transport mo des, the extension of railway, pipeline or inland 
waterway networks, the distances involved and the topographic characteristics of a country.  Road 
freight transportation often plays a key role in de veloping countries, particularly those which did not 
witness the development of an ex tensive rail network during the 19th century and at the beginning of 
the 20th century (i.e. mostly Latin American and African countries). 
14. Between 1990 and 2007, the volume of freight transported by road in the ITF member 
countries almost tripled (measured in tonne kilometres ), as compared to just a doubling of the volume 
of rail freight.14  This reflects to a large extent the increasing complexity of production methods 
(several plants involved in the manufacture of a si ngle product) and the ge neralization of "just-in-
time" production, with the associated demand for door-to-door services, smaller and more frequent 
freight deliveries and shorter delivery time windows.  Available data shows, for instance, that in the 
EU-27 about two-thirds of frei ght transported nationally, measure d in tonnes moved, travelled a 
                                                      
9 For instance, the definition of "inland freight transport" does not consistently include freight 
transported by pipelines;  figures on "employment in the sector" cover different types of professionals;  those for 
"fleet size" may or may not include own-account fleets. 
10 Based on International Transport Forum (2010)  and International Road Federation (2009).   
11 The International Transport Foru m replaced the European Conferen ce of Ministers of Transport 
(ECMT) in 2006.   
12 International Road Federation (2009). 
13 Calculations based on International Road Fede ration (2009) data for 2007 (and for 2005 for 
Pakistan).  Data for the EU-27 is from Eurostat (2010). 
14 Calculations based on International Transport Forum (2010).  Note that non available data affects the 
consistency of totals across years. S/C/W/324 
Page 8  
 
  distance of less than 50 kilometres in 2007.
15  In China, the share of fre ight volumes travelling less 
than 100 kilometres in 2008 amounted to around 63 per cent.16 
15. The road freight industry accounts for between 1 and 5 per cent of GDP and roughly similar, 
albeit often smaller, shares of total employment, depending on countries' level of development, 
geographical characteristics and transport network in frastructure.  Table 3 provides information for 
selected countries, compiled from different information sources. 
Table 3:  Road freight transport 
Selected indicators, 2005 
 
 Road freight employment as a 
percentage of total employmenta Road freight GDP as a 
percentage of total 
GDPb 
Australia  1.61 3.06 
Canada 1.25 1.29 
China ... 2.10 
EU 27 1.30 2.37 
Austria 1.51 3.17 
Belgium 1.49 ...
Czech Republic 2.12 4.61 Denmar
k 1.47 2.68 
Finland 1.65 3.02 France 1.37 2.09 German
y 0.79 1.21 
Greece 0.30 0.37 
Hungary 1.75 4.11 
Italy 1.51 2.90 
Luxembour g 3.94 3.39 
Netherlands 1.42 3.18 
Poland 1.38 4.14 
Portu gal 1.21 2.97 
Slovak Republic 0.45 1.24 Slovenia ... 4.86 Spain 2.06 3.79 Sweden 1.56 2.52 United Kin
gdom 1.08 1.88 
India ... 4.70 
Japan 2.00 2.75 
Mexico 2.86 2.86 
Norwa y 1.17 1.78 
United States 0.96 0.92 
 
a 2002 for Australia;  2007 for Japan and Mexico;  2008 for Canada and the United States.   
b 1999 for Australia;  2006 for Canada;  2007 for China, India, Japan, Mexico and the United States. 
Sources : Australia :  Australian Department of Transport and Regiona l Services (2003); Australian Bureau of Statistics 
(2000 and 2003);  Canada, Mexico, United States :  North American Transportati on Statistics Database (2009);  
China :  China Communications Press (2008);  India :  CYGNUS Business Consulting & Research (2007);  Japan :  
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastruct ure, Transport and Tourism, Statistica l Information (2010);  Other countries :  
Eurostat (2008, 2009 and 2010). 
 
 
 
                                                      
15 European Commission (2009).  International road freight trips naturally tend to involve longer 
distances.  For example in 200 7, slightly less than half of the freight transported internationally for the EU-27, 
measured in tonnes moved, involved journeys longer than 500 kilometres.  
16 China Ministry of Transport (2008).  S/C/W/324 
 Page 9 
 
 
  16. In terms of absolute levels of employment, fi gures from Eurostat (2008) indicate that in the 
EU-27 more than 2.7 million people were employed  in the road freight transport sector in 2005.17  
According to the International Road Transpor t Union (IRU), in 2008 almost 2.4 million people 
worked directly for the trucking industry in the Co mmonwealth of Independent States (CIS), while the 
corresponding figure for North America was 4 million.18  In the United States alone, there were nearly 
3 million truck drivers in 2008;  about 56 percent of  these drive heavy/tractor trailer trucks, 31 percent 
drive light/delivery service trucks, and about 13 percent are driver/sales workers.19  Available figures 
for China show that, by the end of 2008, there were  more than 12 million people directly employed in 
the national freight road transport industry.20 
17. Figures for the contribution of the sector to GDP  and employment tend to underestimate the 
total economic weight of the sector, since they  do not generally include own-account transport.21  
From a GATS perspective, however, this is not a major concern, as transport on own account would 
not be covered by commitments on transport services.22  
18. In 2006, the share of own-account transport in  the EU-27 was around 20 per cent for national 
transport and about 5 per cent for international transport.23  Own-account transport generally 
represents a larger share in the CI S, mainly because of the slower on set of small private road haulage 
enterprises that accompanied the gradual disapp earance of the own-account services are traditionally 
operated by large industrial conglomerates.  It is  estimated, for instance, that over 80 per cent of 
domestic road freight in Uzbekistan and over 50 per cent in the other Central Asian economies is 
carried for own account.24   
19. Several factors can explain the generally hi gher share of own-account transport in the 
domestic segment of the market.  For one, small and medium-sized companies typically find it easier 
to organise domestic distribution trips by themselve s, while they generally prefer to outsource the 
longer and more administratively complex interna tional freight trips involving border crossings.  
Also, companies engaged in hire or reward traffic have a greater incentive to engage in international 
traffic and are more effective at ensuring that vehicles perform fewer empty runs.25 
20. In the absence of detailed traffic statistics, the relative importance of the different road freight 
markets can be roughly gauged from the number of truc ks in use.  Two major caveats apply, though.  
First, available figures include also the fleet u sed for own-account transport, which, as discussed, 
represents a variable proportion of the total fleet in  different countries.  Second, these numbers reflect 
the relative size of the domestic trucking markets in each country, but provide no indication of the 
role played by the country's operators on the international scene.  The top-20 countries by fleet size 
are presented in Table 4, while the complete data set is accessible in Annex 3. 
                                                      
17 The corresponding figure provided by the European Commission (2009) for EU-27 is 2.1 million in 
2005. 
18 This includes people working as drivers, logistics experts, dispatchers and operations managers. 
19 US Department of Transportation (2009). 
20 International Road Transport Union (2009).  Altoge ther, 18 million people held relevant certificates 
of professional competence in China, incl uding 14 million professional drivers. 
21 Freight transport "on own account" is transport operated by companies transporting their own freight 
with no financial transaction involved, while transport "for  hire or reward" is the carriage for remuneration of 
freight on behalf of third parties. 
22 Own-account transport services woul d still be subject to GATS disciplines to the extent that relevant 
measures affect trade in other services. 
23 European Commission (2009). 
24 Asian Development Bank (2006). 
25 See Eurostat (2009).  According to the IRU, le ss than 18 per cent of driven kilometres on long 
distances are empty runs, compared for a share of around 25 per cent on distances of less than 50 kilometres.  S/C/W/324 
Page 10  
 
  Table 4:  Top-20 countries by  number of vans and lorries 
 
 Year Vans and Lorries 
Australia  2007 2'723'000 
Brazil  2007 5'709'063 
Canada  2007 7'425'765 
China a 2007 10'540'556 
EU 27 2007 34'835'709 
France  2007 6'270'000 Germany  2007 4'604'905 
Italy 2007 4'437'600 
Poland  2007 2'520'548 Spain  2007 5'140'586 
United Kingdom  2007 3'715'000 
India  2006 4'436'000 
Indonesia  2007 5'065'482 
Japan  2007 34'324'000 
Korea, Republic of 2007 4'189'042 
Mexico 2007 7'870'417 
Russian Federation  2007 4'730'000 
Thailand 2006 4'992'150 
Turkey  2007 2'619'661 
United States  2007 110'497'239 
 
a According to another source, 7.6 million commercial tr ucks were operating in China in 2008 (International 
Road Transport Union, 2009). 
Source : International Road Federation (2009). 
 
21. The road freight industry is generally divided in to two main segments.  The first consists of a 
large number of small firms providing basic, mainly domestic or quasi-domestic (as in the case of the 
EU) transport services.  It is characterized by easy entry (because of low start-up capital needs, no 
special expertise required apart form basic drivin g skills), negligible economies of scale and low 
degrees of market concentration.  Indeed, in most c ountries the vast majority of hauliers are small and 
medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 5 vehicles (see Chart 1).  
Chart 1:  Distribution of road haulag e companies by number of vehicles, 2004 
34%51%
13%
1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%% of total
1 vehicle 2-10 vehicles 11-50 vehicles >50 vehicles
 
Source:  International Road Transport Union (2007). 
  S/C/W/324 
 Page 11 
 
 
  22. A major part of these transport firms is run by a single owner-driver.  Available data 
indicates, for example, that out of the 4'959'000 ope rators engaged in the road freight transport 
business in China in 2007, nearly 90  per cent were individual operators.26  According to the European 
Commission (2009), in 2004 in almost all EU Member States the share of companies with more than 
50 employees was around 1 per cent, while the share of micro-companies with less than 10 employees 
was 80 per cent or more.  In Australia, owner/driv ers and small freight operators represented nearly 
two-thirds of the total number of operating bus inesses at the end of the 1990s, though they only 
accounted for less than 12 per cent of the industry's operating income.27 
23. Firms in this segment compete mainly on price, with labour costs being a key determinant of 
competitiveness.28  In the EU, for instance, in 2005 the EU-15 Member States had average personnel 
costs that ranged from EUR 16'000 for Portugal to EUR 43'000 for the Netherlands, while amongst 
the 12 most recently acceded Member States Hungary ranked highest (EUR 8'000), and Latvia and Romania lowest (EUR 2'000).
29  Against this backdrop, the emergence of the new EU Member States 
as important players in the European road  transport market is hardly surprising.30   
24. The second segment is made up of a limited number of large, better organised firms that often 
provide complex logistics services of which the transport sector is just one segment.  Firms in this 
segment compete on price, range and quality of the services offered.  Since economies of scale and 
scope are more important, this segments exhibits high er concentration levels.  (For a fuller discussion, 
see Background Note on Logistics Services, document S/C/W/317.) 
25. OECD markets like Spain, Italy and Poland tend  t o  b e  m o r e  f r a gm e n t e d ,  w i t h  m a n y s m a l l  
business units.  In contrast, concentration levels in  the Netherlands, Japan and the United States, while 
still low in absolute terms, are relatively  more  significant , especially since these countries were 
quicker than others to switch to integrated logistics.31  At the same time, however, large enterprises 
have shown a tendency towards turning their employees into independent operators ("owner-
operators") by lending them the start-up capita l necessary to purchase a vehicle.  This helps 
enterprises reduce social security contributions and related charges and provides more flexibility, due 
to lower fixed costs, over the business cycle.  Tabl e 5 provides information on the top-15 US trucking 
freight carriers by operating revenue. 
26. While it is still too early to assess the full impact of the recent economic crisis on the sector, it 
is not surprising that, given that its highly cyclical  nature and strong link to merchandise trade, the 
whole freight transport industry suffered heavily from the abrupt reversal in world output and trade growth over 2008-2009.  According to the IRU, a comparison of the situation between January and 
June 2009 with the same period in 2008 shows th at domestic revenue and tonne-kilometres output 
were down by around 20 per cent, a nd international road freight by about 30 per cent.  Employment 
shrunk by approximately 10-15 per cent, coupled with a drastic fall of new Heavy Goods Vehicle 
(HGV) registrations of more than 30 per cent for a majority of countries.
32  ITF figures for the second 
quarter of 2009 reveal a year-on-year decline of ove r 12 per cent in tonne-kilometre figures for Spain, 
                                                      
26 China Communication Press (2007). 
27 Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services (2003). 
28 For EU hauliers, wages are historically the most important cost factor, representing between 40 and 
59 per cent of the total cost in EU-15.  (European Commission, 2009.) 
29 Eurostat (2008). 
30 In 2006, for instance, Poland was the largest contributor to cross trade, i.e. international road 
transport between two different countries performed by a road motor vehicle registered in a third country, with a 
share of 19 per cent of the EU total.  (European Commission, 2009.)   
31 In the OECD, the market share of the top-thr ee firms seldom exceeds 5 per cent of total tonne-
kilometres transporte d.  (OECD, 2001.) 
32 Economic Commission for Europe (2009). S/C/W/324 
Page 12  
 
  16 per cent for France, 22 per cent for Finland and 23 per cent for Russia.  By the end of 2009, 
however, short-terms data indicated that recovery in the sector had started.
33   
Table 5:  Top-15 US trucking freight ca rriers by operating revenue, 2005 and 2008a 
(US$ million) 
Carrier 2005 2008 
YRC Worldwide 8742 8940 
Ryder System 5741 6204 
Con-way 4116 5037 
Penske Truck Leasing 4000 4000 
J.B. Hunt Transport 3128 3732 
Schneider National 3400 3700 
Swift Transportation 3197 3400 
CEVA Logistics 972 2810 
Sirva 1096 2747 
Landstar System 2518 2643 
Werner 1972 2116 
TransForce 1227 2120 
Pacer International 1860 2088 
UniGroup 209 2000 
Arkansas Best 1860 1833 
 
a Ranking in 2008. 
Source:  US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010). 
 
IV. TRADE IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT SERVICES 
27. Statistical information on trade in road frei ght transport services is deficient.  Data are 
focused on "international road freight transport servi ces", i.e. road freight transport between a place of 
loading and a place of unloading that are located in two different countries.  This mainly corresponds 
to a mode 1 notion of trade.  No or little attention is paid, for instance, to cabotage or mode 3 trade, 
i.e. establishment in a foreign country to ca rry out domestic road transport operations.34  There are no 
data available on the proportion of domestic tra ffic conducted by foreign-controlled, locally 
established operators. 
28. Available figures indicate that the majority of  cross-border land transport (via road, rail and 
pipelines), measured in value, takes place within Europe, Asia and North America.35  The main flows 
occur intra-regions, given that two of the three ma in inter-regional links (Asia-North America, and 
Europe-North America) are not possible by la nd-based routes, and hence maritime transport 
dominates.  For the third (Asia-Europe), road transpor t is possible, but very limited at present, with 
the majority of goods again being shipped by sea.36   
                                                      
33 International Transport Forum (2010). 
34 The United States is the only country that collects Foreign Affiliates Statistics for the category "truck 
transportation".  Available data can be obtained fr om:  http://www.bea.gov/international/international_ 
services.htm (see, in particular, sections 9 and 10). 
35 OECD (2010). 
36 The 'Silk Route' between Europe and Asia is one of the oldest land trade routes in the world.  Over 
time, however, long-distance freight flows on this route were replaced by maritime transport.  With the re-
opening of the border between China and Kazakhstan, land freight transport recommenced, even though volumes are presently still relatively limited.  Road frei ght transport is estimated to account for less than 1 per 
cent of total containerised flows between Europe and Asia.  (US Chamber of Commerce (2006).)  S/C/W/324 
 Page 13 
 
 
  29. Furthermore, as discussed, trucking is essentially short-haul.  Indeed, surface modes dominate 
merchandise trade between neighbouring countries.37  On the basis of US and Latin American data, 
Hummels (2007) estimates that around 90 per cent of  trade between countries sharing a land border is 
transported by land, with the remaining 10 per cent tr avelling by air or sea.  Fernandez (2008) further 
calculates that 90 per cent of the US-Mexican frei ght is transported by truck.  The corresponding 
share for US-Canadian freight is 66 per cent.   
30. Not surprisingly, most traffic, particularly in large countries, is domestic in nature.  In the 
United States, for instance, the share of national tran sport in total road freight transport (measured in 
value) was over 95 per cent in 2008.38  In general, trucking is used considerably to feed inter-regional 
maritime services, connecting inland  flow origins and destinations.39 
31. As far as the EU is concerned,  international road freight tran sport takes place mostly between 
its Member States.  The share of extra-EU road freight transport accounted for only 5 per cent of the 
total volume of international road freight transport in 2006.  However, the picture is different for EU 
Member States that border non-EU countries, for wh ich this share can amount to between one-quarter 
and almost one-half of their total international tr ansport performance.  This is the case for Bulgaria, 
Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Finland, and to a lesser ex tent Denmark and Lithuania.40 
32. In terms of the extra-EU trading partners, Switzerland, Russia and Norway are the most 
important ones, as Chart 2 illustrates. 
                                                      
37 Just about one quarter of global trade (in value terms) is between neighbouring countries.  (OECD 
(2010).) 
38 US Department of Transportation (2009).  Data do not include imports and exports that pass through 
the United States from a foreign origin to a foreign destination. 
39 OECD (2010). 
40 European Commission (2009).  These data are partial, however, as they only reflect EU-registered 
operators, but elude road freight transport performed on EU soil by non-EU registered hauliers. S/C/W/324 
Page 14  
 
  Chart
 2:  Extra-EU road freight transport performed by EU-registered hauliers, 2006, 
destination of outgoing and origin of incoming freight 
 Country of unloading Country of loading 
Norway 
14%
Belarus 2%Other 4%Ukraine 7%
Russia 39%
Switzerland 
23%Turkey 6%FYROM 
1%Croatia 4%
   Norway 
16%Belarus 1%Other 30%
Ukraine 3% Switzerland 
22%Russia 14%
Croatia 3%
FYROM 
1%
Turkey 10%
 
 
 
Source:  European Commission (2009) 
 
33. Available Balance-of-Payments data on major im porters and exporters of freight transport 
services is presented in Table 6.  There are several shortcomings with these data.  They are attributable mainly to the way in which traded goo ds are valued in the Balance-of-Payment (free on 
board for exports and imports) as, for compiling pur poses, transport costs are assumed to be paid by, 
and pertain to, the importer beyond the exporting co untry's border (and also depend on the residency 
of the freight operator).  Conceptual work to im prove measurement of transport trade statistics is 
nevertheless ongoing, notably in the context of the drafting of the first revised version of the UN 
Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services.
41   
                                                      
41 For more information, see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc10/BG-MSITS2010.pdf, and 
paragraphs 3.105 to 3.108 in particular.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Table 6:  Major exporters a nd importers of road freigh t transport services, 2008 
(US$ million and percentage) 
 
Rank Exporters Value Share of 
15 Annual 
% 
change Rank Importers Value Share of 
15 Annual 
% 
change 
1 EU-27 60553 91.6 16   1 EU-27 71546 88.7 12 
  Extra-EU-27 
 exports 11837 17.9 39      Extra-EU-27 
 imports 13783 17.1 22 
2 Turkey 1751 2.6 26   2 Iraq a  2160 2.7 0 
3 Belarus 590 0.9 33   3 Norway 1856 2.3 12 
4 Uruguay 376 0.6 16   4 Ukraine 752 0.9 167 5 Russian Fed. 368 0.6 17   5 Kazakhstan 700 0.9 15 
6 Norway 340 0.5 21   6 Uganda 608 0.8 41 
7 Kenya 320 0.5 50   7 Russian Fed. 536 0.7 41 8 Serbia, Rep. of 314 0.5 35   8 Botswana 447 0.6 30 
9 Croatia 298 0.5 18   9 Croatia 420 0.5 22 
10 Argentina 285 0.4 17   10 Uruguay 342 0.4 45 11 Kazakhstan 232 0.4 36   11 El Salvador 337 0.4 37 
12 Ukraine 222 0.3 27   12 Argentina 264 0.3 15 
13 FYROM 187 0.3 44   13 Turkey 261 0.3 10 14 Brazil 137 0.2 28   14 Brazil 211 0.3 44 
15 Bosnia & Herz. 118 0.2 22   15 Guatemala 208 0.3 8 
 Above 15 66090 100.0    -    Above 15 80650 100.0    - 
 
a 2007 
Note: Based on information available to th e WTO Secretariat.  As certain economie s do not report this item separately, 
they may not appear in the list. 
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
34. As indicated above, information related to mode 3 trade in road freight transport is virtually 
non-existent or very sketchy.  In 2006, the IRU ca rried out a survey on capita l mobility in the sector 
focused on Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Eur opean countries and the CIS.  The IRU estimates 
that road transport accounts for around 4 per cent of all foreign direct investment undertaken in the 
region between 1989 and 2005.42  Additional information, prov ided by the Danish professional 
association to the IRU, indicates that in 2006 around  16 per cent of the foreign lorries driving into 
Denmark belonged to Danish road hauliers' forei gn subsidiaries, corresponding to around one in every 
seven lorries crossing the German/Danish border nor thbound.  These lorries were mostly German or 
Eastern-European flagged.  Amongst the reasons given by road transport operators for the decision to 
"out-flag" were lower taxation, labour (i.e. drive r) and other costs and market diversification.   
V. REGULATORY ASPECTS 
35. The road transport sector is heavily regulated.  Regulatory measures cover a broad spectrum 
of issues, ranging from market access to security, road safety, the taxation of vehicles, fuel and 
infrastructure, social legislation (driving hours and rest periods, wage norms and social insurance 
cover), road traffic (prohibitions and restrictions),  environmental standards, and technical standards 
(in particular, weights and dimensions). 
36. Road transport is mainly regulated at the nati onal level.  However, in States with a federal 
structure, some regulations, including those relating to  market access, are generated at the sub-federal 
level.  This applies, for instance, to the United States, India and Australia.  
                                                      
42 International Road Transport Union (2006). S/C/W/324 
Page 16  
 
  37. At the international (mostly regional) level, regulation tends to focus on the harmonization of 
the operating conditions, such as weight and dimensi ons, environmental standards, driving hours and 
rest periods, and fiscal harmonization. 
38. This section will first discuss the available info rmation concerning market access regulations.  
It will then consider, more briefly and mainly in  the form of comparative tables, various other 
regulations that could have an indirect impact on access to markets. 
A. M
ARKET ACCESS REGULATIONS  
39. Two main regimes need to be distinguished: 
(a) The internal or domestic transport regime.  As mentioned above, internal transport 
accounts for the overwhelming majority of gl obal traffic, and has been extensively 
liberalized.  Applicable regulations with r espect to mode 3 differ only marginally, to 
account for sectoral specificities, from the ge neral establishment re gime contained in 
the company law of most WTO Members. 
(b) The regime applicable to international traffic.   This is, generally, very restrictive.  The 
dominant mode of regulation is a system of  bilateral agreements, fairly comparable 
with that found in the air transport sector. 
1. Overview of the market access regulations app licable to domestic transport, including 
establishment 
(a) General trend 
40. Since the 1930s, road transport has been subjected  to tight quantitative regulation, at least in 
North America and in Europe.  A system of licences,  quotas and tariffs had been originally introduced 
to prevent the erosion of the modal split share of rail traffic.  By way of partial compensation, 
established road transport operators were protected fro m new entrants, with tariffs fixed at a level that 
enabled the least competitive to survive.  Thus, un til the arrival of the two waves of deregulation in 
the 1960s and the 1980s, the prof ession had operated within a system of mandatory road transport 
pricing and freight rate bureaus that benefited from anti-trust exemptions. 
41. The quota system failed to achieve its initial ob jectives.  It did not succeed in regulating 
capacity or preventing the erosion of rail transpor t, and it encouraged fraud and the development of 
transport on own account.  Domestically, these quantitative systems have been progressively 
dismantled.  In the United States, this took place within the framework of a broadly-based 
deregulation movement43, and in the European Union with the establishment of the Single Market for 
road transport.44  In the countries of Central and Easter n Europe, liberalization came suddenly and 
was followed by a period of re-regulation, or rather  regulation, since until then regulation of State-
owned operators had not been required. 
42. In recent years, domestic quantitative regulatory and mandatory pricing systems, or indeed 
State haulage enterprises, have been gradually libera lised and, as the case may be, privatised in many 
                                                      
43 In particular, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, whic h reduced the rate-setting powers of the Inter-State 
Commerce Commission and the anti-trust immunity of th e rate bureaus and made licences more flexible. 
44 Relevant stages included price deregulation in 1990, abolition of in tra-Community quotas, the 
progressive liberalization of cabotage (completed on 1 January 1998), defi nition of qualitative criteria for access 
to the profession, harmonization of driving times, weights and dimensions, and a start on the harmonization of 
the taxation of vehicles, the use of infrastructure and of fuel.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 17 
 
 
  countries.  Examples can be found in  countri es as diverse as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland45, 
Mexico46, Egypt47, Morocco48, Jordan49, Papua New Guinea50 the sub-Saharan African States51, such 
as Rwanda52, Zambia and others.53  In many instances, the initial impetus came from the World 
Bank.54  One of the challenges facing developing country  regulators is that of getting hauliers to 
switch from the informal to the formal sector for fi scal and road safety reasons and to ensure fair 
competition.  Policies of this type have reporte dly been successfully implemented in Morocco and 
Turkey.   Access to bank credit for vehicle financing and compulsory insurance are among the policy 
tools available for this transition to the formal sector. 
43. Effects of this domestic liberalization have incl uded a fall in prices, with the ensuing decline 
in the profitability of the sector, the creation of new enterprises (but also bankruptcies), an 
acceleration of concentration and specialization, ne twork development, services customisation, job 
creation and a relative decline in wages.  Annex 4 gives a more detailed description of the estimated 
economic effects of the domestic liberalisation process based on recent econometric studies. 
44. The impact on safety and working conditions has been the subject of doctrinal controversy in 
the specialized literature.  There appears to be consensus among ec onomists that liberalization has 
been successful in meeting short-term policy objec tives, such as lower prices and diversification of 
supply, but less so in pursuing medium-term objec tives, namely reduced congestion of the road 
infrastructure, pollution control and energy conservation. 
(b) Historical trends in developed and emer ging countries – OECD Road Freight Regulation 
Database 
45. The liberalization of the domestic road tran sport market has been particularly well 
documented by the OECD Secretariat for OECD c ountries, but also some other non-OECD members 
(Estonia, Israel, Slovenia, Brazil and China).  The OECD's road freight regulation database is based 
on annual surveys, the first of which goes back to 1975.55  Thus, it can be used to trace, over a period 
of 35 years, the evolution of the seven parameters which the OECD has chosen as indicative of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market, namely, whether:  (a)a licence or permit from the 
government is needed to establish a road freight bus iness;  (b) criteria other than financial fitness and 
compliance with the road safety regulations are cons idered in decisions authorizing the entry of new 
operators into the market;  (c) the regulator  has any power to limit industry capacity;  
(d) representatives of trade and commercial interest s are involved in specifying or enforcing entry 
regulations;  (e) not representatives of trade and co mmercial interests are involved in specifying or 
enforcing pricing guidelines or regul ations;  (f) retail prices of road freight services are regulated by 
the government;  and (g) the government provides pr icing guidelines for road freight companies.  
Annex 5 summarizes the results of this survey. 
                                                     
 
45 See Raballand and Macchi (2008). 
46 See Dutz, Hayri, and Ibarra. (2000). 
47 See Gray, Fattah and Cullinane (1998). 
48 See World Bank (2007). 
49 See Togan (2009). 
50 See Heggie (1991). 
51 See Carbajo (1993). 
52 See Mwase (2003). 
53 See Raballand, Kunaka and Giersing. (2008). 
54 See World Bank (1995). 
55 OECD survey of indicators of regulation in energy, transport and communications, available at 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/29/42480612.xls.   S/C/W/324 
Page 18  
 
  46. The survey paints a picture of an extensively liberalized sector in terms of market entry and 
pricing.
56  There are only four countries (Norway, Slovak Republic, Turkey and China) which use 
criteria other than financial fitness and compliance with road safety requirements for issuing permits 
and whose authorities are empowered to regulate capacity through licences or otherwise.  Japan may need to be added to these countries since the re gulator has the ability to limit capacity through 
channels other than licences. 
47. Professional bodies continue to be involved in the specification and enforcement of market 
entry regulations in only nine countries (Belgium , France, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, 
Portugal, Estonia, Slovenia, and China) out of 37, whereas until the mid-1980s this was a classical regulatory feature.  Moreover, there are now only three countries (Hungary, Chile, Slovenia) in which 
the same bodies are still involved in the specificatio n or enforcement of pricing regulations, whereas 
in the past co-management with the pu blic authorities was the general rule. 
48. Retail prices of road freight services are s till regulated in only two countries (Turkey and 
China) out of the OECD sample, and only four countries (Korea, Greece, Chile, and China) issue 
pricing guidelines.  It should be noted, however , that the trend towards liberalization is not 
unequivocal.  On several occasions, States have go ne back on the reforms introduced.  The most 
recent case is the simultaneous re-establishment of capacity-regulating powers in four OECD member States (Japan, Turkey, France and Norway) in 2005. 
49. Unfortunately, these data do not help clarif y the issue of whether the conditions of 
establishment and operation discriminate against forei gn companies and in favour of domestic firms.  
It is true that a detailed establishment survey recently carried out by the IRU contains a question 
relating to the conditions imposed on fo reign investors in the host country.
57  O n l y  s o m e  o f  t h e  
companies surveyed replied, in rather non-specific terms, but always indicating that there was no 
discrimination.  However, this sample is too narro w (it only concerns Eastern European countries) and 
the data are too imprecise to serve as a basis for any general conclusions. 
50. The GATS commitments on road transport, describ ed in detail in the third part of this 
document, contain a significant number of restri ctions on establishment and operations, such as 
economic needs tests, restrictions on foreign par ticipation, obligations to set up a domestic-law 
corporation, permit systems closed to vehicles regi stered abroad, emergency safeguard measures with 
respect to the number of service providers, limitati ons on the total number of service operations or on 
the total quantity of service output, limitations  on the use of hired vehicles, fulfilment of 
establishment obligations in order to be authorized to participate in certain types of traffic, restrictions 
on the types of cargo that can be transported, prio r authorization procedures, and obligations to use 
locally registered vehicles. 
51. However, for various reasons, these commitments  cannot be regarded as an approximation of 
the applied regime.  First of all, the commitments  cover only about one-third of the Members of the 
WTO.  Secondly, it is uncertain whether at th e time they were listed the respective entries 
corresponded to the regime actually applied, as acce ss can be bound at a more restrictive level than 
the status quo.  Finally, these conditions were sche duled almost 17 years ago and may have evolved in 
                                                      
56 Thus, even though a permit/licence specific to the sector has to be obtained in all but four of the 
countries covered by the survey (i.e. Australia, New Ze aland, Poland and Chile), in one-half the countries 
concerned this permit is issued at "open windows", once the financial fitness and road safety conditions have 
been met.  The "open" formulation of question (b) (there is no need to specify the "oth er" criteria) carries a bias 
in favour of restrictiveness.  In fact, when the replies to  this question are read in conjunction with the replies to 
question (c), i.e., whether the regulator has any power of  quantitative capacity regulation, it turns out that in 
almost all cases capacity is not taken into co nsideration among these "other" criteria.   
57 International Road Transport Un ion (2006).  This is an internal IRU document accessible from the 
IRU members' website.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 19 
 
 
  a more liberal direction, as has been discussed before (see above).  Since the WTO's Trade Policy 
Reviews do not generally cover road transport, this evolution has not been systematically 
documented. 
(c) Conditions of establishment and operation – World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness 
Database 
52. The latest and most comprehensive data on th e conditions of establishment and operation of 
foreign road transport service providers come from a World Bank survey.58  T h i s  s u r v e y  
systematically collected data on market access (in a broad sense) and on certain aspects of domestic 
regulation, such as the procedures for awarding li cences.  The assessment of these data is still in 
progress, but the World Bank has granted the WTO Secretariat access and, thus, enabled the 
establishment of a first aggregated typology of the regimes applied. 
53. The geographical coverage of the World Bank survey is extremely broad since it 
includes 93 WTO Members and 9 non-Members.  Toge ther, these account for 86 per cent of the world 
fleet of goods vehicles (vans and lorries).59  The analysis of the data will be confined to the 93 WTO 
Members included in the World Bank's survey.  In terms of level of development these can be broken 
down as follows:  64 developing countries, incl uding 14 LDCs, 25 developed countries and 4 
members of the CIS.60  In terms of geographical distribution, 24 of these 93 WTO Members are 
located in Africa, 22 in Europe, 17 in Asia, 17 in the Caribbean and Central and South America, 6 in 
the Middle East, 4 in the CIS, and 3 in North America.61 
54. The World Bank questionnaire does not follow precisely the structure of Articles XVI 
and XVII of the GATS and, therefore, does not include all types of restrictions that can be found in 
the schedules of commitments.  Moreover, the qu estionnaire covers aspects that go beyond the scope 
of Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS, in particular as regards licensing procedures.  (These aspects will be analysed in subsequent publications by the World Bank.) 
55. The results of an initial analysis of the data  of the World Bank survey are reproduced in 
Tables 1 to 8 of Annex 6.  They are expressed both in terms of number of Members per 
continent/region and as percentages of the total fleet  of the 93 WTO Members.  The first element to 
emerge is that the fleet is distributed extremel y unevenly across continents/regions:  around 50 per 
cent in the three countries of North America, 28 pe r cent in Asia/Pacific excluding the Middle East, 
15 per cent in Europe, 4.5 per cent in the Caribbean and Central and South America, 2 per cent in Africa, 0.8 per cent in the Middle East, and 0.2 per cent in the CIS. 
56. The survey distinguishes between four differe nt ways of establishing a commercial presence, 
namely:  (a) establishment of a new branch;  (b) est ablishment of a new subsidiary;  (c) acquisition of 
an existing private company;  and (d) acquisition of  an existing publicly owned company in the event 
of privatization.  All forms of commercial presen ce are authorized without any restrictions in 40 
Members which, however, account for only 11 per cent of the fleet.  It is Africa that turns out to be 
proportionately the most liberal region (18 countries out of 24).   
                                                     
 
58 These data were gathered within the context of an ongoing study, which extends beyond the road 
transport sector alone, by Mattoo, Borchert and Gootiiz (2010).  The data, which are preliminary and subject to 
correction, form part of the World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness Database.  This database is under 
construction and will become accessible on line in autu mn 2010.  Further details can be found at:  
http://econ.worldbank.org/programs/trade/serv ices and in Mattoo and Gootiiz (2009). 
59 These sample representativeness calculations are ba sed on the IRF fleet statistics for 2007 (see also 
Annex 3).   
60 These categories are those used by the Secretaria t for the data provided to the Committee on Trade 
and Development, see for example document WT/COMTD/W/172/Rev.1. 
61 These geographical categories are those used by the WTO in its statistical publications. S/C/W/324 
Page 20  
 
  57. Commercial presence is partially permitted (i.e. in one, two or three of the four possible 
forms) in 35 Members representing 72 per cent of the flee t.  This high share is attributable to the fact 
that the three North American Me mbers, which alone account for nearly half the world fleet, find 
themselves in this category along with eight Asia/P acific countries whose cumulative fleet represents 
nearly 18 per cent of the total.   
58. Finally, none of the four forms of commercia l presence is accepted in 18 Members, which 
account for 16 per cent of the fleet, including 14 European Members representing 12 per cent of the 
fleet. 
59. The holding of a majority stake in a joint venture is authorized in 54 Members out of 93, 
accounting for 58 per cent of the fleet.  Two-thirds of this fleet are located in a single North American 
country, but in terms of numbers of countries, ha lf the regions have fairly liberal regimes (13 
countries out of 17 in South America, three out of four in the CIS, 21 out of 24 in Africa).   
60. In terms of total authorized foreign par ticipation in a joint venture, 44 Members, 
representing 57 per cent of the fleet, authorize 100 per cent participation.  Again, one North American 
Members accounts for two-thirds of this fleet .   Asia and the Caribbean and Central and South 
America each represent about 4 per cent.  In regi onal terms, the Caribbean and Central and South 
America (12 Members out of 17) and Africa (15 Memb ers out of 24) appear to be the most liberal.  
Nine Members, representing 0.2 per cent of the fl eet, authorize participation of between 50 and 
100 per cent and 33 Members, representing 23 per cent of  the fleet, only permit a participation of less 
than 50 per cent.  Europe contributes one-half of the fleet concerned and Asia one-third.   
61. Apart from the case of joint ventures already me ntioned, the survey pays attention to the 
participation ceilings imposed on foreign service prov iders in three cases:  (a) the establishment of a 
subsidiary;  (b) the acquisition of existing private companies;  (c) and the acquisition of an existing 
publicly owned company in the event of privatizati on.  However, the data actually exhibits little 
variation between these three cases, and the differe nces are more pronounced in terms of numbers of 
Members than in terms of the volume of the fleet concerned.  For instance, a 100 per cent ceiling is 
allowed by 59 Members in the case of the establishmen t of a subsidiary, by 61 for the acquisition of a 
private company and by 45 in the case of a privati zation, but in all three cases those Members account 
for about 75 per cent of the fleet. 
62. By region and in terms of Members concerned the results are as follows:  The three NAFTA 
members do not maintain any restrictions;  they are followed by the CIS (3 or 4 Members out of 4, depending on the case), Africa (16 to 20 Members out of 24), the Caribbean and Central and South 
America (9 to 13 Members out of 17) and Asia (9 to 11 Members out of 17).  Europe (6 to 8 Members 
out of 22) and the Middle East (0 to 1 Member out of 6) are trailing behind.  The 50 to 100 per cent range has been adopted by only a very small number of Members (2 to 5, depending on the case) and 
affects only a marginal proportion of the fleet (bet ween 0.2 and 2.6 per cent).  Finally, participation 
limits of less than 50 per cent concern a little over 20 per cent of the fleet concentrated in about one 
third of the Members concerned.  The proportio n of non-available replies is very low. 
63. It is noteworthy that the existence of a quantitative limitation on licences (whether or not 
discriminatory) was observed in only one Memb er, from the African region, and affects only 
0.7 per cent of the fleet.  The high number of "not applicable" answers (53 Members, representing 33 per cent of the fleet) might be a further indicati on of the absence of a quantitative limitation on the 
number of licences available. 
  S/C/W/324 
 Page 21 
 
 
  64. Differences in the treatment of domestic a nd foreign providers when awarding licences are 
also to be found in only a very small number of Memb ers (4, representing 0.2 per cent of the fleet).  In 
addition, for almost the whole of the sample in terms of the fleet (60 Members representing 97 per 
cent of the fleet), replies to this question are "not ap plicable".  In terms of jurisdictions concerned, 29 
Members, representing 2.5 per cent of the sample, do not apply such differences in treatment and, 
apart from Africa where such instances are proportiona lly more numerous (in 12 out of 24 Members), 
they are fairly evenly distributed among the regions. 
65. Nationality conditions for employees (in absolute  terms and/or as a percentage of total 
employment) are imposed in 39 Members, representing nearly 70 per cent of the fleet.  Nearly two-thirds of this fleet can be ascribed to two North American Members and more than 15 per cent to eight 
Asian Members.  Geographically, this restriction, especially if cumulated with the partial imposition 
of such nationality conditions, is fairly broadly di stributed (11 Members out of 17 in the Caribbean 
and Central and South America, 7 out of 22 in Europe, 4 out of 4 in the CIS, 9 out of 24 in Africa, 4 
out of 6 in the Middle East, and 7 out of 17 in Asia).   
66. Nationality or residence conditions (in absolute terms and/or as a percentage) are imposed on 
the board of directors by 18 Members, representing 8 per cent of the fleet.  Most of this fleet comes 
from three Asian Members and one North American Member.  No information is available for one third of the sample in terms of number of Members and two thirds in terms of the fleet (32 Members 
representing 67.5 per cent of the fleet), which calls fo r a certain degree of caution in interpreting these 
results.  Nevertheless, 43 Members, representing 24.5 per cent of the fleet, do not apply such 
restrictions.  They are proportionally more nume rous in the Caribbean and Central and South 
America, Africa and Asia. 
67. The general picture emerging from this initial anal ysis of the data is less liberal than that 
depicted by the OECD database, but still much  more open than the current level of GATS 
commitments (see also section VI.A).  This appli es fairly evenly to all continents, albeit with 
appreciable variations for particular restrictions.  However, considering the level of aggregation, these 
results should be interpreted with caution.  The Secr etariat stands ready to provide Members with the 
more detailed analyses that the World Bank is preparing to undertake.  
2. Overview of the market access regulations  applicable to international transport  
68. Bilateral traffic-sharing agreements are the pre dominant mode of organi zation of international 
road transport.  There are cases in which internati onal traffic is prohibited and in which cargoes must 
be transhipped at or near the frontier onto vehicl es belonging to the neighbouring country in order to 
continue their journey.  Yet access conditions  may be rendered more flexible under regional 
agreements or governments may decide, as in the case of the European Union, to create a single 
market. 
(a) The system of bilateral agreements  
(i) Historical background and scope of the bilateral system  
 
69. The dominant international regime govern ing road transport may be compared, mutatis 
mutandis , with that applicable to air tr ansport, except for the fact that the former is fully covered by 
the GATS whereas air transport is for the most part ex cluded.  The road transport regime is made up 
of thousands of bilateral agreements which split the traffic between the two parties to the exclusion of 
all others (with the marginal exception of "t hird country" quotas) a nd provide a quantitative 
framework by annually establishing quotas for the numb er of authorized journeys.  The ITF estimates S/C/W/324 
Page 22  
 
  that for the 43 States participating in the Eur opean Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)
62 
the number of bilateral agreements  amounts to about 1,400, that is some 20 agreements per Member 
State of the European Union and 30 to 35 agreements fo r the other States.  It is not possible to give a 
precise figure for the number of agreements in other geographical areas, such as Latin America, Asia 
and Africa for lack of accurate data, but the to tal for these areas is surely in excess of a thousand 
agreements. 63 
70. The current regime, which arose immediately after the Second World War, was enshrined, as 
far as Europe is concerned, in a declaration of  the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe (CSCE).  It stipulates that "the participa ting States … express their intention to encourage the 
development of international in land transport of passengers and goods as well as the possibilities of 
adequate participation in such transport on the basi s of reciprocal advantage."  Interestingly, this 
language is quite similar to that traditio nally used in the field of aviation. 
71. No systematic analysis or mapping is currently  available of the bilateral road transport 
agreements that could be compared with the database prepared by the WTO Secretariat on air 
transport, the Quantitative Air Services Agreements Review (QUASAR).64  However, on the basis of 
the model agreement drawn up by the ECMT in 1997 and the agreements collected by the World 
Bank in other regions, together with the specialized  literature, it is possible to outline the provisions 
most frequently encountered. 
(ii) Standard structure of a bilateral agreement 
 
72. The ECMT model agreement65 is regarded by the professionals  and road transport negotiators 
as very broadly representative of the existing road transport agreements, at least in Europe.  The 
standard structure of road transport agreements w ill therefore be described on the basis of this model 
agreement.66  A later section will indicate the variations  relative to this standard agreement so far 
identified in the specialized literature. 
73. The model agreement comprises three successive le vels of obligations applying in different 
degrees to certain fractions of the traffic.  This  complex structure is schematically represented in 
Table 7.  
                                                      
62 The ECMT is an organization administratively linked to the OECD but whose geographical 
area progressively expanded beyond the OECD to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and 
then the Caucasus.  The ECMT was re placed in 2006 by the ITF, an international organization with extended 
scope and powers.  For further deta ils of these organizations visit:  
http://www.internationaltransp ortforum.org/about/aboutintrofr.html and http://www.internationaltransport 
forum.org/europe/indexfr.html 
63 The international road transport regime in North America is governed by the rules laid down in the 
North American Free Trade Agreement and t hus unaffected by bilateral agreements. 
64 For further information see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/transport_e/ 
transport_air_e.htm and document S/C/W/270/Add.1.  However, in order to gain a better understanding of the 
international road transport regulations, in 2009 the WT O Secretariat, the Interna tional Transport Forum, the 
World Bank and the IRU made a systematic effort to coll ect bilateral road agreements and have so far collected 
over 600, contained in the LiBRA (List of Bilateral Road Agreements) database.  The text of these agreements 
can be accessed at:  http ://www.wto.org/englis h/tratop_e/serv_e/transport_ e/ transport_land_e.htm. 
65 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1997).   
66 This agreement also contains provisions relati ng to passenger transport which will not be described 
here.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 23 
 
 
   
Table 7:  Scope of the various levels of obligations 
contained in the ECMT model agreement 
 
Third level of obligations: 
- Quotas 
 
Traffic covered  
All traffic covered by the 
second level of obligations 
except that listed in the next 
column Traffic exempted from the 
third level of obligations  
- Transport of perishable 
goods67 (Art. 7.13.2) 
- Removals (Art. 7.13.4) 
- Any other category 
decided on by the 
Contracting Parties (Art. 
7.13.3) 
  
Second level of obligations 
- Permit requirement 
 
Traffic covered  
All traffic except that listed in the next column Traffic exempted from the second level of 
obligations 
 
- Transport on own account (Art. 7.10) 
- Transport by vehicles whose total permissible 
laden weight (TPLW) does not exceed 6 tonnes, or when the permitted payload does not exceed 
3.5 tonnes (Art. 7.1) 
- Combined transport providing that the station or 
river or sea port of loading or unloading is located 
within 150 km of the point of loading or unloading 
of the freight (Art. 7.12) 
- Transport between neighbouring countries subject 
to a depth of 25 km and a maximum journey length 
of 100 km as the crow flies (Art. 7.13) 
- Transport of livestock (Art. 7.5) 
- Occasional transport to or from airports where 
services are diverted (Art. 7.2) 
- Breakdown transport (Art. 7.3) 
- Transport by replacement vehicles (Art. 7.4) 
- Transport of spare parts and provisions for ships 
and aircraft (Art. 7.6) 
- Humanitarian transport (Art. 7.7) 
- Transport for fairs and exhibitions (Art. 7.8) 
- Transport relating to ar tistic activities (Art. 7.9) 
 
First level of obligations 
- Prohibition of cabotage - except with special authorization - (Arts. 6.2 and 8.5) 
- Provisions on taxes and tolls (Art. 9) 
- Host country technical standards (Art. 10) 
- International conventions (Art. 11) 
 
Traffic covered  
All, i.e. transport on behalf of third parties (Art. 2.a) and transport on own account (Art. 2.b) 
 
Source :  Compiled by WTO Secretariat on the basis of the ECMT model agreement. 
 
 
 
                                                      
67 The following three types of transport have b een ordered according to their respective economic 
importance. S/C/W/324 
Page 24  
 
  74. The criterion for designating a beneficiary of the agreement is based on the place where the 
transport company is established and where the vehicl e is registered, which is assumed to be always 
the same country.  The actual driver may be of a di fferent nationality.  This beneficiary clause appears 
to be more liberal than air transport's "substan tial ownership and effective control" criterion.  
However, it does happen, as the World Bank survey  shows, that national ownership, national 
participation or joint venture obligations are speci fied at national level a nd superimposed on this 
establishment clause for the purposes of th e bilateral agreements concerned. 
75. As indicated in Table 7, the first level of obligations
 covers both transport on own account 
and transport on behalf of third parties.  Ev en though the model agreement contains a detailed 
definition of transport on own account68, there are also national and regional definitions, which are 
sometimes more restrictive.  For example, Regul ation of the Council of the European Communities 
No. 881/92 of 26 March 1992 specifies, in its Annex II,  that there is transport on own account only if 
the undertaking owns the vehicle, the goods carri ed are the property of the undertaking, and the 
vehicle is driven by its own employees and solely to , from or between its own facilities.  In general, 
the rules of admission to the occupation of road haulage operator do not apply to transport on own 
account but there are sometimes registration requireme nts at the national level.  These definitions and 
procedures of an internal nature apply mutatis mutandis  to international traffic. 
76. The prohibition on cabotage (i.e. traffic between two points in the same country), except with 
special authorization, also applies to the whole of the traffic.  This fundamental prohibition is even 
mentioned twice in the model agreement (Articles 6.2 and 8.5).  However, Article 8.5 stipulates that if 
the parties were to decide to make an exception to  this rule, the Joint Committee would determine the 
legislative and administrative provisions in the host country applicable to cabotage.69  Article 8.5 also 
states that these legislative and administrative provi sions are to be applied without discrimination. 
77. According to the tax provisions of the mode l agreement, vehicles of a Contracting Party 
operating on the territory of the other Contracting Pa rty are exempt from payment of all tax related to 
the ownership, registration and running of the vehi cle as well as special taxes on transport services.  
Likewise, the fuel contained in the vehicle at the time it enters the territory of the host country is 
exempt from all import duty.  At the same time, thes e vehicles are subject in the host country to the 
tolls and duties levied for the use of the road ne twork or bridges, it being understood that these tolls 
and charges are levied on resident and non-reside nt transport operators without discrimination. 
78. The last part of this level of obligations con cerns technical standards.  The model agreement 
stipulates that the weights (permissible maximum we ight, axle weight) and dimensions of vehicles 
may exceed the upper limits in force in the host co untry only with a special permit applied for in 
advance.  This provision could have a significant impact on trade if these upper limits differ substantially from those of the country of origin, as is sometimes the case ( see Annex 11).  Moreover, 
vehicles are required to comply with the provisions  of the international conventions of the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
70 and the agreements that govern the carriage of 
                                                      
 68 "Transport on own account" means transport using vehicles owned by the operator or hired under a 
long-term contract or leased;  driven by employees of the enterprise or a member of the association; which is 
only an ancillary activity in the context of all the other ac tivities of the enterprise or association; either of goods 
which are the property of the enterprise or association or have been sold, bought, let out on hire or hired, produced, extracted, processed or repaired by the underta king, the purpose of the transport being to carry the 
goods to or from the enterprise or to move them for its own requirements;  or of employees of the enterprise or 
members of a non-profit-making associa tion for whom the transport is part of its social or welfare activities. 
69 The body comprising delegates fr om each Contracting Party that is responsible for implementing the 
agreement. 
70 UNECE has 56 members:  48 in Europe, 2 in North America (Canada and United States), 5 in 
Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turk menistan and Uzbekistan) and 1 in the Middle East 
(Israel).  See also:  http://www.unece.org/oes /nutshell/member_States_representatives.htm.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 25 
 
 
  dangerous goods and the carriage of perishable goods, respectively71.  Finally, the model agreement 
requires the equipment used to monitor crew driving and rest times to comply with the provisions of 
the UNECE's European Agreement concerning th e Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in 
International Road Transport (AETR). 
79. Next, concerning the second level of obligations , the requirement of a permit, out of the 12 
exemptions, only 6 are commercially significant:  tran sport by light vehicle, transport on own account 
(which, as indicated before, can sometimes account fo r more than 50 per cent of total traffic, though 
probably a lesser proportion of international traffi c), transport of perishable goods, transport of 
livestock, transport between neighbouring countries (in certain cases only) and combined transport. 
80. Because of this exception in favour of combined  transport, a large proportion of international 
container traffic falls outside the scope of the pe rmit and quota system.  This can be ascribed, on the 
one hand, to the economic and political weight of por t interests and, on the other, to environmental 
policy objectives.  By exempting combined transport from road quota permits, it is hoped to encourage, on part of the journey, recourse to ot her means of transport a nd hence partial intermodal 
transfer.  However, the Secretariat is not aware of statistics reflecting the impact of this exception, nor 
of the other exceptions.  This lack of inform ation is understandable, given that the main raison d'être  
of the permit system is statistical in nature, and that activities not subject to permits cannot by 
definition be counted. 
81. Geographically, the permits provide for four different possibilities: 
(a) Cabotage (in very exceptional cases); 
(b) transport between the territories of the two Contracting Parties; 
(c) transport between a point in the territory of the other Contracting Party and a point in 
the territory of a third State, provided that the journey includes the country of establishment of the haulier, or what the professionals call triangular or "third country" traffic; and 
(d) transit transport. 
82. Finally, the third level of obligations
, the quota requirement, forms the core of the bilateral 
capacity control system.  Article 8.4 of the m odel agreement stipulates that the Joint Committee 
"determines the quota, categories [journey and tim e] and any further conditions governing permit 
use".  As this shows, the procedures for nego tiating permits and quotas largely overlap, the only 
difference being the traffic subject to permits but not quotas (perishable goods, removals).  Quotas are 
negotiated within the same geographical framework as permits (see above). 
83. Quotas are always specified in terms of either the number of individual journeys or the 
number of permits valid for a specified period, for example, three months or a year.  There are no traffic restrictions in terms of value.  The m odel agreement provides for the possibility of granting 
additional quotas to vehicles that meet stricter environmental or safety requirements, and several 
recent agreements have in fact made use of this possibility. 
 
                                                     
 
71 These are the European Agreemen t concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by 
Road and the Agreement on the Intern ational Carriage of Perishable Foodstuff and on the Special Equipment to 
be Used for such Carriage. S/C/W/324 
Page 26  
 
  84. Bilateral quotas are always fixed at the same le vel for both parties.  Accordingly, it often 
happens that, when the two flags are not equall y competitive, the quota allocated to the more 
competitive flag is exhausted before the end of the year.  In these ci rcumstances, the country that has 
exhausted its quota tries to obtain an additional quota fro m its partner.  If it is unable to do so or if the 
additional quota is exhausted in its turn, the goods  can still be carried, either by the less competitive 
flag or outside the framework of the bilaterally established road transport quotas.  This is possible 
either  
(a) by other modes of transport, an option which, however, remains marginal on account 
of the costs and logistical difficulties (lack of flexibility, number of players involved, 
frequent breaking of bulk) it entails; or  
(b) by road, by carriers of a third country that has not yet exhausted its bilateral quota 
with the country of destination and its tr ansit quotas with potential transit countries.  
Again, this implies additional costs and journey times and at least one breaking of bulk. 
85. Except in the case of adjacent countries where only a single agreement is involved, road 
traffic rights always result from a combination of  several bilateral agre ements, on account of the 
existence of transit quotas and triangular traffic quotas. 
(iii) Operation of bilateral agreements in combination 
 
86. The full utilization of bilateral quotas in th e relations between two non-adjacent countries 
depends, as indicated before, on the availability of tran sit quotas in the intervening transit countries.   
87. The transit quotas are not necessarily the same fo r the two countries located at the ends of the 
chain.  In other words, as Figure 1 illustrates, on the route A-B-C, country A may have a larger transit quota through country B (in this case 500) than C (in this case 300).  In fact, each of the countries at 
the ends of the chain negotiates its transit quotas indi vidually with each of the intermediate countries.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Figure 1:  Schematic illustration of  the operation of transit quotas 
 
 
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
     
 
 
Legend: H A = Haulier of country A 
HB = Haulier of country B 
HC = Haulier of country C 
Text in bold indicates the bilateral/transit quota used by the carrier concerned. 
Notes: The AC agreement is shown twice to  simplify the diagram.  It should be noted, however, that in each of the cases 
described on either side of the median line of the diag ram, it is a different provision of the agreement that 
applies.   
Also for simplification purposes, the situ ation of the hauliers of country B has not been described in the diagram. 
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
 Agreement A-B  
 
Bilateral quota AB: 100 for H A  100 for H B 
Transit quota "all countries  beyond B" for H
A: 500 
Transit quota "all countries  
beyond A" for H B: 500Agreement A-C  
 
Bilateral quota AC: 100 for H A 100 for H C 
Transit quota "all countries  
beyond C" for H A: 400 
Agreement A-C  
 
Bilateral quota AC: 100 for H A 100 for H C 
Transit quota "all countries  beyond C" for H
A: 400 
Transit quota "all countries  
beyond A" for H C: 400 Agreement B-C  
 
Bilateral quota BC: 100 for H B 100 for H C 
Transit quota "all countries  be
yond B" for H C: 300  
A  
B  
C HA
HC +
+Regulatory 
Framework for H
A 
Regulatory Framework 
for H
C S/C/W/324 
Page 28  
 
  88. The situation is further complicated by a number of factors: 
(a) For a given transit route, the full utilization of the bilateral quota depends 
theoretically on the lowest transit quota whic h, in the end, may be less than the 
bilateral quota ("a chain is only as strong as its weakest link"). 
(b) As transit quotas are global and do not affect the sub-quotas specific to each country 
"beyond", it is the consumption of the transit quota over all the routes beyond the 
transit country that determines whether or not at any given moment a given bilateral 
quota can be fully used. 
(c) There could be several possible transit routes, in particular if there are several transit 
countries between the country of origin and the country of destination. 
(d) Within one and the same bilateral agreem ent the transit quotas are not necessarily 
fixed on the basis of mirror-image recipr ocity, as in Figure 1.  Other forms of 
reciprocity, sometimes involving asymmetric trade or additional criteria other than 
reciprocity, may also play a part.
 72  These possible criteria are reproduced in Box 1.  
Box 1:  Allocation criteria for transit quotas 
 
If the number of road transit authorizations is limited, the following factors may be considered to fix annual quotas: 
 
i. Reciprocity 
 This may be: 
 (a) Strict reciprocity (e.g. a quota of 1,000 transit authoriza tions for each Contracting Party) 
 (b) Equivalent reciprocity   This may be: 
□ Combined with road taxes (e.g. a quota of 1,000 trans it authorizations for each Contracting Party 
exempted from all road taxes - except user charge or toll.  Each authorization delivered beyond the 
quota is fully subject to road taxes) 
□ Combined with bilateral transport (e.g. a quota of  1,000 transit authorizations for one Contracting 
Party and 1,000 bilateral transport authorizations of  the other Contracting Party if the first Party is 
not a transit country for any reas on, e.g. a peripheral country) 
□ Combined with transit traffic sharing (e.g. a peri pheral Contracting Party (therefore not a transit 
country) needs 1,000 transit authorizations, the ot her Contracting Party offers 500 authorizations 
provided that its operators can also have a share of 500 transit tr ansport authorizations) 
 (c) Formal reciprocity (e.g. delivery of authorizations without quota limitation according to the needs of 
  each Contracting Party) 
 
ii. Vehicles' technical features ("environmental friendliness") 
iii. General environmental impact  of road transit transport  
iv. State of road network  
v. Impact of existing mult ilateral authorization quotas  (e.g. ECMT) 
Source :  IRU/UNECE 
 
                                                      
72 Indeed, the new questionnaire on transit that the IRU is preparing to circulate through UNECE 
identifies numerous possible criteria for allocating transit quotas.  The text of the questionnaire is available at:  
http://www.iru.org/index/iforms-app ?form_id=127&lng=en&src=e-mail.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 29 
 
 
  89. The transport operators of the country of origin  end up having to "arbitrage", i.e. constantly 
choose, not only between transit routes but also co untries of destination, depending on the level of 
prices, prices which tend to increase dramatically when bilateral or transit quotas run out.  Thus, 
service "arbitraging" by the transport operators is not  motivated exclusively by commercial factors, as 
it is, for example, in the vast majority of cases in maritime transport, but by multiple regulatory 
constraints.  In this respect, the road transport sector  appears to be subject to an even more restricted 
regulatory regime than air transport. 
90. The "arbitraging" process also suffers from a cer tain inertia, since in addition to the complex 
administration of the quotas, there is the need to  obtain all a visa for the driver for each of the 
countries involved a given journey.  In fact, except for a few regional agreements, there is no 
simplified visa regime of the kind available, for example, to seafarers. 
91. Furthermore, these regulatory constraints may force hauliers to drive longer and more 
tortuous journeys than the routes they might ot herwise take, entailing significant environmental 
implications. 
92. "Third country" quotas add a further level of complexity to quota management, but also 
represent an additional commercial opportunity for tr ansport operators, namely, "triangular" or "self-
transit" traffic.73  These quotas concern traffic between two pa rties other than those of the bilateral 
agreement in question.  The underlying concept may be described in the form of a stylized notation 
that successively identifies the nationality of the tran sport operator in question, the bilateral agreement 
concerned and the journey made.  Accordingly, the tr iangular traffic configurations authorized by the 
ECMT model agreement can be denoted as follows:  H A/AG AB/TBAC and H A/AG AB/TCAB, where H 
stands for haulier, AG for agreement and T for tr ip.   These two configurations are illustrated in 
Figure 2. 
                                                      
73 Unlike "third party traffic" and "t riangular traffic", "self-transit" fo r transit through the carrier's own 
territory is not an officially recognized term.  However, it clearly captures the operation involved. S/C/W/324 
Page 30  
 
  Figure 2:  Triangular traffic configuratio ns authorized by the ECMT model agreement 
 
Case 1:  H A/AG AB/TBAC 
 
 
        H
A 
  
 
   
Case 2:  H
A/AG AB/TCAB 
 
 
               H
A 
 
 
    
 
Legend : HA = Haulier of country A 
AG = Relevant agreement T = Trip concerned 
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
 
93. At first glance, the two cases in Figure 2 may appear  identical.  In the first case, the haulier of 
A participates in an operation to export goods from B to C, the latter being a "third country" under the 
agreement A-B.  In the second case, the haulier of A transports goods into B from C, the latter 
representing a "third country" under the agreement A-B. 
94. Interestingly, nothing in the ECMT agreement requires the three countries or territories 
concerned to be neighbours.  In other words, one or more transit countries ma y be involved, provided, 
of course, that the necessary transit quota(s) is (are ) available.  Moreover, according to operators, the 
opportunities or triangular traffic are more nume rous when one or more transit countries are 
intercalated.  Finally, it should be noted that triangular traffic quotas, like transit quotas, are global, i.e. they do not specify the countries or territo ries "beyond" self-transit and do not allocate sub-quotas 
to the countries or territories concerned. 
95. The IRU notes that one of the effects of transit and third country quotas is that "a pair of 
countries can decide on trade relations between a nother pair of countries through controlling their 
transit and third country traffic".
74  This type of traffic distortion via "stipulations for others" does not 
exist in other modes of transport, even in those in  which market access is tightly regulated.  Thus, in 
air transport, transit75 and sixth freedom traffic rights (the a pproximate equivalent of third country 
                                                      
74  International Road Transport Union (2004). 
75 The special case of trans-Siberian transit exclud ed.  (See also document S/C/W/270/Add.2, pages 
455-459.)  
A 
 
B  
C 
 
A 
 
B  
C  S/C/W/324 
 Page 31 
 
 
  traffic) are unrestricted.  In maritime transport, transit is unrestricted (right of innocent passage of the 
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and "cross-trade", i.e. non-bilateral trade, is widely predominant. 
(iv) Variations relative to the ECMT model agreement 
 96. The ECMT model agreement is subject to numerous individual variations even amongst 
ECMT members.
76  In addition, according to the IRU, member s have made relatively little use of this 
relatively recent model agreement (pre-existing agreem ents were often more restrictive, especially for 
transport on own account).  On the other hand, the model agreement was very widely used in the 
1990s by the States of Central and Eastern Europe a nd Central Asia after the fall of the Berlin Wall 
and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  In fact, the model agreement was drafted in response to a 
request from these countries, then in transition, which were seeking a template for concluding 
bilateral agreements which up to then they had not been accustomed to use. 
97. Professionals tend to take a favourable view of  the ECMT model agreement and especially of 
its references to the conventions on the carriage of  dangerous goods, carriage of perishable foodstuffs 
and conditions of work (AETR) and to the European  Union's environmental standards.  They see in 
these references an embryonic common framework for regulatory harmonization.  Also, they consider 
that ECMT model agreement may foreshadow a possible multilateralization of the bilateral 
agreements.  Thus, in its reference work TRANSLe x 2004 the IRU considers that "the ECMT model 
agreement is already a step beyond a narrowly unde rstood bilateralism, preparing the terrain for and 
facilitating a possible future ’multi-lateralization’ of  still existing bilateral re lations and mirroring the 
prevailing general pattern of trade relations and international divisi on of labour in Europe today". 
98. There are cases of bilateral agreements where so me provisions are more liberal than those of 
the ECMT agreement.  Thus, the agreements be tween the United Kingdom and Ukraine, the United 
Kingdom and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia, and the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan 
authorize triangular traffic without imposing the obli gation to transit through the transport operator's 
country of origin.  In turn, this allows for pure third country traffic, H A/AG AB/TBC, comparable with 
seventh freedom air traffic or cross-trade in mar itime transport.  Again transit countries may be 
intercalated.  This type of traffic is described in Figure 3. 
Figure 3:  Configuration of  pure third-country traffic  
HA/AG AB/TBC 
 
    
 
        
HA 
  
 
Legend: H A = Haulier of country A 
AG = Relevant agreement 
T = Trip concerned 
Source : WTO Secretariat 
 
                                                      
76 For further details see document CEMT/CS/TR(2002)18 of 5 September 2002.  
A 
 
B  
C S/C/W/324 
Page 32  
 
  99. Similarly, there are a few agreements outside of the ECMT area, such as those concluded by 
South Africa
77, that authorize cabotage and provide for quotas for that purpose.  Judging from the 
sample already gathered, the variations are ev en wider among the non-ECTM agreements, generally 
in the direction of greater protection.  Thus, cer tain African countries impose routes and particular 
destination points on foreign vehicles (comparable mutatis mutandis  to the table of routes in a non-
liberalized air transport agreement) and double pe rmit approval procedures.  (In the ECMT model 
agreement, permit is the sole responsibility of the issuing authority.)  In addition, World Bank field 
studies have identified professional practices that tend to reinforce the restrictiveness of the 
agreements, in particular, the 'tour de rôle ' system, which is very common in the landlocked countries 
of West Africa.78. 
(v) Regimes applicable in the absence of a bilateral agreement 
 
100. In the absence of a bilateral agreement, the  prevailing regime is that of authorization on a 
case-by-case basis.  No systematic survey has b een conducted outside the European continent.  A 
document submitted by the IRU to UNECE in 2009, wh ile originally intended as a compilation of the 
transit regime of 34 European countries, also throws  some light on bilateral regimes in the absence of 
bilateral agreements.79  Firstly, the regimes are often the same for traffic from , to, and via  a given 
country.  Secondly, in a significant number of cases, where it has not proved possible to identify a regime specifically for transit, the IRU has fallen back on the regime from
 and to  the country in 
question.80   
101. The picture that emerges from the analysis  of this compilation is that of an a priori  rather 
restrictive regime of disc retionary authorizations (e xcept, of course, for the relations between Member 
States of the European Union and ECMT quotas;  see below).  These two exceptions do not always 
appear explicitly in the description of each country's  regime.  The compilation also brings out a few 
variations, but only four cases appear to be significantly more liberal  than the rest:  those of Romania 
and Slovenia, where an authorization can always be purchased at the border, that of Switzerland, 
which, in principle, requires an authorization only for transport operators from 11 countries, and that 
of the United Kingdom, which does not require an authorization, only a simple attestation of 
professional fitness for road transport (an operator' s licence).  Other countries studied also waive 
authorizations for certain partners, although it is no t possible to determine whether this waiver is 
linked to the existence of a bilateral agreemen t.  No figures are available for the number of 
authorizations granted outsi de bilateral agreements.81  
 
                                                      
77 See Raballand, Kunaka and Giersing (2008). 
78 The system is described as "a n informal pract ice of a queuing system to allocate freight to 
transporters …  As a result … a fixed price is set by th e institution in charge of allocating freight and transport 
quality and productivity are low.  While the above practice is  seen as 'fair' as it 'spreads' the profitability of the 
trucking business among truckers regardless of the quality of the service they deliver , it can be and is bypassed 
by those with clout or 'business' ast uteness, thus  bringing some kind of competition.  Bypassing the ' tour de rôle ' 
translates into long waiting times for loads at t he port, from two  weeks up to two months for 'regular' companies, 
thus jeopardizing their profitability" (Ibid.) 
79 See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009). 
80 In fact, when the document was examined by the UNECE ad hoc meeting, no member questioned 
this approach, thereby acknowledging the de facto  validity of the from  and to  regime for the via  regime also.  
The inventory even contains details of the triangular traffic regime in some of the countries concerned. 
81 The compilation will shortly be supplemented by a more detailed questionnaire dealing with all 
transit regimes, whether or not covered by bilateral ag reements.  The deadline for the receipt of replies from 
UNECE Member States is 12 July 2010.  Members will be able to obtain the results of the survey from the Secretariat as soon as they beco me available.  The text of this questionnaire can be found at:  
http://www.iru.org/index/iforms-app ?form_id=127&lng=en&src=e-mail.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 33 
 
 
  (vi) Economic effects of the bilateral system 
 
102. Even though the area of application of the bilate ral system in Europe has shrunk considerably 
as a result of the eastward enlargement of the Eu ropean Union, it still entails significant economic 
costs, e.g. higher transport costs, inability to ru n a "seamless supply chain", environmental damage, 
trade diversion.   
103. The bilateral system seems to be out of step w ith recent trends towards the fragmentation of 
production and assembly processes and the proliferati on of "just in time" manufacturing, which all 
require a high degree of logistical flexibility and an uninterrupted, stable and predictable transport 
environment.  According to the Association of Turk ish Road Hauliers, road transport quotas (bilateral 
and transit) cost the Turkish economy as a whole US$6 billion in 2008, with 90 per cent of Turkish 
exports being carried by road.  The Association asserts that quotas have discouraged some foreign 
industrial investment, as investors were not sure of being able to market their products competitively.  
Turkey has recently submitted to the Working Party on Road Transport of UNECE a draft convention 
to align bilateral agreements on in ternational road transport with the mandatory rules of multilateral 
instruments governing international transit.82 
104. Other assessments are certainly not more favourab le.  For instance, the IRU considers that 
"while significantly contributing to facilitated trade a nd tourism in a bilateral set-up in particular in 
the immediate post-Second World War time in gene ral and post-communist period for that newly 
independent States in particular they [the bila teral agreements] have led to a highly segmented 
sub-optimal international market of road transpor t services.  In some countries, an additional major 
source of inefficiencies, distortion of competition and even fraud seems to be exacerbated by the 
extreme complexity of managing the scarcity of bila teral authorizations at national level …  Thus it 
may be that in regions with highly integrated  economies, bilateral agreements are no longer 
structurally appropriate for creating the optimal  conditions necessary for a modern international 
division of labour and logistics chains or appropria tely address the issue of creating a level playing 
field for competition in international road transport." 83   
105. However, the bilateral system is deeply entrench ed.  One of the first international acts of the 
newly independent European States that emerged from the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was 
to negotiate such agreements.  In practice, the ope rators seem ready to put up with the administrative 
burden of the system so long as they are protected by quotas from third-party competition (other than the marginal effects of triangular traffic quotas).  The numerous MFN exemptions relating to road 
transport listed by WTO Members from all regions a nd levels of development is further evidence of 
the scope and resilience of the system (see section VI.B). 
106. The only exceptions are a few regional agreem ents that fully or partially liberalize 
international road transport or, conversely, a fe w cases in which international road transport is 
prohibited de jure  or de facto  and in which transhipment of the load onto vehicles registered in the 
neighbouring country is compulsory. 
(b) Regional agreements partially liberaliz ing international road transport  
107. There are very few regional agreements, possibly no more than seven, relaxing or abolishing 
the bilateral system of road quotas.   
 
                                                     
 
82 See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010). 
83 International Road Transport Union (2004)  pp. 448-449. S/C/W/324 
Page 34  
 
  (i) European Union 
108. Given the existence of a single road transpor t market since the early 1990s, the European 
Union is a borderline case that could be dealt with in the context of either international or domestic 
traffic.
84  Yet  the OECD-ETCR survey reveals significan t variations in the domestic regimes of its 
Member States.85  Nevertheless, the conditions of admissi on to the occupation of road transport 
operator were fully harmonized in 199686, and the same is true for a substantial proportion of the 
regulations on road safety, working and empl oyment conditions and even sectoral taxation.87 
109. With regard to access to the mark et for the carriage of goods, the restrictions on intra-EU 
international road traffic were first replaced by a large Community quota with rapidly evolving rules 
and then totally abolished on 1 January 1993 by Council Regulation No. 1841/88 of 21 June 1988. 
110. For its part, cabotage was progressively ope ned up by Regulation No. 3118/93 of 
25 October 1993 by means of a quota that has grown rapidly after 1994, before all restrictions were 
abolished as from 30 June 1998.  However, the Regulation only permitted operations conducted on a 
"temporary basis" by non-resident transport opera tors, without precisely defining the notion of 
"temporariness".  The application of the Regulati on and the interpretation of the notion of the 
"temporariness" gave rise to difficulties, especially af ter the enlargement of the European Union to the 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, whose flag s were particularly competitive and attracted the 
establishment of Western European enterprises.  In fact, some notionally temporary operations thus 
became quasi-permanent.  At the end of a long a nd difficult debate, this situation was changed by 
Regulation No. 1072/2009 of 21 October 2009.88  The Regulation clarifies that the notion of 
"temporary" consists of the provision of a ma ximum of three cabotage operations following the 
unloading at the end of an international journey.  According to the European Commission89, cabotage 
transport accounts for only 3 per cent of road trans port within the European Union as compared with 
15 per cent for third-party traffic a nd 82 per cent for bilateral traffic. 
111. This debate on EU cabotage is one facet of a broader out-flagging/in -flagging question which 
is quite similar, mutatis mutandis , to the situation encountered in mar itime transport.  Even before the 
eastward enlargement of the European Union, certa in Western European road transport enterprises 
had established themselves in such Central and East ern European countries as Bulgaria, or indeed in 
countries beyond the current frontiers of the European  Union.  The German company Willy Betz, for 
example, bought up the Bulgarian State enterprise SOMAT, which at the time had a fleet of 4,000 vehicles and was considered to be the crown jewel of road transport in the Comecon.  These fleets 
were used for traffic operations in Western Eur ope by exploiting ECMT quotas, bilateral quotas, 
opportunities for triangular traffic and cabotage quotas.   
112. In the European Union, exte rnal road transport policy re mains almost exclusively the 
responsibility of the Member States.  The Europe an Commission has negotiated only a few limited 
agreements with third countries (several of which subsequently joined the Union) on the basis of 
ad hoc mandates.  These include, firstly, the agreemen t between the European Union and Switzerland, 
which was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.   
                                                     
 
84 However, this single market is less developed than in maritime and air transport, since cabotage has 
not been entirely liberalized.   
85 For the details of this survey see Annex 5. 
86 Council Directive No. 96/26/EC  of 29 April 1996, recently re vised and replaced by Regulation 
No. 1071/2009 of 21 October 2009 and Regulation No. 1072/2009 of 21 October 2009, both of which will enter into force on 4 December 2011. 
87 For further details of these regulations see:  http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/ 
road_transport/index_en.htm. 
88 The cabotage provisions (Articles 8 and 9) of th is Regulation entered into force on 14 May 2010. 
89 See European Commission (2009), pages 3 and 16-21.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 35 
 
 
  113. This agreement provides a good illustration of th e link that can exist between technical and 
fiscal regulations, on the one hand, and market access issues, on the other.  Thus, its core provision is 
the commitment made by Switzerland to raise erga omnes  - and not only for the sole benefit of the 
European Union - the maximum permissible weight of vehicles from 28 to 40 tonnes in exchange for 
the recognition by the European Union of the le gality of a tax on heavy vehicles that is non-
discriminatory, a function of distance and intended to  encourage the transfer of traffic (particularly 
transit traffic) to the railways and to finance the cross-Switzerland rail infrastructure.  The agreement 
also liberalizes road transport between the Europ ean Union and Switzerland and opens up the market 
for transport between EU Member States (" grand cabotage ") to Swiss carriers.  At the same time, 
cabotage in the strict sense of the word (i.e. road  transport within Switzerland or within a Member 
State of the European Union) was not liberalized .  Finally, the agreement provides for the mutual 
recognition of the licences needed to gain admission to the occupation, a general harmonization of 
technical standards, and coordination of transport policies, in particular where combined rail-road 
transport is concerned. 
114. Secondly, on the basis of a proposal made in March 2008 and a Council mandate of 
October 2009, in February 2010 the Commission ente red into negotiations with countries in the 
Western Balkans (Albania, FYROM, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and 
Kosovo) with a view to establishing a common road tr ansport market.  In parallel with the progressive 
adoption of the Community acquis , the respective road transport markets are to be progressively 
opened up by means of a quota additional to those of  the bilateral agreements between the Balkan 
partners and the Member States of the European Un ion, agreements which are to remain in force. 
(ii) "Multilateral" quota of the ECMT  
 
115. The multilateral quota of the European Conferen ce of Ministers of Transport was created 
in 1973.  ECMT licences make it possible to carry load from any ECMT State to any other 
ECMT State via any ECMT State.90  There are two types of licences, namely, annual (also known as 
"green licences") and short-term ("yellow") licen ces.  Annual licences can be converted into 
short-term licences at the rate of 1 for 12, w ithin a ceiling of 20 per cent of annual licences. 
116. The mechanism for allocating and increasing the qu ota is rather complicated and resembles, 
mutatis mutandis , that governing trade in textiles during the period of transition from the Multifibre 
Agreement to full liberalization.  These evolutiona ry to promote efficiency and the inclusion in 
national fleets of vehicles that comply with the late st environmental and safety standards.  Given its 
particular importance, also as a template for othe rs, this mechanism is described below (Box 2) in 
some detail.   
 
                                                      
90 More precisely, the text of the ECMT User Guid e on the quota stipulates that "ECMT licences are 
multilateral licences for the international carriage of good s by road for hire or reward by transport undertakings 
established in an ECMT member country, on the basi s of a quota system, the transport operations being 
performed:  between ECMT member countries and in tr ansit through the territory of one or several ECMT 
member country(ies) by vehicles regist ered in an ECMT member country". S/C/W/324 
Page 36  
 
   
    
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
     
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
117. The geographical area of application of th e quota has evolved considerably since its 
introduction.  Initially, it also applied between Memb er States of the European Union, but was then 
replaced by an (intra)-"Community" quota which, in tu rn, gave way to the full liberalization of the 
bilateral road transport relations  between EU Member States in 1993.  Since then, the ECMT quota 
has no longer been used in the EU other than fo r relations between Member s and non-Members of the 
European Union and as well as for relations among the latter countries.  The eastward enlargement of 
the European Union further reduced the geographical c overage of the quota system .  This is one of the Box 2:  Allocation mechan ism of the ECMT quota 
The Ministers of Transport of the ECMT member countries first jointly fix the total number of basic 
licences to be issued for the follo wing year (or sometimes several y ears).  Then, a certain number of 
"basic" (annual and monthly) licences is allocated to each member country in accordance with ten 
weighted criteria (freight volume, contribution to the ECMT budget, GDP, population, country area, 
current use of ECMT licences, use of TIR carnets (s ee below paragraph 135), the country's overall trade 
and its trade with ECMT co untries).  These weighted criteria are us ed to establish country rankings in 
terms of licences required.  The member countries th en indicate how they want  to allocate these basic 
licences by vehicle environm ental category (currently Euro III, Euro IV and Euro V).  Annex 7 shows the 
basic licences negotiated in November/December 2009 for the year 2010. 
At a second stage, these quotas are multiplied by a coefficient that varies with the environmental category 
(for example, in 2010, the coefficient was 4 for Euro III lorries, but 6 for Euro IV and Euro V lorries).  These coefficients vary over the years and form th e subject of intense negotiations.  The number of 
licences multiplied by the coefficient is then increased by a bonus expressed as a percentage (for example, 
40 per cent).  The table below summarizes the trend in  these quotas and bonuses over the last four years.  
Clearly, lorries that comply with older environmenta l standards see their coefficients decrease until they 
simply cease to be e ligible for the quota. 
Coefficients and bonuses applicable to basic ECMT licences (2007-2010) 
 
 2007 2008 2009 2010 
 Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus 
Euro I  1  0   
Euro II  2  1  0  
Euro III 6 20% 6 10% 4 40% 6 40% 
Euro IV 6 40% 6 40% 6 40% 6 40% Euro V - - - - 6 40% 6 40% 
Source :  International Transport Forum (2010). 
 
The detailed results of applying these coefficients and bonuses to basic licen ces for the year 2010 are 
reproduced in Annex 8. 
Four ECMT member countries (Austria , Italy, Greece, Hungary) restrict th e number of licences that can be 
used on their territory by imposing additional conditions.  Each allocated and numbered licence is 
distributed in the form of a paper document to the eligible carrier.  
The criteria for adjusting th e coefficients and bonuses formed the su bject of negotiations in 2006 and were 
fixed on a multi-annual basis for the period 2007 to 2010.  For 2010 they were revised in the course of a 
marathon round of negotiations conducted in Novemb er-December 2009 which fro ze the 2009 coefficients 
and bonuses and carried them over to 2010.  The financial and economic crisis had depressed freight 
volumes.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 37 
 
 
  reasons why a substantial proportion of the quotas (nearly 40 per cent) remains unused.  In fact, the 
northernmost and westernmost Members of the European Union (Portugal, United Kingdom and 
Sweden), though entitled to a relatively large EC MT quota under the allocation criteria, have very 
little opportunity to use it, being situated thousands of kilometres from the first third country, as international road relations gene rally tend to be short-haul. 
118. The size of the multilateral quota relative to the to tal traffic remains rather marginal.  A study 
commissioned by the ECMT estimates it at between 0.5 and 7 per cent of the traffic of each Member country concerned, with significant variations.
91  Unlike the defunct Community quota, the 
multilateral quota was never designed as a means of even tually abolishing all bilateral agreements.  
Several attempts to reform the system in favour of  the States with the most  competitive flags failed, 
reportedly owing to the reluctance of some larger EU Members with less competitive fleets.  Russia 
recently adopted a similar position. 
(iii) Andean Community 
119. Decision No. 399 of 17 January 1997, codifies previous decisions that liberalize bilateral road 
transport between Andean Community members (Bo livia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), including 
transit.92  It establishes the principles of free provision of services, right of establishment, national 
treatment, MFN and of mutual recognition of two five-year occupational licences (fitness certificate and service provider's licence). 
(iv) Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization 
 
120. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organizati on (BSEC), founded in 1992, is composed 
of 12 States.
93  In 2002, its members signed a memorandum  on the facilitation of the transport of 
goods by road, which entered into force in July 2006.94  In 2009, seven of its members95 set up a pilot 
BSEC multilateral permit project, whose architecture closely resembles that of the ECMT multilateral 
quota.96  The permits cover bilateral, transit and triangular traffic between the members concerned.  
For 2010, 1,400 permits are to be allocated within this framework. 
(v) ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitatio n of Inter-State Transport and Cross-Border 
Transport Agreement of the Great Mekong Sub-Region 
 
121. In December 2009, the members of ASEAN signed the ASEAN Framework Agreement on 
the Facilitation of Inter-State Transport (AFAFIST).97  In addition to numerous facilitation provisions, 
the Agreement provides for the estab lishment of a quota of 500 vehicles per country for international 
traffic between members.  The quota figure could be revised in the futu re.  According to the 
ASEAN Secretariat, the quota system, including its size, is closely modelled on the quota established 
by the Cross-Border Transport Agreement of the Great Mekong Sub-Region (CBTA-GMS) concluded 
                                                      
91 See CEMT (2001). 
92 The full text of the decision is available a t:  http://intranet.comunidadandina.org/IDocumentos/ 
c_Newdocs.asp?GruDoc=07. 
93 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece,  Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine and, 
since 2005, Serbia. 
94 The text of this memorandum is available at:  http://www.bsec-organization.org/documents/Legal 
Documents/agreementmous/mous/Download/MoUTranspGoods.pdf. 
95 Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Mold avia, Romania, Serbia and Turkey. 
96 For further details of this permit see:  http://www.bsec-urta.org/modules.php?op=modload&name= 
IncludePage&file=index&pagename=user_guide.htm. 
97 The text of the agreement is available at:  h ttp://www.asean.org/documents /Inter-State per cent 
20Transport per cent 20Agreement.pdf. S/C/W/324 
Page 38  
 
  in November 1999 between La os, Vietnam and Thailand.
98  China, Cambodia and Myanmar have 
since acceded.99 
(vi) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
 
122. In 1982, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act imposed a moratorium - initially for two years - on 
any new authorization to operate in the United St ates for foreign road tran sport (including freight) 
operators.  In the case of Canada, this moratorium was almost immediately lifted, in September 1982, 
by a presidential memorandum on the grounds that from that the US road transport industry would in future be able to operate fully in Canada.  The moratorium was constantly renewed with respect to 
Mexico.  Under the US list of reservations for existing non-conforming m easures (Annex 1 of the 
NAFTA) submitted under NAFTA, Mexican road trans port companies were to obtain the right to 
provide cross-border road transport services to the federated border States three years after the signature of the agreement, i.e. from 18 December  1995, and to the entire territory of the United 
States six years later, i.e. from 1 January 2000.  These clauses also provide for the expiration of a 
moratorium on investment in enterprises supplying  international road tr ansport services between 
points situated in the United Stat es in December 1995.  However, the moratorium was maintained by 
the United States on the grounds that compliance w ith its road safety regulations could not be 
guaranteed. 
123. After several consultation stages, the Mexican  Government requested the constitution of a 
NAFTA arbitral panel, which ga ve its ruling in February 2001.
100  The panel unanimously considered 
that the United States had violated its obligati ons under the NAFTA (Annex 1 and Articles 1202 and 
1203) by imposing an a priori  blanket prohibition on cross-border se rvices and investment.  The panel 
recognized that road safety was a legitimate regul atory objective which, under certain conditions, 
could justify inspection and control procedures di fferent from those applied to US and Canadian 
carriers, provided that they were applied in good faith  and were in conformity with all the provisions 
of the NAFTA. 
124. On this basis, in 2007, the United States au thorities set up a renewable three-year pilot 
programme for the experimental admission of 100 Me xican transport companies with a total fleet of 
1,000 units.  In March 2009, Congress withdrew the funds allocated to this programme.  Making use 
of the retaliation provisions of the NAFTA, Mexican authorities announced the imposition of 
retaliatory custom duties against US products amounti ng to US$2.4 billion.  At the time of writing, 
discussions between the two parties with a view to settling this dispute were still in progress. 
(vii) Other agreements and cases of preferential treatment 
 
125. In several instances, the MFN exemptions filed by Members, which are more fully described 
in section VI.B, refer to preferential treatment w ith regard to access to cargoes.  However, the 
references to the legislation or agreements con cerned are not precise enough for these provisions to be 
identified and analysed in detail. 
(c) Situations in which international road tran sport is prohibited or severely restricted 
126. There is some evidence of cases where internati onal road traffic is completely prohibited or 
severely restricted.  For example, according to a "transport interchange matrix" drawn up in 2008 by 
                                                      
98 See:  http://www.affalog.net/pdf-files/tfwg -sep-09/tfwg09final per cent 20report.pdf. 
99 The relevant protocol to this agreement is available at:  http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others 
/GMS-Agreement/Protocol-3.pdf;  see in particular Article 5. 
100 The text of the decision is available at:  http ://registry.nafta-sec-alena. org/cmdocuments/8f70c18a 
-7f02-4126-96f6-182a11c90517.pdf.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 39 
 
 
  the Asian Institute of Transport Development (A ITD), vehicles between India and Bangladesh are 
authorized to penetrate only between one and three kilometres into the neighbouring country, 
depending on the border post, before having to tr anship their load.  Pending a settlement of the 
NAFTA dispute between Mexico and the United Stat es, the situation is similar on the Mexican-US 
border where, however, the compulsory transhipment zone is 20 miles wide. 
127. IRU101 and World Bank102 data point to a number of borders where, for various reasons, 
international road transport is either prohibited,  impossible or subject to severe restrictions (see 
Table 8).  The information needs to be interp reted with care.  These situations may have a de jure  or 
de facto  origin, they are sometimes part of a context that extends beyond road transport alone, they 
may temporary or permanent.  The information in Ta ble 8 is probably non-exhaustive.  It is without 
prejudice to the legal situation at the border in qu estion;  it simply notes the existence of operational 
difficulties, as does, for instance, the IRU's ‘ border waiting times observatory’ (see below).  
Table 8:  List of borders at which intern ational traffic is limit ed or non-existent 
 
State of traffic Absence of traffic Traffic with compulsory 
transhipment Transit traffic 
prohibited 
Borders concerned Israel - Lebanon 
India - Pakistan Algeria - Morocco 
Armenia - Azerbaijan 
China- Kyrgyz RepublicChina – Afghanistan Afghanistan - Pakistan (for 
Afghan vehicles only) Afghanistan - Iran 
Afghanistan - Uzbekistan 
Afghanistan - Tajikistan Afghanistan - Turkmenistan 
China - Pakistan 
China - Kazakhstan Benin - Nigeria (for Benin 
vehicles only) 
Angola - Namibia (for Namibian 
vehicles only) 
 Algeria - Tunisia 
Algeria - Mauritania Algeria - Mali 
Algeria - Niger 
Source :  TIR section of the IRU and World Bank 
 
B. OTHER REGULATIONS  
128. A distinction should be made betw een regulations that apply at the border and regulations that 
apply behind the border, where the distinction betw een domestic and international traffic has no real 
meaning. 
1. Regulations at the border  
129. From the operators' perspective, the main obstacl e to the international transportation of goods 
by road is not so much the application of bila teral and transit quotas as problems related to border 
crossing.  According to the IRU and the World Bank, these problems  are particularly acute in certain 
geographical areas such as West Africa or the eastern borders of the European Union.103  There is a 
substantial amount of information from the Wo rld Bank, the various United Nations Regional 
Economic Commissions, the regional Development Banks and UNCTAD concerning, for example, 
the costs and delays generated by these problems.  For its part, the IRU has set up a ‘border waiting 
times observatory’.  Efforts to alleviate or elim inate these problems are being made in connection 
                                                      
101 The TIR section of the IRU administers the i ssuance of TIR carnets an d therefore maintains a 
constantly updated list of borders, the crossing of whic h is temporarily or permanently prohibited or restricted. 
102 Data gathered in connection with the World Bank work on transit corridors. 
103 See, for instance, ILO (2006);  Arvi s, Raballand and Marteau (2007).   S/C/W/324 
Page 40  
 
  with numerous bilateral and multilateral technical a ssistance projects, which often include regulatory 
reforms. 
130. The road transport industry is following with keen interest the trade facilitation negotiations 
being conducted by the WTO within the framework of the DDA, in particular where transit issues are 
concerned. 
131. Operators also  stress the leading role already being played by the UNECE's harmonization 
and facilitation conventions, the scope  of which extends far beyond the European continent.  Out of 
57 conventions, at least five are of major importance. 
132. The European Agreement on Main Inte rnational Traffic Arteries (AGR)
 of 
15 November 1975 defines a uniform legal framewo rk for the construction and development of a 
coherent international road network in all member  countries and territories of UNECE, in particular 
for main arteries (so-called "E-road" network).104  It defines such main arteries and the construction 
parameters to which they must conform.  The ag reement, which is regularly updated, underwent a 
major revision with the integration of the road network of the countries of the Caucasus and Central 
Asia.  It has served as a model for several simila r initiatives in Asia (by ASEAN and by the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Paci fic) and in the Middle East (by the United 
Nations Commission for Western Asia).  On July 2010 it had 37 Contracting Parties.105 
133. The European Agreement Concerning the Wo rk of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in 
International Road Transport (AETR)  of 1 July 1970 establishes uniform working conditions for the 
drivers of vehicles used in intern ational road transport in accordance with relevant provisions of the 
International Labour Organization.106  These concern driving and rest periods, rules on the 
composition of crews and uniform conditions applicable  to drivers.  The AETR is regularly aligned 
with the corresponding European Union Directives.  The latest development in this respect is a 
"gentleman's agreement" that postponed the introducti on of the digital tachograph intended to monitor 
compliance with the driving and rest times throughout  the vehicle fleet, initially planned for 30 June 
2010, to 31 December 2010.  The AETR Convention had 49 Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010.107 
134. The Customs Convention on the Internationa l Transport of Goods under Cover of 
TIR Carnets (TIR Convention)  of 14 November 1975 allows for in ternational transports of goods via 
as many transit countries as may be necessary without intermediate customs inspection.108  T h e  
affixing of seals and an international guarantee chain to ensure the payment of duties and taxes owed 
and to prevent fraud complete the system.  The IRU is responsible for issuing TIR carnets and 
administering the guarantee.  The application of  the TIR Convention now extends beyond Europe to 
the Middle East (Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Em irates, Syria, Iran), North Africa (Algeria, 
Morocco, Tunisia), West Africa (Liberia), Asia (Indonesia, Mongolia, Republic of Korea), North 
America (United States) and Latin America (C hile, Uruguay).  The TIR Convention had 68 
                                                      
104 For the full text see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ ECE-TRANS-SC1-384f.pdf.  The 
Agreement’s  consolidated version, which is currently in force, dates from 2006, 
105 For a complete list of the Contracting Pa rties see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ 
agreem_cp.html#2. 
106 The consolidated version of the AETR currently in force dates from 2006.  For the full text of this 
Agreement see:  http ://www.unece.org/trans/ doc/2006/sc1/ ECE-TRAN S-SC1-2006-02f.pdf. 
107 For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/ 
conventn/agreem_cp.html#21. 
108 For the full text of this Agreement see:  http://www.unece.org/tir/handbook/french/newtirhand/ 
TIR-6Rev9_Fr.pdf.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010, including 15 Cont racting Parties outside the area covered by the 
UNECE. 109 
135. The Agreement concerning the Adoption of Un iform Conditions for Periodical Technical 
Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and the R eciprocal Recognition of Such Inspections  of 13 November 
1997 defines the legal framework and procedures fo r the adoption of uniform rules for technical 
inspections and the mutual recognition of the resulting certificates. 110  This Agreement had 12 
Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010. 111 
136. Finally, the aim of the International Conventi on on the Harmonization of Frontier Controls of 
Goods  of 21 October 1982 is to reduce the formalities and the number and duration of all types of 
controls (medico-sanitary, veterinary, phytosanita ry, etc.) relating to compliance with technical 
standards or quality control.112  This Convention applies to imports , exports and goods in transit.  
On July 2010 it had 54 Contracting Parties, includi ng 8 Contracting Parties from outside the area 
covered by the UNECE. 113  
137. Numerous other specialised and general regiona l organizations have developed conventions 
and other instruments intended to promote harmon ization of the conditions of competition in the 
international road transport industry and the facilitation of trade in the sector.114 
2. Regulations behind the border  
138. Many regulations governing domestic traffic appl y also to "visiting" foreign trucks through 
the principle of territoriality.  A foreign-registered vehicle is subject to the whole of its host country’s 
legislation in terms of weights a nd dimensions, rules of the road, payment of tolls, etc.  The main 
exceptions to this principle of territoriality are th e taxation of the transport company (in the absence of 
a double taxation agreement), the taxation of the vehicle in relation to its registration, and the driver's 
wage and social insurance contributions, which remain those of vehicle's country of origin. 
139. National regimes tend to be fairly similar in c ontent, at least between countries at the same 
level of development.  Nevertheless, there are exceptions.  A case in point are Switzerland and the EU prior to their bilateral agreement with regard to maximum permissible weights (24 and 40 tons, 
respectively). 
140. International and regional c onventions often seek to establish the lowest common 
denominator of the national regimes within their sphe re of application.  Such conventions may have 
been developed by international or ganizations with very broad geogr aphical coverage (typically, the 
above-mentioned UNECE conventions) or by regi onal organizations with specific or general 
mandates (for example, ASEAN). 
                                                     
 
109 For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/ 
conventn/agreem_cp.html#42. 
110 For the full text of this Agreement see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/conf4f.pdf. 
111 For a complete list of the Contracting Pa rties see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ 
agreem_cp.html#19. 
112 For the full text of this Agreement see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/harmonf.pdf. 
113 For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see:  http://www.unece.org/trans/ 
conventn/agreem_cp.html#51.  The latter eight countries are Cuba, Jordan, Mongolia, Laos, Tunisia, Liberia, 
South Africa and Lesotho. 
114 For a complete overview of these activities, see the IRU (2004), pages 12-20 for Europe, 21-38 for 
Africa, 40-70 for Asia and the Pacific,  71-81 for the Middle East and 82-102 for Latin America.  This work also 
contains the Internet addresses to obtain updated information. S/C/W/324 
Page 42  
 
  141. A general description of the regulatory regime fo r road transport lies beyond the scope of this 
document.  Moreover, it would be an impossible task due to lack of relevant data, particularly with 
respect to taxation and social policy.
115  Thus, only two types of technical rules which could have an 
indirect impact on market access, namely, environm ental standards and weights and dimensions, will 
be considered. 
(a) Environmental regulations 
142. Unlike in maritime and air transport, there is no universal standard for emissions in the road 
freight transport sector.  Yet, there are national a nd regional standards with emission thresholds that 
are regularly lowered.  Thus, between the EU 'Eur o 0' standard of 1990 and the 'Euro VI' standard, 
which will enter into force in 2013, the maximum permissible emissions for vehicles have been 
reduced by 88 per cent for carbon monoxide (CO), 95 per cent for hydrocarbons (HC), 97 per cent for 
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 98 per cent for particulate matter (PM).116  Annex 9 shows the 
thresholds and their evolution for the major national and regional standards. 
143. This multiplicity of standards is attributable not only to the regional, or at most continental, 
nature of road freight transport, but also to th e physical and fiscal characteristics of each market.  
Thus, in the United States, the preference is for ve hicles with powerful engines delivering high torque 
and, hence, displaying a particular emission profile, whereas in Europe, mainly for fiscal reasons, the range of vehicles is more varied in terms of engine capacity.  Vehi cles produced and used in emerging 
countries are often geared to more difficult road conditions, requiring mechanical characteristics that 
may generate proportionally more emissions.  Ho wever, probably because of the relatively small 
number of manufacturers of heavy vehicles, there are ultimately only very few competing emission 
standards:  three altogether, of which two are of ten accepted simultaneously.  Annex 10 illustrates the 
geographical coverage.   
144. Also, the time lag between the introduction of  stricter emission standards in developed 
countries and their adoption in developing c ountries tends to be short (Table 9). 
Table 9:  Entry into force of 'Euro'  standards in selected countries 
 
 Euro 0 Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V Euro VI 
European Union 1990 1992 1995 2000 2005 2007 2013 
China - 2000 2003 2005 2008 2012 - 
India - 2000 2003 2005 2010 - - 
Russia - 1999 2006 2008 2010 2014 - 
Brazil - 1996 2000 2006 2011 2014 - 
Source :  IRU/UNECE (document ECE/TRANS/W P25/GRPE/2010/14 of 20 April 2010) 
 
145. Environmental emission standards relate only to polluting emissions and for the time being do 
not concern carbon dioxide (CO2). 
  
                                                     
 
115 The IRU Information Centre (http://www.iru.org/index/en_services_infocentre) collects a large 
amount of regulatory information concerning road transport.  However, it is designed to provide professionals 
with specific operational information and, as its author s themselves acknowledge, is far from being exhaustive, 
particularly in terms of geographical coverage. 
116 Source:  European Commission (2008).  S/C/W/324 
 Page 43 
 
 
  146. According to the data of the Intergovern mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 
transport sector as a whole (including the transport of persons by sea, air, bus and private car and freight transport) accounts for 23 per cent of CO
2 emissions.117  Freight transport by road accounts for 
25 per cent of the transport sector's energy cons umption (16 per cent for heavy lorries, 9 per cent 
medium-sized lorries), a figure directly proportional to the emission of carbon dioxide. 118 
147. The volume of carbon dioxide emitted by the sector  is clearly destined to increase in the 
coming decades.  However, there is no consensus am ongst forecasters.  Historically, the demand for 
road transport runs more or less parallel to gr owth in GDP, but its energy intensity (energy 
consumption per tonne-km) is expected to decrease by  about one-third by 2030 thanks to technical 
progress (notion of "environmental decoupling").  Nevertheless, this progress will probably not 
suffice to stabilise the overall volume of emissions at its present level but will merely help to slow 
down its growth.  
148. Road transport operators are now in favour of the regulation of CO2 emission standards 
because a reduction in these emissions would lead ipso facto  to a reduction in the consumption of 
fuel, which is one of their main running costs.119  In 2009, the IRU undertook to reduce its members' 
carbon dioxide emissions measured in tonne-km and in passenger-km by 30 per cent until 2030 
relative to the base year 2007.120  Technical innovations should contri bute 10 per cent to this effort, 
the training of drivers in economical driving anot her 10 per cent, and innovative logistical concepts, 
such as Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and " optimized" (i.e. increased) weights and dimensions 
the remaining 10 per cent.  The suggestion that we ights and dimensions be increased has been met 
opposed by environmental groups because of the add itional damage that heavier lorries could inflict 
on road networks and the infrastructure in general. 
149. The greenhouse gas emissions generated by road  transport (a notion which encompasses both 
polluting and carbon dioxide emissions) are included in the reduction targets of the Kyoto Convention.  So far, however, the sector is not subject to emission trading rights programmes.  
Notwithstanding, at least in the northern hemisphere , there has been a proliferation of environmental 
taxes levied on Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic, also with the aim of internalising external costs, 
including those associated with congestion and the de terioration of road networks and infrastructure in 
general. 
(b) Regulation of weights and dimensions 
150. Standards governing weights and dimensions tend  to differ significantly.  This is the case 
even between countries that are neighbours and/or at comparable levels of development.  Thus, the 
maximum permissible weight for a ‘road train’  varies from 16.5 to 74 tonnes, the maximum 
permissible height from 4 to 4.6 metres (except fo r four countries in which there is no limit), the 
maximum width from 2.5 to 2.65 metres, and the maximum length from 14.4 to 25.25 metres (see 
                                                     
 
117 IPCC, Working Group III Fourth Assessment  Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" 2007, 
Cambridge University Press:  http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4/working- 
group-iii-fourth-assessment-report.  (See also Internationa l Transport Forum, 2008, "Forum highlights, transport 
and energy, the challenge of climate change".) 
118 These figures are however disputed by road transport professionals.  
119 On the other hand, the latest toxic emissions standards led to a slight increase in fuel consumption 
per ton-kilometre. 
120 See:  http://www.iru.org/index/cms-filesystem -action?file=en_Resolutions_General per cent 
20transport per cent 20policy/09_30-30.E.pdf.  S/C/W/324 
Page 44  
 
  Annex 11).
121  Such differences can have major conseque nces for actual market access which, in some 
cases, may go so far as to eliminate or seriously  restrict competition from neighbouring countries.  
The World Bank's freight corridor studies contain several pertinent examples.122   The ensuing 
(protective) effects may be one of the reasons  why, despite the relatively small number of 
HGV manufacturers, sector representatives, at least at national level, do not seem to be calling for 
harmonization. 
151. The debate over weights and dimensions seems to have shifted, at  least in developed 
countries, towards the domestic front.  It pits the providers and users of road transport, who favour 
heavier and longer rigs which are more economicall y efficient and proportionally less polluting, in 
terms of greenhouse gas emissions, against envi ronmentalists who are concerned about road 
congestion and its infrastructural implic ations (construction and maintenance). 
VI. OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS AND MFN EXEMPTIONS 
A. SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS123 
152. Commitments in road freight transport ser vices have been undertaken by 44 Members.124  Of 
those, 17 are recently acceded Members (Annex 12).   
153. At the sub-sectoral level, the lowest number of commitments has been inscribed for "mail 
transportation" (probably because of the overlap w ith the classification of transport of mail in the 
postal and courier service CPC categories)125, followed by the category "freight transportation by 
man- or animal-drawn vehicles", the residual category "transportation of other freight" and 
"transportation of bulk liquids and gases".  The comparatively low number of commitments on the 
latter services may be due to the fact that, in the oil sector, monopolies on oil production and refining 
are frequently associated with monopolies on transport.   
154. Symmetrically, the most economically significant segments of the sector, in terms of freight 
rates, such as transportation of frozen and refrige rated goods, containerized goods and furniture, have 
attracted relatively numerous commitments.  Twenty -five Members have bound the entire road freight 
transport sector.   
155. One of the most notable limitation in the sector is of a cross-cutting nature and concerns the 
exclusion of cabotage from the scope of commitm ents.  Eleven Members have inscribed such 
restrictions in the sector column of their commitm ents, thereby conditioning access in all modes of 
supply.  Two Members have excluded cabotage se rvices only for a particular mode of supply 
(mode 1, market access in one case, and mode 3, both market access and national treatment in the other).
126 
 
                                                      
121 These data, covering 77 countries and territories, were obtained from the IRU Information Centre.  
They indicate the maximum dimensions for the "road train", i.e. the largest and heaviest rig permitted in a given 
country or territory.  However, actual regulations tend to be far more complex, specifying, for example, the 
dimensions for each type of rig and the maximum permissible axle loads.   
122 Arvis, Raballand and Marteau (2007). 
123  EU-12 has been counted as one Member. 
124 One of the 44 Members has scheduled commitments on "Passenger and freight transportation" but 
included as corresponding CPC categories only CPC 7121 and 7122 (i.e. scheduled and non-scheduled 
passenger services), rather than also CPC 7123 (Freight transportation).   
125 On the difficulties of classification raised by the transport of mail see also Section II. 
126 Another Member has excluded cabotage both from the sectoral scope of its road freight 
commitments and repeated this exclusion again under its mode 3 commitments for the sector.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 45 
 
 
  156. As far as market access is concerned, commitments  in modes 1 and 2 have been either fully 
bound or fully unbound.127  The most liberal commitments have  been undertaken with respect to 
mode 2, where "none" has been inscr ibed by four-fifths of Members.  Mode 1 commitments are at the 
other end of the spectrum, having been left unbound in 31 out of 44 schedules.128  Mode 4 
commitments exhibit the typical "unbound except as indicated in the horizontal commitments" 
inscription in all but one case, wher e access has been fully bound. 
157. Mode 3 has drawn the most varied pattern of  commitments.  Access conditions have been 
fully bound by 27 Members and left unbound by one.   The limitations inscribed in other schedules 
concern economic needs tests, incorporation require ments, foreign equity limitations, joint-venture 
requirements, restrictions on cabotage, requirements th at vehicles be nationally flagged, that the board 
of directors be composed of a majority of nationals , citizenship requirements for drivers, authorization 
requirements, emergency safeguards on the number of services suppliers, of services operations and 
of services output, and limitations on the use of leased vehicles.   
158. As far as national treatment is concerned, mode  1 is unbound in all but two cases, mode 2 is 
bound in all but one and mode 4 is always unbound except for what is contained in the horizontal 
mode 4 section.  As concerns mode 3, 36 Memb ers have inscribed 'none'.  The remaining eight 
Members scheduled restrictions on the provision of cabotage services, prior approval requirements, requirements on established entities to use vehicles with national registration and a foreign equity 
limitation. 
B. MFN
 EXEMPTIONS  
159. Fifty-eight MFN exemptions covering road frei ght transport services have been listed by 46 
Members, slightly less than half of which are developed countries.  Twenty-two Members out of the 
46 with exemptions have also undertaken commitments in the sector.   
160. The vast majority of exemptions (40 measures) have been listed to preserve preferences, 
mostly related to cargo-sharing arrangements, arisin g from bilateral arrangements.  In one-third of 
cases, they cover both present and any future bilate ral agreement that may be concluded, although 
sometimes the latter entries are accompanied by a deta iled list of beneficiaries.  An additional seven 
measures cover instances of plurilateral/regional prefer ences, and a further four refer to reciprocity-
based preferential treatment.  In seven cases, Memb ers have felt it necessary to list exemptions for 
preferential fiscal treatment on VAT, vehicle tax and income tax. 
161. Nearly all exemptions have been listed for an indefinite or non-specified duration.  Three are 
supposed to last until the underlying preferential agre ement remains in force, one is limited to a ten-
year duration and a further one is supposed  to be reviewed after 12 years.   
162. The characteristics and high incidence of Article  II exemptions deserve attention.  Not only 
do the underlying measures appear to have been co nceived to last for an unlimited period, but the 
exemptions also remove a significant portion of mode 1 trade from the application of an open, MFN-based regime.  Nevertheless, exemptions for pr eferences amongst regional partners are unlikely to 
generate significant trade-diversion.  Furthermore,  most MFN exemptions only cover modes 1 and 2 
and tend to leave mode 3 (and mode 4) unaffected. 
 
                                                     
 
127 In only one instance has a specific limitation been  attached the commitments in these two modes, 
and specifically in the case of mode 1.  
128 In six instances, 'unbound' has been a ttributed to lack of technical feasibility. S/C/W/324 
Page 46  
 
  REFERENCES 
 
 Arvis, J.F, Raballand, G and J.F Marteau (2007), "The  cost of being landlocked : logistics costs and 
supply chain reliability", World Bank Policy Resear ch Working Paper 4258, June, available at:  
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2007/06/15/ 
000016406_20070615150019/Rendered/PDF/wps4258.pdf  Asian Development Bank (2006), "Central Asia:  Increasing Gains form Trade through Regional 
Cooperation in Trade Policy, Transpor t, and Customs Transit", Manila. 
 
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000), "Austra lian Economic Indicators", March, available at: 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ 90a12181d877a6a6 ca2568b5007b861c/764c28fce2eb5
0b8ca256f9600770a1f!OpenDocument   
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003), "Labor Force", January, available at: 
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/sub scriber.nsf/0/7ED76ABA18B8D025CA256CCB00823C3
4/$File/62020_jan%202003.pdf;   Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services (2003), "An Overview of the Australian 
Road Freight Transport Industry", Working Paper no. 60 
 
Carbajo, J. (2003), "Regulatory reform in trans port, some recent experiences", World Bank (1993), 
Washington, D.C.  
China Communications Press (2007), "Report on Chin a Road Transportation Development, 2006". 
 
China Communications Press (2008), "Devel opment of Modern Communications and 
Transportation".  China Ministry of Transport (2008), "Special Investigation on National Road and Waterway Transport". 
 
Cygnus Business Consulting & Research (2007), "Ind ian Logistics Industry Surface Transport", May. 
 Dutz, M., Hayri, A., and P. Ibarra (2000), "Re gulatory reform, competition and innovation:  a case 
study of the Mexican road freight industry", Po licy Research Working Paper No. 2318, World Bank, 
Washington, D.C., available at:  http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/ 
WDSP/IB/2000/05/25/000094946_ 00050505302442/Rendered/ PDF/multi_page.pdf 
 Economic Commission for Europe (2009), "IRU Contribution to the SC1 Discussion of Item 3/b", Inland Transport Committee, Working Party on Ro ad Transport, One-hundred-and-fourth Session, 
Informal Document No. 7, 19-21 October, Geneva. 
 
Eurostat (2008), "Competitiveness in EU Road Freight  Transport, 2006", Statistics in Focus, No. 97, 
Luxembourg. 
 Eurostat (2009), "Panorama of Transpor t", accessed on 14 May, available at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DA-09-001/EN/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF 
 Eurostat (2010), "Transport Database ", accessed on 17 May, available at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/porta l/page/portal/transport/data/database 
  S/C/W/324 
 Page 47 
 
 
  European Commission (2009), "Road Freight Transport Vademecum", Directorate General Energy 
and Transport, Directorate E – Inland Transport, Unit E.1 – Land Transport Policy, March, Brussels, 
available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/trans port/road/doc/2009_road_freight_vademecum.pdf 
 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1 997), "Framework for Bilateral Agreements in 
Road Transport - Recommendation", Document CEMT/CM(97)21 - CM(97)21/ADD1, available at:  
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/europe/a cquis/road1997e.pdf#search="model agreement". 
 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2 001), "Review of the Impact of the Multilateral 
Quota", document CEMT/CM(2001)10, available at:  http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/ 
europe/ecmt/cm/pdf/CM200110e.pdf 
 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (20 04), "Removal of Obstacles at Border Crossings – 
Policy Note and Recommendations", docu ment CEMT/CM(2004)7, available at:  
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org /Proceedings/Border2009/CM200407e.pdf 
 
Fernandez, Linda (2008), "Transportation Serv ices, Air Quality and Trade", Report for the 
Environment and Trade Programme, Commission on Environmental Co-operation, Montreal. 
 Gray, R., Fattah, N.A. and S. Cullinane (1998), "R oad freight privatization in Egypt:  Is big 
beautiful?", Journal of Transport Geography, No. 6. 
 
Heggie, H.G. (1991), "Designing major policy reform , lessons from the transport sector", World Bank 
Discussion Paper No. 115.  Hummels, David (2007), "Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of 
Globalization", Journal of Ec onomic Perspectives, 21(3). 
 International Labour Organisation (2006), "Labour and social issues arising from problems of cross-
border mobility of international drivers in the ro ad transport sector – Report for discussion at the 
Tripartite Meeting on Labour and Social Issues arising from Problems of Cross-border Mobility of International Drivers in the Road Transport Sector", Geneva. 
 
International Road Federation (2009), "Wor ld Road Statistics, 2002-2007", Geneva. 
 International Road Transport Union (2004), "TRANSLex – IRU Handbook on Road Transport 
Facilitation, Legislation and Practices", Geneva. 
 
International Road Transport Union (2006), "Out-flagging - In-flagging", Working Paper 
CTM/G7167/PKR, June, Geneva.  International Road Transport Union (2007), "Rol e and Position of Road Transport Operators and 
Forwarders in the Logistics Chain", Work ing Paper CTM/G7691/PKR, February, Geneva. 
 
International Road Transport Union (2009), "Roa d Transport in the People's Republic of China", 
December, Geneva.  International Transport Forum (2009), "Trends in the Transport Sector, 1970-2007", OECD 
Publishing, Paris. 
 International Transport Forum (2010), "Trends in the Transport Sector, 1970-2008", OECD 
Publishing, Paris.  S/C/W/324 
Page 48  
 
  Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Trans port and Tourism (2010), "Statistical Information", 
available at:  http://www.mlit.go.jp/sta tistics/details/jidosha_list.html 
 Mattoo, A., Borchert, I. and B. Gootiiz (2010) "Global patterns of service trade barriers - New 
empirical evidence", World Bank, roneo. 
 
Mattoo, A. and B. Gootiiz (2009), "Services in Doha:  What's on the Table?", Journal of World Trade No. 43(5).  Mwase, N. (2003), "The liberalization, de-regulati on and privatization of the transport sector in 
sub-Saharan Africa:  experiences, challenges a nd opportunities", Journal of African Economies, 
No. 12, available at:  http://jae.oxfordjourn als.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/ii153 
 North American Transportation Statistics Databa se (2009), "Gross Domestic Product by Industry", 
available at:  http://aplicaciones1.sct. gob.mx/nats/sys/tab les.jsp?i=3&id=33 
 
North American Transportation Statistics Databa se (2009), "Employment in Transportation and 
Related Industries", available at:  http://apli caciones1.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?i=3&id=34 
 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Deve lopment (2001), "Regulatory Reform in Road 
Freight", OECD Economic Studies, No. 32, Paris. 
 
Organisation for Economic Co-opera tion and Development (2010), "Globalisation, Transport and the 
Environment", Paris.  Raballand, G., Kunaka, C. and B. Giersing (2008) , "The impact of regional liberalization and 
harmonization in road transport services:  a focus on Zambia and lessons for landlocked countries".  
World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 4482, Worl d Bank, Washington, D.C., available at:  
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p apers.cfm?abstract_id=1086861 
 Raballand, G. and P. Macchi (2008), "Transport prices and costs:  the need to revisit donors' policies 
in transport in Africa", World Bank, Washington, D.C., available at:  
http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/papers/0809conf/Raballand.pdf 
 Togan, S. (2009), "Liberalization of transport services in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco", Economic Research Forum Policy Research Paper No. 31, ERF, Cairo, available at:  http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=NEW_publica tion_details_reports& publication_id=1117. 
 
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2004), "Economic Report on Africa 2004 – Unlocking Africa's Trade Potential", Addis Ababa. 
 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009), "Quantitative restrictions imposed on 
international road transport of goods – Submis sion by the IRU", ECE/TRANS/SC.1/2009/5, 29 July, 
available at:  http://www.unece.org/trans/ doc/2009/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-2009-05e.pdf 
 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010), "Quantitative Restrictions imposed on 
international road transport of goods – Submission by the Government of the Republic of Turkey", 
ECE/TRANS/SC.1/2010/5, 16 July, available at:  http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2010/sc1/ECE-
TRANS-SC.1-2010-5e.pdf 
 United Nations Statistical Commission (2010), "Man ual on Statistics of International Trade in 
Services 2010, Draft, Unedited Version", Geneva, L uxembourg, New York, Paris, Washington, D.C, 
available at:   S/C/W/324 
 Page 49 
 
 
  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradeserv/TFSITS/ MSITS/MSITS2010%20% 20for%20the%20SC%202010
%20at%202.22.2010.pdf  US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2007), "Na tional Transportation Statistics 2007", available at:  
http://www.bts.gov/publications/na tional_transportation_statistics/ 
 
US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010), "Freig ht Transportation:  Global Highlights", available 
at:  http://www.bts.gov/publications/freight_transportation/html  US Chamber of Commerce (2006), "Land Transport Options between Europe and Asia:  Commercial 
Feasibility Study". 
 US Department of Transportation (2009), "Fre ight Facts and Figures 2009", Federal Highway 
Administration, Office of the Freight Management Operations, available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analy sis/nat_freight_stats/docs/09factsfigures 
 
World Bank (1995), "Sustainable transport priorities for policy sector reform", Washington, D.C.  World Bank (2007), "Reforming transport:  maximizing  synergy between public and private sectors", 
Background Paper for Evaluation of World Bank A ssistance to the Transport Sector 1995-2005, 
Washington, D.C., available at:  http://w eb.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTOED/ 
EXTTRANSPORTATION/0,,contentMDK:21285911~ menuPK:5006024~pagePK:64829573~piPK:6
4829550~theSitePK:4434733,00.html S/C/W/324 
Page 50  
 
   
 
ANNEX 1 
 
MTN.GNS/W/120 and CPC provisional
 
Definition of road freight transport services  
 
 
11. TRANSPORT SERVICES  
 
F. Road Transport Services  
 b. Freight transportation  (CPC 7123)  
 71231 Transportation of frozen or refrigerated goods
 
 Transportation by road of frozen or refrigera ted goods, in specially refrigerated trucks and 
cars. 
 71232 Transportation of bulk liquids or gases  
 Transportation by road of bulk liquids or gases  in special tank trucks. These vehicles may also 
be refrigerated. 
 71233 Transportation of containerized freight  
 Transportation by road of individual articles and packages assembled and shipped in specially 
constructed shipping containers desi gned for ease of handling in transport. 
 71234 Transportation of furniture  
 Transportation of furniture by road over any distance. 
 Exclusion :  Furniture transportation by transoceanic  shipment is classified in subclass 72123 
(Transportation of containerized freight). 
 71235 Mail transportation  
 Transportation of mail by any land mode  of transport other than railway. 
 71236 Freight transportation by man- or animal-drawn vehicles  
 Transportation of freight by man- or animal-drawn vehicles. 
 71239 Transportation of other freight  
 Transportation by land modes of transport ot her than railway, of freight, not elsewhere 
classified.  S/C/W/324 
 Page 51 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
Modal split of inland freight surface transport,  
million tonne-kilometres  
 
 
 
Country Year Road Total Road freight as a 
percentage of 
total inland 
freight 
Albania  2001 2200.00   
Angola  2001 4708.60 7996.80 58.88% 
Armenia 2007 430.10 1100.00 39.10% Australia  2007 182500.00 507100.00 35.99% Austria 2007 18.60 42.60 43.66% Azerbaijan  2006 8222.00 19281.00 42.64% Belarus  2007 19200.00 67292.00 28.53% Belgium  2006 51572.00 69117.00 74.62% Bosnia and Herzegovina  2003 300.00   Bulgaria  2004 9015.00 87529.00 10.30% Cambodia  1999 3.21 3.48 92.24% Canada  2007 0.00 311000.00 0.00% China  2007 1135470.00 5075050.00 22.37% Colombia  2005 38199.00 49689.00 76.88% Costa Rica 2007 1.06 14.89 7.12% Croatia  2007 10502.00 14382.00 73.02% Cyprus  2007 1183.80 1183.80 100.00% Czech Republic  2 002 45100.00   
Denmark  2005 11058.00 11066.00 99.93% Ecuador  2007 1193.14 1193.14 100.00% Estonia  2005 7641.00 18280.00 41.80% Finland 2007 26900.00 40400.00 66.58% France  2007 323000.00 373500.00 86.48% Georgia  2006 586.10 7979.30 7.35% Germany  2007 466200.00 645532.00 72.22% Greece  2000 18360.00  18786.00 97.73% 
Hungary  2005 9090.00 36338.00 25.02% Iceland  2003 800.00   Ireland  2003 15900.00 33948.00 46.84% Italy  2001 186510.00 209527.00 89.01% Japan  2004 327632.00 568941.00 57.59% Kazakhstan  2007 61444. 00 262577.00 23.40% 
Kenya  2000 21.50 27.46 78.32% Korea 2006 12545.00 23807.00 52.69% Kyrgyz Republic  2007 902.50 1756.20 51.39% S/C/W/324 
Page 52  
 
  Country Year Road Total Road freight as a 
percentage of 
total inland 
freight 
Latvia  2006 12545.00 23807.00 52.69% 
Lithuania  2007 20278.00 34661.00 58.50% 
Luxembourg  2003 9493.00 10070.70 94.26% FYROM  2007 5938.00 6717.00 88.40% Mexico  2007 222391.00 252408.00 88.11% Moldova 2003 1577.00 4596.40 34.31% Mongolia  2003 242.40 7495.70 3.23% Morocco  2007 697.00 6532.00 10.67% Namibia  2001 555.00 2314.20 23.98% Netherlands  2000 45700.00 90790.00 50.34% Norway  2007 16313.00 35031.00 46.57% Pakistan  2005 129249.00 135080.00 95.68% Poland 2007 159527.00 215118.00 74.16% Portugal  2007 46406.00 48992.00 94.72% Puerto Rico 2001 9.70   Romania  2005 51531.00 73260.00 70.34% Russian Federation  2007 206000.00 2382000.00 8.65% Saudi Arabia  2005 108.35 108.35 100.00% Serbia  2004 452.00 3877.00 11.66% Slovak Republic 2006 22114.00 33038.00 66.94% Slovenia  2007 13737.00 17340.00 79.22% South Africa  2000 434.00 613.00 70.80% Spain  2003 132868.00 145279.00 91.46% Sweden  2007 42300.00 104200.00 40.60% Switzerland  2007 16900.00 29318.00 57.64% Chinese Taipei 2006 31218.00   Tunisia 2002 16611.00 18862.00 88.07% Turkey  2007 181330.00 191084.00 94.90% Ukraine  2007 31052.90 136232.60 22.79% United Kingdom  2007 173077.00 196083.00 88.27% United States  2006 1885576.00 5414969.00 34.82% Uzbekistan  2000 1200.00   
 
Source :  International Road Federation (2009)  S/C/W/324 
 Page 53 
 
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
Vans and lorries in use, by country, 2007  
 
Country Vans and 
lorries  
Country Vans and 
lorries 
United States  110,497,239  Syrian Arab Republic  528,330 
EU-27 34,835,709  Dominican Republic 525,391 
Japan  34,324,000  Morocco  525,334 
China  10,540,556  Sweden 515,335 
Mexico 7,870,417  Norway  513,021 
Canada  7,425,765  Denmark  508,774 
France  6,270,000  Romania* 493,821 
Brazil  5,709,063  Peru  480,876 
Spain  5,140,586  Bolivia  468,763 
Indonesia  5,065,482  New Zealand  465,803 
Thailand** 4,992,150  Ireland  426,113 
Russian Federation  4,730,000  Ukraine 406,441 
Germany  4,604,905  Finland  390,806 
Italy 4,437,600  Belarus  377,715 
India** 4,436,000  Austria  372,645 
Korea, Rep. of 4,189,042  Tanzania 369,887 
United Kingdom  3,715,000  Israel  362,164 
Australia  2,723,000  Kazakhstan  359,194 
Turkey  2,619,661  Switzerland  324,153 
Poland  2,520,548  Ecuador  323,480 
South Africa  2,125,784  Tunisia  300,508 
Philippines  1,875,296  El Salvador  283,787 
Greece  1,255,945  Bulgaria  262,868 
Algeria** 1,166,231  Paraguay  248,086 
Saudi Arabia* 1,127,900  Slovak Republic 244,769 
Colombia  1,064,513  Jordan  230,822 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. 1,051,443  Kenya  210,891 
Chinese Taipei 1,028,078  Pakistan 187,054 
Netherlands  995,733  Zimbabwe 186,790 
Chile  849,282  Nicaragua  179,872 
Malaysia** 836,579  Iran  179,726 
Hungary  829,817  Croatia  176,703 
Sri Lanka  718,338  Panama 174,482 
Egypt** 711,686  Bangladesh 168,649 
Belgium  696,732  Honduras 165,203 
Kuwait  573,212  Serbia  162,942 
Czech Republic  555,223  Ghana  158,379 
 
 S/C/W/324 
Page 54  
 
  Country Vans and 
lorries  
Country Vans and 
lorries 
Netherlands Antilles  155,769  Benin  35,656 
Afghanistan*** 153,637  Chad** 35,424 
Singapore  150,979  Cambodia* 33,578 
Ethiopia  148,997  Burundi 32,717 
Costa Rica  139,588  Luxembourg  32,520 
Latvia 129,614  Iceland  31,095 
Portugal** 118,965  Guyana*** 28,122 
Cyprus  117,498  Mali  26,759 
Namibia*** 117,410  FYROM 26,558 
Oman  113,341  Suriname 25,745 
Hong Kong, China 110,746  Malta  23,606 
Lao PDR  108,984  Brunei Darussalam  16,744 
Botswana 98,570  Rwanda*** 15,860 
Moldova  94,828  Niger* 15,716 
Uruguay** 83,958  Barbados 15,151 
Slovenia  81,518  Lithuania  14,488 
Estonia  80,280  Sierra Leone 14,054 
Uganda 79,273  St Vincent & Grenadines*** 12,897 
Albania 69,929  Papua New Guinea 11,333 
Tajikistan  58,964  Azerbaijan** 9,916 
Cameroon* 56,207  Guinea-Bissau*** 9,323 
Burkina Faso 55,655  Seychelles  5,803 
Myanmar*** 52,255  Bhutan  5,355 
Bahrain*** 51,702  Macao, China 4,637 
Georgia  51,500  Samoa* 4,596 
Senegal  50,507  Maldives 2,867 
Fiji  48,005  Liberia  2,772 
Nepal  43,211  Gambia  2,601 
Swaziland  41,778  Togo  2,219 
Mauritius  40,947  Comoros  1,790 
United Arab Emirates 39,424  Anguilla** 92 
Mongolia  37,257  Central African Republic 58 
Congo, Dem. Rep. 36,000    
 
Notes : * 2005 data 
 ** 2006 data 
 *** 2008 data Source :  International Road Federation (2009).  S/C/W/324 
 Page 55 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
 
Estimated effects of liberalizing the domestic road transport market  
 
 
Author Country or 
territory/period Explanatory variable Performance 
variable Effects found 
Technological 
progress Increases 
Cost Declines Ying, 1990 61 firms in the 
United States 
1975-84 Deregulation 
Productivity Increases 
Ying and Keeler, 
1991 56 firms in the 
United States 1975-83 Liberalization of entry 
and prices Prices Decline by 25% to 
35% 
Winston, 1993 United States Liberalization of entry 
and prices Consumer welfare Gain of 16 billion of 
1990 US$ 
Prices Decline Australia Liberalization of entry 
and prices (1950s and 1960s) Quality Improves 
Prices Decline Canada Liberalization of entry 
and prices Quality Improves 
France Liberalization of entry 
and prices (1979 and 1989) Prices Decline 
New Zealand Liberalization of entry, 
services and prices 
(1983) Quality Improves 
Norway Liberalization of entry, 
services and prices 
(1987) Entry Positive 
Sweden Liberalization of entry 
(1964) Entry Positive Hoj et al, 1995 
United Kingdom Liberalization of entry, 
services and prices (1983) Quality Improves 
Yamauchi, 1995 Japan Liberalization Consumer welfare Gains of between 
2.5 billion and 
8.2 billion of US$ 
Traffic Increases 
Productivity Increases Burnewicz, 1996 Poland Privatization and 
liberalization 
Efficiency Increases 
United Kingdom 
(1987-1990) Decline by 25% 
United States 
(1970-1978) Decline by 12 to 25% 
New Zealand 
(1984-1987) Decline by 25% McKinnon, 1996 
France 
(1987-1990) Deregulation Prices 
Decline by15% 
Traffic Increases 
Productivity Increases Molnar, 1996 Hungary Privatization and 
liberalization 
Efficiency Increases S/C/W/324 
Page 56  
 
  Author Country or 
territory/period Explanatory variable Performance 
variable Effects found 
Traffic Increases 
Productivity Increases Opletal-Ryba, 
1996 Czech Republic Privatization and 
liberalization 
Efficiency Increases 
Haffner and van 
Bergeijk, 1997 Netherlands Liberalization of 
cabotage, driving 
periods Prices Decline by 1% 
Rose, 1997 United States Labour rent sharing and 
regulation Rent sharing Declines 
Prices Decline 
Efficiency Increases Deregulation less than 
truckload trucking 
Quality Increases 
Prices Decline 
Efficiency Increases Winston, 1998 United States 
Deregulation truckload 
trucking 
Quality Increases 
United States Liberalization of entry 
and prices Prices Decline by 75% (TL) 
and 35% (LTL) 
Mexico 
(1989-1997) Deregulation Efficiency Increases 
Quality Improves OECD, 1999a 
United States Deregulation 
Employment Increases by 16% 
Prices Decline by 37% 
Quality Improves 
Employment Increases by 5% OECD, 1999b Mexico Liberalization of entry 
and prices 
Efficiency Increases 
Entry Increases 
Profit Increases 
Prices Decline 
Quality Improves OECD, 1999c Japan Liberalization of entry 
and prices 
Productivity Increases 
Efficiency Increases United Kingdom Liberalization 
Prices Decline Profillidis, 2004 
Australia Liberalization Prices Decline 
Prices Decline Raballand, 
Kuraka and Giersing, 2008 Zambia Regional liberalization 
Quality Improves 
Source :  OECD, updated by the WTO Secretariat. 
  
   S/C/W/324
 Page 57ANNEX 5 
 
OECD Road Freight Regulation Database – Summary of results  
 
Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market 
 In order to establish a 
national road freight 
business (other than for 
transporting dangerous 
goods or goods for 
which sanitary 
assurances are required) 
do operators need to 
obtain a license (other 
than a driving license) or 
permit from the 
government? Are criteria other 
than technical and 
financial fitness 
and compliance 
with public safety 
requirements 
considered in 
decisions on entry 
of new operators? Does the 
regulator, 
through licenses 
or otherwise, 
have any power 
to limit industry 
capacity? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and 
commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing entry 
regulations? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing pricing 
guidelines or 
regulations? Are retail prices of 
road freight services 
in any way 
regulated by the 
government? Does the government 
provide pricing 
guidelines to road 
freight companies? 
Australia No No No No No No No 
Austria Yes Yes No (since 1987) No (sin ce 1990) No (since 2005) No (since 1990) 
Yes (1975-1980) - 
N/A 1981-1989 No 
Belgium Yes No (since 2005) No (since 1987)  Yes No (since 1991) No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1997 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 
Canada Yes No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No 
Czech Republic Yes Yes No (since 2005) No (since 2005)  No (since 2005) No (since 1991) No (since 1991) 
Denmark Yes No (since 1989) No (sin ce 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) 
Finland Yes No (since 1991) No (since 1991) No (since  1985) No (since 1992) No (s ince 1986) No (since 1986) 
France Yes Yes Yes (since 2005) Yes No (sin ce 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) 
Germany Yes Yes No (since 1999) No (sin ce 2005) No (since 1983) No (since 1998) 
Yes (1975-1990) - 
N/A 1990-1997 No (since 1998) 
Yes (1997-1990) - 
N/A 1991-1997 
Greece Yes No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) Yes Yes 
Hungary Yes No (since 1998) – 
N/A 1991-1998 No (since 2005) Yes Yes No (since 1998) 
Yes (1957-1990) - 
N/A 1991-1997 No (since 1998) 
Yes (1975-1990) -  
N/A 1991-1997 
Iceland Yes Yes No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 Yes No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 No (since 1998) -  
N/A 1975-1997 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 
Ireland Yes Yes (1975-1987 
and since 2007) 
No (1998-2006) No (since 1998) No (since 1986) No  (since 1988) No (since 1998) -  
N/A 1975-1997 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 
Italy Yes Yes No (since 2001) Yes No (sin ce 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) 
Japan Yes No (since 2001) Yes (1975-1996 
and 2005-2007) 
No (1998-2003) No (since 1990) No (since 1990) No (since 2003) No (since 1990) 
Korea Yes Yes No (since 2001) No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1999 No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1997 Yes  
  S/C/W/324 
Page 58 Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market 
 In order to establish a 
national road freight 
business (other than for 
transporting dangerous 
goods or goods for 
which sanitary 
assurances are required) 
do operators need to 
obtain a license (other 
than a driving license) or 
permit from the 
government? Are criteria other 
than technical and 
financial fitness 
and compliance 
with public safety 
requirements 
considered in 
decisions on entry 
of new operators? Does the 
regulator, 
through licenses 
or otherwise, 
have any power 
to limit industry 
capacity? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and 
commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing entry 
regulations? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing pricing 
guidelines or 
regulations? Are retail prices of 
road freight services 
in any way 
regulated by the 
government? Does the government 
provide pricing 
guidelines to road 
freight companies? 
Luxembourg Yes (since 1998) - (N/A 
up to 1998) No (since 1998) - 
(N/A up to 1998) No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1999 No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 2000 No (since 1998) -  
N/A 1975-1997 No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1997 
Mexico Yes No (since 2001) No (since 1998) - 
N/A up to 1998 No (since 2000) -  
N/A up to 1998 No (since 2001) No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1997 No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1997 
Netherlands Yes Yes (1957-1991 
and 2005-2007) 
No (1992-2004) No (since 1992) Yes No (since 1992)  No (since 1992) No (since 1992) 
New Zealand No (since 1995) No (since 1993)  No (since 1993) No (since 1989) No (sin ce 1983) No (since 1983) No (since 1983) 
Norway Yes Yes Yes (1975-1986 
and 2005-2007) 
No (1987-2004) No (since 1987) No (since 1987) No (since 1984) No (since 1984) 
Poland No (since 2005) Yes No (since 2001) No (since 2005) No (since 1998) - 
Yes (1975-1990) 
N/A 1991-1997 No (since 1998) 
Yes (1975-1990) - 
N/A 1991-1997 No (since 1998) 
Yes (1975-1990) -  
N/A 1991-1997 
Portugal Yes No (since 1996) No (since 1996) Yes No (since 1986) No (sin ce 1987) No (since 1987) 
Slovak Republic Yes Yes Yes No (since 2003) 
Yes (1975-1990) - 
N/A 1991-2002 No (since 2003) 
Yes(1975-1990) - 
N/A 1991-2002 No (since 2003) 
Yes (1975-1990) - 
N/A 1991-2003 No (since 2003) 
Yes (1975-1990) -  
N/A 1991-2004 
Spain Yes No (since 2000) No (since 2000) No (since 2005) No (since  2002) No (since 1998) 
Yes (1975-1987) - 
N/A 1987-1998 No (since 2002) 
Sweden Yes Yes No (since 1987) No No No No 
Switzerland Yes (since 2001) No No No No No No 
Turkey Yes (since 2003) Yes Yes (since 2005) Yes (since 2001) 
No (1998-2000) -  
N/A 1975-1998 No (since 1998) - 
N/A 1975-1998 Yes (since 2005) - 
N/A up to 2005 Yes (since 2005) 
No (1998-2004) - 
N/A 1975-2003 
United Kingdom Yes No No No No No No 
United States Yes No (since 1995) No (since 1995) No (since 1980) No (since  1984) No (since 1980) No (since 1995) 
Chile (data available only for 2007)  No - Yes No Yes No Yes 
Estonia (data available only for 2007)  Yes Yes No Yes No No No 
Israel (data available only for 2007)  Yes No No No No No No  
   S/C/W/324
 Page 59Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market 
 In order to establish a 
national road freight 
business (other than for 
transporting dangerous 
goods or goods for 
which sanitary 
assurances are required) 
do operators need to 
obtain a license (other 
than a driving license) or 
permit from the 
government? Are criteria other 
than technical and 
financial fitness 
and compliance 
with public safety 
requirements 
considered in 
decisions on entry 
of new operators? Does the 
regulator, 
through licenses 
or otherwise, 
have any power 
to limit industry 
capacity? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and 
commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing entry 
regulations? Are professional 
bodies or 
representatives of 
trade and commercial 
interests involved in 
specifying or 
enforcing pricing 
guidelines or 
regulations? Are retail prices of 
road freight services 
in any way 
regulated by the 
government? Does the government 
provide pricing 
guidelines to road 
freight companies? 
Russia - - - - - - - 
Slovenia (data available only for 2007) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 
Brazil (data available only for 2007)  Yes No No No No No No 
China ( data available only for 2007)  Yes Yes Yes Ye s No Yes Yes 
 
Notes:  -  "No" indicates the existence of a liberalized market.  The date indicates the time of liberalization. 
   -  An isolated "Yes" or "No" indicat es that the reply has not changed since the survey began for the country in question (19 75 in most cases). 
   -  Where a reply has varied with time or was not available, the correspondi ng periods are indicated in the table. 
   -  N/A indicates the non-availability of the answer. 
Source : OECD Survey of Indicators of  Regulation in Energy, Transport and Communicati ons.  See:  http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/47/29/42 480612.xls  (data on road freight are available only in 
English) 
  
  S/C/W/324 
Page 60 ANNEX 6 
 
Aggregated results of the World Bank survey of road transport regimes in 93 WTO Members  
 
Table 1:  Authorization of commercial presence in the form of th e establishment of a branch or subsidiary or the acquisition of  a domestic private or public entity 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth 
of Independent 
States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  0 0.00%  8 1.54%  4 1.39%  2 0. 02%  18 1.61%  1 0.00%  7 6.55%  40 11.12%
Partially  3 49.84%  9 3.00%  4 1.33%  2 0.16%  6 0.42%  3 0.29%  8 17.67%  35 72.72%
No  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  14 11.86%  0 0. 00%  0 0.00%  2 0.54%  2 3.76%  18 16.16%
n/a  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0  0 0.00%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes : -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable  
   S/C/W/324
 Page 61 
 
Table 2:  Maximum foreign ownership allowed for the following fo rms of commercial presence:  establishment of a subsidiary, acq uisition of a domestic pri vate entity, acquisition of a 
domestic public entity 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent StatesAfrica Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
100% establ. 
subsidiary  2 46.73%  13 2.02%  8 2.73%  4 0.18%  20 1.65%  1 0.02%  11 21.27%  59 74.49%
100% existing private 
entity  2 46.73%  15 4.41%  8 2.73%  4 0.18%  21 1.79%  0 0.00%  11 21.17%  61 77.01%
100% existing public 
entity  2 46.73%  9 3.54%  6 1.66%  3 0.18%  16 1.70%  0 0.00%  9 21.09%  45 74.90%
From 50 to 100% 
establ. subsidiary  0 0.00%  2 2.39%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  2 0.19%  1 0.04%  0 0.00%  5 2.62%
From 50 to 100% 
existing private entity  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  1 0.04%  1 0.00%  2 0.04%
From 50 to 100% 
existing public entity  0 0.00%  1 0.19%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  2 0.01%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  3 0.20%
Less than 50% establ. 
subsidiary  1 3.12%  2 0.14%  14 11.86%  0 0.00%  2 0.19%  4 0.77%  6 6.82%  29 22.89%
Less than 50% 
existing private entity  1 6.26%  2 3.01%  14 81.29%  0 0.00%  3 11.46%  5 94.46%  5 24.36%  30 22.95%
Less than 50% 
existing public entity  1 3.12%  2 0.14%  14 11.86%  0 0.00%  3 0.23%  5 0.79%  5 6.82%  30 22.95%
n/a establ. subsidiary  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%
n/a existing private 
entity  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%
n/a existing public 
entity  0 0.00%  1 0.07%  1 1.04%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  1 0.07%  3 1.17%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable 
  
  S/C/W/324 
Page 62  
 
Table 3:  Authorization of a co ntrolling stake in a joint venture 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes  1 43.78%  13 4.25%  8 2.73%  3 0. 16%  21 1.91%  1 0.04%  7 4.65%  54 57.53%
Partially  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%
No  1 3.12%  3 0.22%  14 11.86%  0 0. 00%  3 0.11%  5 0.79%  6 6.82%  32 22.91%
n/a  1 2.94%  1 0.07%  0 0.00%  1 0. 02%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  4 16.52%  7 19.56%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes: - "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 - "per cent fl. surv".:  percentage of the HGV fl eet of the 93 WTO Member s covered by the survey. 
 - n/a:  not applicable 
 
Table 4:  Maximum authorized participation for a group of foreign entities in a joint venture 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  1 43.78%  12 4.22%  8 2.73%  2 0. 16%  15 1.75%  0 0.00%  6 4.58%  44 57.22%
Partially  0 0.00%  1 0.03%  0 0.00%  1 0.00%  5 0.04%  1 0.04%  1 0.07%  9 0.19%
No  1 3.12%  3 0.22%  14 11.86%  0 0. 00%  4 0.23%  5 0.79%  6 6.82%  33 23.03%
n/a  1 2.94%  1 0.07%  0 0.00%  1 0. 02%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  4 16.52%  7 19.56%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable  
   S/C/W/324
 Page 63 
 
Table 5:  Limit on number of licences available 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0. 00%  1 0.07%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  1 0.07%
Partially  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%
No  2 46.73%  6 0.65%  8 2.73%  3 0. 02%  10 0.19%  4 0.29%  6 16.61%  39 67.21%
n/a  1 3.12%  11 3.90%  14 11.86%  1 0. 16%  13 1.76%  2 0.54%  11 11.38%  53 32.72%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable 
 
Table 6:  Difference in licensing criteria for foreign and domestic applicants 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  0 0.00%  2 0.10%  0 0.00%  0 0. 00%  2 0.09%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  4 0.19%
Partially  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%
No  0 0.00%  4 0.55%  4 1.37%  3 0. 02%  12 0.17%  4 0.29%  2 0.08%  29 2.48%
n/a  3 49.84%  11 3.90%  18 13.22%  1 0. 16%  10 1.76%  2 0.54%  15 27.90%  60 97.33%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable 
  
  S/C/W/324 
Page 64  
 
Table 7:  Nationality requirements for employees 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  2 46.73%  11 4.02%  4 1.39%  1 0. 00%  9 0.70%  4 0.29%  8 16.62%  39 69.74%
Partially  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  3 1.34%  3 0.18%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  6 1.52%
No  0 0.00%  5 0.19%  0 0.00%  0 0. 00%  13 0.28%  0 0.00%  3 6.90%  21 7.36%
n/a  1 3.12%  1 0.34%  15 11.86%  0 0. 00%  2 1.05%  2 0.54%  6 4.47%  27 21.38%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable 
 
Table 8:  Nationality or residency requirements for board of directors 
 North America Caribbean and 
Central and 
South America Europe Commonwealth of 
Independent States Africa Middle East Asia Total 
 C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. C/T % 
fl. surv. 
Yes  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  2 0.36%  0 0. 00%  1 0.12%  0 0.00%  1 0.02%  4 0.50%
Partially  1 2.94%  3 0.17%  0 0.00%  0 0.00%  5 0.25%  2 0.25%  3 3.80%  14 7.41%
No  0 0.00%  12 1.77%  6 2.37%  4 0. 18%  14 0.56%  1 0.00%  6 19.69%  43 24.57%
n/a  2 46.90%  2 2.60%  14 11.86%  0 0. 00%  4 1.10%  3 0.58%  7 4.48%  32 67.52%
Total number of 
countries/territ.  3   17  22  4  24  6  17  93 
Total HGV (%)  49.84%  4.54%  14.59%  0.18%  2.03%  0.83%  27.99%  100%
Total number of HGV 
(millions)  125,793  11,464  36,815  457,941  5,110  2,096  70,635  252,374
Notes:  -  "C/T":  Countries or Territories 
 -  "per cent fl. surv".:  per centage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WT O Members covered by the survey. 
 -  n/a:  not applicable 
Source :  WTO Secretariat on the basis of the World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness Database. 
  S/C/W/324 
 Page 65 
 
 
  ANNEX 7 
 
Breakdown of ECMT basic licences for 2010,  
by vehicle environmental category  
 
EURO III safe lorries EURO IV safe lorries EURO V safe lorries 
Licences Licences Licences Participants Base 
2010 
Annual Short 
term Total 
EURO III Annual Short 
term Total 
EURO IV Annual Short 
term Total 
EURO 
V 
Albania  128  80  20  100  15  5  20  5  3  8 
Armenia  120  30   30  5   5  5   5 
Austria  16     16   16    
Azerbaijan  120  80  10  90  30   30    
Belarus  183  44   44  139   139    
Belgium  171  60   60  51   51  60   60 
Bosnia 
Herzegovina  120  73   73  47   47    
Bulgaria  157  76  15  91  50  16  66    
Croatia  157  91   91  66   66    
Czech Republic  141  124  17  141       
Denmark  132  76   76  38   38  18   18 
Estonia  128  77  1  78  49  1  50    
Finland  149  25   25  25   25  20   20 
France  252  130   130  82   82  40   40 
FYROM  128  63  1  64  63  1  64    
Georgia  120  80  10  90  6  7  13  10  7  17 
Germany  286  264  10  274  12   12    
Greece  149  110   110  25   25  14   14 
Hungary  141  79  21  100  41   41    
Ireland  132  10   10  6   6  5   5 
Italy  67  67   67       
Latvia  128   21  21  97  10  107    
Liechtenstein  30  2   2  1   1  1   1 
Lithuania  128  60  3  63  65   65    
Luxembourg  55  18  1  19  12   12  24   24 
Malta  30  20   20  8   8  2   2 
Moldova  128     128   128    
Montenegro  30  13   13  17      
Netherlands  208  40   40  80   80  88   88 
Norway  132  30   30  50   50  52   52 
Poland  153  51   51  102   102    
Portugal  132  50  1  51  15   15  66   66 
Romania  208  156   156  52   52    
Russian 
Federation  299  239  10  249  45  5  50    
Serbia  132  60   60  72   72    
Slovak Republic  128  85   85  43   43    
Slovenia  128  102   102  26   26    
Spain  149  74   74  75   75    
Sweden  153  73   73  50   50  30   30 
Switzerland  135  35   35  50   50  50   50 
Turkey  250  200   200  50   50    
Ukraine  208  125   125  83   83    
United Kingdom  149  33   33  33   33  33   33 
Total  6090  3105  141  3246    1948  523  10  533 
Number of 
countries  43  40  16  -  41  9  -  19  2  - 
Source :  International Transport Forum (2010) 
 S/C/W/324 
Page 66  
 
  ANNEX 8 
 
Application of coeffi cients and bonuses  
to ECMT basic licences for the year 2010  
 
EURO III safe lorries EURO IV safe lorries EURO V safe lorries 
Licences (x4) Licences (x6) Licences (x6) Total licences Participants 
Annual Short-
term Bonus 
40% Annual Short
-termBonus 
40% Annual Short
-termBonus 
40% Annual Short-
term 
Albania  480  960  160  138  360  48  49  216  19  667  1536 
Armenia  168   48  42   12  42   12  252  
Austria     96       96  
Azerbaijan  464  480  144  252   72     716  480 
Belarus  246   70  1168   334     1414  
Belgium  336   96  428   122  504   144  1268  
Bosnia 
Herzegovina  409   117  395   113     804  
Bulgaria  426  1008  146  420  1613  158     846  2621 
Croatia  510   146  554   158     1064  
Czech Rep.  722  816  226        722  816 
Denmark  426   122  319   91  151   43  896  
Estonia  433  48  125  414  72  120     847  120 
Finland  140   40  210   60  168   48  518  
France  728   208  689   197  336   96  1753  
FYROM  354  48  102  532  72  154     886  120 
Georgia  464  480  144  67  504  31  101  504  41  632  1488 
Germany  1494  480  438  101   29     1595  480 
Greece  110    25    14    149  
Hungary  476  1008  160  344   98     820  1008 
Ireland  56   16  50   14  42   12  148  
Italy  375   107        375  
Latvia   1411  34  815  1008  257     815  2419 
Liechtenstein  11   3  8   2  8   2  27  
Lithuania  341  144  101  546   156     887  144 
Luxembourg  102  48  30  101   29  202   58  405  48 
Malta  80    48    12    140  
Moldova     1075   307     1075  
Montenegro  73   21  143   41     216  
Netherlands  224   64  672   192  739   211  1635  
Norway  168   48  420   120  437   125  1025  
Poland  286   82  857   245     1143  
Portugal  282  48  82  126   36  554   158  962  48 
Romania  874   250  437   125     1311  
Russian Fed.  1338  672  398  378  504  120     1716  1176 
Serbia  336   96  605   173     941  
Slovak Republic  476   136  361   103     837  
Slovenia  571   163  218   62     789  
Spain  414   118  630   180     1044  
Sweden  409   117  420   120  252   72  1081  
Switzerland  196   56  420   120  420   120  1036  
Turkey  1120   320  420   120     1540  
Ukraine  700   200  697   199     1397  
United 
Kingdom  185   53  277   79  277   79  739  
Total  17003  7651   15918  4133   4308  720   37229 12504 
Number of 
countries  40  14   41  7   18  2    
Source :  International Transport Forum (2010).   
   S/C/W/324
 Page 67ANNEX 9 
 
Summary table of emission standards for Heavy Goods Vehicle  
(expressed in grams/kilowatt-hour)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Source :  Daimler Chrysler/IRU  
 United States 
Europe
South America 
Japan 
Korea 
China ??
Chinese Tai pei 
Developing  
countries 
2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 201 2003 2004 2005 2006NOx: No limits or relaxed standards  
PM: No limits or relaxed standards ??NOx: 6.7 g/kWh (5.0) 
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.1) ?? NOx: 8.0 g/kWh (6.0) 
PM: 0.36 g/kWh (0.27)NOx: 7.0 g/kWh (5.2)   
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.11 )NOx: 6.0 g/kWh (4.5)           
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.27)??NOx: 4.5 g/kWh (3.4) 
PM: 0.25 g/kWh (0.19)NOx: 3.38 g/kWh (2.5 )  
PM: 0.18 g/kWh (0.13)NOx: 1.7 g/kWh (1.3 )  
PM: 0.05 g/kWh (0.4)??NOx: 7.0 g/kWh (5.2) 
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.11)NOx: 5.0 g/kWh (3.7)   
PM: 0.10 g/kWh (0.07) NOx: 3.5 g/kWh (2.6) 
PM: 0.02 g/kWh (0.015)??NOx: 5.0 g/kWh (3.7) 
PM: 0.10 g/kWh (0.07)NOx: 3.5 g/kWh (2.6) 
PM: 0.02/0.03 g/kWh (0.015/0.022)NOx: 2.0 g/kWh (1.5)  
PM: 0.02/0.03 g/kWh (0.015/0.022)Similar to  
US 2010?NOx: 5.4 g/kWh (4.0) 
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.10)NOx+HC: 3.35 g/kWh (2.5)  
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.10)NOx: 1.48 g/kWh (1.1)  
PM: 0.013 g/kWh (0.01)NOx: 0.27 g/kWh (0.2) 
PM: 0.013 g/kWh (0.01)2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 
  S/C/W/324 
Page 68 ANNEX 10 
 
Areas of application of various emission standards for Heavy Goods Vehicles  
 
 
Source :  IRU/UNECE 
 European standards and countries or territories applying them 
American standards and countries or territories applying them 
Countries or territories accepting both European and American standards 
Japanese standards 
No standard S/C/W/324 
 Page 69 
 
 
  ANNEX 11 
 
Maximum permissible weights and dimensions  
 
 Maximum 
permissible 
weight for 
road trains 
(tonnes) Maximum 
permissible 
height (metres)Maximum 
permissible 
width (metres)
 Maximum 
permissible 
length for a 
road train 
(metres) Maximum 
permissible 
dimensions 
(m³ = h x l x L) 
Afghanistan 36.0 4.00 2.50 24.00 240.00 
Albania 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.35 190.84 
Algeria 35.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Argentina 45.0 - 2.50 20.50 - 
Armenia 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00 
Austria 38.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Azerbaijan 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00 
Belarus 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00 
Belgium 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Bosnia-Herzegovina 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Brazil 74.0 4.00 2.60 19.80 205.92 
Bulgaria 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Cameroon 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Central African 
Republic 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Chad 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Chile 45.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00 
China 16.5 4.00 2.50 16.50 165.00 
Congo 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Croatia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Cyprus 31.0 4.00 2.60 18.35 190.84 
Czech Rep. 48.0 4. 00 2.60 22.0 0 228.80 
Denmark 48.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Egypt 48.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00 
Estonia 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
European Union 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Finland 60.0 4.00 2.60 25.25 262.60 
France 40.0 no restriction 2.60 20.35 - 
FYROM 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Georgia 44.0 4.00 2.60 24.00 249.60 
Germany 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Greece 40.0 4.00 2. 60 18.75 195.00 
Hungary 44.0 4.00 2.60 24.00 249.60 
Iran 40.0 4.50 2.50 18.00 202.50 
Iraq 54.0 4.10 2.60 20.00 213.20 
Ireland 40.0 4.25 2.60 18.35 202.77 
Israel 59.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Italy 44.0 4.30 2.60 21.00 234.78 
Japan 36.0 4.10 2.50 18.00 184.50 
Jordan 60.0 4.20 2.60 18.35 200.38 
Kazakhstan 44.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00 
Kuwait 45.0 4.50 2.60 20.00 234.00 
Kyrgyz Republic 30.0 4.00 2.55 - - 
Latvia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Lithuania 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 S/C/W/324 
Page 70  
 
   Maximum 
permissible 
weight for 
road trains 
(tonnes) Maximum 
permissible 
height (metres)Maximum 
permissible 
width (metres)
 Maximum 
permissible 
length for a 
road train 
(metres) Maximum 
permissible 
dimensions 
(m³ = h x l x L) 
Luxembourg 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Malta 40.0 4.50 2.60 18.75 219.38 
Mexico 45.5 4.20 2.50 22.00 231.00 
Moldova 40.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00 
Morocco 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.00 187.20 
Netherlands 50.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
New Zealand 44.0 4.25 2.50 20.00 212.50 
Norway 50.0 no restriction 2.60 19.00 - 
Poland 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Portugal 44.0 4.60 2.60 18.75 224.25 
Rep. of Korea 35.0 3.50 2.50 16.70 146.13 
Romania 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Russia 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00 
Saudi Arabia 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Serbia 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00 
Slovak Rep. 40.0 4.00 2.60 22.00 228.80 
Slovenia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Spain 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Sweden 60.0 no restriction 2.60 24.00 - 
Switzerland 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Tunisia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00 
Turkey 40.0 4.00 2.60 22.00 228.80 
Turkmenistan 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00 
Ukraine 38.0 4.00 2.65 22.00 233.20 
United Kingdom 44.0 no restriction 2.60 18.75 - 
United States 36.3 - 2.59 14.40 - 
Uruguay 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00 
Uzbekistan 40.0 4.00 2.50 24.00 240.00 
Note : China:  Maximum weight for tractor, maximum length for tractor and trailer. 
Source : IRU Information Centre, Authoriza tions, Goods Transport, http://www.iru.org/Indiax /infocentre-find-form 
(http://www.iru.org/index/infocentre-find-form ) APEC Electronic Individual Action Plan (e-IAP), 
http://www.apec-iap.org/  
  S/C/W/324 
 Page 71 
 
 
  ANNEX 12 
 
Commitments in road freight transport services (11.F.b)  
 
 
 
Transportation of frozen or 
refrigerated goods  
CPC 71231 
Transportation of bulk 
liquids and gases  
CPC 71232 
Transportation of 
containerized freight  
CPC 71233 
Transportation of furniture 
CPC 71234 
Mail transportation  
CPC 71235 
Freight transportation by 
man- or animal- drawn 
vehicle  
Transportation of other 
freight  
CPC 71239 
Total 
Albania X X X X X X X 7 
Armenia X X X X X X X 7 
Aruba X   X   X 3 
Australia X X X X       4 
Brazil X   X X       3 
Cambodia X X X X X X X 7 
Canada X X X X       4 
Cape Verde X X X X X X X 7 
China X X X X X X X 7 
Cote d'Ivoire X X X X X X X 7 
Croatia X X X X X X X 7 
Ecuador X X X X X X X 7 
Estonia X X X X X X X 7 
EU-12 X X X X X X X 7 
Finland X X X X X X X 7 
FYROM X X X X X X X 7 
Gambia X X X X X X X 7 
Georgia X X X X X X X 7 
Guinea X X X X X X X 7 
Guyana X X X X X X X 7 
Iceland X X X X X X X 7 
Japan X X X X X X X 7 
Kenya X X X X X X X 7 
Korea      X         1 
Kyrgyz Republic X X X X X X X 7 
Latvia X X X X X X X 7 
Lesotho X X X X X X X 7 
Lithuania X X X X X X X 7 
Moldova X X X X X X X 7 
Morocco X X X X X X X 7 S/C/W/324 
Page 72  
 
   
Transportation of frozen or 
refrigerated goods  
CPC 71231 
Transportation of bulk 
liquids and gases  
CPC 71232 
Transportation of 
containerized freight  
CPC 71233 
Transportation of furniture 
CPC 71234 
Mail transportation  
CPC 71235 
Freight transportation by 
man- or animal- drawn 
vehicle  
Transportation of other 
freight  
CPC 71239 
Total 
Netherlands Antilles X   X   X 3 
New Zealand X X X X   X X 6 
Niger X X X X X X X 7 
Norway X X X X X X X 7 
Philippines X X X X X X X 7 
Romania X X X X X X X 7 
South Africa X X X X X X X 7 
Sweden X X X X X X X 7 
Chinese Taipei X X X X X X X 7 
Thailand X X X         3 
Turkey X X X X X X X 7 
Ukraine X X X X X X X 7 
USA X X X X X X X 7 
Vietnam X X X X X X X 7 
Total * 43 39 42 42 36 37 39 278 
 
* Counting EU-12 as one. 
 
 
__________