WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
9 March 2011 
 (11-1199) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries  
   
MARKET ACCESS FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OF EXPORT INTEREST TO 
LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision2 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .4 
II.  LDC EXPORT PROFILE........................................................................................................5  
A.  TRENDS IN LDC TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES ........................................................................5  
B.  LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE .............................................................12  
1.  Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ........12 
(a)  Total exports .................................................................................................................. ...........12  
(b)  Major products................................................................................................................. .........15 
(c)  Major markets .................................................................................................................. .........17 
C.  LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TRADE IN SERVICES .................................................................19  
1.  Global Trends.................................................................................................................. ........20 
2.  Tourism........................................................................................................................ ............21  
III. EVOLUTION OF TRADE BALANC ES OVER THE DECADE ......................................23  
A.  MERCHANDISE TRADE BALANCES OF LDCS ...............................................................................23  
B.  TRADE BALANCES BY PRODUCTS ..............................................................................................27  
IV.  MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS ..............................................28  
A.  INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................28  
B.  TRENDS IN MARKET ACCESS FOR PRODUC TS OF EXPORT INTEREST TO LDCS ............................31  
C.  TARIFF ESCALATION FACING LDC EXPORTS ..............................................................................33  
D.  TARIFF TREATMENT OF LDC EX PORTS IN SELECTED MARKETS .................................................36  
(a)  Market access conditions faced by LDC e xports in selected developed countries...................38  
(b)  Market access conditions faced by LDC expor ts in selected developing countries..................41  
V.  CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... .45 
ANNEX .......................................................................................................................... .......................47  
                                                      
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. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  List of Tables  
Table 1: Trends in LDC exports of goods and commercial services,  2000-2009.. ................ 8 
Table 2: LDCs and world trade in goods and commercial services,  1980-2009.... ............... 9 
Table 3: Export prices of primary commodities, 2000-2009................................................. 14 Table 4: Top 20 LDC merchandise exports by market share, 2008…….............................. 17 
Table 5: Commercial services exports by LDCs, 2000-2009...... .............................. ............ 21 
Table 6: Summary of LDC GATS commitments in tourism................................................. 22 Table 7: LDCs' terms of trade, 2000-2009............................................................................. 25 Table 8: LDCs' exports and imports:  evol ution of volume, unit value and value, 
  2000-2009............................................................................................................... 26 
Table 9: Coverage ratios of imports by exports of the LDCs, 2000-2009............................ 27 
Table 10: LDCs' merchandise trade balance by product groups, 2000-2008.......................... 27 
Table 11: Trends in tariff treatment on me rchandises imported by developed countries, 
  1996-2008................................................................................................................ 32 Table 12: Average tariffs in developed markets by degree of processing and by exporting 
region, 1996-2008…………………………………………………….................... 34  
Table 13: Tariff treatment of LDC exports in  selected developed markets, 2008................... 40 
Table 14: Tariff treatment of LDC exports in sel ected developing markets, 2008 or latest.... 42 
 
List of Charts 
Chart 1:  Evolution of LDCs' exports of  goods and commercial services, 2000-2009……... 5 
Chart 2(a): Share of top three LDC products in  their total merchandise exports, 2008............ 7 
Chart 2(b): Share of commercial services in total exports by LD Cs, 2008.......... ..................... 7 
Chart 3:  Export prices of primary commodities, 1999-2009................................................ 13 Chart 4:  Development in merchandise trade volume of LDCs and developing  
  economies, 2000-2009............................................................................................ 15 
Chart 5:  Composition of LDC merchandise exports by major products, 2009.................... 16 
Chart 6:  Top 20 markets for LDC exports of goods, 2000-2009......................................... 18 Chart 7:  Composition of imports from LDCs by region, 2009 or most recent year............ 19 Chart 8:  International tourist arrivals in selected LDCs and world exports of travel,  
  Q1 2008-Q1 2010........................................................................................ …….. 22 Chart 9:  LDCs' merchandise trade:  value indices and trade balan ces, 1990-2009............. 23 
Chart 10:  Evolution of LDCs' merchandise trade, 2000-2009............................................... 24 
Chart 11: LDCs' coverage of imports by  exports, product groups 2000-2008..................... 28 
Chart 12:  Effective preference margin of  LDCs' exports for selected product groups, 
  1996-2008.................................................................................................... ……. 33 Chart 13:  Tariff escalation on LDCs' exports to developed markets since the end of  
  Uruguay Round............................................................................................ ……. 35 
Chart 14:  Tariff escalation on LDCs' expor ts to developing markets, 2008………………. 36 
 
List of Boxes  
Box 1:  LDC trade and the global financial crisis.............................................................. 10 
Box 2:  Mirror data for exports from A frica to Europe...................................................... 20 
Box 3:  LDCs' competitiveness and export- transaction costs..... .............................. .......... 30 
Box 4:  The utilization of prefer ences............................... ...................... ...................... ...... 38  
 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
2 The document has been revised in view of comments received at the 57th Session of the 
Sub-Committee on LDCs.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  List of Annex Tables 
Annex Table 1:  Merchandise expor ts and imports of LDCs by selected country grouping, 2009... 47 
Annex Table 2:  Export prices of primar y commodities, 2000-2010................................................ 49 
Annex Table 3:  Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2008...................................................... 50 
Annex Table 4:  Imports from LDCs by major markets and product gro ups, 2000-2009................. 52 
Annex Table 5:  Coverage rati os of imports by exports of the LDCs, 2000-2009............................ 54 
Annex Table 6: Measures in favour of expo rts originating from LD Cs...................... ..................... 55 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
   
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. This note prepared by the Secretariat responds  to paragraph 7 of the WTO Work Programme 
for Least-Developed Countries (LDCs), which ma ndates an annual review of market access for 
products originating from LDCs (WT/COMTD/LDC/11).  It builds on previous Secretariat studies by 
updating the information on trends in LDC trade and market access conditions, covering goods and, to 
some extent, trade in services.3  The evolution of LDC trade bala nces by country and by product has 
received special attention in this document.  Mo reover, data has covere d the period 2000-2008/2009 
with a view to looking at the trade performan ce of LDCs during the time-span of the Brussels 
Programme of Action (BPOA) for the LDCs (2001-2010) .  This note is also a contribution to the 
Fourth UN Conference on LDCs (LDC-IV) which will undertake a review of the BPOA, including in 
the area of trade to chart a new course of actions to promote growth and development in the LDCs.  
2. The note is divided into four main parts, in add ition to this introduction.  Chapter II, on export 
profile, provides a description of the recent trends of LDC trade flows, both in goods and commercial 
services.  It includes an analysis of LDC exports by  main products and market destination, including 
the export of tourism services.  Chapter III analy ses the evolution of trade balances by country and 
product groups, and the coverage of imports by ex ports.  Chapter IV is devoted to market access 
conditions facing LDC exports, incl uding a review of the utilization of preferences.  A concluding 
section summarizes the findings of the note, while a series of annex tables provide Members with 
additional background information a nd references.  The note does not pretend to be comprehensive in 
covering all aspects that condition market access for LD C products.  It should therefore be read in 
conjunction with previous notes prepared on this topi c to gauge the different factors that determine 
market access for LDCs.   
3. A few words of caution are required about the statistical coverage of LDCs, which is 
characterized by its incompleteness and untimeliness .  Despite advances in the production of national 
data and their compilation by the Secretariat, th ese limitations remain acute when it comes to 
quarterly or monthly statistics.  In many cases, the Secretariat had to rely on mirror statistics, using imports reported by LDC partners, while remaining data  gaps had to be imputed.  In particular, mirror 
statistics were compiled from databases such as the UN COMTRADE or Global Trade Atlas, which 
contain comprehensive coverage of the developed countries' trade, a nd substantial cove rage for trade 
of major developing countries and economies in trans ition.  This allows estimating the share of the 
LDCs' trade with not just developed countries but also with developing economies.  
4. The disadvantage of using mirror data is that it does not allow to take into consideration 
intra-trade among the LDCs, as well as trade with  non-reporting developing economies.  This is a 
serious handicap when South-South trade is beco ming one of the most dynamic dimensions of 
international trade.  In addition, the total figures based on mirror data may differ from total exports as 
reported by the LDCs.  A special effort has been ma de to use national reported figures for total trade. 
                                                     
 
3 Since 2005, the following special topics have been covered: (i) textiles and clothing 
(WT/COMTD/LDC/W/37);  (ii) Non-tariff measures (N TMs) (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 an d its addenda); (iii)  
LDC trade in services (JOB(07)/32/Rev.1 and JOB(07)/148);  (iv) LDC trade in food and agricultural products (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43 and JOB(08)/49);  (v) prefer ence utilization (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41/Rev.1);  and 
(vi) impact of the global financial crisis (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/46/Rev.1).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. LDC EXPORT PROFILE 
5. This chapter first reviews the global trends  observed for LDC trade in goods and services 
during the 2000s, and the impact of the 2008-2009 globa l financial crisis.  The LDCs' participation in 
merchandise trade and commercial services is analysed in the subsequent sections.4 
A. TRENDS IN LDC TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES  
6. The rapid increase in the total value of goods  and services exported by LDCs during the 
2000s came to an abrupt halt in 2008, in the wake of the global financial crisis.  The growth of 
merchandise exports had accelerated since 2003, largely due to the rise in oil and commodity prices, while the exports of services rose more markedly af ter 2006, a change that could be attributed to the 
dynamism of tourism and the higher prices of transport services (see Chart 1).  Despite a drop of 
28 per cent in 2009, goods exports registered an av erage annual growth rate of 14 per cent over the 
2000-2009 decade, almost twice the growth of worl d trade during this period (8 per cent).  The 
respective figures for commercial services are 12 pe r cent for LDCs compared with 9 per cent for 
world trade.  
Chart 1:  Evolution of LDCs' exports of goods and commerc ial services, 2000-2009
 
(Index, 2000=100) 
0100200300400500600700800900
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Commercial services Other goods Fuels and Mining
 
Source :  WTO Secretariat. 
7. Export concentration has been a structural char acteristic of LDC economies (see Chart 2).  
The rise in commodity prices has reinforced this f eature.  Due to the lower degree of development of 
their productive sectors, LDCs are heavily depe ndent on a few products where they enjoy some 
degree of comparative advantage (primary commoditi es as far as trade in goods is concerned, and 
tourism for services exporters).  Even when LDCs were able to diversify into manufacturing, the 
range of exported products was us ually limited to a few labour-intensive industries, mostly in 
clothing.  
                                                      
4 The data in the Note covered Maldives, which graduated from LDC status on 1 January 2011. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  8. On average, almost three qua rters of total merchandise expor ts depended only on three main 
products (composition varies from LDC to LDC).  For instance, for eight LDCs, the top three 
products accounted for more than 95 per cent of thei r export receipts, illustrating the vulnerability of 
these economies to fluctuations in international tr ade.  Some LDCs also depended on services exports 
for a sizeable share of their total export receipts.  Travel, a close proxy of tourism receipts, is the 
dominant sector, especially for small islands where it represents the main source of export revenues.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Chart 2(a):  Share of top three LDC products in their total merchandise exports, 2008  
0102030405060708090100Nepal
United Rep. of TanzaniaEritrea
Afghanistan
Uganda
Djibouti
Madagascar
Ethiopia
Sen egal
Benin
So m alia
Tu valu
Lao People's Dem. Rep.
Mozambique
Gam bia
Dem. Rep. of the Congo
S ierra Leone
Malawi
Comoros
Tog o
S ao Tome and Principe
Myanmar
Zambia
NigerMali
BhutanBurkina FasoSam o aKiribatiBurundiGuin eaBangladeshHaitiCentral African Rep.So lo m o n  I sdsCambodiaRwandaMaldivesTimor-LesteLiberiaVan uat uMauritaniaGuinea-BissauLesothoSudanYemenChadEquatorial GuineaAngola
 
Chart 2(b):  Share of commercial serv ices in total exports by LDCs, 2008  
0102030405060708090100 Equ. Guinea 
 Angola  Chad 
 Sudan  
 Burundi 
 Bangladesh 
 Mauritania 
 Zambia 
 Myanmar 
 Lesotho 
 Guinea 
 Congo, DR. 
 Bhutan 
 Yemen 
 Niger 
 Malawi 
 Mozambique 
 C. African R.
 Mali 
 Burkina Faso  S ierra Leone  Lao PDR  Solomon Isl. Benin  Uganda  Tog o  Cambodia  Guinea-B.  Nepal  Haiti  Madagascar  Tanzania  Sen egal  Gambia  Ethiopia  S ao Tome & P  Rwanda  Djibouti  Eritrea  Maldives  Van uat u  Comoros  Sam o a 
 
Source :  WTO Secretariat. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
   
9. The dependence on a few products and services does matter when the global economy goes 
through a period of high volatility, as was the case in the last two years.  While the value of sales of 
fuels and mining decreased abruptly in 2009 (–37 per cent), and heavily influenced the decline of total 
exports of goods (–28 per cent), the sales of services we re more resilient to the crisis and fell by only 
5 per cent (see Table 1).  Indeed, the 2008-2009 gl obal crisis had a differe ntiated impact on the 
exports of goods, which in turn was to a large extent related to the vol atility of the international prices 
during this period.  As explained in Box 1, the expor ts of fuels and minerals registered a "V" shaped 
drop-and-recovery profile, while sales of agricu ltural goods and manufactures which were initially 
less affected in the first few months of the cris is recovered slowly in the second quarter of 2009 and 
has remained flat since then (
id est , experiencing more a "squared root" type of profile). 
Table 1:  Trends in LDC exports of goods and commercial services, 2000-2009  
(Billion dollars and percentage) 
 
 Values Annual rate of growth 
 2000 2009a 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a 2000-
2009a 
Total goods and commercial services 42.1 137.1 3.9 7.8 15.3 28.7 30.7 24.0 25.7 30.0 -25.9 14.0 
Total goods 35.9 119.6 4.1 7.9 16.5 29.8 33.7 24.9 25.4 30.3 -28.1 14.3 
Fuels and Mining 15.6 79.3 0.7 12.9 24.1 48.6 51.3 36.6 28.6 45.4 -37.1 19.8 
Other goods 20.4 40.3 6.8 4.2 10.6 13.2 13.4 7.0 19.2 -1.6 -0.2 7.9 
Commercial services 6.1 17.4 2.5 7.2 8.0 21.6 10.2 16.0 27.9 27.4 -5.3 12.3 
 a Preliminary estimate. 
Source:   WTO Secretariat . 
10. Over the 2000-2009 decade, the share of LDCs in world trade (exports plus imports) 
increased, from 1.21 per cent  to 2.09 per cent, a positive development in a period marked by a favourable orientation for total international trad e, which increased 7.8 per cent in yearly average 
during the decade (see Table 2).  The 2008-2009 crisis did not lead to a fall of LDCs' share in world 
trade in goods, rather the share increased from 2.04 per cent in 2008 to 2.15 per cent in 2009, although 
the share of LDCs in services trade declined slightly from 1.99 per cent to 1.85 per cent.  
Unfortunately, this resilience of LDC trade in goods during the recession was mainly due to the 
positive orientation of their imports, while the mark et share for their exports retreated below the 
1 per cent mark. As a result, the group recorded  a large trade deficit in 2009, following three 
consecutive years of surplus (2006, 2007 and 2008) (see Chapter III for more information on trade 
balances).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Table 2:  LDCs and world trade in goods and commercial services, 1980-2009  
(Billion dollars and percentage) 
 
Annual 
percentage 
change       
1980    
1990    
1995    
2000    
2005    
2006    
2007    
2008    
2009  2000-2009 
Total trade in goods and commercial services a       
   World 2313 4209 6224 7856 12772 14664 17038 19554 15471 7.8 
   LDCs 49 57 74 95 201 241 305 397 323 14.6 
     Share in world 2.11 1.36 1.18 1.21 1.58 1.64 1.79 2.03 2.09 ... 
Total trade in goods a          
   World 1929 3408 5047 6384 10346 11930 13778 15863 12225 7.5 
   LDCs 39 45 57 76 165 199 249 323 263 14.9 
     Share in world 2.03 1.32 1.13 1.18 1.60 1.67 1.81 2.04 2.15 ... 
Total trade in commercial services a 
   World 384 800 1177 1472 2426 2734 3260 3691 3246 9.2 
   LDCs 10 12 17 19 36 42 56 74 60 13.5 
     Share in world 2.53 1.52 1.42 1.31 1.48 1.52 1.70 1.99 1.85 ... 
Goods exports           
   World 1941 3433 5106 6379 10372 11989 13867 15933 12339 7.6 
   LDCs 16 20 25 36 82 102 128 166 120 14.3 
     Share in world 0.82 0.57 0.48 0.56 0.79 0.85 0.92 1.04 0.97 ... 
Commercial services exports 
   World 365 780 1172 1484 2488 2823 3388 3826 3350 9.5 
   LDCs 2 3 5 6 10 11 14 18 17 12.3 
     Share in world 0.68 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.48 0.52 ... 
Goods imports           
   World 1917 3383 4988 6389 10321 11871 13689 15793 12110 7.4 
   LDCs 23 25 32 40 84 97 122 157 143 15.3 
     Share in world 1.21 0.75 0.65 0.62 0.81 0.82 0.89 0.99 1.18 ... 
Commercial services imports 
   World 402 820 1182 1460 2364 2646 3132 3555 3143 8.9 
   LDCs 7 9 11 13 26 30 41 55 43 14.0 
     Share in world 1.79 1.09 0.97 0.90 1.11 1.14 1.31 1.55 1.36 ... 
 aWorld trade is calculated as the average of world expor ts and imports.  Total LDC trade in this table is 
approximated as the sum of their exports and imports.  This measure thus inflates the data  by double counting trade among 
LDCs, which could not be removed owing to the absence of data broken down by origin  and destination.  "Intra-LDC trade" 
is however not so large to affect the analytical value of the data. 
Source :  WTO Secretariat.  
11. The sharp contraction of the global economy that  began in the second half of 2008 hurt the 
LDCs during a phase of particularly rapid growth of  their exports of goods and services.  As shown in 
the table in Box 1, LDCs' merchandise exports has b een consistently outperforming world trade since 
the last quarter of 2007, and by a large margin.  The effect of the financial crisis on trade was 
perceptible in the fourth quarter of 2008.  While the crisis touched its bottom in March 2009, yearly 
growth rates remained negative up to the third quarter of 2009.  All in all, world trade dropped by 
22.7 per cent in value and 12 per cent in real term during 2009.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
   
Box 1:  LDC trade and the global financial crisis5   
 
As a group, the LDC exports were particularly affected  by the falling commodity prices during the initial phase 
of the crisis, while other product groups were more resilient.  The annualised numbers returned into positive 
territory at the end of 2009 and experienced high year -on-year growth rate due to  a combination of economic 
and statistical factors (world economy  remained buoyant and 2010 quarterly figures were compared to a very 
low 2009 base). 
 
Table Box 1:  Annualized quarterly variation of merchandise exports, 2007-2010  
 
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
World: Total merchandise 15 13 15 19 22 26 21 -10 -30 -32 -24 3 25 26 18
LDCs: Total merchandise 10 10 12 43 57 69 59 -3 -41 -44 -36 11 54 41 23
Agricultural products 14 14 20 19 18 13 13 -1 -17 -8 -6 12 24 14 16
  Food 16 15 18 24 17 13 19 3 -5 8 2 11 15 0 10
Fuels and mining prods 8 6 17 58 83 101 80 -4 -53 -55 -46 10 83 57 26
Manufactures 17 21 -3 15 6 3 12 -3 -5 -4 -4 5 3 9 13
  Clothing 10 9 6 5 12 15 10 10 6 -1 -3 -5 -6 7 152007 2008 2009 2010
 
Note : Data for LDCs are based on mirror statistics of most developed and devel oping importing countries, and 
Secretariat estimates.  
Source:  WTO Secretariat. 
The positive figure recorded by total LDC trade is, once again, heavily influenced by the weight of fuels and 
minerals in total LDC exports.  Th is specificity, and the comparative ev olution of each produ ct groups during 
and after the crisis, are more clear ly observable in Chart Box 1.   
Available data for the third quarter of 2010 indicate a rebound to the pre-crisis growth path of all product 
categories, due to the positive orientation of large em erging countries for fuels and mining products and a 
recovery in demand in the developed economies for manufactured exports of LDCs.  It should be noted that, for 
fuels and mining products, 2008 could be considered as a "b ubble year".  After a correction in the last quarter of 
2008 and the first quarter of 2009, the markets gradually returned to their earlier trends.a/  After recovering in 
the second part of 2009, fuel prices did not exhibit a precise trend during 2010.  As volumes did not increase, 
the value of fuel exports remained fl at over the year.  This impacted th e overall performance of LDC exports 
(Chart Box1).   
 
 
                                                      
5 This text synthesizes and updates the analysis presented in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/46/Rev.1 of 
26 February 2010.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
   
(Box 1 cont'd) 
 
Chart Box 1: Monthly evolution of LDC exports by main product groups, January 2006 - November 2010  
(Indices, January 2006=100) 
 
 
020406080100120140160180200
050100150200250300350400450500
20063
69
20073
69
20083
69
20093
69
20103
69World 
(right 
scale)
LDCs ExportsTotal goods
050100150200250
20063
69
20073
69
20083
69
20093
6
9
20103
69LDCs: Agricultural goods
 
 
 
050100150200250300350400450500550
20063
6
9
20073
69
20083
69
20093
69
20103
6
9LDCs: Fuels and mining products
020406080100120140160180200
20063
69
20073
69
20083
69
20093
6
9
20103
69LDCs: Manufactures
 
 
 
 
 
_________________ 
a/ Discarding 2008 as an outlier (a bubble year) for analytical pur pose is the option retained, for example, by the ITC report 
on "LDC Trade recovery in 2009", January 2010. 
Note : Dotted line corresponds to the "crisis period", after Sept ember 2008. Trend line shows the extrapolated trend, 
based on pre-crisis observations.  Da ta are based on mirror statistics from most major trading partners. 
Source : WTO (on the basis of official data and Secretariat estimates).  
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  B. 
LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD MERCHANDISE TRADE  
1. Global Trends 
12. Both the trends and the composition of LDC e xports during the 2000s have been influenced 
by the emergence of large developing countries, as well as developments in international prices for 
commodities. The large emerging countries offered new markets of destinations for LDC products 
and contributed to a rapid increase in the internati onal price of commodities.  At the same time, the 
globalization of production networks, while o ffering new opportunities for low-cost producers, 
increased competition in labour-intensive manufacturing exports and put a cap on their price increase.   
(a) Total exports 
13. The growth and composition of merchandi se trade of LDCs during the 2000s was 
considerably influenced by the rise of the large emerging countri es in the international landscape, 
which influenced both prices and quantities.6  Over the 2000-2009 period, LDC exports increased 
14 per cent annually.  This overall robust perform ance hides a deep disequilibrium between oil and 
other extractive commodities (20 per cent annual growth) and the other products (8 per cent). 
14. Year-to-year developments have been principall y determined by the evolution of international 
prices.  Chart 3 presents the evolution of pr ices over the 2000-2009 period corresponding to three 
groups of products.  The most dynamic one is constitu ted by energy (principally oil and coal) and 
minerals.  The price of these commodities had experi enced a rapid growth since 2003, and peaked in 
2007 (minerals) and 2008 (energy), before dropping ab ruptly during 2009.  Even after the 2008-2009 
price correction, these products were priced in 2009 more than twice their 2000 value.  
15. The international prices for food and beverage products started to accelerate in 2005.  While 
prices of this product group declined during the cr isis, they were still higher in 2009 than in 2007 
(before the "bubble" 2008 year).  In this context, a number of supply-related factors had been favourable to the LDCs:  the price of staple food (cereals, usually imported by LDCs) was lower due 
to bumper harvests, while those of coffee,  cocoa, tea and oilseeds remained strong.
7  The international 
price of sugar rose markedly during 2009, due to sustained global demand and poor harvest in some 
major sugar producing countries.  
                                                      
6 As pointed out in Box 1, these new players have also influenced the outcome of the 2008-2009 
global crisis. 
7 Since then, reduced wheat harvests in Europe during 2010 have pushed the price of cereals.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
   
Chart 3:  Export prices of primary commodities, 1999-2009  
(Indices, 2000=100) 
 
050100150200250300350400
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Food and beverages
Agricultural raw materials
Minerals and non-ferrous metals  (excluding crude petroleum)
  Energy
Memo item: Manufacture Unit Value 
  Source : WTO Secretariat. 
16. The average price of non-food agricultural co mmodities and manufacture increased very 
slowly during the 2000s.  While these products did not benefit from the 2008 bubble, they 
nevertheless registered a decrease in prices in 2009 , which dragged them almost back to their 2000 
values (over the period, the price of agricultural raw material remained practically constant, while the 
average price of manufacture rose by less than 2 pe r cent annually, against 8 per cent for all primary 
commodities, see Table 3).   
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 14  
Table 3:  Export prices of primary commodities, 2000-2009  
(Annual and quarterly percentage changes) 
 
 2009 Q-o-Q 2010 
  2000  
  2001 
  2002 
  2003 
  2004 
  2005 
  2006 
  2007 
  2008 
  2009  
  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Annual average 
2000-2009 
Food and beverages -0.4  0.4 2. 7 5.1 13.2 1.5 10.3 15.1 23.3 -13. 1  2.3 9.5 -2.0 2.1 2.2 6.0 
Agricultural raw materials 4.7  -5.0 1.8 3.8 5.4 1. 6 8.6 5.0 -0.8 -16.8  - 13.7 -0.9 14.2 8.2 8.1 0.1 
Minerals and non-ferrous metals 
    (excluding crude petroleum) 12.1  -9.7 -2.7 12.3 36.2 26.5 55.9 17.5 -7 .9 -28.7  -18.2 16.2 18.1 8.9 6.4 8.3 
Total of above 4.5  -4.0 0. 8 6.9 18.6 10.3 23.1 14.1 7.5 -18. 7  -6.4 9.5 5.8 5.1 4.5 5.8 
Energy 56.1  -11.6 -0.4 16.7 31.1 38.7 19.2 10.5 40.1 -36.9  -21.1 20.2 12.0 10.2 3.9 9.0 
All primary commodities 32.6  -8.9 0.1 13.0 26.6 29. 1 20.6 11.8 27.6 -31.0  - 15.7 15.8 9.6 8.3 4.1 8.0 
Memo item: Manufacture Unit 
Value -2.1  -2.9 -1.3 7.5 6.9 0.0 1.6 4.7 6.7 -4.9  ... ... ... ... ... 1.9 
Note : Period averages calculated from IMF indices  based on dollar prices.  The data for manufacture corresponds to unit values.  Th e quarterly figures are not seasonally adjusted. 
Source :  WTO Secretariat. 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
   
17. Table 3 also provides disaggregated (quarter ly percentage) figures for export prices of 
primary commodities.  In fact, it makes clear that the overall yearly variation hides, two trends:  a decrease, initiated at mid-2008, and a recovery, perceptible since the second quarter of 2009.   
18. Finally, Chart 4 shows that the 2008-2009 crisis affected LDC trade more in terms of prices 
than in quantities.  Trade volumes slowed down, but kept increasing by 1.5 per cent in 2009, as a 
result of stagnating exports and growing imports.  In comparison, trade volumes dropped by 8.7 per cent in other developing countries.  This pos itive development showed that the crisis did not 
severely affect the import capacity of most LDCs, ev en if the combination of stagnating exports and 
rising imports led to a record trade deficit in 2009 (see Chapter III). 
Chart 4:  Development in merchandise trade vol ume of LDCs and developing economies, 2000-2009
 
(Indices, 2000=100) 
50100150200250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009LDCs ex ports LDCs  imports other developing economies' trade
 
Source :  WTO Secretariat.  LDCs' data have been co mputed based on deflators sourced from UNCTAD. 
(b) Major products 
19. Both the composition and the growth rate of LD C exports were greatly conditioned by price 
developments.  Chart 5 shows clearly that the dom inance of extractive activiti es, already evident in 
2000, gained in strength during the decade, with  fuels and minerals representing more than 
60 per cent of all LDC exports in 2009.  Its dynami sm, driven principally by better prices and by an 
increase in capacity, dwarfed all other products.  Clothing is the second category of exports 
representing about 15 per cent of all LDCs' export reve nues.  Over the period, this group increased its 
exports by an annual rate of 10 per cent.  Considering the quasi-sta bility of the prices of textile and 
clothing products over the whole period, it indicates that almost all progress in exports was due to WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  larger exported volumes.  Food, the third importa nt category of LDC products, weigh somewhat less 
than 10 per cent of their total exports.
8 
Chart 5:  Composition of LDC mercha ndise exports by major products, 2009   
(Percentage) 
10.2
10.1
6.014.8 5.6 17.88.819.3
010203040506070
   Textiles Others    Agr. raw
materials   Machinery
and transport    Process
manufactures   Food    Clothing    Fuels and
minerals2000
2009
 
Note:   Data may include re-exports.  Number over 2009 ba r indicates average annual growth rate 2000-2009.  
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
20. A closer look at the disaggregated figures show s the acute concentration of LDC exports on a 
few product groups (see Annex Table 3:  Leading me rchandise exports of LDCs in 2008).  Chapter 27 
of the HS nomenclature (mineral fuels, mineral oils  and derivates) make up 77 per cent of total export 
(2008 figures).  The second HS chapter, HS61 (articl es of apparel and clothing, knitted or crocheted)  
represents only a meagre 6 per cent;  together with HS62 (apparel and clothing, not knitted), they barely pass the 11 per cent mark.  The following three HS chapters are all products of extractive 
activities: ores (HS26), copper (HS74) and pearls  and precious stones (HS71).  Among the food and 
agricultural exports, fish and crustacean (HS03) represent the top exports but account for merely 
1.7 per cent of total LDC exports. 
21. Nevertheless, for some HS subheadings, the LD Cs have been able to gain considerable 
market share.  Some, as in cobalt and derivatives,  are due to the absolute advantage that some 
exporters enjoy for these rare metals, while others  are due to the abundance of non-renewable natural 
resources, such as oil.  But for other products, as in  the case of clothing, some LDC exporters have 
been able to successfully compete in low-cost segments of the markets.  
                                                     
 
8 By comparison, commercial serv ices accounted for nearly 13 per cent of total LDC exports.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
   
Table 4:  Top 20 LDC merchandise exports by market share, 2008  
(million dollars and percentage)  
LDC exports World exports 
Product Description (HS04) 
Value Share 
in Total 
Exports Value LDCs' 
Share 
in 
Total 
Cobalt ores and concentrates. (2605) 944 0.6 1 404 67.2 
Aluminium ores and concentrates. (2606) 917 0.5 4 272 21.5 
Cobalt mattes and other intermediate products  of cobalt metallurgy (8105) 813 0.5 3 968 20.5 
Dried leguminous vegetables, shelled (0713) 959 0.6 6 058 15.8 
T-shirts, singlets and other vests, knitte d or crocheted. (6109) 2 900 1.7 22 870 12.7 
Wood in the rough. (4403) 1 557 0.9 13 016 12 
Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted. (6105) 686 0.4 5 949 11.5 
Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse. (2401) 999 0.6 8 811 11.3 
Men's or boys' shirts. (6205) 1 167 0.7 10 533 11.1 
Jerseys, pullovers and similar articles, kni tted or crocheted. (6110) 4 148 2.5 41 091 10.1 
Men's or boys' suits, ensembles, jackets,  blazers, trousers (6203) 2 855 1.7 28 459 10 
Woven fabrics of cotton, containing 85 % or mo re by weight of cotton (5208) 756 0.4 8 449 8.9 
Cotton, not carded or combed. (5201) 873 0.5 10 378 8.4 
Petroleum oils, crude (2709) 102 100 60.6 1 502 615 6.8 
Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated (0901) 1 184 0.7 17 901 6.6 
Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, jackets, blazers, dresses, skir ts (6104) 695 0.4 10 611 6.6 
Crustaceans, whether in shell or not (0306) 873 0.5 14 722 5.9 
Refined copper and copper alloys , unwrought. (7403) 2 500 1.5 47 196 5.3 
Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, jackets, bl azers, dresses, skirts (6204) 2 088 1.2 40 680 5.1 
Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets (0303) 811 0.5 16 990 4.8 
Source : Annex Table 3. 
22. The evolution LDCs' export structure hides the large diversity of an individual country's 
situation. As mentioned previously, some of them  are highly dependent on a few products (usually 
oil), while others are more reliant on agriculture  or manufacture.  Some LDCs depend heavily on 
services exports.  Each country specificities and endowment in natural resources influence the 
evolution of its trade performance.  This specificity will be analysed in more detail in the chapter on 
trade balances. 
(c)  Major markets 
23. The geographical landscape of exports change d dramatically during the 2000s, especially 
with regard to the top five markets of destination.   Chart 6 shows that China moved to the first place, 
followed by the EU and the US.  These three ec onomies clearly dominate the market, with imports 
from LDCs higher than US$20 billion in 2009.  At the same time, India's imports from LDCs have 
been increasing rapidly during the period, placing it in the fourth position while Thailand stands at the 
fifth position, mainly due to large impor ts of energy products from Myanmar.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 18  
 
  Chart 6:  Top 20 markets for LDC exports of goods, 2000-2009
  
(Billion dollars) 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30NorwayBrazilRussian FederationZambiaMali  aEgypt  aIndonesiaSingaporeNigeriaKorea, Republic ofChinese TaipeiUnited Arab EmiratesSouth AfricaCanadaJapanThailandIndiaUnited StatesEuropean Union (27)China
2009
2000
  a2008 instead of 2009 
Source:   WTO, based on UN Comtrade Database. 
 
24. During the 2000s, LDCs gained market share in the two most dynamic emerging markets 
(China and India).  This trend coincided with a larger  share in their total exports of "fuels" and "other 
minerals" – the two dynamic products at global level.9  Gains in market share were also registered in 
developed or higher-income deve loping economies such as Canada, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the 
US.   
25. The product composition of LDC exports varies widely according to the markets of 
destination.  The destination of LDC exports, in  value, are almost equally balanced between 
developed and developing countries.10  But the composition of trade by product groups varies from 
region-to-region, and from country-to-country, de pending on the degree of complementarities 
between LDCs' supply and importers' demand and th e relative advantages in LDC products competing 
with national ones (see Annex Table 4).  
26. The Commonwealth Independent States (CIS), Europe and developed Asia have a more 
balanced composition of imports from LDC, be tween agricultural, mining and manufacture 
                                                      
9 However, LDCs have been losing ground in the relative dynamic niche of "process manufactures", 
i.e., capital-intensive industries such as iron and steel, pharmacy, chemicals and other semi-finished products. 
10 Considering that some regional transactions, in particular cross-border trade, are underreported in 
official statistics, it is even possible that for LDCs exports, South-South trade is now more important than 
South-North trade.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  products.11  Developing Asia and South and Central Amer ica exhibit high concentration in fuels and 
mining products, with the remain ing Asian imports mainly are agricultural products.  Africa and 
North America stand in the middle (North America's imports from LDCs are predominantly manufactures).  Although, the level of devel opment of the importing market is not the only 
determinant for the structure of imports from LDCs, it can be said that the higher the income in the 
importing market, the larger the share of manufacture goods imported from the LDCs (see Chart 7).  
Chart 7:  Composition of imports from LDCs  by region, 2009 or most recent year
 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%EU 27North AmericaCISDeveloped AsiaAfrica South and Central America Developing Asia
Agriculture Fuels and mining Manufactures
 
Source : Annex Table 4.  
C. LDC PARTICIPATION IN WORLD TRADE IN SERVICES   
27. Although exports increased by 12.3 per cent annually over the 2000-2009 period, the 
participation of LDCs in international trade in co mmercial services remains limited.  The share of 
LDC exports in services trade was estimated to be  0.5 per cent in 2009, only marginally improved 
from the level in 2000 (0.4 per cent).12  Nevertheless, due to the hi gher labour content in producing 
services, the impact of trade in commercial services on economic and social developments is 
considered larger than, for example, those of fu el or mineral exports, which are the leading LDC 
export products.   
28. Data for international tourism receipts are sk etchy for developing countries, especially the 
LDCs;  receipts from international tourism are usually collected on the basis of travel data as reported in balance of payments.
13  In some cases, it is possible to us e mirror data from developed countries 
(see Box 2), but the coverage of such exercises remain s limited.  For this reason, the analysis of trade 
in services presented in the following section will not ente r into the origin and destination of flows.   
                                                      
11 A balanced composition is measured by a low variance between product groups. 
12 Trade in services in this note refers only to commercial services. 
13 In the balance of payments, travel is defined as the acquisition of goods and services for own use or 
to give away, which are acquired by non-residents during visits to that economy.  To maintain his/her condition 
as non-resident, his/her visit should usually last less than a year.  This definition is larger than what could be 
defined more strictly as "international tourists".   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 20  
 
   
Box 2:  Mirror data for expo rts from Africa to Europe 
The European Union reports its trade in commercial servi ces with countries in the French Franc Zone (FFZ), 
which are predominantly LDCs.14  According to EU(27) data, imports from this group of  countries reached 
US$3.4 billion in 2008, up from US$2.1 billion in 2004.  Th is variation represents an average annual increase of 
12 per cent since 2004.  
 
In 2008, EU(27) payments relating to transportation se rvices, mainly sea freight transport and port services, 
accounted for 38 per cent, and travel and other commercial  services for 31 per cent, respectively.  Business, 
professional and technical se rvices represented the largest portion of other commercial services imports.  Their 
weight in total EU(27) commercial services imports was low,  with a stable share of 0. 2 per cent over the years.  
However, for the FFZ countries, their exports to the EU(27) represented almost 30 per cent of their total 
commercial services exports.   
 
EU-27 Imports of commercial services from countries 
in the French Franc Zone
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Billion dollars
 
 
Source: WTO Secretariat. 
 
1. Global Trends 
29. The evolution of commercial services exports, which had followed the trends observed for 
agricultural and manufacture goods in the first half  of the 2000s, accelerated in 2006 and sustained 
high rates of growth duri ng 2007 and 2008 (see Table 5). The rise was particularly strong in the 
exports of travel (a close indicator of tourism recei pts), with average annual growth above 30 per cent 
in 2007-2008.  This activity, which is depe ndent on the demand from households in developed 
economies, was less affe cted by the 2008-2009 crisis than in itially feared.  While the activity dropped 
by 9.4 per cent at world level, the decline for the LDCs was limited to 4 per cent.  
30. After travel, other commercial services, were ve ry dynamic in the pre-crisis period, growing 
at more than 25 per cent year-on-year average in 2007 and 2008.15  This category was least affected 
by the crisis, and dropped by only 2 per cent in 2009.  On the contrary, "transportation", closely 
related to the evolution of merchandise trade, su ffered a decline of 13 per cent in 2009, in line with 
what was observed in the volume of international trade. 
                                                      
14 The French Franc Zone consists of the followi ng 14 African countries:  Burkina Faso, Benin, 
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.   
15 The category "other comme rcial services" includes, inter alia , incomes for licenses and royalties, as 
well as transactions such as construction, computer and information, and other business services (legal, accounting, management and public re lation services). These services ar e sometimes traded  involving the 
presence of natural persons in th e recipient countries (mode 4).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Table 5:  Commercial servi ces exports by LDCs, 2000-2009  
 
 Value 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a 
 Commercial services 6 125 6 278 6 729 7 271 8 840 9 746 11 309 14 467 18 424 17 444 
 Transport 1 222 1 267 1 357 1 511 1 740 2 190 2 537 2 943 3 713 3 217 
 Travel 2 874 3 179 3 479 3 769 4 661 5 158 5 914 7 878 10 143 9 748 
 Other commercial services 2 029 1 831 1 893 1 991 2 439 2 398 2 858 3 647 4 569 4 477 
 Growth Rate  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
 Commercial services ... 2.5 7.2 8.0 21.6 10.2 16.0 27.9 27.4 -5.3 
 Transport ... 3.7 7.0 11.3 15.2 25.8 15.9 16.0 26.2 -13.4 
 Travel ... 10.6 9.4 8.3 23. 7 10.7 14.6 33.2 28.8 -3.9 
 Other commercial services ... -9.8 3.4 5.2 22.5 -1.7 19.2 27.6 25.3 -2.0 
 Composition 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a 
 Commercial services 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
 Transport 20.0 20.2 20.2 20. 8 19.7 22.5 22.4 20.3 20.2 18.4 
 Travel 46.9 50.6 51.7 51.8 52.7 52.9 52.3 54.5 55.1 55.9 
 Other commercial services 33.1 29. 2 28.1 27.4 27.6 24.6 25.3 25.2 24.8 25.7 
 a Preliminary estimate. 
Source :  WTO Secretariat.  
 
31. Over the 2000-2009 period, travel, which had been the most dynamic export, increased by an 
annual average of 14.5 per cent.  As a consequence,  in 2009, tourism represented close to 56 per cent 
of services income.  Transport, the smaller component of total service exports, grew by an average of 11 per cent over the period, and other co mmercial services by only 9 per cent.  
2. Tourism 
32. The development dimension of tourism, a rela tively new export activity for LDCs, is being 
increasingly recognised.
16 Based on available data, between 2000 and 2009, receipts from 
international tourism in LDCs e xpanded by more than 14 per cent annually, higher than the growth 
rate for other developing economies (10 per cent) and double the total world average (7 per cent).  
33. The 2008-2009 crisis did not spare the tourism indus tries, but affected the sector by a lesser 
degree than the other sectors.  Since many touris t arrivals in the LDCs originate from developed 
countries, where the financial crisis initiated, there was a serious risk of a sharp slowdown.  However, 
available data tend to show that this sector was re latively resilient to the crisis.  Travel receipts 
decreased, but by less than 4 per cent, which is  a relatively positive development considering the 
strength of growth in the two preceding years (33 a nd 29 per cent in 2007 an d 2008, respectively).  
Additionally, the quarterly figures available for selected countries indicate a significant rebound 
starting in the third quarter of 2009 (see Chart 8). 
 
                                                      
16 See, inter alia , "FDI in Tourism: The Development Dimension", UNCTAD Current Studies on FDI 
and Development No 4 (2007) and its special issue No 6 on East and Southern Africa (2008); "LDC Poverty Alleviation and the Doha Development Agenda: is Tourism being Neglected?", Dale Honeck, WTO Staff 
Working Paper (2008). WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 22  
 
  Chart 8:  International tourist arrivals in  selected LDCs and world exports of travel, 
 
Q1 2008-Q1 2010  
-20-15-10-50510152025
Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Q1 2010Percentage change, year-on-year
Cambodia Maldives World travel exports
 
Source:  UNWTO and WTO Secretariat estimates 
 
34. LDCs are still minor players in the world tourism.  In 2009, they represented 3 per cent of 
total travel exports from developing countries, and 1 pe r cent of world total.  But their market share is 
growing rapidly, indicating the existence of comparat ive advantage in this line of export activity.   
35. Like in other low-income countries, tourism in  LDCs is dependent on inward foreign direct 
investment, and many LDCs have taken steps to promote investment in this sector.  In particular, most of those LDC that are WTO Members have made commitments in tourism under the GATS, albeit the 
coverage varies from country-to-country and is often limited to one or two sub-sectors (see Table 6).  
The largest sources of FDI in tourism have long be en the EU and the US, but more recently, an 
emerging flow of South-South investment has been observed.
17 
Table 6:  Summary of LDC GATS commitments in tourism  
Countries  1  2  3 4 Total Countries  1  2  3  4  Total 
Angola  X     1  Malawi  X  X  X  X  4  
Bangladesh  X     1  Mali  X    1  
Benin  X     1  Mauritania  X  X  X   3  
Burkina Faso  X  X    2  Myanmar  X X    2  
Burundi  X  X  X  3  Nepal  X X    2  
Cambodia  X  X  X  3  Niger  X  X  X   3  
Central African Rep.  X  X  X X 4  Rwanda  X    1  
Chad  X  X    2  Senegal  X X    2  
Congo RP  X  X  X  3  Sierra Leone  X  X  X  X  4  
Djibouti  X     1  Solomon Islands X    1  
Gambia  X  X  X  3  Tanzania  X    1  
Guinea  X   X  2  Togo  X  X  X   3  
Guinea-Bissau  X     1  Uganda  X X    2  
Haiti  X     1  Zambia  X  X  X  X  4  
Lesotho  X  X  X  3  Total  30  19  14  4  67  
Note:   Column (1) Hotels and Restaurants;  (2) Travel Agencies and Tour Operators Services;  (3) Tourist Guides 
Services;  (4)  Other.  "X" indicates at least a partial commitment in the sub-sector concerned. 
Source : Dale Honeck, "LDC Poverty Alleviation and the Doha De velopment Agenda: is Tourism being Neglected?",  
WTO Staff Working Paper 2008-03.  
                                                      
17 UNCTAD (2007, op. cit.).  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  III. EVOLUTION OF TRADE BALA NCES OVER THE DECADE 
36. The LDCs as a group posted deficit in their me rchandise trade balance up to 2005.  However, 
due to the rapid growth in the price of extractive co mmodities, this trade defic it turned into a surplus 
since 2006 and remained so until 2008.  If one cons iders only the trade volumes, after deflating for 
prices, the quantum of imports increased faster during the 2000s, even in the years where the LDCs 
registered surplus trade balance.  Taking a basis of 100 for year 2000, import volumes reached an 
index of 214 in 2008 (when LDCs registered their hi ghest trade surplus), compared to an index of 
only 196 for exports. 
37. The drop in oil and mineral prices during the 2008- 2009 global crisis, combined with a larger 
drop in exported volumes, led to a record deficit of US$22 billion in 2009 (see Chart 9).  Adding up 
the negative balance in trade in services, the trade deficit amounted to US$49 billion.  This global 
picture masks very different situations for indivi dual LDCs and within produc t groups.  This Chapter 
illustrates these differences, with a review of the movement in prices and quantities affecting the two 
components of the merchandise trade balance:  imports and exports.  
Chart 9:  LDCs' merchandise trade:  value indices and trade balances, 1990-2009  
-30-25-20-15-10-5051015
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(Billion dollars)
01002003004005006007008009001000(Indices, 1990=100)
LDC Trade Balance
LDC Exports (right scale)
LDC Imports (right scale)
World Exports (right scale)
 
Note:  Values on the left-hand scale and indices on the right hand. 
Source:  WTO Secretariat.  
A. MERCHANDISE TRADE BALANCES OF LDC S  
38. Chart 10 shows the comparative dynamics of imports and exports between oil and non-oil 
LDC exporters.  The trade surplus registered by the LDCs was entirely due to the oil exporters.  This 
group registered a surplus at the beginning of the 2000s.  The surplus margin increased from 2003 due 
to high international oil prices.  The collapse of  oil prices in 2009 reduced somewhat the gap between 
oil and non-oil LDC exporters, without closing it (b etween 2000 and 2009, the value of exports was 
multiplied by more than 4 for oil exporters and less than 3 for the rest of LDCs). 
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 24 Chart 10:  Evolution of LDCs' merchandise trade, 2000-2009  
(Billion dollars and indices, 2000=100) 
Exports
020406080100120140160180
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(Billion 
dollars)
0100200300400500600700800(Indices, 
2000=100)
Non-fuel ex porters
Fuel ex porters
V alue index  of non-fuel ex porters
V alue index  of fuels ex porters
     Imports
020406080100120140160180
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(Billion 
dollars)
0100200300400500600700800(Indices, 
2000=100)
Non-fuel exporters
Fuel ex porters
V alue index  of non-fuel ex porters
V alue index  of fuels ex porters
 
Note:   Values on the left-hand scale and indices on the right hand. 
Source :  WTO Secretariat. 
 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  39. The right-hand side of the graph indicates that imports rose more rapidly for fuel exporters, 
than their exports;  but the value of exports increased  more rapidly than that of imports consolidating 
their surplus.  The reverse is unfortunately true for non-oil exporters, a group which was already in a 
deficit in 2000, and saw the value of its imports (whi ch include oil) rising faster than the value of its 
exports.  Thus, their deficit continued to persist during the decade.  
40. The evolution of trade balances for different cate gories of LDC exporters is closely related to 
the evolution of the international terms of trade, id est , the relative evolution of the average unit prices 
of exports compared to imports.  Table 7 indicat es that, over the decade, LDCs as a group enjoyed a 
positive variation of 2 per cent (annual average), whil e the terms of trade remained constant for the 
larger group of developing economies.  As ca n be observed from the individual growth rates 
presented for the 2007-2009 period, and summarized by the coefficient of variation over the decade, 
this overall improvement has also been character ized by large year-to-year fluctuations.  
41. The table indicates also that only few LDCs be nefited from this improvement, namely fuel 
and mineral exporters.  On the other side of th e spectrum are manufacture exporter LDCs whose terms 
of trade deteriorated by an average of –4 per cent annually, followed by agricultural exporters 
(-1 per cent).  Those LDCs, whose average unit value of exports was increasing only slowly, had at 
the same time to pay more for their imports of oil and minerals.   
Table 7:  LDCs' terms of trade, 2000-2009  
(Percentage) 
Annual variation Coefficient of 
variation 
 2000-09 2007 2008 2009 2000-09 
Developing economies 0 0 1 -4 4 
LDCs 2 -1 8 -16 14 
of which      
 - Agricultural exporters -1 2 0 7  5 
 - Fuel exporters 5 1 22 -29 30 
 - Mineral exporters 4 0 -2 -3 17 
 - Manufacture exporters -4 -7 -13 15 16 
 - Diversified and other exporters 0 -4 -2 4  2 
Source:   WTO Secretariat, on the basi s of deflators sourced from UNCTAD.  
42. Separating the influence of prices and volumes allo ws a more precise analysis of the source of 
trade imbalances over the period.  Table 8 indicates th at in terms of volume, almost all LDC exporters 
increased their sales by 7 to 8 per cent annually, with a significant degree of year-to-year fluctuations.  
The difference between the groups is entirely due to the changes in prices (the average unit value of 
their total exports), with annual increase ranging from 1 per cent (for manufacture exporters) to 
9 per cent (for oil exporters).  On the contrary, fu el and mineral exporters registered higher imports 
than the other LDCs, while the average unit cost of  imports followed roughly a similar pattern.  The 
comparison between the increase in total value of e xports compared to that of imports indicates also 
that, with the exception of fuel exporters, mercha ndise trade balances tended to deteriorate for all 
other groups. 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 26  
 
   
Table 8:  LDCs' exports and imports: evolut ion of volume, unit value and value, 2000-2009
 
(percentages) 
Volume Unit Value Value 
 YoY 
variation a Coef .of 
variation b YoY 
variation Coef .of 
variation YoY 
variation Coef .of 
variation 
Exports       
Developing economies 7 25 4 20 10 43 
LDC  8 25 7 35 15 57 
of which:       
Agricultural exporters 7 22 5 23 12 44 
Fuel exporters 8 27 9 46 18 68 
Mineral exporters 7 18 8 37 16 52 
Manufacture exporters 8 29 1 6 10 34 
Diversified and other 
exporters 3 9 6 25 9 30 
Imports       
Developing economies 7 26 3 17 10 42 
LDC  9 28 5 21 14 48 
of which:       
Agricultural exporters 8 25 6 22 14 46 
Fuel exporters 14 41 4 17 18 57 
Mineral exporters 10 30 5 21 15 49 
Manufacture exporters 6 18 5 23 11 40 
Diversified and other 
exporters 5 18 6 26 11 43 
 a Average annual rate of growth over the 2000-2009 period. 
 b Standard deviation divided by average variation.  
Source:   WTO Secretariat, on the basi s of deflators sourced from UNCTAD.  
43. Table 9 confirms that the coverage ratio of imports by exports increased up to 2008 for fuel 
exporters from 164 per cent in 2000 to 216 in 2008  before falling back to 154 in 2009.18  Mineral 
exporters improved their im port coverage slightly during the decade, but remained in deficit.  The 
situation of agricultural and manufacture exporters de teriorated markedly, losing respectively 7 and 8 
percentage points between 2000 and 2009.  The dise quilibrium between exports  and imports is more 
acute for agricultural exporters, which in 2009 c overed only about a third of their import bill with 
their merchandise export earnings.  The group of "oth ers" indicates a coverage ratio almost as low as 
agricultural exporters (37 per cent), but  this group is very heterogeneous. 
                                                      
18 Hundred per cent coverage represent a perfect balance between imports and exports, with surpluses 
leading to a higher value of the indi cator. Trade deficit implies that the receipts from exports cover less than 
100 per cent the import bill.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
   
Table 9:  Coverage ratios of impor ts by exports of the LDCs, 2000-2009  
(ratio of groups' total exports to imports, expressed in percentage) 
  2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Developing economies 105 109 112 111 108 106 
Least-developed countries 83 94 103 103 105 85 
- Agricultural exporters 41 34 34 37 35 34 
- Fuel exporters 164 195 207 208 216 154 
- Mineral exporters 68 68 83 77 73 73 
 - Manufacture exporters 65 62 66 60 55 57 
 - Diversified and others  42 36 35 28 30 37 
Note:  Indicators based on total exports a nd imports for the reference group. 
Source : WTO Secretariat.  
44. As a matter of fact, the individual situation of LDCs may differ significantly (see Annex 
Table 5).  Even within the group of oil exporters, so me LDCs presented a deficit in their merchandise 
trade.  It was the case for Sudan and Yemen, with a coverage ratio of 81 and 66 per cent, respectively 
in 2009.  Among the mineral exporters, Zambia was able  to generate a trade surplus after 2005, while 
the rest of the LDCs in this sub-group posted a defici t.  In the case of Sierra Leone and Tanzania, the 
coverage ratio remained below 50 per cent.  No LDC in the other products groups was able to 
generate a trade surplus in the second half of the 2000s, even if two agricultural exporters (Central 
African Republic and Guinea-Bissau) were  able to do so in the early 2000s. 
B. TRADE BALANCES BY PRODUCTS  
Table 10:  LDCs' merchandise trade balance by product groups, 2000-2008  
(billion dollars, FOB/FOB) 
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Total merchandise a  -7.6 -11.7 -10.2 -13.8 -10.8 -4.9 2.6 3.9 7.8 
 - Agriculture b -0.5 -1.1 -1.4 -2.9 -2.8 -3.1 -4.7 -7.0 -11.0 
 - Fuels 10.3 9.7 12.1 14.7 23.2 36.7 45.3 62.0 88.2 
 - Non-fuel minerals 1.0 1.6 1.5 1.9 3.6 4.7 7.8 8.6 10.6 
 - Manufactures -16.5 -17.7 -19.8 -24.3 -31.2 -39.0 -49.7 -57.0 -75.8 
 aTrade balances for the respective product groups are estimat ed based on WTO network of world merchandise 
trade by products and regions and refer to FOB valuation on bot h export and import sides. These estimates do not add up to 
the total merchandise trade balances, which are calculated from official statistics and calculated as FOB-based exports minus 
CIF-based imports. 
 bIncludes forestry and fishery products.  
Source : WTO Secretariat.  
45. The review of trade balances by product groups (see Table 10) shows that LDCs as a group 
have a surplus in fuels and minerals, and a defic it in agricultural and manufacture products.  Between 
2006 and 2008, this trend led to an overall positive trade balance.19  But, as 2009 showed, the surplus, 
based on an increasing reliance on oil exports, is vulne rable to international market fluctuations.  
Additionally, the evolution in the structure of e xports and imports by prod uct groups shows a rising 
specialization in extractive commodities, and growin g imbalances in manufacture and in agricultural 
products.  The deficit in manufactures is exp ected considering the low level of domestic 
                                                      
19 Data on the composition of LDC exports and imports is not complete to extend the analysis to 2009. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 28  
 
  industrialization and the rising internal demand - tha nks to both population and income growth.  The 
agricultural coverage rate, which was close to 100 per cent in 2000, dropped to 61 per cent in 2008 
(Chart 11).  The latter situation of deficit in ag ricultural products is a relatively new phenomenon, and 
reflect the fact that household consumption has been rising faster than domestic production.
20 
Chart 11:  LDCs' coverage of imports  by exports, product groups 2000-2008.  
(percentage) 
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700ManufacturesAgricultureTotal merchandiseFuelsNon-fuel minerals
2008
2000
 
Note:  Coverage ratios for the respective product groups are estimated based on WTO netw ork of world merchandise 
trade by products and regions and refer to FOB valuation on both export and import sides. These estimates do not correspond 
exactly to the cover ratios provided for total merchandise, which are calculated from official statistics and calculated as 
FOB-based exports minus CIF-based imports. 
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
IV. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS FOR LDC EXPORTS 
A.  INTRODUCTION  
46. LDCs have traditionally benefited from non-reciprocal preferences for their merchandise 
exports in developed country markets.  In recent years, an increasing number of developing countries 
have granted preferences to LDCs, under a series of multilateral, regional a nd bilateral schemes.  A 
summary of the measures undertaken by WTO Memb ers in favour of LDC exports is provided in 
Annex Table 6.  
47. While preferential market access to developed countries remains central to the 
export-diversification strategy of LDCs, in partic ular for their most labour-intensive products, 
South-South trade has grown rapidly, representing 19 per cent of world trade and 49 per cent of total 
developing countries' exports.  The role of emer ging countries as source of trade dynamism in a 
post-crisis scenario is expected to increase, in a situation where demand emanating from most 
developed countries may remain depressed.   
48. Market access conditions to other developing countries is therefore a key component for 
enhancing export opportunities for LDCs.  Promoting multiple growth poles for LDC exports can 
make an important contribution to their economic growth and its sustainability.  Nevertheless, the 
coverage and quality of the statisti cal information for preferential sc hemes in operation in developing 
                                                      
20  Further statistical analysis at  country level did not show any significant correlation between the 
evolution of the import coverage during the 2000s and the respective change in population or per capita income.    WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  countries is still limited.  The following sections will therefore focus mainly on market access 
conditions in developed countries. 
49. Before analysing the conditions of market access for LDC products, it should be borne in 
mind that high logistic and transaction costs are an impeding factor for LDC exports.  The magnitude of these additional costs in comparison to other exporting countries can greatly reduce the 
competitiveness margin associ ated with preferential treatment that the LDCs receive for their exports 
(see Box 3).  Because these impediments limit the capacity of LDCs, preferential treatments need to be complemented by greater support for trade-capaci ty building in the LDCs, including through the 
Aid-for-Trade Initiative and the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF).   
50. As highlighted in a recent document on the developmental aspects of the Doha round of 
negotiations
21, lowering trade-related transaction costs can result in a significant improvement in a 
country's ability to compete effectively in the globa l economy.  This has been widely recognized by 
the developing countries and LDCs, which also ac knowledge the importance of trade facilitation for 
the attainment of their development objectives.  Nume rous examples point to a range of benefits that 
can be realized by taking measures to facilitate tr ade, including faster clearance times, improved 
revenue collection, enhanced borde r controls and security, lower administrative costs, and enhanced 
competitiveness of domestic business in its home market as well as in export markets. 
                                                      
21 WT/COMTD/W/143/Rev.5. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 30  
 
   
Box 3:  LDCs' competitivene ss and export-transaction costs 
Trading involves a series of transaction costs - dela ys, documents and administrative fees - that increase 
domestic prices. When these transaction costs are significantly higher than those of the competitors, as it is often 
the case in LDCs, they may lead to loss of market share or missed business opportunities.  These costs are part of the supply constraints that frequently reduce the inte rnational competitiveness of LDCs and limit their trade 
potential.  
 The comparison of transaction costs confirms that LD Cs face a comparative disadvantage when exporting goods 
(see the table below).  Time required by export proc edures, including the waiting time between procedures and 
during unloading of the cargoes, is particularly high compared with other groupings.  The higher unit costs that LDCs face (almost US$1,800 per container, which is 63 and 95 per cent more than in the OECD and East Asia 
& Pacific, respectively) greatly reduce the effective pr eference margins that LDCs receive for their exports. 
 This applies in particular to the case of landlocked developing countries and LDCs.  Facilitating transit traffic 
along with facilitating their own cross-border trade can  produce significant reductions of transit times. For 
example, improvements achieved for the Trans-Kalahari Corridor shortened the average transit time between 
South Africa's Gauteng and Namibia's Walvis Bay port from an average of four days to less than 48 hours.
* 
 
Table Box 3.1:  Cost of ex porting merchandise, 2009 or  most recent surveyed perioda 
 
 
Grouping or regionb Documents to export 
(number) Time to export 
(days) Cost to export  
(US$ per container) 
World average 6.7 24.0 1 390 
Least-developed Countries 7.7 35.2 1 773 
East Asia & Pacific 6.7 23.1 909 
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 6.5 26.8 1 582 
Latin America & Caribbean 6.8 18.6 1 244 
Middle East & North Africa 6.4 22.5 1 035 
OECD 4.3 10.5 1 090 
South Asia 8.5 32.4 1 364 
Sub-Saharan Africa 7.8 33.6 1 942 
      a Procedural requirements for exporting a standardized cargo of goods.   Every o fficial procedure is counted - from the 
contractual agreement be tween the two parties to the delivery of goods along with the time necessary for completion.  
      b Defined according to World Bank defi nition, which may not coincide with WTO regional denominations;  countries 
part of the LDC group may also be included in di fferent regional groups defi ned by the World Bank. 
* http://www.tradeinvesta frica.com and USAID S outhern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub. 
Source:   World Bank Doing Business Project -Trading Across Bo rders. Complete information about the indicators' 
compilation methodology is provided on www.doingbusine ss.org/MethodologySurveys/T radingAcrossBorders.aspx  
 
 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
   
B. TRENDS IN MARKET ACCESS FOR PRODUC TS OF EXPORT INTEREST TO LDC S 
51. Table 11 shows trends in the tariff treatment th at LDC exports received in developed country 
markets between 1996 and 2008.  The LDCs have benefited from duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) 
treatment on MFN dutiable tariff lines thus creat ing incentives to trade under these favourable 
conditions.  On the contrary, most of the improveme nts recorded for developing countries in general 
were due to elimination of tariffs under MFN treatment , rather than an extension of "true" preferential 
DFQF treatment. "True" preferential duty-free access  is defined as percentage of products offered 
duty-free treatment under the GSP-LDC and other prefer ential schemes in relati on to products offered 
duty-free entry under the MFN treatment.   
52. Table 11 exemplifies this situation.  The share of true preferential duty-free treatment for the 
group of developing countries has been fluctuating around 20 per cent for the last ten years.  The LDCs, however, have been increasingly benefitin g from a true preferential access, from only 
35 per cent of their exports in the late 1990s to some 50 per cent in 2008.  The share of true 
preferential duty-free access is particularly high for textiles and clothing (63 and 64 per cent, 
respectively), while it is only 26 per cent for agricu lture.  Average results fo r the LDC group may hide 
quite large heterogeneities at the individual level. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 32  
 
   
Table 11:  Trends in tariff treatment on merchandises imported by developed countries,
 
1996-2008 (percentages) 
  1996  1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
a. Duty-free treatment of exports (excluding arms and oil) 
   
Developing countriesa 54 55 54 63 65 64 69 71 76 76 77 78 80 
    of which true preferenceb 19 20 20 18 16 17 19 19 21 20 20 19 19 
Least-developed countries 78 77 78 72 70 71 74 78 80 80 79 80 81 
    of which true preferenceb 35 35 40 33 35 40 43 48 51 49 53 52 49 
Agricultural goods              
Developing countriesa 65 67 65 63 63 64 62 63 66 66 66 67 70 
    of which true preferenceb 24 26 27 16 16 19 16 18 23 23 24 25 25 
Least-developed countries 93 92 96 86 88 98 96 94 92 92 93 93 92 
    of which true preferenceb 54 49 53 13 16 29 28 30 26 27 31 33 26 
Textiles              
Developing countriesa 17 17 18 24 24 22 26 26 38 34 34 36 36 
    of which true preferenceb 14 14 15 20 20 18 21 21 31 27 27 27 28 
Least-developed countries 68 66 62 55 50 47 47 57 66 67 71 74 77 
    of which true preferenceb 54 53 50 45 40 38 37 48 51 51 56 59 63 
Clothing              
Developing countriesa 8 8 9 14 14 14 22 22 34 31 29 28 27 
    of which true preferenceb 8 8 9 14 14 14 22 22 34 30 28 28 27 
Least-developed countries 57 53 51 47 45 46 52 60 66 63 63 62 64 
    of which true preferenceb 57 53 51 47 45 46 52 60 65 63 63 62 64 
b. Average tariff on exports (trade weighted)c  
 
Agricultural goods              
Developing countriesa 10.5 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.2 9.2 9. 4 9.4 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.0 
Least-developed countries 3.8 3.8 3.6 3. 7 3.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 3. 0 3.0 2.7 1.9 1.6 
Textiles              
Developing countriesa 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.5 6.6 6. 0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 
Least-developed countries 4.6 4.6 4.4 4. 3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.5 3. 2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 
Clothing              
Developing countriesa 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.9 10.8 11.3 10. 0 9.7 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 
Least-developed countries 8.2 8.1 8.0 7. 9 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.0 6. 4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 
 a All developing countri es, including LDCs. 
 b The true preference margin is calcula ted by subtracting from the total du ty-free access all products receiving 
duty-free treatment under the MFN regime.  Th e indicators are based on the best avai lable treatment, including regional and 
preferential agreements. 
   c The average tariffs are weighted by trade flows and based on best applicable tariffs (MFN and preferential 
treatments granted to LDCs an d developing countries).  Average tariffs were  weighted using a standard export structure 
based on 2000-2001 data, to limit the impact of the year-to-year  changes in export composition and relative prices on the 
indicators. 
Source :  Based on CAMAD compiled by ITC, UNCTAD and WTO.  
53. The second panel of data in Table 11 shows the average tariff charged by developed countries 
on agricultural goods as well as textile and clothing products for developing countries in general and 
LDCs in particular.  While the average tariff fell  over the period 1996-2008, it is also relevant to 
observe the comparative evolution of these average ta riffs to analyse the effective preference margin 
received by the LDCs over their most direct compet itors (see Chart 12).  Compared to the treatment 
received by all developing countries, the preference  margin is especially significant in the case of 
agricultural products.  The difference between the av erage tariff faced by LDC agricultural exports in 
relation to the group of developing countries is high er than 6 percentage points, and has been stable  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  over time.  However, in contrast, the preference margin on products such as textiles and clothing is 
much lower (around two percentage points below the average tariff faced by developing countries) and has been decreasing over time.   
Chart 12:  Effective preference margin of LDCs' exports for selected product groups, 1996-2008
 
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Agricultural goods Textiles Clothing
 
Note : The effective preference margin is computed as the diffe rence, in percentage points, between the average tariffs 
faced by LDCs in developed markets and those paid by all developing countries. Source : Based on CAMAD compiled by  ITC, UNCTAD and WTO. 
C. TARIFF ESCALATION FACING LDC EXPORTS  
54. Tariff escalation, when duties charged are highe r for processed goods than for raw materials, 
are of special importance to the LDCs which aim at diversifying their export structure including by 
adding more value in their products.  The extent of tariff escalation, (Chart 13) calculated as the 
difference between the average tariff for unpro cessed primary commodities and processed goods, is 
not homogeneous for the LDC group (Table 12).  The diffe rence is attributable to the type of products 
exported by each region (especially for final goods) but, more importantly, to the difference in the 
preferential treatments granted to LDCs by the developed countries under regional and bilateral 
agreements.  As can be seen from Table 12, the gr oup of small islands, which had faced the highest 
extent of escalation immediately after the conclusi on of the Uruguay Round, is now enjoying the 
lowest differential between processed and unprocessed products.  The situation of African LDCs is 
quite similar, with an original feature that the higher tariffs are found for semi-processed intermediary 
goods (in particular textile products) instead of fina l consumer or investment goods.  Asian LDCs face 
the steepest curve due to the high average tariffs faced by their clothing exports. 
 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 34  
 
  Table 12:  Average tariffs in developed market s by degree of processing and by exporting region, 
1996-2008  
 Product categories 1996 2000 2005 2008 
LDC Group Primary commodities 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 
 Intermediary products 3.0 2.4 2.2 1.2 
 Final products 6.6 6.2 5.0 5.0 
  – Africa Primary commodities 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 
 Intermediary products 3.5 2.5 2.2 1.3 
 Final products 4.0 3.5 0.2 0.1 
  – Islands (Oceania and Caribbean ) Primary commodities 1.6 4.9 1.2 0.5 
 Intermediary products 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 
 Final products 10.9 9.8 1.2 1.2 
  – Asia and Middle East Primary commodities 3.5 0.7 1.0 0.8 
 Intermediary products 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 
 Final products 8.8 8.2 6.6 6.6 
Note:  Average tariffs include preferential treatments, when applicable. 
Source :  Based on CAMAD compiled by ITC, UNCTAD and WTO.  
55. As can be observed from Chart 13, tariff escalation in developed markets is less significant in 
preferential tariffs than MFN, indicating that pref erences are granted across a wide range of products.  
Since the launch of the Doha Round there has been  a sharp drop in the escalation indicator, for both 
MFN and preferential tariffs.  Since 2004, however,  the indicator shows a slight upward trend due to 
the increasing weight of clothing facing relatively higher tariffs, in the LDCs' total exports.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  Chart 13:  Tariff escalation on LDCs' exports to developed markets since the end of Uruguay Round  
2.04.06.08.010.012.0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Escalation based on MFN tariffs
Escalation based on preferential tariffs
 
Note:   The indicator is computed as the absolute difference in percentage points between the average tariff on processed 
goods and the average tariff on unprocessed goods. 
Source :  Based on CAMAD compiled by ITC, UNCTAD and WTO. 
 
56. Chart 14 shows tariff escalation faced by LDCs in developing country markets. The data is 
based on MFN tariffs of 19 developing economies   accounting for 88 per cent of developing country 
imports from LDCs.  Data constraints, however, did not allow obtaining time series results as 
provided in Table 12 and Chart 13, where preferences have also been taken into account.  On the basis 
of MFN treatment, tariff escalation between unpro cessed and processed goods is comparable between 
developed and developing countries, and in the range of 8 to 9 percentage points. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 36  
 
  Chart 14:  Tariff escalation on LDCs' exports to developing markets, 2008
 
 
 
Note:  Averages of MFN duties over stage of processing accord ing to WTO-MTN classification, covering 19 developing 
markets for which data were avai lable.  Only Ad Valorem duties were included in the calculation.  Scarcity of data did not 
permit the inclusion of preferential treatments. 
Source : WTO Secretariat.  
D. TARIFF TREATMENT OF LDC EX PORTS IN SELECTED MARKETS  
57. The information on preferential treatments presented in Table 13 focuses on the GSP 
treatment specific for LDCs, excluding other preferen tial agreements.  For this reason, it is important 
to note that data is not always comparable acro ss countries.  Some countries, like Australia, Canada, 
Japan or Switzerland, rely almost exclusively on th eir GSP-LDC treatment to grant preferences, while 
others, like the EU and the US also grant pr eferences to LDCs under other schemes (Economic 
Partnership Agreements, in addition to EBA for the EU;  the African Growth and Opportunity Act or 
the Caribbean Basin Initiative for the US).  So me products excluded in  the general GSP-LDC 
treatment may be included in the regional schemes;  this is, for example, the case for exports of 
textiles and clothing to the US.  Another factor which affects any inter-country comparison of tariffs 
comes from  different definitions of import values used by custom administrations to calculate the duty.  While the entry price (equivalent to CIF) is used by many custom authorities to base the import 
duty, some countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, the US) define it as the price actually paid or payable 
for merchandise when sold for exportation ( FOB, or   Free Alongside value, FAS), excluding the costs 
of freight and insurance.  The FOB valuation me thod actually lowers the dutiable amount, and is   
advantageous to the LDCs which are su sceptible to  high transportation costs.
22 
58. The first two columns of data in Table 13 pr esent the number of duty-free tariff lines granted 
to LDCs under GSP-LDC treatment;  these can be comp ared with the MFN regime detailed in the last 
columns of the table.  These statistics are further refined to tariff lines with actual imports from LDCs, 
both under MFN and under the GSP-LDC scheme.  A second panel of data indicates the resulting 
average tariffs, weighted by the value of the resp ective trade flows.  Statistics are broken down into 
                                                      
22 The difference between CIF and FAS custom values for the US is about 3 per cent (6 per cent for 
AoA agricultural products) on average of total imports.  Data on the CIF/FOB margin for imports point that the 
difference can be much higher for developing countries.  According to UNCTAD ("Review of Maritime Transport, 2007" UNCTAD/RMT/2007), in 2005 the CIF/FOB difference for Africa was 10 per cent, compared 
to a world average of 6 per cent.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  agriculture, non-agriculture, ores and petroleum products .  As for the preceding section, it is important 
to note that these indicators are based on the pref erential tariff, under the assumption that existing 
preferences are fully utilized by exporters.  This is not always the case b ecause the actual utilization 
of non-reciprocal preferences requires the fulfilment of certain conditions, or involve administrative costs which might turn out to be prohibitive.  As men tioned in Box 4, the average rate of utilization of 
all preferential schemes (GSP and other prefer ential treatment) in 2008 in selected developed 
countries was 87 per cent.  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 38  
 
   
Box 4.  The utilization of preferences 
The analysis of LDCs' market access presented in Table 11 is based on the hypothesis that "best tariffs" (i.e, the 
lowest tariffs available, either under LDC or other pref erential schemes) are fully utilized - a similar hypothesis 
is made for Tables 13 and 14.  The benefits of non-r eciprocal preferential market access are not however always 
fully utilized, as some preferential regimes may concern products that are not commonly exported by LDCs, or have conditions that either impede their use (for example rules of origin or other non-tariff measures) or are of 
limited interest for exporters relative to other options (f or example, when preferences  are granted for a limited 
period of time and therefore may not justify the administrative costs of shifting from one scheme to another).
1/   
Preparing an indicator on the utiliza tion of preferences poses several statistical difficulties.  One is the 
availability of comprehensive and comparable official data on preferential schemes.  In addition, a product 
exported by a LDC can be eligible to more than one pr eferential regime, while the export should only take place 
under one of them:  a low rate of utilization for one specif ic regime is not necessarily an indication of a low rate 
of preference utilization for preferential schemes in general. 
The following table presents the aggregate results obta ined for four developed economies: Australia, Canada, 
the EU and the US for 2008.  This indicator cove rs the intensive margin aspect of preferences.2/  On average, 
52 per cent of LDC imports are eligible to some sort of preferential scheme (this indicator excludes duty 
exemption extended as part of the MFN treatment).  The av erage rate of utilization of the preferential schemes is 
87 per cent.  As can be seen, rates of utilization vary  according to countr ies, but are over 80 per cent and can 
reach more than 93 per cent  in the case of the US.   
Table Box 4:  Utilizati on of preferences, 2008   
Percent of total LDC imports Market a 
Eligible to 
any 
preference Entering under 
any preference Imports entering under preferential 
regime as a percent of eligible 
imports  
Australia 63.2 54.2 85.7 
Canada 23.9 20.7 86.6 
EU (low estimate) b,c 36.6 29.9 81.5 
EU (high estimate) 36.7 31.1 85.1 
US d 77.0 72.0 93.5 
Average e 51.8 46.2 87.4 
      a Results are not directly comparable between preferential schemes, due to difference in  coverage and reporting.  
Indicators for Australia includes GSP, LD C and Forum Islands preferences;  the EC provides LDC benefits to all LDCs with 
the exception of Myanmar;  US beneficiary countries include  LDCs, excluding Eritrea, Lao People's Democratic Republic,  
Myanmar,  and Sudan. 
      b Include GSP and other preferential schemes 
      c The range depends on the handling of "unknown treatments" that were compiled for the European Union countries due, 
inter alia,  to the variety of their preferential schemes and the uns ystematic publication of their preference.  The higher limit 
of the interval was obtained when the "unknown treatments" are considered as entering the market under preferential 
treatment; the lower limit  is obtained when "unknown treatmen ts" are treated as MFN treatment. 
      d All preferential programmes:  African  Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); Caribbean Basin In itiative (CBI); 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP);  and GSP for L east-developed beneficiary deve loping countries (GSP-LDBC). 
      e Weighted by total LDC imports entering the reporting markets. 
Source :   WTO Secretariat. 
___________________ 
1/ On non-tariff measures on products of e xport interest to the LDCs, see WT/COMTD /LDC/W/39, 4 July 2006; for a review 
on  preference utilization on sectors of interest to LDCs, see WT/COMTD/LDC/W/41, 16 October 2007. 
2/  An indicator of preference utilization for the extensive margin would require a time series analysis of the impact of trade 
preferences in creating trade in previously non-traded tariff lines . 
 
(a) Market access conditions faced by LDC exports in selected developed countries 
59. Table 13 presents detailed information on ma rket access conditions in selected developed 
markets for the year 2008 under their GSP-LDC duty scheme (excluding other preferential 
agreements).  Most developed count ries have been providing total or nearly total duty-free status to 
LDC exports, both in terms of tariff lines and import value.  The US grants duty-free access to almost  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  100 per cent of the value of imported agricultural goods, as only 6 tariff lines are dutiable out of a 
total of 222 registered imports from LDCs.  Th e share of duty-free imports was much lower 
(24 per cent) for non-agricultural products because  540 traded tariff lines remain dutiable under the 
general GSP-LDC scheme (African LDCs may benefit from other preferential schemes such as the AGOA).  
60. The review of selected, importing developed c ountry markets shown in Table 13 reveals that 
overall 91 per cent of imports from LDCs were duty-free in 2008.
23  The coverage of preferential 
duty-free access is 100 per cent or close to it for non- agricultural raw materials (principally minerals 
and fuels).  Over 91 per cent of agricultural products actually exported (tariff line with imports) benefit from duty-free treatment, while this per centage drops to 74 per cent in the case of 
manufactured products (non-agricultural products ex cluding ores and petroleum).  This result is 
largely attributed to the MFN tariffs faced by As ian LDC exporters of clothing in the US market, 
while other LDCs may benefit from DFQF treatm ent for these products under other preferential 
schemes.
24 
                                                      
23 This result, unlike Table 11, includes oil, and its coverage focuses only on the "LDC" duty scheme, 
excluding other preferential schemes that may also include LDCs. 
24 Despite entry through the MFN tariffs, Bangladesh and Cambodia consolidated their positions in the 
US market when quotas were lif ted (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/42/Rev.1).  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 40 Table 13:  Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developed markets, 2008  
GSP-LDC duty scheme  Memo items 
Number of tariff 
lines Number of tariff lines with imports 
from LDC beneficiaries a Imports from UN-LDCsb 
(million US$ and percentage) Number of MFN tariff lines 
Market Sector Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Total Dutiable 
under 
MFN Dutiable 
under 
GSP-LDC 
scheme TOTAL Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Weighted 
applied 
duty1 TOTAL Duty free 
tariff 
lines (%) Tariff lines 
with world 
imports Imports 
from World 
(million US$) 
Total 0 100.0 924 580 0 186.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 6,002 46.2 5,517 187,023 
Agriculture 0 100.0 116 37 0 18.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 748 71.3 629 8,370 
Non-agriculturec 0 100.0 806 543 0 168.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 5,219 42.2 4,863 163,210 
Ores 0 100.0 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 100.0 24 424 Australia 
Petroleum 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 2 100.0 1 15,019 
Total 95 98.9 1,956 1,166 2 3,793.9 0.2 100.0 0.0 8,432 51.4 8,210 399,848 
Agriculture 95 93.1 268 118 2 38.5 0.0 99.9 0.0 1,368 39.0 1,252 26,199 
Non-agriculturec 0 100.0 1,678 1,048 0 1,012.0 0.1 100.0 0.0 7,030 53.6 6,925 338,651 
Ores 0 100.0 9 0 0 65.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 100.0 32 3,007 Canada 
Petroleum 0 100.0 1 0 0 2,677.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 1 100.0 1 31,990 
Total 66 99.3 3,620 2,788 36 36,118.1 531.9 98.5 0.1 9,699 24.5 9,417 2,066,122 
Agriculture 41 98.0 595 442 28 2,873.7 /308.6 89.3 0.0 2,002 18.2 1,792 123,644 
Non-agriculturec 25 99.7 3,004 2,346 8 15,217.9 223.3 98.5 0.2 7,654 25.7 7,585 1,511,778 
Ores 0 100.0 19 0 0 1,523.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 41 100.0 38 31,230 European 
Union 
Petroleum 0 100.0 2 0 0 16,502.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 2 399,470 
Total 165 98.2 891 554 19 7,632.3 8.5 99.9 0.0 9,033 40.9 7,869 750,644 
Agriculture 70 96.2 141 79 2 317.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 1,860 25.8 1,437 55,929 
Non-agriculturec 95 98.7 742 475 17 2,223.1 8.4 99.6 0.0 7,134 44.6 6,398 510,758 
Ores 0 100.0 7 0 0 61.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 37 100.0 32 28,208 Japan 
Petroleum 0 100.0 1 0 0 5,030.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 2 155,750 
Total 0 100.0 699 428 0 25.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 7,293 57.7 6,396 34,267 
Agriculture 0 100.0 74 19 0 8.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 1,005 63.8 795 3,210 
Non-agriculturec 0 100.0 625 409 0 17.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 6,254 56.5 5,588 27,696 
Ores 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 33 100.0 12 3 New Zealand 
Petroleum 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 1 100.0 1 3,358 
Total 2 100.0 680 250 1 322.5 6.0 98.1 3.8 7,035 83.5 6,397 87,692 
Agriculture 1 99.9 72 32 1 16.8 5.8 65.5 73.0 1,349 36.6 1,061 5,735 
Non-agriculturec 1 100.0 605 218 0 141.1 0.2 99.9 0.0 5,651 94.6 5,320 80,777 
Ores 0 100.0 2 0 0 9.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 100.0 15 673 Norway 
Petroleum 0 100.0 1 0 0 154.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 1 507 
Total 8 99.9 771 644 1 240.4 0.1 100.0 0.0 8,371 17.8 7,750 182,000 
Agriculture 8 99.6 146 112 1 73.2 0.1 99.9 0.0 2,282 17.8 1,863 10,974 
Non-agriculturec 0 100.0 625 532 0 167.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 6,054 17.3 5,858 166,936 
Ores 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 33 100.0 27 4 Switzerland 
Petroleum 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 2 100.0 2 4,085 
Total 1,834 82.4 1,667 1,093 546 33,211.6 7,056.3 78.8 3.6 10,450 35.8 10,036 2,009,769 
Agriculture 278 84.5 222 140 6 341.9 0.3 99.9 0.0 1,792 20.3 1,523 83,054 
Non-agriculturec 1,556 81.9 1,437 950 540 9,318.3 7,056.1 24.3 12.8 8,613 38.8 8,475 1,663,395 
Ores 0 100.0 6 1 0 132.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 43 76.7 36 3,917 United 
States 
Petroleum 0 100.0 2 2 0 23,419.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 0.0 2 259,403 
 a Beneficiaries are countries eligible to the national GSP-LDC scheme, excluding other preferential agreements; some UN-LDCs may  be excluded; on the other hand, some countries not necessarily UN-LDCs may be included. 
 b Forty-nine LDCs as listed by the UN. 
 c "Non-agriculture" covers NAMA products with the exclusion of ores and petroleum. 
 1 Excludes non-ad valorem duties. 
Source:  WTO Secretariat.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  (b) Market access conditions faced by LDC e xports in selected developing countries 
61. The information available for developing c ountries on existing preference schemes for LDCs 
is limited.  With a few exceptions, the analysis of market access conditions in developing countries is 
to study the treatment actually received by th e LDC exports to these markets, mostly on an 
MFN-basis, as indicated by the share of duty-free imports and average tariffs, weighted by the import 
values. 
62. LDC-specific information available in Table 14 on DFQF treatment is limited to three 
reporters, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Turkey.  It  shows a significant degree of heterogeneity, the 
extent of duty free treatment varying from 33 to 79  per cent of tariff lines.  Compared to the MFN 
duty-free tariff lines, it can be seen that Korea and Tu rkey grant respectively an additional 47 per cent 
and 56 per cent of duty-free tariff lines while Chin ese Taipei offers an additional 1.4 per cent of 
duty-free access.  In all cases, the agricultural sector  remains more protected than NAMA, with ores 
and oil more open than the rest of non-agricultural products.   
63. Since only a few developing country Members no tified their LDC scheme to the Secretariat, 
the analysis of LDCs' market access conditions ma inly rely on the MFN treatment.  The (weighted) 
average tariff faced by LDCs in developing coun tries was only 1.6 per cent in 2008, due to a high 
concentration of exports in oil a nd minerals (74 per cent of total) , which  entered duty free or faced 
very low MFN duties.  On the remaining products, the duty rates were much higher for agriculture 
(13.5 per cent) than manufacture (3.6 per cent).  This  situation hides a wide dispersion of tariffs facing 
South-South trade, and the potential for further im provement of LDCs' market access in developing 
countries. 
64. Some developing country Members grant exte nsive, and even full duty-free access on 
agricultural and non-agricultural products, under the MFN regime.  It is, in particular, the case of 
Singapore and Hong Kong, China.    
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 42  
Table 14:  Tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developing markets, 2008 or latest  
LDC duty schemed Memo items 
Number of tariff 
lines Number of tariff lines with imports 
from LDC beneficiariesa Imports from UN-LDCsb 
(million US$ and percentage) Number of MFN tariff lines 
Market Sector Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Total Dutiable 
under 
MFN Dutiable 
under GSP-
LDC scheme TOTAL Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Weighted 
applied 
duty1 TOTAL Duty free 
tariff lines 
(%) Tariff lines 
with world 
imports Imports 
from World 
(million 
US$) 
Total - - 239 225 - 2,761.5 108.7 96.1 0.8 9,765 7.3 8,356 171,984 
Agriculture - - 15 15 - 1.6 1.6 0.0 8.9 945 8.4 698 7,507 
Non-agriculturec - - 220 208 - 215.4 106.7 50.5 9.7 8,773 7.2 7,623 146,380 
Ores - - 2 2 - 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.0 45 0.0 33 1,523 Brazil 
Petroleum - - 2 0 - 2,544.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 2 16,573 
Total - - 193 193 - 951.3 951.3 0.0 6.0 7,705 0.5 6,494.0 42,570 
Agriculture - - 12 12 - 0.4 0.4 0.0 6.0 1,048 0.0 791.0 3,136 
Non-agriculturec - - 178 178 - 36.7 36.7 0.0 6.0 6,614 0.5 5,683.0 33,251 
Ores - - 2 2 - 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.0 41 0.0 18.0 1,187 Chile2 
Petroleum - - 1 1 - 913.9 913.9 0.0 6.0 2 0.0 2.0 4,996 
Total - - 1,084 928 - 39,365.8 2,082.1 94.7 0.5 7,758 8.4 7,200 1,128,155 
Agriculture - - 134 128 - 589.6 587.4 0.4 22.7 1,087 6.9 866 53,589 
Non-agriculturec - - 931 800 - 2,374.3 1,494.7 37.0 3.2 6,631 8.2 6,302 859,736 
Ores - - 18 0 - 2,076.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 39 71.8 31 85,499 China 
Petroleum - - 1 0 - 34,325.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 1 100.0 1 129,331 
Total - - - - - - - - - 5,489 8.7 - - 
Agriculture - - - - - - - - - 743 13.3 - - 
Non-agriculturec - - - - - - - - - 4,712 8.0 - - 
Ores - - - - - - - - - 33 3.0 - - Egypt2 
Petroleum - - - - - - - - - 1 0.0 - - 
Total - - 721 0 - 666.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 6,946 100.0 5,914 392,122 
Agriculture - - 59 0 - 40.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 939 100.0 780 13,285 
Non-agriculturec - - 659 0 - 614.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 5,972 100.0 5,111 378,802 
Ores - - 3 0 - 11.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 34 100.0 23 35 Hong 
Kong, 
China 
Petroleum - - 0 0 - 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 1 100.0 0 0 
Total - - 1,671 1,585 - 6,620.6 6,242.3 5.7 7.6 11,277 2.8 9,495 311,821 
Agriculture - - 276 255 - 1,491.3 1,169.9 21.6 14.7 1,431 4.3 946 9,108 
Non-agriculturec - - 1,383 1,318 - 2,079.1 2,022.1 2.7 6.8 9,785 2.6 8,504 217,826 
Ores - - 11 11 - 202.0 202.0 0.0 2.0 60 0.0 44 4,922 India 
Petroleum - - 1 1 - 2,848.3 2,848.3 0.0 5.0 1 0.0 1 79,965 
Total - - 683 536 - 299.4 213.1 28.8 12.5 5,261 22.9 4,431 8,989 
Agriculture - - 146 133 - 145.6 138.0 5.2 19.4 704 9.9 524 1,032 
Non-agriculturec - - 536 403 - 153.8 75.1 51.1 6.5 4,523 25.0 3,893 7,222 
Ores - - 1 0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 9.1 13 4 Kenya2 
Petroleum - - 0 0 - 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 1 100.0 1 731  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 43LDC duty schemed Memo items 
Number of tariff 
lines Number of tariff lines with imports 
from LDC beneficiariesa Imports from UN-LDCsb 
(million US$ and percentage) Number of MFN tariff lines 
Market Sector Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Total Dutiable 
under 
MFN Dutiable 
under GSP-
LDC scheme TOTAL Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Weighted 
applied 
duty1 TOTAL Duty free 
tariff lines 
(%) Tariff lines 
with world 
imports Imports 
from World 
(million 
US$) 
Total 4,367 62.8 918 799 604 1,805.9 1,222.8 32.3 1.9 11,729 15.8 10,543 435,274 
Agriculture 1,395 11.8 131 128 112 44.2 10.2 77.0 13.4 1,581 3.9 1,301 18,519 
Non-agriculturec 2,953 70.7 782 668 489 1,490.8 962.0 35.5 1.5 10,090 17.4 9,194 319,814 
Ores 9 81.3 2 0 0 20.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 48 79.2 39 11,085 Korea, Republic of 
Petroleum 10 0.0 3 3 3 250.6 250.6 0.0 3.0 10 0.0 9 85,855 
Total - - 1,259 650 - 342.0 34.5 89.9 1.5 12,585 48.9 11,868 117,053 
Agriculture - - 223 101 - 71.8 5.5 92.3 0.7 1,564 61.1 1,425 6,950 
Non-agriculturec - - 1,034 549 - 217.1 29.0 86.6 2.2 10,979 47.0 10,413 107,354 
Ores - - 1 0 - 11.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 39 100.0 27 122 Malaysia3 
Petroleum - - 1 0 - 41.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 3 33.3 3 2,628 
Total - - 960 818 - 430.9 235.0 45.5 16.3 12,078 19.1 11,037 305,464 
Agriculture - - 44 41 - 39.3 37.2 5.2 15.7 1,198 12.5 1,004 23,335 
Non-agriculturec - - 912 773 - 388.8 194.9 49.9 16.4 10,835 19.9 9,999 280,805 
Ores - - 4 4 - 2.9 2.9 0.0 5.3 43 9.3 33 1,324 Mexico 
Petroleum - - 0 0 - 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 2 0.0 1 0 
Total - - 351 272   430.4 75.7 82.4 2.5 6,910 5.8 3,899 14,341 
Agriculture - - 130 87   248.7 63.0 74.7 3.6 803 15.1 437 2,693 
Non-agriculturec - - 220 185   181.7 12.7 93.0 1.1 6,073 4.5 3,456 7,970 
Ores - - 1 0   0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 9.1 5 79 Pakistan3 
Petroleum - - 0 0   0.0 n.a n.a n.a 1 100.0 1 3,598 
Total - - 1,947 2   386.8 1.7 99.6 0.0 10,688 99.9 9,449 233,751 
Agriculture - - 251 2   81.6 1.7 97.9 0.0 1,216 99.5 1,000 5,926 
Non-agriculturec - - 1,693 0   295.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 9,434 100.0 8,427 207,390 
Ores - - 1 0   0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 36 100.0 20 41 Singapore3 
Petroleum - - 2 0   10.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 2 20,393 
Total - - 1,744 856   1,055.9 156.0 85.2 2.1 6,664 52.9 5,865 57,899 
Agriculture - - 202 110   114.8 104.1 9.3 10.0 880 42.4 786 3,128 
Non-agriculturec - - 1,527 746   305.0 51.9 83.0 5.4 5,750 54.2 5,051 45,157 
Ores - - 14 0   51.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 33 100.0 27 375 South 
Africa4 
Petroleum - - 1 0   584.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 1 100.0 1 9,240 
Total 5,931 33.0 595 436 383 4,168.9 54.1 98.7 0.1 8,853 31.6 8,016 237,069 
Agriculture 1,071 25.0 72 49 45 57.8 25.4 56.1 6.2 1,428 24.4 1,107 9,705 
Non-agriculturec 4,859 34.2 518 387 338 1,228.9 28.7 97.7 0.2 7,383 32.7 6,883 192,494 
Ores 0 100.0 4 0 0 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 40 100.0 25 2,034 Taipei, 
Chinese5 
Petroleum 1 50.0 1 0 0 2,882.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 50.0 1 32,837 
Total - - 1,549 1,389 - 7,900.1 4,714.7 40.3 1.3 8,301 18.1 7,769 178,652 
Agriculture - - 195 186 - 252.2 112.0 55.6 3.8 1,145 3.3 962 7,501 
Non-agriculturec - - 1,342 1,195 - 4,794.6 4,563.4 4.8 3.2 7,119 20.3 6,780 140,826 
Ores - - 10 8 - 39.3 39.2 0.0 1.0 34 44.1 24 358 Thailand 
Petroleum - - 2 0 - 2,814.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 3 100.0 3 29,967  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 44 LDC duty schemed Memo items 
Number of tariff 
lines Number of tariff lines with imports 
from LDC beneficiariesa Imports from UN-LDCsb 
(million US$ and percentage) Number of MFN tariff lines 
Market Sector Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Total Dutiable 
under 
MFN Dutiable 
under GSP-
LDC scheme TOTAL Dutiable Duty 
free (%) Weighted 
applied 
duty1 TOTAL Duty free 
tariff lines 
(%) Tariff lines 
with world 
imports Imports 
from World 
(million 
US$) 
Total 2,515 79.3 661 522 56 704.2 132.5 81.2 4.3 12,160 23.7 9,839 184,289 
Agriculture 1,785 17.8 71 46 44 137.7 119.2 13.4 20.9 2,171 12.6 1,118 10,047 
Non-agriculturec 727 92.7 588 476 12 565.9 13.3 97.6 0.3 9,946 25.9 8,698 157,760 
Ores 3 92.7 2 0 0 0.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 41 92.7 22 844 Turkey 
Petroleum 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 n.a n.a n.a 2 100.0 1 15,639 
Total - - - - - - - -   8,300 30.6 - - 
Agriculture - - - - - - - -   1,145 11.3 - - 
Non-agriculturec - - - - - - - -   7,118 33.5 - - 
Ores - - - - - - - -   34 73.5 - - Viet Nam 
Petroleum - - - - - - - -   3 33.3 - - 
a  Beneficiaries are countries eligible to the national LDC scheme,  excluding other preferential agreements;   
b  Forty-nine LDCs as listed by the UN.  
c "Non-agriculture" covers NAMA products with  the exclusion of ores and petroleum.  
d  "Number of tariff line with imports " relates to MFN scheme except for Korea, Chinese Taipei and Turkey. 
1 Excludes non-ad valorem duties. 
2 Reference year is 2007. 
3 2008 tariff, 2007 trade. 
4 2008 tariff, 2006 trade. 
5⁄ HS 2002 
 '-' Data on preferential treatment of LDC exports if not available/not relevant.  
Source : WTO Secretariat. 
 
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
   
V. CONCLUSIONS 
65. The 2008-2009 global economic crisis hit th e LDC exports during a phase of dynamic 
growth, which had outpaced those of  other developing and developed countries.  The total exports of 
goods and services of LDCs had increased 30 per cent  in 2008, but declined to 26 per cent in 2009.  
As a consequence, the surplus tr ade balances that the LDCs as a group enjoyed in three consecutive 
years (2006, 2007 and 2008) swung to negative in 2009.  While the LDCs, as a group, is a net exporter of fuels and minerals, trade balances are negative for manufacture and agriculture.  The 
short-term development of LDC trade in the post-c risis period so far does not present an encouraging 
sign in relation to these two groups of products.  While exports of fuels and minerals rebounded 
strongly from the crisis in the first quarter of 2009, exports of agricultural and manufacture products 
remained mostly static, due to the sluggish rec overy of their principal export markets - developed 
economies. 
66. Over the 2000-2009 decade, the total exports of  LDCs registered an average annual growth 
rate of 14.6 per cent, which was nearly twice the world average (7.8 per cent).  The share of LDC 
exports in world trade in goods increased from 0. 56 per cent in 2000 to 1.04 per cent in 2008, and 
thereafter slightly declined below the 1 per cent mark in 2009 (0.97 per cent) owing to the global 
economic crisis.  The share of LDC exports in wo rld trade in commercial services remained largely 
static throughout the decade, increasing marginally to  0.5 per cent in 2009 from 0.4 per cent in 2000.   
67. A major source of this impressive growth of merchandise exports during the decade was the 
increase of international prices of fuels and mini ng products, which account for more than 60 per cent 
of total LDC exports today.  Clothing is the s econd category of exports, followed by food products 
(15 and 10 per cent of total LDC exports, respectiv ely).  Export concentration continues to be the 
distinctive feature of LDC trade.  On average, LDCs depend on only three products for more than 
70 per cent of their exports receipts.  While the expor t base remained narrow, LD Cs have been able to 
somewhat diversify the market destinations for th eir products.  A dominant feature has been the 
increasing importance of developing country markets, which absorbed 49 per cent of total exports of 
LDCs in 2009, up from 43 per cent in 2005.  In particular, China is now the leading market 
destination, absorbing 21 per cent of LDC me rchandise exports in 2009. The LDC products that 
feature prominently in the imports of developi ng countries include minera l fuels, wood products, 
cotton, copper, as well as some food products such as vegetables and oil seeds.  The categories for 
which developed country markets remain a dominan t export destination are that of textiles and 
clothing, food and beverage products.   
68. The last decade has witnessed significant im provements in market access opportunities for 
LDC exports.  In addition to non-reciprocal prefer ences effected through LD C-specific GSP schemes, 
some developed Members have provided market ac cess improvements to a selected group of countries 
including LDCs (e.g. Africa Growth and O pportunity Act (AGOA), Economic Partnerships 
Agreement (EPAs)).  The developi ng countries have also taken conc rete steps to provide improved 
market access to the LDCs, through multilateral, regi onal and bilateral initiativ es.  Emerging countries 
like Brazil, China and India now grant or are in th e process of granting a significant degree of market 
access to LDC products.   
69. The review of tariff treatment of LDC exports in selected developed markets indicate that in 
2008 the overall duty free imports of developed mark ets from LDCs was 91 per cent.  Petroleum and 
ores imports from LDCs were duty free.  Ninety-one  per cent of agricultural imports originating from 
the LDCs was duty free while the percentage dr opped to 74 per cent in case of non-agricultural 
products.  The trends in average tariff (trade  weighted) on merchandises indicate significant 
preference margin for agricultural products.  Tariff escalation is less significant in preferential tariffs 
than MFN, indicating that preferences are gr anted across a wide spectrum of products.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 46  
 
  70. The information on developing countries' existi ng preference schemes for LDCs is limited.  
The average tariff faced by LDCs in developing count ries was only 1.6 per cent in 2008, due to a high 
concentration of exports in oil and minerals (74 per cent of total), which entered duty free or faced very low MFN duties.  On the remaining products, the duty rates were much higher for agriculture 
(13.5 per cent) than manufacture (3.6 per cent).  S outh-South trade is characterized by wide dispersion 
of tariffs, indicating the scope for further improve ment of LDC market access in developing country 
markets.   
71. The rapid conclusion of the Doha Round could further improve market access opportunities 
for LDC products, including through the full implem entation of the DFQF market access for LDC 
products.  At the same time, improvements in the area of preferential rules of origin is required, which 
available evidence suggests to be one of the hindran ces for full exploitation of the preferences granted 
to the LDCs.  Another area that warrants immediat e attention is trade transaction costs which reduce 
the competitiveness of LDC exports in the world market.  And, most importantly, in order to make qualitative improvement, LDCs need to divers ify production and export base – for which the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework and the Aid-for-T rade Initiative could provide the much needed 
platform for a tangible contribution in LDCs' trade capacity.   
 
 
 
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
Annex Table 1:  Merchandise e xports and imports of LDCs by selected country grouping, 2009  
(Million dollars and percentage) 
 
  Exports Imports 
  Value Annual percentage change Value Annual perc entage change 
  2009 2000-09 2007 2008 2009 2009 2000-09 2007 2008 2009 
LDCs 126354 14.9 24.5 31.4 -25. 2 148204 14.5 23.8 29.3 -8.0 
Exporters of agricultural products 9531 12.1 32.8 20.8 -4.7 28422 14.5 21.2 26.1 0.3 
Afghanistan 560 16.9 21.8 8. 7 3.7 3970 14.5 9.2 7.1 31.5 
Benin 1000 11.0 42.2 9.9 -13. 0 2040 14.3 53.9 11.6 -3.3 
Burkina Faso 850 16.9 6.0 11. 3 22.6 2083 14.6 27.2 20.2 3.3 
Burundi 64 2.8 0.9 -2.4 11.2 402 11.7 -25.9 26.2 -0.1 
Central African Republic 120 -3.2 14. 2 -16.7 -20.0 300 11.0 23.4 20.0 0.0 
Comoros 13 -0.8 39.1 -8.1 2.4 150 14.9 25.8 24.1 -16.7 
Ethiopia 1596 14.1 22.5 25.4 -0.4 7963 22.7 19.7 39.8 -0.9 
Gambia 15 0.0 9.2 11.2 7. 8 304 5.5 23.8 2.6 -7.7 
Guinea-Bissau 115 7.1 44.6 16.8 -8.0 230 16.3 32.2 16.1 17.9 
Kiribati   15 17.2 55.0 53.4 0.0 68 6.1 10.6 -0.2 -2.8 
Liberia 150 -8.4 26.9 21.1 -38.1 552 -2.1 7.0 62.9 -32.2 
Malawi 920 10.4 46.7 4.3 10.8 1700 13.8 14.2 19.8 3.0 
Rwanda 193 15.7 20.0 48.1 - 26.4 1227 21.6 34.5 55.4 7.1 
Samoa 12 -2.0 45.0 -27.5 3.8 204 7.6 3.8 9.6 -17.9 
Sao Tome and Principe 9 12.9 -11. 7 56.4 -15.9 114 16.0 11.6 44.2 -0.3 
Solomon Islands 163 10.1 35.5 28. 0 -22.4 270 12.7 32.4 14.6 -17.9 
Somalia 400 8.4 20.7 20.0 -4 .8 740 8.9 9.1 22.2 -15.9 
Timor-Leste … - - - - … - - - - 
Togo 800 9.2 11.1 28.6 -11. 1 1500 11.5 13.8 17.9 -9.1 
Uganda 2478 20.6 68.3 35.2 -8 .3 4310 12.1 36.6 29.6 -4.8 
Vanuatu 58 9.2 2.2 13.8 1. 4 294 14.5 5.6 36.7 -6.2 
Fuel exporters  (a) 72615 17.6 32.5 37.8 -34.5 47186 18.5 32.2 32.3 -7.9 
Angola 40080 19.7 39.3 44.0 -37. 3 17000 21.1 55.6 53.6 -19.0 
Bhutan 496 19.1 62.6 -22.9 -4.5 529 13.1 25.3 2.7 -2.0 
Chad 2800 35.4 9.4 18.0 - 35.3 1950 22.4 14.8 9.7 14.7 
Equatorial Guinea 9100 26.5 24.4 55.7 -42.8 5200 31.2 17.3 65.0 33.0 
Myanmar 6710 16.9 38.1 9.5 -3 .3 4316 6.7 29.2 29.5 0.6 
Sudan 7834 17.7 57.0 31.4 - 32.9 9691 22.6 8.7 6.6 3.6 
Yemen 5594 3.6 -5.3 20.4 - 26.2 8500 15.5 40.2 22.8 -18.7 
Manufacture exporters 22563 9.5 7.7 17.0 -3.3 39675 11.1 17.6 27.3 -6.1 
Bangladesh 15084 10.0 5.5 23.4 -1.9 21833 10.5 16.0 28.3 -8.5 
Cambodia 4200 13.1 10.7 6.6 -3.6 6200 13.8 14.0 19.7 -4.7 
Haiti 576 6.8 2.6 -8.1 20. 1 2050 7.9 3.9 37.7 -11.5 
Lesotho 750 14.6 10.9 14.7 - 15.0 1950 10.3 15.9 15.4 -2.7 
Madagascar 1140 3.7 25.6 5.2 -12.4 3250 12.8 46.1 51.0 -18.3 
Nepal 813 0.1 4.6 7.7 - 13.9 4392 12.1 24.3 15.6 22.7 
Exporters of non-fuel minerals b 19206 16.1 12.5 23.0 -13.0 26258 15.2 21.2 29.7 -13.3 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of 3100 15.9 16.4 48.1 -22.5 3600 20.0 20.4 27.3 -14.3 
Guinea 1010 4.7 16.5 11.6 -24. 7 1400 9.6 27.4 31.4 -12.5 
Lao People's Dem. Rep. 940 12.3 4. 6 17.6 -13.4 1260 10.0 0.5 31.9 -10.3 
Mali 2100 16.2 0.4 27.2 6.1 2644 14.1 20.1 33.6 -9.4 
Mauritania 1370 16.2 2.6 27.5 - 23.4 1430 13.6 36.7 21.7 -26.3 
Mozambique 2147 21.8 1.3 10.0 - 19.1 3764 14.0 6.3 31.4 -6.1 WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 48  
 
    Exports Imports 
  Value Annual percentage change Value Annual perc entage change 
  2009 2000-09 2007 2008 2009 2009 2000-09 2007 2008 2009 
Niger 900 13.7 30.6 32.7 2. 3 1500 16.0 21.0 30.6 0.0 
Sierra Leone 231 37.7 6.1 -12. 1 7.0 520 14.9 14.3 20.1 -2.6 
Tanzania 3096 17.3 16.1 36.4 2.0 6347 17.2 25.7 33.5 -10.9 
Zambia 4312 19.1 22.5 10.4 - 15.4 3793 16.1 30.3 26.3 -25.1 
Diversified and others c 2439 9.3 4.6 37.1 -9.8 6663 11.1 28.0 29.8 -26.3 
Djibouti 75 10.1 5.3 18.4 9. 1 410 7.9 41.0 21.2 -28.5 
Eritrea 15 -9.5 7.7 13.5 0.0 540 1.5 3.0 3.9 1.9 
Maldives 169 5.0 1.2 45.0 - 48.9 967 10.7 18.3 26.6 -30.3 
Senegal 2180 10.1 5.0 36.8 -4 .8 4713 13.4 32.7 34.0 -27.8 
Tuvalu 0 45.9 80.4 117.4 50.0 33 23.3 22.0 68.9 25.0 
World d 12490000 7.6 15.6 15.1 -22.5 12682000 7.3 15.0 15.5 -23.2 
 a Includes exporters of electricity (Bhutan). 
 b Includes exporters of gold (normally cl assified in n.e.s. according to the UN Standard International Trade 
Classification) and diamonds (normally included in manufactures according to the UN classification) 
 c Includes exporters without a clear specia lization in a specif ic category of goods. 
 d Includes significant re-exports and imports for re-export. 
Note :  Data for 2009 are largely estimates. 
Source : WTO Secretariat.   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
   
Annex Table 2:  Export prices of primary commodities, 2000-2010  
(Indices 2005=100) 
 
2009    2010    
  2000  
  2001  
  2002  
  2003  
  2004 
  2005 
  2006 
  2007 
  2008 
  2009 
  
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4   Q1 Q2 
Food and beverages 80 81 83 87 98 100 110 127 157 136 128 140 137 140  143 143 
Food 81 82 84 88 100 100 111 127 157 134 126 139 135 136  140 140 
Cereals 78 82 94 95 102 100 122 159 222 161 165 170 153 157   152 140 
Wheat 75 83 97 96 103 100 126 167 214 147 152 163 137 135   128 116 
Maize 90 91 101 107 114 100 124 166 227 168 170 179 154 171   165 160 
Rice 71 60 67 69 85 100 106 116 243 205 217 193 208 201   200 166 
Barley 81 99 115 110 104 100 123 181 211 135 122 136 128 153   151 155 
Vegetable oils and 
protein meals 72 70 82 96 111 100 103 143 193 154 138 165 156 157   157 158 
Meat 79 85 80 82 100 100 95 99 103 98 96 99 99 99   110 121 
Beef 74 81 80 76 96 100 97 99 102 101 94 100 105 105   120 131 
Lamb 70 81 91 99 103 100 96 101 106 91 84 90 96 95   92 88 
Swine meat 88 91 70 79 105 100 94 94 96 82 84 86 78 82   101 119 
Poultry 80 86 85 90 102 100 94 106 115 116 117 118 117 112   113 117 
Seafood 112 99 85 84 88 100 121 113 113 114 104 121 118 112   125 138 
Fish 90 71 72 74 82 100 125 112 119 121 104 129 129 122   138 155 
Shrimp 180 181 124 117 105 100 105 116 91 85 104 87 73 74   73 72 
Sugar 81 82 70 77 83 100 133 102 117 152 113 131 172 191   198 134 
Bananas 73 101 91 65 91 100 118 117 146 147 153 150 144 142   140 154 
Oranges 43 71 67 81 101 100 98 114 132 108 95 103 102 131   118 129 
Beverages 78 66 76 80 83 100 108 123 152 154 141 145 159 173   168 170 
Coffee 76 54 54 59 70 100 112 129 150 132 127 131 132 136   138 153 
Cocoa beans 59 70 115 114 100 100 103 127 167 187 168 168 192 222   214 208 
Tea 115 92 83 90 92 100 112 98 125 145 122 131 160 166   147 131 
Agricultural raw 
materials 93 88 90 93 98 100 109 114 113 94 87 86 98 106  115 117 
Timber 90 83 82 86 96 100 108 107 109 102 109 102 98 98   97 92 
Cotton 107 87 84 115 112 100 105 115 129 114 99 109 117 130   147 163 
Wool 83 78 101 113 105 100 104 144 138 115 88 108 122 142   153 144 
Rubber 46 40 51 72 87 100 140 153 174 128 98 110 132 172   210 237 
Hides and skins 122 129 123 104 102 100 105 110 98 68 52 49 82 91   103 111 
Minerals and non-ferrous 
metals (excluding crude 
petroleum) 59 53 52 58 79 100 156 183 169 120 96 111 131 143  152 162 
Copper 49 43 42 48 78 100 183 194 189 141 94 127 160 181   197 191 
Aluminium 82 76 71 75 90 100 135 139 136 88 72 79 95 106   114 110 
Iron ore 44 46 45 49 58 100 119 130 216 155 156 155 155 155   155 257 
Tin 74 61 55 66 115 100 119 196 250 184 150 184 197 206   233 241 
Nickel 58 40 46 65 94 100 163 251 143 99 72 88 119 119   135 152 
Zinc 82 64 56 60 76 100 237 235 137 120 86 107 128 160   165 147 
Lead 47 49 46 53 91 100 132 265 215 177 119 154 198 235   227 200 
Uranium 30 31 35 40 65 100 171 355 230 167 169 169 169 162   151 147 
Total of above 74 71 72 76 91 100 123 140 151 123 110 120 127 134   140 143 
Energy 54 47 47 55 72 100 119 132 185 117 93 111 125 137  143 145 
Natural gas 60 60 48 63 70 100 115 117 174 110 146 104 91 97   110 112 
Crude petroleum 53 46 47 54 71 100 121 133 182 116 83 111 128 142   144 147 
Coal 53 65 54 57 113 100 104 138 266 149 151 138 147 159   196 206 
All primary 
commodities 59 54 54 61 77 100 121 135 172 119 99 115 126 136   142 144 
Note : The indices are period averages based on dollar prices. The quarterly figures are not seasonally adjusted. 
Source : WTO Secretariat.   
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 50 Annex Table 3:  Leading merchandise exports of LDCs in 2008a 
(Million dollars and percentage) 
 
LDC exports World exports 
Exports to 
Product Description (HS02) Value Share in 
Total 
Exports Developed 
economies Developing 
Economies Value LDCs' 
Share in 
World 
All commodities (HS0 to HS9) 168,608 100.0 84,893 82,984 11,800,897 1.4 
Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of th eir distillation (27) 112,245 66.6 52,533 59,713 2,490,506 4.5 
Petroleum oils, crude (2709) 102,100 60.6 50,230 51,871 1,502,615 6.8 
Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydr ocarbons (2711) 7,230 4.3 1,460 5,769 285,434 2.5 
Petroleum oils, other than crude  (2710) 2,512 1.5 806 1,706 526,226 0.5 
Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crochete d (61) 10,552 6.3 9,934 543 127,946 8.2 
Jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, waist-coats and similar articles, knitted or ... (6110) 4,148 2.5 3,875 238 41,091 10.1 
T-shirts, singlets and other vests, knitted or crocheted (6109) 2,900 1.7 2,748 125 22,870 12.7 
Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, jackets, bl azers, dresses, skirts (6104) 695 0.4 660 31 10,611 6.6 
Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted (6105) 686 0.4 647 37 5,949 11.5 
Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, not knitted or crocheted (62) 7,784 4.6 7,154 580 134,834 5.8 
Men's or boys' suits, ensembles, jackets, bl azers, trousers (6203) 2,855 1.7 2,683 157 28,459 10.0 
Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, jackets, blaz ers, dresses, skirts ( 6204) 2,088 1.2 1,945 135 40,680 5.1 
Men's or boys' shirts (6205) 1,167 0.7 1,053 109 10,533 11.1 
Ores, slag and ash (26) 4,772 2.8 1,835 2,892 191,463 2.5 
Copper ores and concentrates (2603) 1,268 0.8 37 1,231 37,186 3.4 
Iron ores and concentrates (2601) 1,153 0.7 797 356 104,765 1.1 
Cobalt ores and concentrates (2605) 944 0.6 66 878 1,404 67.2 
Aluminium ores and concentrates (2606) 917 0.5 805 90 4,272 21.5 
Copper and articles thereof (74) 3,404 2.0 510 2,894 108,966 3.1 
Refined copper and copper alloys, unw rought (7403) 2,500 1.5 367 2,133 47,196 5.3 
Natural or cultured pearls, precious or semi -precious stones (71) 3, 189 1.9 1,416 1,769 298,836 1.1 
Diamonds, whether or not work ed, but not mounted or set (7102) 1,890 1.1 1,159 727 94,580 2.0 
Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquati c invertebrates (03) 2, 829 1.7 1,713 1,058 66,093 4.3 
Crustaceans, whether in shell or not (0306) 873 0.5 708 141 14,722 5.9  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 51LDC exports World exports 
Exports to 
Product Description (HS02) Value Share in 
Total 
Exports Developed 
economies Developing 
Economies Value LDCs' 
Share in 
World 
Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets (0303) 811 0.5 168 610 16,990 4.8 
Wood and articles of wood; wood char coal (44) 2,295 1.4 314 1,980 83,055 2.8 
Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark  or sapwood, or roughly (4403) 1,557 0.9 132 1,425 13,016 12.0 
Cotton (52) 1,688 1.0 88 1,601 38,551 4.4 
Cotton, not carded or combed (5201) 873 0.5 64 809 10,378 8.4 
Woven fabrics of cotton, containing 85 % or more  by weight of cotton (5208) 756 0.4 4 752 8,449 8.9 
Coffee, tea, mate and spices  (09) 1,526 0.9 1,196 316 25,780 5.9 
Coffee, whether or not roasted or deca ffeinated (0901) 1,184 0.7 1,054 117 17,901 6.6 
Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers (07) 1,159 0.7 172 983 27,855 4.2 
Dried leguminous vegetables, sh elled (0713) 959 0.6 68 890 6,058 15.8 
Aluminium and articles thereo f (76) 1,113 0.7 1,011 102 107,866 1.0 
Unwrought aluminium (7601) 1,017 0.6 1,003 14 46,219 2.2 
Tobacco and manufactured tobacco s ubstitutes (24) 1,031 0.6 482 406 19,013 5.4 
Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse (2401) 999 0.6 481 376 8,811 11.3 
Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits (12) 858 0.5 285 563 61,961 1.4 
Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons (08) 834 0.5 218 592 53,271 1.6 
Other base metals; cermets; article s thereof (81) 819 0.5 456 363 17,852 4.6 
Cobalt mattes and other intermed iate products of cobalt meta llurgy (8105) 813 0.5 456 358 3,968 20.5 
Ships, boats and floating struct ures (89) 783 0.5 296 488 51,637 1.5 
Salt; sulphur; earths and stone; plaste ring materials (25) 783 0.5 125 658 49,242 1.6 
Iron and steel (72) 782 0.5 20 761 350,562 0.2 
Other made up textile articl es; sets; worn clothing and worn tex tile article ... (63) 731 0.4 560 167 33,556 2.2 
Total of above 159,176 94.4 80,315 78,430 4,338,845 3.7 
 a Based on imports from LDCs by 135 countr ies and economies reporting their trade to the United Nations Comtrade database. 
Source : WTO, based on UN Comtrade database. 
    
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 52  
Annex Table 4:  Imports from LDCs by major markets and product groups, 2000-2009  
(Million dollars and Percentage) 
 
  All Commodities Agricultural products Fu els and mining products Manufactures 
Regions and major markets1 Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change 
  2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 
Africa 1182 7636 100 -26 23 425 1110 15 0 11 455 4516 59 -35 29 297 2001 26 -14 24 
South Africa 174 2739 100 -46 36 50 148 5 -10 13 47 2389 87 -48 55 78 200 7 -40 11 
Nigeria 120 1192 100 15 29 86 123 10 185 4 3 40 3 29 32 31 1029 86 7 47 
Egypt2 101 734 100 215 28 78 118 16 -5 5 17 602 82 627 57 6 15 2 -24 12 
Mali2 83 713 100 7 31 3 33 5 -54 35 52 514 72 51 33 28 166 23 -35 25 
Zambia 35 568 100 -13 36 4 14 2 -2 15 25 477 84 -17 39 5 75 13 15 35 
Malawi 23 413 100 -36 38 9 96 23 -17 29 3 187 45 -3 56 10 130 32 -61 33 
Kenya 47 221 100 -27 19 21 111 50 -21 20 11 32 14 -64 13 15 79 36 7 20 
Côte d'Ivoire 64 321 100 10 20 48 261 81 22 21 4 28 9 -49 25 11 29 9 50 12 
Sudan 25 247 100 27 29 10 34 14 253 15 2 88 36 - 51 14 122 49 -34 28 
Ethiopia 247 101 100 -47 -9 5 7 7 -80 3 236 82 80 -44 -11 5 13 13 29 10 
Ghana2 137 134 100 8 0 30 17 13 -16 -7 31 23 17 45 -4 73 94 70 7 3 
Morocco 53 124 100 -3 10 51 86 69 -19 6   27 22 448 - 2 11 9 -37 23 
Tanzania 17 63 100 -29 16 2 21 34 17 27 4 21 33 -50 22 11 21 33 -27 8 
Senegal 4 17 100 -81 17 2 6 39 -84 12 0 2 9 -96 22 2 9 52 10 21 
Mauritius 53 49 100 -41 -1 25 36 74 -18 4 20 4 8 -86 -17 7 9 18 -22 2 
Americas 10625 27003 100 -41 11 692 722 3 -16 0 4811 17436 65 -50 15 5064 8571 32 -9 6 
North America 10167 25735 100 -36 11 556 681 3 -16 2 4530 16431 64 -44 15 5024 8350 32 -9 6 
USA 9825 22718 100 -36 10 495 570 3 -17 2 4486 14807 65 -44 14 4788 7143 31 -12 5 
Canada 288 2758 100 -28 29 36 79 3 7 9 44 1586 58 -42 49 207 1021 37 11 19 
Mexico 54 259 100 -42 19 25 32 13 -29 3 0 38 15 -80 70 29 186 72 -4 23 
South and Central America  458 1268 100 -78 12 136 41 3 -21 -13 281 1005 79 -82 15 41 222 17 34 21 
Brazil 179 504 100 -82 12 80 9 2 -17 -22 85 398 79 -85 19 14 97 19 8 24 
Peru 7 229 100 -72 48 2 1 1 -51 -3 4 221 96 -73 56 1 7 3 -11 33 
Chile 102 214 100 -88 9 0 1 0 76 53 95 200 93 -89 9 7 14 6 38 8 
Ecuador 19 88 100 -41 19 0 16 19 -9 55 17 68 77 -47 17 1 4 4 -2 16 
Uruguay 64 85 100 -60 3 0 0 0 -65 -3 63 82 96 -61 3 1 3 4 -7 17 
Venezuela 26 59 100 761 10 19 0 1 -57 -34   1 1 333 - 7 58 98 931 27 
Argentina 25 32 100 -7 3 2 7 21 89 17 16 1 2 59 -29 7 25 77 -20 15 
Guatemala 0 28 100 114 68 0 2 7 38 30   22 80 107 - 0 4 13 347 56 
El Salvador 1 14 100 -34 30 1 0 2 -38 -6 0 13 94 -33 97 1 0 3 -56 -5 
Colombia 34 10 100 -56 -13 33 2 22 -81 -26 0 0 0 -100 -24 1 8 77 -15 25 
Costa Rica 2 4 100 -25 9 0 1 28 30 22 0 0 0 4691 -24 2 3 72 -36 6 
Asia and Pacific 11885 51151 100 -28 18 2702 6003 12 -5 9 8042 42074 82 -31 20 1122 2849 6 -9 11 
China 4007 27448 100 -30 24 274 1576 6 -1 21 3650 25574 93 -32 24 83 298 1 29 15 
India 1202 8540 100 24 24 617 2114 25 13 15 293 5583 65 41 39 287 838 10 -20 13 
Thailand 1398 4711 100 -40 14 337 555 12 -33 6 1027 4044 86 -39 16 27 110 2 -72 17 
Japan 1239 3563 100 -53 12 588 576 16 -10 0 448 2317 65 -64 20 200 645 18 11 14 
Chinese Taipei 660 1798 100 -57 12 91 92 5 -29 0 539 1662 92 -59 13 29 44 2 -1 5  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 53  All Commodities Agricultural products Fu els and mining products Manufactures 
Regions and major markets1 Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change Value Share 
of 
total Annual 
percentage 
change 
  2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 2000 2009 2009 2009 2000-
2009 
Korea, Republic of 1828 1710 100 -5 -1 74 130 8 1256 37 1691 1421 83 -11 -2 64 159 9 29 11 
Singapore 585 847 100 110 4 158 109 13 767 24 239 469 55 259 8 186 83 10 -30 -9 
Indonesia 178 838 100 -10 19 121 113 13 -31 -1 28 681 81 -7 43 29 44 5 5 5 
Malaysia 177 489 100 -5 12 115 230 47 -20 8 43 193 39 28 18 18 65 13 -4 15 
Hong Kong, China 227 480 100 7 9 137 151 32 20 1 3 19 4 -67 22 87 309 64 16 15 
Pakistan 157 377 100 -22 10 131 269 71 -22 8 18 85 23 -23 19 8 23 6 -11 13 
Australia 172 237 100 25 4 27 35 15 -9 3 59 4 2 256 -26 86 196 83 33 10 
Philippines 43 84 100 47 8 26 45 53 26 6 4 23 27 - 22 13 17 20 -25 2 
New Zealand 12 28 100 9 10 6 9 34 -15 5 0 1 3 -70 33 6 18 63 48 13 
Europe and CIS 12477 28392 100 -26 10 2872 4618 16 -9 5 2403 11269 40 -47 19 6863 12185 43 3 7 
EU 27 11902 26931 100 -27 9 2769 4197 16 -9 5 2237 10764 40 -48 19 6560 11657 43 3 7 
Norway 244 497 100 54 8 12 20 4 -8 6 3 290 58 65 64 227 187 38 47 -2 
Switzerland 100 251 100 4 11 33 79 31 6 10 3 0 0 -81 -34 65 168 67 0 11 
CIS 231 713 100 -19 13 59 323 45 -4 21 160 216 30 -40 3 11 173 24 1 36 
Russian Federation 134 523 100 -20 16 37 258 49 24 24 86 116 22 -50 3 10 148 28 1 35 
Ukraine 62 159 100 5 11 12 50 32 18 18 50 93 58 4 7 0 15 10 5 58 
Kazakhstan 4 18 100 -45 20 3 8 43 11 11 0 7 37 -57 114 0 4 20 8 31 
Belarus 7 10 100 17 5 7 6 54 -2 -2 - 0 0 133 - 0 5 45 15 29 
Kyrgyzstan 0 1 100 -25 16 0 1 61 14 14 - - 0 - - 0 0 39 -50 19 
Azerbaijan 24 1 100 -97 -32 0 0 48 15 15 23 - 0 - - 0 0 52 -71 62 
 
 1Countries ranked by value of 2009.  Regional totals are based on  the information availa ble, and may not coin cide with aggregate  trade figures. 
 22008 instead of 2009. 
Sources: UN Comtrade database and GTIS , Global Trade Atlas database. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 54  
 
   
Annex Table 5:  Coverage ratios of imports by exports of the LDCs, 2000-2009
 
(percentage) 
 
 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 average 2000-2009 
LDCsa/ 83 94 103 103 105 85 89 
Agricultural exporters 41 34 34 37 35 34 36 
Afghanistan 12 16 16 18 18 14 12 
Benin 64 57 60 55 55 49 59 
Burkina Faso 34 37 45 37 34 41 37 
Burundi 34 22 14 18 14 16 22 
Central African Republic 138 73 78 72 50 40 90 
Comoros 33 12 9 10 7 9 21 
Ethiopia 39 22 22 22 20 20 24 
Gambia 8 3 4 4 4 5 5 
Guinea-Bissau 105 85 58 64 64 50 81 
Kiribati 9 6 10 14 21 22 11 
Liberia 49 42 34 40 30 27 47 
Malawi 71 44 45 58 50 54 58 
Rwanda 25 29 27 24 23 16 26 
Samoa 13 6 5 7 5 6 8 
Sao Tome and Principe 10 14 11 9 9 8 11 
Solomon Islands 75 56 56 57 64 61 67 
Somalia 56 49 44 49 48 54 52 
Togo 65 55 51 50 55 53 61 
Uganda 30 50 46 57 60 58 46 
Vanuatu 30 25 22 22 18 20 24 
Fuel exporters 164 195 207 208 216 154 171 
Angola 261 289 363 325 305 236 261 
Bhutan 59 67 99 128 96 94 75 
Chad 58 324 248 237 255 144 161 
Equatorial Guinea 243 539 406 431 407 175 356 
Myanmar 69 198 179 191 162 155 139 
Sudan 116 71 70 101 125 81 91 
Yemen 176 104 110 74 73 66 106 
Mineral exporters 68 68 83 77 73 73 72 
Congo, Dem. Rep. of 118 96 85 82 95 86 96 
Guinea 109 104 108 99 84 72 99 
Lao People's Dem. Rep. 62 63 83 87 77 75 70 
Mali 68 71 85 71 68 79 75 
Mauritania 78 44 117 88 92 96 77 
Mozambique 31 74 83 79 66 57 64 
Niger 72 52 54 58 59 60 59 
Sierra Leone 9 46 59 55 40 44 37 
Tanzania 48 51 45 42 43 49 50 
Zambia 90 71 123 115 101 114 90 
Manufacture exporters 65 62 66 60 55 57 62 
Bangladesh 72 67 74 67 64 69 69 
Cambodia 72 79 77 75 67 68 76 
Haiti 31 32 31 31 21 28 29 
Lesotho 27 46 46 44 44 38 42 
Madagascar 75 50 55 47 33 35 58 
Nepal 51 38 34 28 26 19 36 
Diversified and others 42 36 35 28 30 37 37 
Djibouti 15 14 16 12 12 18 15 
Eritrea 8 2 2 3 3 3 4 
Maldives 28 22 24 21 24 17 26 
Senegal 61 45 43 34 35 46 48 
Tuvalu 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 
 a/ Weighted average. 
Note :  Coverage ratio of imports by exports = (exports/imports*100).  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 55Annex Table 6:  Measures in favour of exports originating from LDCsa 
 
Preference 
granting country 
 Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference References 
 
Australia  Duty- and quota-free entry  
Entry into force:  1 July 2003 
 LDCs  All products  WT/COMTD/N/18  
Belarus Harmonized System of 
preference by the Eurasian 
Economic Community (EAEC) Entry into force:  May 2001  
 47 LDCs Duty-free access for all products WT/TPR/S/170   
Brazil Duty-free and Quota-free 
scheme for LDCs  
 LDCs  Duty-free and Quota-free acce ss for products from LDCs covering 
80 per cent of all tariff lines to be granted by mid-2010. WT/COMTD/LDC/M/55 
Canada GSP – Least-developed 
Countries' Tariff Programme 
(LDCT) 
Entry into force: 1 January 
2003, extended until 30 June 
2014   LDCs  With the exception of over-quota tariff items for dairy, poultry and egg 
products, Canada provides duty-free access under all tariff items for 
imports from LDCs 
 WT/COMTD/N/15/Add.1  and Add.2 
WT/COMTD/W/159 
 
China  Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA)b– amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 
 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 1,697 products (with av erage margin of preference of 
26.7 per cent) available to all AP TA members, tariff concessions 
granted exclusively to LDC members on 161 products with average 
margin of preference of 77.9 per cent WT/COMTD/N/22  
 
 
  Bangladesh On top of Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), unilateral special 
preferential tariffs (zero rated) are offered on additional 87 tariff lines  
 Information received from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006 
 Cambodia  Duty-free treatment on 418 tari ff lines Information received from the 
Government of China 
  Cambodia On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN and China,  unilateral special preferential 
tariffs (zero rated) are offere d on additional 420 tariff lines  Information received from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006 Lao PDR Duty-free treatment on 330 tariff  lines Information received from the 
Government of China  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 56 Preference 
granting country 
 Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference References 
 
  Lao PDR On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN and China,  unilateral special preferential 
tariffs (zero rated) are offere d on additional 399 tariff lines Information received from the 
Government of China 
 Framework Agreement on 
Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN 
and China 
Entry into force: 1 January 2006  Myanmar  Duty-free treatment on 220 tari ff lines Information received from the 
Government of China 
  Myanmar On top of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic 
Co-operation between ASEAN and China,  unilateral special preferential 
tariffs (zero rated) are offere d on additional 226 tariff lines Information received from the 
Government of China 
 Forum on China-Africa 
Co-operation   African countries 
including LDCs having 
diplomatic relations with 
China  As of 1 July 2010, China grants zero-tariff to 4762 tariff lines imported 
from 33 LDCs which had completed the exchange of letters for that 
purpose.  Eight more LDCs will enjoy the same treatment once the 
exchange of letters is completed.   The 4762 tariff lines account for 
roughly 60 per cent of China's total ta riff lines, and represented 98.2 per 
cent of all LDC exports to China in value in 2008.  Zero tariff treatment 
will be expanded with an aim of achieving the final objective of 
including 95 per cent of China's total tariff lines.   
 WT/COMTD/W/164 
WT/COMTD/M/77 
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/57 
 Special preference tariff  Afghanistan, Maldives, 
Samoa, Vanuatu and 
Yemen Unilateral special preferential tariffs  (zero rated) are offered on 286 
categories of products Information received from the 
Government of China 
EU GSP - Everything But Arms 
(EBA) initiative 
Entry into force:  5 March 2001 
   LDCs  Since 1 October 2009, the EBA has been granting DFQF access for all 
products from all LDCs (except arms and ammunitions). The EU 
introduced revised rules of origin for the GSP, as of 1 January 2011, 
simplifying rules specially for the LDCs  WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.2 and Add.4 
WT/TPR/S/214/Rev.1 
ec.europa.eu 
 Economic Partnership 
Agreements (EPAs) 79 African, Caribbean and 
Pacific (ACP) countries, 
40 of which are LDCs EPAs include provision for duty-free and quota-free market access.  As 
of February 2011, a full EPA was signed by the 15 countries in the 
Caribbean Forum of ACP states (CARIFORUM), of which Haiti is an 
LDC.  Interim EPAs are signed by the following LDCs:  (i) Southern 
African Development Community (SADC): Lesotho and Mozambique;  
(ii) Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA): Madagascar (signatures by 
Comoros and Zambia are pending).  Interim EPAs are initialled with the 
East African Community (EAC), wh ich includes four LDCs: Burundi, 
Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.   
 WT/TPR/S/214/Rev.1 
WT7COMTD/LDC/W/46/Rev.1/Corr.1 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/index_en.htm 
 
Iceland GSP – Tariff Preferences in 
Regard to the Importation of 
Products Originating in the 
World's Poorest Developing 
Countries  
Entry into force:  29 January 
2002  LDCs  Essentially all products with so me exceptions in agricultural products 
(HS chapters: 04, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22) and non-agricultural products 
(HS sub-headings:  3502 and 3823, and all of HS 16 with the exception 
of sub-headings 1603 to 1605)    WT/COMTD/N/17 and Corr.1  
WT/TPR/S/164  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 57Preference 
granting country 
 Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference References 
 
India   
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 570 products (with average margin of preference of 
23.9 per cent) available to all AP TA members, tariff concessions 
granted exclusively to LDC members on 48 products with average 
margin of preference of 39.7 per cent WT/COMTD/N/22 
 
 Duty-Free Tariff Preference 
Scheme (DFTP) LDCs  DFTP Scheme announced in  April 2008.  Duty-free access on 
85 per cent tariff lines at HS 6-digit level within a five-year time frame. WT/COMTD/M/69 
 South Asian Free Trade 
Agreement (SAFTA)c 
Entry into force:  1 January 2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal 
 
 
 In addition to tariff concessions on 2, 940 line at the HS 6-digit level to 
all SAFTA members, special concessions exclusively granted to LDC 
members.  In 2006/2007, preferential rates were granted on 84.4  
per cent of all tariff lines at average rate of 10.6 per cent 
(while 15 per cent for non-LDC members)     WT/COMTD/10  
WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 and 
WT/COMTD/N/26 
 Bilateral agreement 
Entry into force: 13 May 2003 Afghanistan 
 Tariff reductions on 38 HS 6-digit lines, with margins of preferences of 
50 per cent or 100 per cent of MFN tariff  
 WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 Bilateral agreement 
Entry into force: extended on 
29 July 2006 for 10 years  
 Bhutan All products 
 WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 and 
WT/COMTD/N/28 
 Bilateral agreement Nepal 
 Tariff exemptions for all goods subjec t to rules of origin.  Imports of 
certain goods (vanaspati, copper products, acrylic yarn and zinc oxide) 
are subject to annual quota.     WT/TPR/S/182.Rev.1 
 
Japan GSP – Enhanced duty- and 
quota-free market access 
Entry into force:  1 April 2007 
 LDCs Duty-free access on 8,859 tariff line s (or 98 per cent of the tariff line 
level), covering over 99 per cent in terms of the import value from 
LDCs. WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.14  
Kazakhstan Harmonized System of 
preference by the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) 
Entry into force:  May 2001  
 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Korea, Rep. of 
 Presidential Decree on 
Preferential Tarriff for LDCs 
Entry into force:  1 January 
2000 
 LDCs Duty-free access is granted on 87 tariff items  
(HS 6-digit).  WT/COMTD/N/12/Rev.1  
WT/TPR/S/137 
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006  Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 1,367 products (with av erage margin of preference of 
35.4 per cent) available to all AP TA members, tariff concessions 
granted exclusively to LDC members on 306 products with average 
margin of preference of 64.6 per cent WT/COMTD/N/22  
 
  
  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1 
Page 58 Preference 
granting country 
 Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference References 
 
Kyrgyz Republic Harmonized system of 
preference by the Eurasian 
Economic Community (EAEC) 
Entry into force:  May 2001  
 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Morocco Preferential tariff treatment for 
LDCs 
Entry into force:  1 January 
2001 
 33 African LDCs  Duty-free access on 61 products (at the HS 4 to 10-digit level)  WT/LDC/SWG/IF/18 and G/C/6  
 
New Zealand GSP- Tariff  Treatment for 
LDCs Entry into force:  1 July 
2001 
 LDCs All products WT/COMTD/27 
WT/TPR/S/115 
Norway  GSP – Duty - and quota-free 
market access 
Entry into force:  1 July 2002 
 LDCs All products  WT/TPR/S/138 
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4 
Pakistan 
 South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA)  
Entry into force:  1 January 
2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal Special concessions availabl e for least-developed contra cting states.   SAARC Secr etariat website (www.saarc-
sec.org) 
WT/TPR/S/193 
Sri Lanka   
 South Asian Free Trade Area 
(SAFTA) 
Entry into force:  1 January 
2006 
 Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Maldives 
Nepal Special concessions availabl e for least-developed cont racting states SAARC Secr etariat website (www.saarc-
sec.org) 
 Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA) – amendment to the 
Bangkok Agreement  
Entry into force: 1 September 
2006 Bangladesh  
Lao PDR In addition to 427 products (with average margin of preference of 
14 per cent) available to all APTA me mbers, tariff concessions granted 
exclusively to LDC members on 72 products with average margin of 
preference of 12 per cent WT/COMTD/N/22  
 
 
Switzerland GSP – Revised Preferential 
Tariffs Ordinance  
Entry into force:  1 April 2007  
 LDCs Duty-free access for all products  originating from all LDCs as of 
September 2009.   TN/CTD/M/28  
WT/COMTD/N/7/Add.2  and Add.3 
 
Tajikistan Harmonized System of 
preference by the Eurasian 
Economic Community (ECEA) 
Entry into force:  May 2001 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
Turkey 
 GSP 
Entry into force:  31 December 2005 LDCs Duties are eliminated for LDCs on the basis of EU's Everything But 
Arms (EBA) Initiative  
WT/TPR/S/192  
   WT/COMTD/LDC/W/48/Rev.1
 Page 59Preference 
granting country 
 Description Beneficiary(ies) Coverage/margin  of preference References 
 
Russia  Harmonized System of 
preference by the Eurasian 
Economic Community (ECEA) 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
United States GSP for least-developed 
beneficiary developing 
countries (LDBDC) 
Entry into force: 1 January 
1976, extended until 31 
December 2010 (further 
extensions are currently being 
considered) 43 designated LDCsd In addition to the standard GSP coverage of  nearly 5,000 products, 
1,450 articles exclusively available for LDC beneficiaries for duty-free 
treatment  WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.4 & Add.5 
WT/TPR/S/235 
www.ustr.gov 
 African Growth and 
Opportunity Act (AGOA)  
Entry into force:  May 2000, 
extended until 30 
September 2015e 
 38 designated 
Sub-Saharan African 
Countries (including 25 
LDCsf) 1,835 products, including textiles and apparelg, available for duty-free 
treatment, in addition to duty-fr ee treatment on products benefitting 
from GSP. WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.3 
WT/TPR/S/235 
WT/L/754 
 Caribbean Basin Trade 
Partnership Act (CBTPA) 
Entry into force:  1 October 
2000, extended until 30 
September 2020 19 designated 
beneficiaries (including 
one LDC, i.e. Haiti) in 
Central America and the 
Caribbean  Duty free for most products, includi ng textiles and apparels.  The 
Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement 
Act enhanced Haiti's benefits unde r CBERA.  The Haiti Economic Lift 
Program Act of 2010 further expande d Haiti's benefits, including 
broadening duty-free access for Haiti an textile and apparel exports. WT/TPR/S/235 
WT/L/753 
www.ustr.gov 
Uzbekistan  Harmonized System of 
preference by the Eurasian 
Economic Community (ECEA) 
 47 LDCs Duty free for all products WT/TPR/S/170 
 
 a This table, which represents a non-exhaustive list of market access initiatives  untaken in favour of LDCs, updates the informat ion contained in the previous report by the Secretariat 
(WT/COMTD/LDC/W/46/Rev.1).  For t hose measures taken in favour of exports origin ating from LDCs prior to 2001, please see docum ent WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38.   
 b Members of the APTA are:  Ba ngladesh, China, India, Lao PDR,  Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka 
 c Members of SAFTA which superseded the Sout h Asian Preferential Trade Ag reement (SAPTA) in 2006 are:  Bangladesh, Bhutan, India , Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. 
 d Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, B hutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cent ral African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democ ratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, East Timor, 
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Ma uritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Ni ger, Rwanda, Sa moa, São Tomé 
and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Is lands, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu , Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia. 
 e The Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006 or AGOA IV extended the third-country fabric provision from September 2007 until S eptember 2012;  added an abundant supply provision;  
designated certain denim ar ticles as being in abundant supply;  and allows le sser developed beneficiary Sub-Saharan African cou ntries to export certain textile ar ticles under AGOA.  Sec.3 of the 
Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008 (Public Law 110- 436) removed the abundant supply provisions, and re-designated Ma uritius as a lesser developed beneficiary Sub-Saharan African 
Country for AGOA apparel benefits.  See more info rmation on the official AGOA website at www.agoa.gov 
 f Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democrat ic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Guinea-Biss au, Lesotho, Liberia, Ma lawi, Mali, Mauritania, 
Mozambique, Rwanda, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, T ogo, Uganda and Zambia. 
 g Twenty-five Sub-Saharan African countries, including 15 LDCs (B enin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Lesotho, Malawi , Mali, Mozambique, Rwa nda, Senegal, Sierra 
Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Za mbia), are eligible fo r AGOA apparel benefits.  
 
__________