Barriers 1 PDF

Please cite this paper as:
OECD (2005), Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern

to Developing Countries, OECD Trade Policy Papers,
No. 16, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223281783722
OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 16
Analysis of Non-Tariff
Barriers of Concern to
Developing Countries
OECD
Unclassified
TD/TC/WP(2004)47/FINAL
Organisation de Coopration et de Dveloppement Economiques

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
03-Jun-2005
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________
English - Or. English
TRADE DIRECTORATE
TRADE COMMITTEE
Unclassified
Working Party of the Trade Committee
ANALYSIS OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS OF CONCERN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 16
All Trade Working Papers are now available through OECD's Internet website at:
http://www.oecd.org/trade
English - Or. English
JT00185671
Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine

Complete document available on OLIS in its original format
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies non-tariff barriers (NTBs) faced by developing countries in their trade with
developed countries and in South-South trade. The goal is to raise awareness of barriers that interfere with
the ability of developing countries to build up trade. Data collected and analysed consist of the academic
literature, notifications by developing countries to the Negotiating Group on Market Access for NonAgricultural Products (NAMA) of the Doha Development Agenda, business surveys, and records relating
to trade disputes brought before the World Trade Organization and regional dispute settlement
mechanisms. The chapter identifies the categories and types of measures that are most reported and the
products affected by the reported measures. Attention is also drawn to developing countries forwardlooking export strategies and related potential barriers. Overall, the chapter highlights similarities and
differences in barriers reported in the data reviewed and compares barriers reported for trade with
developed countries and for trade among developing countries.
Keywords: non-tariff barriers, non-tariff measures, market access, developing countries, Doha
Development Agenda, NAMA notifications, regional integration, South-South trade, trade disputes,
surveys.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has been co-authored by Barbara Fliess and Iza Lejarraga. Many individuals and
organisations provided data and other information for this project. The authors would like to gratefully
acknowledge the contributions from the Andean Community Secretariat and the Ministry of Commerce of
Peru (MINCETUR), the Association of Caribbean States, the European Commission (EU's Card
Programme for Western Balkans), the Ministry of Commerce of India, the Organization of American
States (OAS), the South Centre in Geneva, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC), the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the World Trade
Institute, the World Trade Organization and the International Trade Centre (ITC), Werner Soontiens from
Curtin University of Technology in Australia, and Arne Wiig from Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway.
The project also benefited from comments and suggestions from Anthony Kleitz and other colleagues in
the OECD Trade Directorate and from individual OECD Member countries.
This paper was discussed and is declassified on the responsibility of the Working Party of the OECD
Trade Committee.
Copyright OECD 2005

Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to:
Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue Andr-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 8
ANALYSIS OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS OF CONCERN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ............. 10
I.
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 10
A.
Background: Recent trends in developing countries export performance............................... 11
B.
Analysis of NTBs: Data availability and methodology ............................................................ 11
II.
Literature review ............................................................................................................................ 12
A.
Global trends in NTBs affecting developing countries............................................................. 12
B.
Regional trends in the use of NTBs .......................................................................................... 14
III. Analysis of notifications of NTBs to NAMA................................................................................. 15
A.
Data set ..................................................................................................................................... 16
B.
Types of barriers reported......................................................................................................... 17
C.
Products affected by reported NTBs......................................................................................... 20
D.
NTBs and products identified in national export strategies ...................................................... 23
IV. Analysis of dispute settlement cases concerning non-tariff import measures................................ 24
A.
WTO cases concerning non-tariff import measures ................................................................. 25
B.
Cases on non-tariff import measures in trade among developing countries:
Andean Community.................................................................................................................. 30
C.
Other regional dispute settlement bodies .................................................................................. 32
V.
Analysis of business surveys .......................................................................................................... 33
A.
Barriers reported by firms: Global markets .............................................................................. 33
B.
Barriers reported predominantly for trade among developing countries .................................. 36
VI. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 40
A.
Review of sources ..................................................................................................................... 40
B.
Findings on barriers of concern to developing countries .......................................................... 40
C.
Findings on products of interest to developing countries ......................................................... 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................... 43
Literature Review...................................................................................................................................... 43
Legal Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 48
Business Surveys....................................................................................................................................... 48
Annex I. Statistical overview of developing countries' export performance................................................ 50
Annex II. Non-tariff barrier concerns by regions ........................................................................................ 54
A.
B.
C.
D.
Asia and the Pacific........................................................................................................................ 54

Latin America and the Caribbean................................................................................................... 57
Africa and the Middle East............................................................................................................. 59
East and south-east Europe............................................................................................................. 60
Annex III. Categories of non-tariff barriers ................................................................................................ 63

Annex IV. Analysis of non-tariff barriers notified by developing countries, by product group................... 65
A.
Live Animals and Related Products ............................................................................................... 65

3
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Prepared Foodstuffs and Beverages ............................................................................................... 66

Textiles and Textile Products ......................................................................................................... 67
Chemicals, Alloys and Related Products........................................................................................ 68
Metals and Metal Products ............................................................................................................. 69
Machinery and Electronics ............................................................................................................. 70
Vehicles, Aircraft and Vessels ....................................................................................................... 71
Plastics............................................................................................................................................ 72
Miscellaneous Manufactures .......................................................................................................... 73
Annex V. Strategic products and sectors of interest to developing countries.............................................. 74

Annex VI. Trends in NTB cases filed by developing countries .................................................................... 77
Annex VII. Private sector perceptions on non-tariff barriers faced by developing countries ..................... 78
A. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Principal OECD and Global
Markets ............................................................................................................................................... 78
B. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Principal OECD and Global
Markets ............................................................................................................................................... 79
C. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in
Asia and the Pacific ............................................................................................................................ 80
D. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing
Countries in South America................................................................................................................ 81
E. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in
Central America and the Caribbean.................................................................................................... 82
F. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in
Africa and the Middle East ................................................................................................................. 83
G. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in
South-East Europe .............................................................................................................................. 84
Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table A1.
Table A2.
Table A3.
Table A4.
NTBs reported for specific product groups............................................................................. 22

Number of NTB cases initiated by non-OECD countries....................................................... 25
Products subject to NTBs cases, DSU 1995-2004.................................................................. 28
Controversies submitted to arbitration panel of MERCOSUR ............................................... 33
Ranking of barriers faced by Western Balkan exporters, by market (2004)........................... 35
Problems with meeting SPS requirements in the European Union (2000) ............................. 36
Non-tariff barriers cited in business surveys........................................................................... 37
Developing-country export flows (thousands of USD) .......................................................... 53
NTBs face by exporters in Asia and the Pacific ..................................................................... 55
Intra-regional NTBs in the Central American Common Market ............................................ 59
Problems affecting trade in South-eastern Europe.................................................................. 62
Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure A1.
Figure A2.
Frequency of notifications by NTB category........................................................................ 17

NTB notifications by product group ..................................................................................... 20
Number of DSU cases 1995-2004, categorised by NTBs..................................................... 26
NTB cases in the Andean Community.................................................................................. 31
Merchandise exports of developing regions, by destination (2003) ..................................... 51
Composition of developing-country merchandise exports (2003)........................................ 52
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC
Andean Community
ACS
Association of Caribbean States
ACWL
Advisory Centre on WTO Law
AGOA
African Growth and Opportunity Act
ALADI
Latin American Integration Association
APEC
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
ASEAN
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CACM
Central American Common Market
CARICOM
Caribbean Community
CBI
Cross Border Initiative
CET
Common external tariff
CIS
Commonwealth of Independent States
COMESA
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
DC
Developing country
DDA
Doha Development Agenda
DSU
Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO)
EC
European Commission
ECLAC
United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
ESCAP
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
EFTA
European Free Trade Association
EU
European Union
FTA
Free trade agreement
GATT
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GMO
Genetically modified organism
HS
Harmonised System (Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System)
IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IT
Information technology
5
ITC
International Trade Centre
LAC
Latin America and the Caribbean
LDC
Least developed country
MENA
Middle East and North Africa
MERCOSUR
Southern Common Market
MFA
Multi-Fibre Arrangement
MFN
Most-favoured nation
n.e.s.
Not elsewhere specified
NAFTA
North American Free Trade Agreement
NAMA
Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-agricultural Products
NT
National treatment
NTB
Non-tariff barrier
NTM
Non-tariff measure
OAS
Organization of American States
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECS
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
PEEC
Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
QR
Quantitative restrictions
ROO
Rules of origin
RTA
Regional trade arrangement
SAARC
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SACU
Southern African Customs Union
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SDT
Special and differential treatment
SIECA
Secretariat for Central American Economic Integration
SITC
Standard International Trade Classification
SMEs
Small and medium-sized enterprises
SPS
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa
TBTs
Technical barriers to trade
TPR
Trade Policy Review
TRAINS
Trade Analysis and Information System
TRQ
Tariff rate quota
UN Comtrade
UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UR
Uruguay Round
US ITC
United States International Trade Commission
VAT
Value Added Tax
VER
Voluntary export restraint
WB
World Bank
WITS
World Integrated Trade Solution
WTO
World Trade Organization
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper collects and analyses data that identify non-tariff barriers (NTBs) of concern to
developing countries (DCs) in trade with developed countries and among themselves.
The reduction or elimination of NTBs is included in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and
is under consideration in regional and other arenas discussing trade liberalisation. This research aims to
help identify possible negotiating targets. Moreover, it can provide input into ongoing discussions on how
to make special and differential treatment (SDT) more effective. More generally, a clearer idea of these
barriers should enable WTO Members to understand better DC concerns in this area and their implications
so that they can respond with a positive agenda. The study also aims at raising general awareness of NTBs
which developing countries themselves maintain and which interfere with their ability to trade with each
other.
To understand the importance of trends that can be identified, a brief overview is provided of DC
trade flows. These countries rely heavily on developed-country markets for their merchandise exports.
Developing- country share of world manufactured exports increased significantly over the last decade, and,
while developed countries still make up the main destination for these exports, trade with other developing
countries is becoming increasingly important and dynamic. As for the sectoral composition of DC exports,
manufactured products have become dominant and there has been a noticeable shift within this commodity
group towards higher-value added products.
Although data on NTBs faced by developing countries are limited and have shortcomings, the
study draws on several main sources of information to provide insights as full and useful as possible for
traders and trade negotiators. The elements of research consist of a review of the literature on NTB issues,
an analysis of DC interests in the WTO Negotiating Group on Market Access (NAMA), an analysis of
disputes brought by developing countries under WTO and regional dispute settlement mechanisms, and a
review of private sector perceptions through available business surveys.
Though there are variations in the main findings resulting from each element of analysis, certain
broadly defined categories of NTBs have consistently shown up as a source of concern to these countries:
In their trade with developed countries, customs and administrative procedures and technical
barriers to trade (TBTs) emerge as the leading NTBs of concern to developing countries.
For trade among developing countries, technical barriers are less prominently reported. However,
customs and administrative procedures also rank very high among reported concerns in the four
components of analysis. Issues identified under this category of measures include difficulties relating to
import licensing procedures and rules of origin and generally appear to be more pervasive in trade with
other developing countries than with developed countries.
In addition, the literature, dispute settlement cases and business surveys provide evidence that
para-tariff measures, such as fees and charges on imports, are also important barriers in particular for trade
with developing countries. Other reported impediments of a more regional character include transportation
regulations and costs.
8
As far as product-specific issues are concerned, it appears that live animals and related products
are a commodity category - and within that category, fisheries - that deserve particular attention for
reported sanitary and phytosanitary measures and customs-related problems. Among the NTBs reported for
items of machinery and electronics, TBT issues are dominant. The same holds for pharmaceutical products,
which also are subject to relatively many DC notifications to NAMA. National export strategies and
programmes reviewed separately for a sample of DCs confirms that these are sectors and products of key
interest to developing countries in their pursuit of export growth and diversification over the longer term.
ANALYSIS OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS OF CONCERN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
I.
Introduction
1.
For developing countries (DCs), integration into global markets offers the potential of more rapid
growth and poverty reduction.1 Yet tariff and non-tariff barriers may exist that hamper key developingcountry exports, making it difficult for them to take full advantage of this opportunity.
2.
The issue of improved market access for goods has been taken up by successive GATT rounds.
Significant progress in reducing tariff barriers overall has been counterbalanced by non-tariff barriers
(NTBs) that persist and may even be on the increase in new and possibly more discrete forms.2 It is often
hard to evaluate the importance of the NTBs due to the lack of transparency concerning their scope and
effects. In addition, measures that traders encounter may or may not be legitimate under WTO agreements.
3.
With the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), the use of NTBs is once again the subject of
multilateral negotiations.3 Opportunities for addressing DC concerns relating to NTBs are also provided by
regional and other fora pursuing trade liberalisation.
4.
Against this background, this study collects and analyses data that identify NTBs of concern to
developing countries in trade both among themselves and with developed countries. A clearer idea of
these barriers should allow WTO members to better understand developing countriesconcerns in this area
and their implications, so that they can respond with an appropriately proactive and positive agenda. More
specifically, consideration could be given to attaching priority to NTBs found to affect products in which
developing countries have a comparative advantage when market access commitments are negotiated in the
WTO Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products (NAMA) and other WTO
bodies.
5.
Similarly, identification of NTBs that are of particular concern to developing countries could help
determine priority targets for strengthening special and differential treatment (SDT). To help boost their
exports, developing countries have requested SDT, including in the field of NTBs. A review of SDTrelated assistance is also called for by the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
Developing countries are those considered as such in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
For example, developing countries report having difficulties in meeting what they perceive are increasingly
complex new technical regulations, product standards and SPS measures implemented by developed-country
trading partners (OECD, 2002; Henson et al, 2000).
WTO Ministers meeting in Doha in 2001 agreed to reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the
reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in
particular on products of export interest to developing countries. Product coverage shall be comprehensive and
without a priori exclusions. Besides in NAMA, issues related to NTBs are supposed to be addressed also in
negotiations focusing on agriculture and on WTO rules regarding anti-dumping, subsidies and countervailing
measures, and are a matter of examination also under the regular work programmes of various WTO bodies
that are not directly involved in the DDA process.
10
6.
Also, the study can help raise general awareness of NTBs which developing countries themselves
maintain and which interfere with the ability of developing countries to trade with each other and to build
up trade among themselves. In an overall sense, the results of the study can serve as benchmarks against
which policymakers in developing countries may wish to examine the particular situation of their
economies and their negotiating objectives.
A.
Background: Recent trends in developing countries export performance
7.
As background for the examination of NTBs of concern to developing countries it is useful to
review recent trends in these countries exports. Export data show that these countries are increasingly
important players in world trade. In the last decade, their share in world merchandise exports increased
from 17% to 27%.
8.
Most of developing-country exports go to high-income countries, but trade with other developing
countries is becoming increasingly important and dynamic. That said, trade between developing countries
is becoming more concentrated on regional markets. This is particularly noticeable in Sub-Saharan Africa,
for instance, where intra-regional exports increased from approximately 20 % in 1993 to almost half of that
regions total exports to other developing countries.
9.
In terms of the export structure, the share of manufactured products has steadily grown over the
past two decades, whereas the share of primary commodities has declined. Developing countries are
clearly striving to diversify their export activity, which can be seen from the shift in the export pattern from
low value-added manufactured goods towards higher value-added goods such as electrical and electronic
products, industrial equipment and machinery. The exception is the group of Least Developed Countries
(LDCs), which have not seen their export structure evolve to the same extent. 4
10.
Annex I provides a detailed statistical overview describing developing countries export
performance over the last decade.
B.
Analysis of NTBs: Data availability and methodology
11.
Data on NTBs are extremely limited, particularly in developing countries. One source of fairly
comparable and comprehensive data is the UNCTAD Database on Trade Control Measures, which
however contains a number of well-known definitional and methodological problems. A few regional
groupings of developing countries (e.g. ALADI, SIECA, ASEAN, SAARC) and individual developing
countries maintain their own databases of trade measures or barriers of various types. Particularly lacking
are data on NTBs especially affecting low-income countries, including least developed countries (LDCs).
12.
Besides these databases, there exists no widely accepted tools or approaches for capturing nontariff measures that limit market access. Researchers and analysts have resorted to varying methodologies
in an effort to identify and assess the most prevalent and restrictive barriers, including frequency measures
derived from the databases, as well as empirical analyses based on surveys of exporters or data drawn from
WTO Trade Policy Reviews. The advantages and shortcomings of each of these approaches have been well
documented in the literature (Andriamananjara et al, 2004; Dean et al, 2003; Bora et al, 2002; McGuire et
al, 2002; Michalopoulos, 1999; Deardorff and Stern, 1998; OECD, 1997).
Least developed countries (LDCs) refers to countries on the UN list of LDCs. As of October 31, 2004, 50
countries were on this list.
11
13.
Acknowledging data and methodological shortcomings, this study draws on several sources of
information in an attempt to provide useful insights for traders and trade negotiators. The result is an
analytical framework based on four elements of research using different types of available data:
a brief review of literature on the existence of NTBs;

analysis of recent NTB notifications by DC governments to the WTO;
a review of private sector perceptions on NTBs through available surveys; and
analysis of trade disputes involving NTBs brought before multilateral and regional dispute
settlement mechanisms.
14.
These approaches to NTB identification are combined to provide a unified basis for analysis.
The term NTBs will be used to refer broadly to all measures (public and private) other than tariffs that have
the potential for distorting international trade flows in goods.5
15.
Section II of this paper reviews some of the main findings from available literature on NTBs
affecting developing countries, both at the aggregate level of intra-developing country trade and trade
between developing and developed countries. Section III presents an analysis of the NTB notifications to
date made by non-OECD countries to the WTO Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-Agricultural
Products (NAMA). Section IV reviews disputes brought to the WTO and to tribunals of regional trade
arrangements (RTAs) among developing countries. As a final element of the research framework, Section
V reviews available surveys reporting private sector perceptions of NTBs. Various supporting materials are
compiled in the Annexes at the end of this paper.
II.
Literature review
16.
A great deal of research has documented that developing countries still have an important market
access agenda in the aftermath of widespread tariff liberalisation undertaken by developed and developing
economies. This section offers an overview of the available literature on non-tariff market issues that
seem to affect DCs, both in an intra-developing country and an extra-developing country trade
perspective. The review begins at a global level, complemented by a region-based overview of non-tariff
barriers affecting intra-regional trade among developing countries. Relevant literature and case studies
undertaken by scholars, trade analysts, governments, and international organisations form the basis of this
review. This exercise excludes studies based on private sector perceptions, as these are reviewed separately
in Section V.
A.
Global trends in NTBs affecting developing countries
17.
Globally, the existing body of literature conveys a few key findings and trends pertaining to
developing countries. Most analysts observe that the utilisation of certain types of NTBs affecting these
countries, such as quantitative retrictions, have markedly decreased in the post-Uruguay Round setting
(McGuire et al, 2002; Stephenson, 1999; PECC, 1995; Estevadeordal and Robert, 2001; Arnjadi and Yeats,
19956). The remaining post-Uruguay NTBs, according to the frequency ratio analyses conducted by
Michalopoulos (1999) and others, appear to be more prevalent in developing than in developed-country
markets, although they have decreased over time. Michalopoulos (1999) notes that frequency ratios of
quantity and price control measures tend to be higher in countries with lower levels of per capita income
and lower degrees of openness. A seemingly greater prevalence of these NTBs in trade among developing
5
Similar definitions are often used in the literature. See for example Don P. Clark, Non-tariff measures and
developing country exports, The Journal of Developing Areas, 27, January 1993, pp. 163-172.
The authors and literature review vary in their classification of developing countries, and at times do not
specify the classification used.
12
countries is however difficult to demonstrate given that the existing literature focuses predominantly on
barriers to DC trade in their major export markets, which generally are OECD markets. (Bhattacharryya
and Mukhopadyaha 2002a; Bhattacharryya and Mukhopadyaha 2002b; COMESA 2003; ECLAC 2001;
Haveman and Shatz, 2004a; Haveman and Shatz, 2004b).
18.
Although existing literature relies on a range of different, not always transparent approaches for
identifying measures of concern to developing countries, it frequently focuses on quantity control
measuresnon-automatic import licensing, quotas, and tariff rate quotas. These measures may also
attract attention because their effects are by nature easier to quantify and analyse than is the case for most
other types of NTBs. Researchers report that post-Uruguay Round, the frequency of NTBs for processed
goods far exceeds those applied to primary commodities.
19.
Laird (1999a) finds that the primary NTBs affecting DC market access to both OECD and nonOECD markets are essentially the same, consisting primarily of: import licensing systems (including
allocation of tariff quotas); variable levies and production and export subsidies (in the agricultural sector);
import/export quotas (in textiles and clothing sector) and local content and export balancing
requirements (automotive industry); export subsidies to develop non-traditional manufacturers
(administered as tax breaks or subsidised finance, as direct subsidies have almost disappeared under fiscal
pressures); and state trading operations.
20.
Another perspective comes from other available research that identifies a different prevalence of
various types of NTBs according to whether developing countries trade with developed countries or among
themselves, as described below.
1.
Observations regarding NTBs in trade with developed countries
21.
A review of the existing literature suggests that technical regulations, price control measures and
certain other measures are particularly frequently subject to concerns voiced about access to developedcountry markets.
22.
Technical barriers to trade (TBTs): While recognising that technical measures may serve
legitimate purposes, it is also evident that they can be important obstacles to exports to developed countries
whose technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures may effectively serve as
border-protection instruments (Wilson, 2000; Wilson, 1999; Stephenson, 1997; Michalopoulos, 1999).
Despite their adverse effects, Nixon (2004) argues that these measures can also have a positive effect for
developing countries by spurring new competitive advantages and investment in technological capability,
should enterprises in DCs act offensively. This scenario is less likely to materialise in LDCs, given the
significant technological and financial constraints they face.
23.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS): The literature also reveals that animal health and
plant protection measures may, in some cases, appear to be unnecessarily protectionist. These measures are
of special importance to developing countries given the share of their agricultural exports. A quantitative
analysis of the impact of a specific SPS standards implemented in the EU found a decrease in African
exports to this market of 64% or USD 670 million (Otsuki, Wilson and Sewadeh, 2001). The emergence
of biotechnology, and international trade in biotechnology, has recently spurred the use of restrictive
measures that are costly and burdensome for developing countries (Zarrilli and Musselli, 2004).
24.
Other measures: The literature shows a growing concern about measures in developed-country
markets that may have trade-restrictive effects. At issue are rules and regulations associated with
environmental, national security, labour and other social standards (Michalopoulos, 1999; Bhattacharyya
1999; Bhattacharyya and Mukhopadhyaya, 2002b; Chatuverdi and Nagpal, 2003). While these are
13
legitimate areas for regulation, bioterrorism rules, child labour clauses, and environment standards are at
times perceived as being more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve intended goals. Discussion of this
arena is highly politicised: few objective studies exist that quantify or thoroughly examine the impact of
these measures on developing countries exports.
2.
NTBs in trade among developing countries
25.
As mentioned above, there is a dearth of studies that examine intra-developing country trade
from an NTBs perspective. There is a growing tide of research interest directed at issues affecting trade
among developing countries; however, the existing analyses still focus on tariffs and tariff liberalisation or
more generally on avenues for cooperation among developing countries.
26.
Given this void with respect to NTBs, the best sources of information are studies on barriers to
trade taking place among developing countries belonging to regional trade agreements (RTAs) (eg.,
Berlinski, 2002; ACS, 2003; Soontiens, 2003; Bhattacharyya and Mukhopdhyaya, 2002). However, a
caveat is that the findings drawn from these studies reflect barriers to these intra-regional exports (which
are concentrated on Asia and Latin America) and not barriers to trade with developing countries in other
regions (which is a significant portion of trade for the Middle East and Africa).
27.
A few general observations can be made and are noted here. More specifically, customs
procedures, para-tariff measures, and some other forms of NTBs are observed to slow the pace of
liberalisation and market access improvement in intra-developing country trade.
28.
Customs and administrative procedures: The literature on intra-developing country trade
reports significant problems associated with cumbersome and inefficient customs and administrative
bureaucracy. Customs procedures are generally not automated; customs valuation tends not to based on
market prices; the customs clearance process is long and complex; and weak customs administration leads
to border smuggling. Combined, inefficient procedures and excessive formalities may result in a high
degree of non-official trade that is not reflected in South-South trade statistics (Daly et al., 2001).
29.
Para-tariff measures: Where intra-regional tariffs have been lowered or eliminated as a result
of regional co-operation, RTAs among developing countries witness an upsurge of import surcharges and
other additional charges. This seems to reflect the problem of fiscal dependence of DC and LDCs on
imports and their need to erect new charges to compensate for the loss of tariff revenue. This type of NTB
is particularly prevalent among smaller DCs and LDCs (Daly et al., 2001).
30.
Other obstacles: The existing literature identifies other barriers that are not considered
conventional NTBs. Geographical and infrastructural features emerge as sizeable barriers to trade among
developing countries, particularly in landlocked countries (Coulibaly and Fontagne, 2003). Growth in
trade among developing countries depends also on improvements in property rights, good governance, and
sound institutions (Agatiello, 2004).
B.
Regional trends in the use of NTBs
31.
The NTBs that a country faces are determined by who its major trading partners are and the
composition of exports to those markets. Therefore, the identification of NTBs warrants a detailed
analysis, as is exemplified by the large number of region-specific studies in existence.
14
32.
Findings from regional studies point to subtle differences among the NTBs that affect the exports
of each region:
For Asia and the Pacific region, whose trade has been characterised by labour-intensive
products, particularly textiles and garments, tariff quotas applied under the MFA, which
has since expired, and technical regulations (especially labelling) emerge in the literature as
being the most significant NTBs in terms of the volume of exports affected (ESCAP, 2000;
Bhattacharyya and Mukhopadhyaya, 2002a and 2002b; Bhattacharyya, 1999).
In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean countries, which are competitive
agricultural exporters, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and agricultural export
subsidies emerge as the main issues impeding market access to major OECD markets
(ECLAC 2003, 2001, 1999). A quantitative analysis of the incidence of NTMs in Latin
American countries shows a growing trend in the incidence of technical measures (IDB,
2002). Also issues relating to antidumping, particularly for steel, are reported to affect the
larger economies of the region (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile) (Scandizzo, 2002).
Studies on Africa and the Middle East indicate that key NTBs faced by exports from these
regionssuch as quantitative restrictions and special import chargesdo not have a
significant restrictive effect but instead reveal that certain NTBsnotably MFA quotas and
VERshave helped their exporters by shielding them from competition from other
developing regions (Stern and Gugerty, 1996; Arnjadi and Yeats, 1995). More than
complaining about a particular effect of an NTB, these documents reflect concern about the
heavy concentration of an array of NTBs on strategic products of export interest to the region,
namely the energy sector.
Finally, focusing on the EU as the principal export market and the possibility of future
accession, studies covering Europe and Central Asia register strong concerns about barriers
pertaining to stringent TBT and SPS rules (Hanspeter et al, 2001). For this region, literature
is extremely limited.
Annex II offers a more detailed overview of the findings from the literature addressing NTBs by
developing region.
III.
Analysis of notifications of NTBs to NAMA
33.
A more detailed and systematic account of developing countries perceptions of non-tariff
barriers comes from the notification process established under the auspices of the Negotiating Group on
Market Access for Non-agricultural Products (NAMA). WTO Members were invited to submit
notification on NTBs that directly affect their exports. From March 2003 through October 2004, a total of
11 OECD countries and 21 non-OECD countries submitted a list describing barriers to their exports in
foreign markets.7 Notifications were made according to the NAMA Inventory of Non-tariff Measures,
which provides for a broad and comprehensive coverage of NTBs (see Annex III).8
In the July 2004 Framework Agreement, countries were urged to make notifications on NTBs by 31 October
2004 and to proceed with identification, examination, categorization, and ultimately negotiations on NTBs
(Annex B, paragraph 14). This analysis takes into consideration all notifications submitted until November 1st
2004.
The Inventory of Non-tariff Measures groups barriers into seven broad categories (see Annex III). A possible
weakness in this inventory is the lack of clear definition and demarcation of some types of NTBs (e.g.,
15
34.
The following section analyses the notifications made by non-OECD developing countries, with
a view to identifying frequently reported barriers and the products affected.
A.
Data set
35.
The 21 non-OECD countries made a total of 1,200 notifications that, in their view, represent
NTBs affecting various sectors of their export structure.9 These countries represent a geographically and
economically diverse and balanced sample of DCs. In terms of income level, 19% of these countries are
high-income economies; 28% upper-middle income; 28% lower -middle income; and 24% low-income (of
the latter, one country Bangladesh -- is a least developed country (LDC).)10 In 2002, the total value of
merchandise exports from these 21 countries was 1,132,567 million USD, representing approximately 57%
of total DC exports and 18% of total global exports.11
36.
While the data set is fairly representative in terms of DCs and their aggregate exports, it must be
viewed in the context in which it was collected. Moreover, some notifications lack precision and clarity,
and have missing or incomplete information. The methodology that countries used to identify their NTBs
is not documented. The inventory itself has certain shortcomings, namely the lack of clear definition and
demarcation of some types of NTBs (for example, in the areas of import licensing and rules of origin).
Furthermore, as some potential types of barriers are not explicitly listed in the Inventory, countries may not
have reported on them. The present report does not imply making any judgement about whether the
policies or measures notified are legitimate or not.12
37.
There is insufficient information to ascertain whether notifications are made with regard to
developed or developing-country markets.13 To the extent that most DC exports are destined for developed
markets, it would seem reasonable to view this market access analysis in that perspective. Regardless, the
sample of countries notified as maintaining these barriers is confined to WTO Members.
discrimination resulting from bilateral agreements; discriminatory sourcing; distribution constraints; and
others). Furthermore, as some NTBssuch as environmental and security-related measuresare not directly
captured in the Inventory, countries do not report on these types of barriers. For the purpose of this analysis,
certain adjustments mainly to the structure of the classification employed by this inventory were made. These
are also shown in Annex III.
9
The sample of developing countries used in this analysis are non-OECD countries that submitted notifications
as of 1 November, 2004. These are from Africa and the Middle East: Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, and Senegal; from
Asia and the Pacific: Bangladesh, China, Hong-Kong, India, Macao, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Chinese
Taipei, Singapore, and Thailand; from Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uruguay, and Venezuela; and from Eastern Europe: Bulgaria and Croatia. Countries from Asia and the Pacific
are the most represented (87.7% of NTB notifications), with Latin America & the Caribbean and Africa & the
Middle East following in the number of barriers reported.
10
Based on the World Bank classification of countries by levels of income.
11
World Merchandise Exports by Region and Selected Economy 1992-2002, International Trade Statistics 2003,
WTO.
12
Some of the measures in the NTB inventory can clearly serve legitimate purposes (for instance, technical
barriers to trade, rules of origin, and charges on imports).
13
While countries analysed here were invited to specify the Maintaining Participant of the barriers notified,
none provided this information.
16
B.
Types of barriers reported
38.
As shown in Figure 1, NTB categories with the highest incidence of notifications are Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBTs, with 530 NTB entries, or almost half of the total), Customs and
Administrative Procedures (380 entries), and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS, 137 entries).
Amounting to less than 5% of total NTB entries were: quantitative restrictions, trade remedies,
government participation in trade, charges on imports, as well as other barriers.
Figure 1. Frequency of notifications by NTB category
(percentage of total notifications)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Go vernment Cus t o ms and
p art icip at io n ad minis t rat ive
in t rad e
p ro ced ures
Quant it at ive
res t rict io ns
and s imilar
s p ecific
limit at io ns
Technical
b arriers t o
t rad e
Sanit ary and

p hyt o s anit ary
meas ures
C harg es o n
imp o rt s
Trad e
remed ies
Ot her b arriers
Source: OECD, based on submissions to NAMA (TN/MA/W*).
Technical Barriers to Trade

39.
TBTs were the primary reported barrier for 12 of the 21 reporting non-OECD countries, and the
second most reported barrier for five other countries. Almost half of the complaints in this area concern
technical regulations and standards (46%), followed by testing and certification arrangements (26%) and
by marking, labelling and packaging requirements (16%). A commonly reported trade impact of these
barriers is the unnecessary (and often significant) increase in costs that effectively impedes exports.
40.
Several notifying countries comment that technical regulations and standards applied by
certain WTO members are more stringent than those specified by relevant international bodies and that no
legitimate explanation has been provided. Moreover, the upward revision of these standards at regular
intervals makes it difficult for developing countries to keep up with and adapt to changing requirements.
Another complaint relates to the differing technical requirements among members due to the non-adoption
of common international standards, thus raising compliance costs and discouraging DCs from diversifying
their export markets. Countries indicate that equivalence agreements of standards across WTO members
would benefit DC exporters by reducing financial burdens as well as the risk of uncertainty.
41.
Many complaints pertain to the area of testing and certification. Reported concerns are a
general absence of information and lack of transparency on the procedural norms and regulations regarding
specifications as well as methods of sampling, inspection, and testing.
17
42.
Notifying countries maintain that testing methods specify exceedingly high levels of sensitivity
that may not be justified on the grounds of health and safety issues, thereby making testing costs
disproportionately high and even prohibitive. Sometimes levels of sensitivity are raised only because
better technology or testing equipment becomes available, and not due to any specific evidence that a
higher sensitivity is required to meet a health objective. Aside from cost concerns, countries report that
they lose customers simply due to the time required for further testing by laboratories of the importing
country before the required certificates are completed for shipments to be released from Customs.
43.
Other reported problems in conformity assessment procedures include: applying exhaustive preinspection measures at national boundaries, thereby consuming large amounts of time and money;
providing quality certificates that are valid for only one year and renewable on only a yearly basis;
examining the production process in the country of origin by experts of the importing country, having the
DC manufacturer (exporter) pay for travelling expenses and accommodation of experts; and registration
being costly, time-consuming, arbitrary, and not always granted.
44.
The other TBTs subject to a significant number of notifications constitute marking, labelling,
and packaging requirements that are noted as being burdensome, complicated to implement, and often
not equally applied to similar products of domestic origin. It is claimed that such requirements may
require highly developed technological systems that DCs cannot afford. Genetically modified organism
(GMO) labelling, in particular, increases costs for DC producers due to more stringent procedures--in the
absence of solid scientific evidence on the risks to humans of consuming GMOs. Other countries report
that abrupt changes in packaging requirements result in entire shipments being held back at the
distributors warehouse.
45.
Overall, the fact that developing-country suppliers may have more difficulty adapting to new,
legitimate requirements argues for technical assistance and capacity building. WTO Members can also
explore avenues for reducing the effects of these different TBT-related measures through international
standards, more common approaches to test methods and conformity assessment, among other
mechanisms.
Customs and Administrative Procedures
46.
The NTB reported with the second greatest frequency is customs and administrative procedures,
which accounts for almost a third of the total notifications. For nine countries, these are the primary
barrier, and for six other countries the second most reported barrier. Within this broad category, the two
most prominent barriers are rules of origin and import licensing (both automatic and non-automatic), each
responsible for more than one-third of notifications. Other areas exhibiting a high to moderate number of
notifications under this category are customs valuation, formalities, and to a lesser extent, classification.
There are also notifications pertaining to pre-shipment inspection and consular formalities and
documentation.
47.
Some notifying countries report that rules of origin are discriminatory, unreasonable, or
inconsistent. This entails extra formality and cost, or administrative hassles. Rules of origin can be
preferential or non-preferential. While most notifications do not elaborate on the type of rules of origin at
issue, there seems to be some concern on the part of countries failing to obtain originating status under
preferential rules of origin, with the result that their products are not covered by the preferences.
48.
Notifications testify that import licensing procedures frequently bear the effect of delaying or
hampering imports. Some notifying countries complain about the introduction of additional requirements,
such as supporting documents, for automatic licenses issued by the importers. Other complaints hold that
much of the time, the issuing of import licenses is not expressly stipulated and lacks transparency.
18
49.
Customs valuation rules are also perceived to act as trade barriers on some occasions. Most
complaints describe overestimation of prices for customs purposes, particularly through the use of
discriminatory and arbitrary valuation methods. The use of minimum and reference prices, rather than
transaction prices, is widely criticised. Notifying countries also report that the requirement of a minimum
amount of imports for customs valuation prohibits DC producers from exporting small volumes.
50.
Other complaints relate to inconsistent and varying customs classification, including the right of
customs officers to exercise excessive discretion when classifying goods. In some countries customs
clearance is reported to be deliberately delayed to increase the transaction cost and thus reduce
competition for similar domestic products. Notifications also reveal excessive requirements for customs
formalities, another factor that contributes to delaying trade and increasing costs.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
51.
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures is the third most frequently reported barrier for nonOECD exports. A large number of these notifications were made by one country (the Philippines).
Complainants recognise that risk to consumers is an important concern at an international level, but they
claim that certain countries tend to establish onerous standards without first conducting comprehensive risk
assessment work. These measures include chemical residue limits, disease freedom, and specified product
treatment, amongst others (74% of SPS entries). Approximately 17% of complaints in this area pertain
specifically to testing, certification and other conformity assessment related to SPS.
52.
While SPS measures may serve legitimate purposes, the notifying countries report extra
formalities, time, and costliness that restrict or inhibit exports. Obtaining SPS approvals also reportedly
involves tedious and substantial documentation and bureaucratic procedures. For instance, one notifying
country reported that its exports for a specific product were reduced by 70% in both value and volume
because a detector required to comply with SPS measures was too expensive to purchase.
53.
The fact that countries may maintain different and legitimate SPS measures to deal with the same
perceived risk can create market segmentation and thus represents a barrier to freer trade. In such cases,
WTO Members can explore avenues for reducing the effect of these different SPS measures through
international standards, more common approaches to test methods and conformity assessment, among
other mechanisms.
Quantitative Restrictions
54.
Quantitative restrictions and specific limitations account for 51 notifications (4.2% of total
notifications). Half of the barriers reported under this category represent strictly quantitative restrictions
(QRs). Other measures in this category that are reported relatively often include embargoes and similar
restrictions (20%), exchange controls (12%), tariff rate quotas (10%), and discrimination resulting from
bilateral agreements.
Government Participation in Trade
55.
Instances of government participation in trade account for 26 of total notifications (2.1%). The
bulk of these notification falls into the Inventorys category of restrictive practices tolerated by
governments (65%), which often are not further specified but which are reported to protect domestic
producers from foreign competition and to distort trade. Other complaints that have similar effects regard
government assistance, state trading and monopolistic practices, and government procurement.
19
Charges on Imports
56.
Charges on imports represent the distinct category of NTBs subject to the fewest number of
NAMA notifications by the sample of developing countries (0.8%). Myriad import surcharges in this
category include: high taxes for border passage, high storage taxes, port taxes, statistical taxes, variable
taxes, cargo and maritime transport taxes, attestation fees and legalisation fees, and fees for authentication
of export documents. Countries report that the imposition of high fees and fluctuating taxes significantly
adds to export costs and results in uncertainty, and may create preconditions for corruption.
C.
Products affected by reported NTBs
57.
For the sample of developing countries, the product groups most frequently notified as being
hampered by NTBs are live animals and products (309 notifications), machinery and electronics (215
notifications), chemical and allied industry products (124 notifications), and textile and textile articles (93
notifications). Figure 2 displays the percentage of notifications by product group. In a more detailed
analysis, Annex IV provides a more detailed account of reported barriers and products falling under each
of the broad commodity groups.
Figure 2. NTB notifications by product group
Vehicles, Aircraft &

Vessels
4.46%
Arms and Ammunition

Miscellaneous
0.63%
Manufactures
Medical Devices
2.95%
2.68%
Works of Art
0.36%
Live Animals and Products

27.59%
Animal or Vegetable Fats
and Oils
0.27%
Machinery and Electronics

19.20%
Base Metal Articles
3.75%
Vegetable Products
1.07%
Stone, Plaster, Cement &
Ceramic Articles
1.43%
Footwear and Headgear
6.07%
Foodstuffs and Beverages

3.39%
Mineral Products
0.80%
Textile Articles
8.30%
Pulp and Cellulosic

Products
0.98%
Plastic Articles
2.50%
Leather Products
0.98%
Wood Products
1.52%
Source: OECD, based on notifications to NAMA (TN/MA/W*).
20
Chemical Products
11.07%
58.
The product group with most reported NTBs, live animals and products, is primarily affected
by SPS measures (114 notifications) and customs and administrative barriers (106 notifications), in
particular rules of origin (79% of total notified customs problems).14 Within this product category,
reported measures are highly concentrated on range of fish and fisheries products, including shrimp and
prawns, octopus, crab, and tuna. These products capture the highest number of NTB notifications in the
data set.15
59.
Machinery and electronics, on the other hand, is the product category recording the highest
incidence of technical barriers to trade (142 notifications), most of them relating to technical
regulations and standards. Affected products consist mostly of electrical apparatus (e.g., telephones,
televisions, calculators, microwaves); the rest are mechanical machinery (e.g., computer and parts of
computers, palm mould milling machinery) and accessories such as various kinds of cables. These
products also show the largest number of complaints about import licensing procedures (a total of 40
notifications or 69% of the notifications that relate to customs-related problems).
60.
Under the category of chemical products, the exports of concern to developing countries as
reflected in their notifications are mostly pharmaceuticals products (23%) and perfumery, cosmetics and
toilet preparations (20%), followed by fertilisers, inorganic and organic chemicals, explosives and matches,
and soap and washing preparations. This category of exports is significantly affected by TBTs (77
notifications), and to a lesser extent, by import licensing procedures and customs formalities.
61.
Another important export sector for the sample of DCs, textiles and textile articles, is also the
subject of a significant number of notifications, relating particularly to TBTs (42 notifications) and
customs procedures (37 notifications). In the latter NTB category, there are many complaints about
customs valuation (43% of notified customs problems), second only to the still higher number of
notifications of valuation problems affecting footwear, handbags and related products (where customs
valuation is 89% of customs-related barriers). In addition, textiles receive the highest number of
complaints concerning quantitative restrictions (9 notifications), which may in part be related to the
complaints on import licensing. The main commodities reported to be subject to these restrictions are
apparel and clothing accessories.
62.
The list of products mentioned in the above findings is not exhaustive. Other notified
manufactures are vehicles and ships; wood and wood products; optical, medical and surgical supplies; and
prepared foodstuffs. Most of these product groups face primarily technical barriers to trade, although
the nature of the TBTs varies from one product category to the other. For instance, prepared foodstuffs
and beverages are notably affected by marking, labelling and packaging requirements, which make up
46% of TBTs complaints. This is not the case for vehicles and for wood products, which record few
notifications relating to marking and labelling requirements (4 and 5%, respectively) but many
notifications concerning testing and certification arrangements (34 and 35%, respectively), followed by
notifications about technical regulations and standards (31 and 30%, respectively). Notifications regarding
the export of optical, medical and surgical equipment, in contrast, pertain exclusively to the issue of
enforcement of technical regulations and standards (86% of TBTs notifications).
14
There is also a significant number of notifications of TBTs (79 notifications); this may in part reflect the
methodological difficulty of determining whether a technical regulation applied to this product category is in
fact a TBT or SPS measure.
15
Of the 11 developing countries that have made notifications with respect to fisheries, one country (the
Phillipines) has submitted the majority of individual notifications on this item.
21
16
114
6
1
1
0
0
2
0
309
12
2
1
12
2
4
1
17
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
38
9
3
0
1
0
24
13
5
3
6
2
1
0
77
10
3
13
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
1
0
1
124
28
11
17
0
0
2
37
1
9
7
42
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
11
93
19
41
68
16
2
0
2
17
59
17
3
3
3
6
142
26
0
2
0
1
2
0
13
3
2
0
4
0
42
215
50
0
0
7
3
0
2
22
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
7
13
12
33
8
1
25
25
2
376
5
1
49
11
5
531
0
0
135
3
0
13
2
0
35
10
3
32
64
12
1196
Total
Other Barriers
79
4
Charges on
Imports
to Trade
5
0
Sanitary and
Phytosanitary
Measures
Quantitative
Restrictions &
Similar Specific
Limitations
Technical
Barriers
106
1
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
2
0
Government
Participation
Trade
Live Animals and Products
Vegetable Products
Animal or Vegetable Fats and
Oils
Prepared Foodstuffs &
Beverages
Mineral Products
Chemical/Allied Industry
Products
Plastics and Rubber Articles
Leather Products
Wood and Articles of Wood
Pulp of Wood / Fibrous
Celluloid Material
Textile and Textile Articles
Footwear, Headgear &
Related Articles
Articles of Stone, Plaster,
Cement, Ceramic
Pearls and Precious Stones
and Metals
Base Metals and Articles of
Base Metal
Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels
Optical, Photographic,
Medical/Surgical
Arms and Ammunition
Miscellaneous Manufactured
Articles
Works of Art & Pieces and
Antiques
All Products & Many
Products
Not Classified
Total
Trade Remedies
in
Table 1. NTBs reported for specific product groups
Source: OECD, based on notifications to NAMA (TN/MA/W*).
63.
In several other product categories, however, customs and administrative procedures register
more notifications than TBTs: this is the case for the categories of miscellaneous manufactures (where
45% of the reported barriers relate to customs), plastic and plastic products (46% of reported barriers),
and metals and metallic products (41% of reported barriers). For plastics and rubber articles the main
complaint pertains to rules of origin (46% of reported customs-related problems), while in the general
16
There is a slight mismatch between the number of notifications recorded in this table (1196) and the total
notifications reported in Table 1 (1191). This difference is due to the fact that in a few instances countries
reported a barrier but did not specify the products affected by the barrier.
22
category of miscellaneous manufactures (comprising furniture, toys, etc) notifications refer mostly to the
excessive use of import licensing (43%). With respect to metal exports (mostly iron and steel) one can
further note a relatively high number of references to trade remedies, in addition to customs and
administrative barriers.
D.
NTBs and products identified in national export strategies
64.
Most developing countries make export promotion and development a priority in order to achieve
economic development goals. This involves typically identification of existing and new products that have
a potential to emerge as growth drivers of a nations exports.
65.
While the success of export strategies is affected by many domestic factors, it is also affected by
conditions of world trade, including market access barriers.17 Therefore, to provide a forward-looking
perspective to the analysis of potential barriers to trade, an effort is made here to identify the products and
sectors that feature particularly in DC export sectors. The objective is to draw attention to specific NTBs
that are associated with these sectors or products and therefore may stymie the realisation of DCs export
goals.
66.
Data were collected from available national export strategies or programs from non-OECD
countries, as well as from additional sources, in order to construct an indicative, non-exhaustive list of
products and sectors that captures the export interest of an important segment of DCs. The inventory
compiled is shown in Annex V.
67.
The merchandise products/sectors identified relatively frequently as having potential for helping
spur and sustain future export growth are textiles and apparel, fish and fisheries products, chemicals
and pharmaceuticals, information technology (IT) products, and electrical and other heavy
machinery. In addition, the data reviewed suggest that countries are increasingly looking to the provision
of services as an activity with a potential to drive their export performance.
68.
Drawing on this information and the data about NTBs contained in the notifications made to
NAMA, the following observations can be made about strategic sectors and potential barriers to their
export.
Textiles and Apparel
69.
Reported NTBs affecting exports are essentially of three types, namely technical barriers to trade,
customs and administrative procedures, and quantitative restrictions. Technical regulations and standards
as well as testing and certification arrangements are the main problems reported for TBTs, while customs
valuation is the predominant problem reported in the area of customs and administrative procedures. For
details see Section C in Annex IV.
Fish and Fisheries Products
70.
Reported NTBs in this sector consist of SPS measures, customs-related procedures, and TBTs.
While some SPS measures take the form of conformity assessment requirements, other measures cannot be
further specified. Most reported problems related to customs-related procedures refer specifically to rules
of origin; the rest relates mainly to import licensing. For details see Section A in Annex IV.
17
For many developing countries, poor infrastructure, limited access to finance and marketing and other domestic
factors are major obstacles to export success, especially for smaller firms, and formidable challenges for
governments that seek to help develop and promote export activities. They are not the focus of this inquiry.
23
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
71.
The majority of reported NTBs affecting exports concern a broad range of TBTs, covering
technical regulations and standards, testing and certification arrangements, and marking, labelling and
packaging requirements. Various problems with customs and administrative procedures with import
licensing, customs formalities, valuation, and consular fees and documentation are also reported. For
details see Section D in Annex IV.
Information Technology (IT) Products
72.
While notifications to NAMA offer little information on IT products, data on barriers to trade in
IT products have been collected by the WTO Secretariat through submissions made by the Committee of
Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology in the context of their Non-Tariff
Measures Work Programme. The responses from the four developing members that have participated in
these submissions18 indicate that the barriers that obstruct market access in IT products most seriously are
standards and conformity assessment (including testing and certification). Other reported NTBs in this
sector relate to rules of origin, lack of transparency and availability of information, process and production
methods, and on-site service by IT professionals.19
Electrical and Other Heavy Machinery
73.
The main NTB reported for this sector is TBTs, with a prevalence of technical regulations over
other forms of TBTs. Customs and administrative barriers are also frequently reported for this sector, and
pertain primarily to import licensing requirements and procedures. For details see Section F in Annex IV.
IV.
Analysis of dispute settlement cases concerning non-tariff import measures
74.
Over the past several years, developing countries have filed a growing number of cases under the
WTOs Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), some of which voice important market access concerns
in areas of NTBs. The true number of grievances could be still higher: for many DC complainants,
preparing and presenting a case at the WTO represents a significant task.20 Filing of legal challenges is
often constrained by a lack of financial resources and technical expertise in working through the process of
settling disputes.21 Therefore, NTBs introduced into a dispute settlement mechanism are likely indicative
of serious trade-impeding effects.
75.
The following analysis examines trade dispute activity with the goal of identifying those barriers
and affected products that have posed strong concerns to DCs. 22 It sets out with a review of cases brought
18
The four participants are India, Hong-Kong, Chinese Taipei, and Mauritius.
19
For a compilation of submissions reporting NTMs in IT products,

G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1.
20
Moreover, those NTB areas that are not covered by the legal multilateral framework are not captured in the
record of disputed cases.
21
The Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL) corroborates the resource implications of preparing for the
process of filing a dispute, even at the initial stage of consultations. Depending on the degree of the complexity
of the case, a developing country requests on average from 42 to 127 hours of legal assistance for the
consultation stage, which are charged at the sponsored rate of 162 to 324 CHF per hour if the country is a
member to ACWL (www.acwl.ch, ACWL/MB/D/2004/3). The rate is higher if the DC is not a member.
22
The sample of developing countries referred to in the analysis of dispute settlement cases are the non-OECD
countries that have submitted requests for consultation on non-tariff measures. These are: Argentina,
Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Chinese-Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,
24
see
WTO document
to the DSU (1995-2004) by non-OECD countries, i.e. requests for consultations under Article 4 of the
Uruguay Round Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
presented by DCs. In order to gain further insights in particular about NTBs-related concerns in
developing-country fora, the review is followed by an examination of complaints raised amongst Parties to
the Andean Community (1997-2004). The Andean Community was chosen as a case study because of the
large number of complaints submitted to its standing tribunal.
A.
WTO cases concerning non-tariff import measures
76.
During the 10-year period of existence of the WTOs DSU, 24 non-OECD countries have filed a
total of 90 cases pertaining to non-tariff barriers.23 Of these complainants, 50% are lower middle income
economies, and 16.6% are low-income economies. Only one least developed country (Bangladesh)
submitted a complaint on NTBs in 2004. Half of the complainants are Asian countries while the other half
are countries in Latin America. No cases on NTBs have been filed by DCs in Africa, Europe and Central
Asia, or the Middle East.24
77.
While two thirds of total NTB cases have been filed against OECD members (hereafter referred
to as South-North disputes), there is a noteworthy upsurge in complaints filed against other non-OECD
countries (hereafter referred to as South-South disputes). As Table 2 shows, during the second half of
DSUs existence, South-South disputes over NTBs have increased nearly fourfold (188%), in sharp
contrast to the increase in recorded South-North disputes (19%). Annex VI shows the trend in NTBs
complaints filed by non-OECD countries chronologically, both against OECD members and other DC
members.
Table 2. Number of NTB cases initiated by non-OECD countries
Respondent
Non-OECD Countries
OECD Countries
Total
DSU First Period

1995-1999
8
27
35
DSU Second Period

2000-2004
23
32
55
Percent
Increase
188
19
57
Source: OECD, compiled from WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, as of 31/10/2004.
Hong-Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Sri Lanka, Venezuela.
23
The analysis includes all cases initiated by non-OECD countries until October 31, 2004. Of the 90 cases
initiated by these countries, 48 have led to the establishment of a panel; of these, 21 have reached the Appellate
Body.
24
This analysis does not capture DC requests to join consultations. Developing countries are frequently
interested third countries in dispute settlement negotiations, indicating their substantial interest in the NTB
proceedings of other trading partners.
25
78.
The NTBs that register the highest number of disputes presented by DCs are trade remedies (43
cases), quantitative restrictions (18 cases), customs and administrative barriers (13 cases), and
charges on imports (12 cases). There are also a not insignificant number of cases in the area of technical
barriers to trade (TBTs, 9 cases) and government participation in trade (7 barriers).
79.
The number of cases against customs and administrative procedures increased fourfold in the
period 2000-2004 with respect to the period 1995-1999. Substantial increases are also evident for cases on
trade remedies (50%), charges on imports (50%), and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures
(100%). By contrast, cases regarding quantitative restrictions (QR) decreased significantly (by two
thirds) during this period of time.
80.
Noticeable distinctions exist in the types of NTBs subject to South-North versus South-South
disputes. Contrary to the traditional association of trade remedies as measures erected by OECD countries
against DCs, the WTO dispute record shows non-OECD countries as increasingly applying these measures
against each other. In fact, the frequency of these occurrences warrants describing this more of a
phenomenon characterising trade relations among developing countries. Disputes over surcharges also
have a high incidence in trade among developing countries, which may partly reflect DC dependence on
alternative revenues in the aftermath of tariff erosion. On the contrary, disputes over quantitative
restrictions, customs and administrative-related procedures, and technical barriers to trade are primarily
(though not exclusively) directed against OECD countries, whereas government aids and SPS measures
feature only in South-North disputes.
Figure 3. Number of DSU cases 1995-2004, categorised by NTBs
25
20
15
10
0
Government
Participation in
Trade
Customs and
Administrative
Barriers
Quantitiative
Restrictions
Technical Barriers
to Trade
South-North Disputes
Sanitary and
Phytosanitary
Measures
Charges on
Imports
Trade Remedies
South-South Disputes
Note: Disputes refer to instances where countries have requested consultations under Article 4 of the DSU.
Source: OECD, compiled from records of WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding.
26
Other Barriers
81.
A close examination of legal cases reveals that the concerns are often directed toward
procedural aspects of a measures application. For example, in the case of trade remedies complaints
gravitate around the process of the investigation, including determination of dumping, increased imports,
serious injury and threat thereof, and causal link. In the case of safeguards, complaints concern both
procedures and the extent of the measure, which in some cases are tantamount to an import prohibition.
One DC complained of a safeguard blocking the countrys ability to register any imports in the desired
export market.
82.
Similarly, important procedural issues are sometimes raised in respect to the application of
quantitative restrictions. In particular, notification procedures and import licensing systems create
unpredictability and uncertainty for DC exporters. Grievances also frequently refer to discriminatory
allocation of quotas, as well as problems in the administration of tariff rate quotas. With MFA quotas on
trade in textiles and clothing having been eliminated in 2005, the incidence of cases in this area should
decrease.
83.
In the area of customs and administrative barriers, import licensing presents procedural
obstacles such as unnecessary delays and unpredictability in license issuance. Also subject to dispute have
been customs-related complaints regarding the measure that customs procedures are implementing, such as
cases where customs reclassification rules have allegedly forced DC exports to be subject to higher tariff
rates than the bound rates. Similarly, complainants take issue with OECD countries application of certain
rules of origin that are perceived to protect their markets from import competition.
84.
Various types of charges on imports give rise to disputes, particularly when higher than
surcharges applied locally. Plaintiffs testify to the existence of an equalising excise tax (EET) in some
OECD markets which, applied discriminatorily, protects national products and restricts imports of key DC
products. Among developing-country trading partners, disputes revolve around discriminatory and
unfavourable treatment in the form of selective consumption taxes, general sales taxes, and specific
internal taxes. Other practices deemed restrictive include a requirement of stamps to be affixed in the
importing country, or posting of a bond as a prerequisite to importation of specific products.
85.
With the exception of one case involving intra-developing country trade, complaints regarding
technical barriers to trade are largely aimed at regulations maintained by OECD countries.
Complainants argue that OECD members are adversely affecting competitive conditions for developing
countries by applying less favourable technical regulations and standards to imported than to domestic
products. Some disputes refer to the introduction of stringent restrictions in the trade descriptions that can
be used for marketing imports, relegating DC products to a trade description associated with lower quality
and market price. Other cases report the existence of unduly burdensome packaging and labelling
requirements unjustified on environmental or safety grounds.
86.
It is worth noting that TBTs lack of prominence in legal cases, versus their role in the NAMA
notifications exercise, may result from the difficulty of assessing whether a particular technical regulation
or standard is lawful. It may be difficult for a country to challenge the validity of a TBT justification, even
when it entails significant trade restrictive effects, and countries tend not to initiate cases where there is
little likelihood of liberalisation of the measure through a dispute resolution process (Bown, 2004).
87.
Similarly, in cases against sanitary and phytosanitary measures it is difficult for plaintiffs to
challenge a respondents right to regulate matters of human health and safety. The few cases submitted by
non-OECD countries in this area allege that SPS measures prohibit their exports to OECD markets without
any prior assessment of risks or scientific principles, and/or are unnecessarily restrictive. The cases also
often claim that SPS measures are applied discriminatorily. In addition, there are concerns regarding
procedural aspects of applying SPS measures, such as alleged difficulties in obtaining an administrative
27
document, lack of transparency in the publication of SPS requirements, and authorities failures to furnish
the pertinent information.
88.
Complaints brought in respect of government participation in trade question OECD countries
export subsidies, applied to primary products, as well as export credits and guarantees, applied generally to
higher value-added products.
89.
In many of the preceding cases, complainants hold that a measure has been applied without due
consideration of their special situation as a developing country. Further examination of special and
differential treatment (SDT) in relevant NTB areas seems therefore warranted.
90.
Table 3 lists the export products of the sample of 24 developing countries subject to the disputes.
The sectors most frequently affected are agriculture and textiles.
Table 3. Products subject to NTBs cases, DSU 1995-2004

Export Subsidies & Subsidies
South-North
(6 cases)
Export Credits & Loan
South-North
Guarantees
(1 case)
Customs Valuation
South-North
(2 cases)
Customs Classification
South-North
(2 cases)
Customs Clearance
South-North
(1 case)
Rules of Origin
South-North
(1 case)
Import Licensing
South-North
(6 cases)
Sugar, cotton, and other agricultural products; civilian

aircraft.
Regional aircraft
A wide range of products

Frozen boneless chicken
Matches (safety matches)
Textile and apparel products.
Fresh fruits (banana, papaya, plantain) and vegetables;

black beans; poultry products; safety matches; fishing
vessels.
Quantitative Restrictions and Similar Specific Limitations
Tariff rate quotas, prohibitions,
South-North
Fresh fruits (bananas) and vegetables; ground nuts; poultry
and similar import restrictions
(13 cases)
products; shrimp and shrimp products; textile and clothing
products; cotton products; automobiles
South-South
Canned tuna with soybean oil
(2 cases)
South-North
Sardine and scallops; wine; safety matches; gasoline
(7 cases)
South-South
Pharmaceutical products
(1 case)
Sanitary and Phytosanitary
South-North
Fresh fruits (banana, pineapple, others) and vegetables;
Measures
(4 cases)
black beans
Charges on Imports
South-North
Processed orange and grapefruit products; bananas; rice
(9 cases)
South-South
Apples, grapes, and peaches; beverages; tobacco and
(3 cases)
cigarettes; lubricants and fuels; automobiles
28
Trade Remedies
South-North
(10 cases)
Anti-dumping Duties
Countervailing
Safeguard Measures
Other Barriers
Pricing Measures
Approval
and
Marketing
Measures
Environmental Measures
Intellectual Property Rights
South-South
(8 cases)
South-North
(3 cases)
South-South
(3 cases)
South-North
(8 cases)
South-South
(11 cases)
South-North
(1 case)
South North
(1 case)
South-North
(1 case)
South-North
(1 case)
Iron and steel products (steel plates, steel and iron pipe
fittings, iron tube or cast fittings, oil country tubular
goods); silicon metal; electric transformers; paper; cotton
typed bed linen; unbleached cotton fabrics
Vegetable oils; poultry; pasta (macaroni and spaghetti);
jute bags; batteries; pharmaceutical products.
Carbon steel products, steel plates; salmon
Desiccated coconut and coconut milk powder; footwear;
buses
Steel products; poultry products; cotton yarn; brooms and
corn brooms; woven wool shirts and blouses; wool coats
Sugar and fructose; agricultural products; mixed edible
oils; preserved peaches; medium density fibre; polyester
filaments; woven fabric of cotton and cotton mixtures;
footwear
Many products
Agricultural biotechnology products
Safety matches
Not specified
Source: OECD, compiled from records of WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding

(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm), as of 31/10/2004.
91.
Agricultural products are subject to QRs and import licensing, SPS measures, and charges on
imports. Sugar, among other agricultural products, is prone particularly to safeguards, export and other
types of subsidies applied by OECD countries.
92.
Export of textiles and cotton products is also hindered by multiple NTBs, particularly rules of
origin, quantitative restrictions, antidumping duties and safeguards. Of note, safety matches feature
frequently in the dispute record, facing barriers such as customs clearance procedures, import licensing,
TBTs, and environmental measures.
93.
Differing product groups are affected by a particular NTB depending on the market maintaining
the measure that is challenged, whether this concerns South-South or South-North trade. This appears to
be the case for trade remedies, which are applied mainly to steel and iron DC exports to OECD markets.
Non-OECD markets, in contrast, apply trade remedies to agricultural products and foods, textiles and
footwear, and pharmaceutical products.
94.
Certain products of interest to DCs are subject to disputes primarily among non-OECD countries.
Tobacco and cigarettes allegedly face significant surcharges applied by other countries. In the case of
pharmaceuticals, barriers are encountered exclusively in trade among non-OECD countries and relate to
conformity assessment procedures and antidumping duties.
29
B.
Cases on non-tariff import measures in trade among developing countries: Andean

Community
95.
In order to elucidate the nature of NTBs that give rise to disputes among developing-country
trading partners, this section analyses legal cases submitted to the Court of Justice of the Andean
In particular, it reviews the complaints of non-compliance (Dictmen de
Community (AC).25
Incumplimiento), which represent the pre-litigation phase before an action may be brought to Court.26
96.
Compared to the process of settling disputes pursuant to the DSU in the WTO, this procedure is
much less costly for countries to engage in and does not bear the burdensome demands with regards to
technical expertise, given that the General Secretariat of the Andean Community is charged with the
administrative (i.e., pre-litigation) investigation. This may explain the more frequent use of this mechanism
by Members. Furthermore, the scope of intra-regional activity regulated by the AC is broader than that of
multilateral trade rules; hence a broader set of NTB-related complaints are captured in the set of disputes.
97.
During the period 1997-2004, a total of 104 legal cases covering NTBs have been initiated
among members of the AC. Figure 4 shows the incidence of various types of barriers that have been
subject to complaints. Although tariffs among AC members were eliminated in 1993, the rise of intraregional exports has been a modest 0.1%.27 This draws attention to the potentially significant role of NTBs
and possibly other factors in inhibiting trade in a tariff-free environment.
98.
As shown in Figure 4, intra-Andean Community trade appears to be consistently hampered by
customs and administrative procedures, the most frequent legal complaint among the ACs six member
countries. Import licensing alone accounts for 48% of these cases, capturing complaints on consistent
overuse of licenses and procedural problems in obtaining them, including delays and arbitrary decisionmaking. Following this sub-category, 27% of the cases reveal problems with proper certification and
determination of origin of a wide variety of products. Other areas that generate problems is customs
valuation (17% of cases) and classification (4%), where complaints tend to highlight authorities lack of
technical expertise in complying with requisite customs regulations and procedures.
25
The Andean Community is a customs union formed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.
Trade in goods between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela is completely free of tariffs for all
products; Peru is joining the free trade area gradually through a Liberalisation Program. The Court of Justice
was established as a permanent and supranational body in 1979, and thereafter modified in 1996 to broaden its
sphere of competences.
26
The Dictmen de Incumplimiento is the Secretariats judgement on the complaint filed by countries; since the
complaints are not readily available, the Dictmen de Incumplimiento/Cumplimiento is the first official
published report on members complaints.
27
ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean), Statistical Yearbook for Latin America
and the Caribbean 2002.
30
Figure 4. NTB cases in the Andean Community
1
23
Customs and Administrative Barriers
Quantitative Restrictions
3
21
Sanitary and Phytosanutary Measures
Charges on Imports
10
Trade Remedies
Intellectual Property Rights
Price Band & Administrative Pricing
Transportation Regulations
Other Barriers
Number of Cases (1997-2004)
Source: OECD, compiled from records of the Andean Community (http://www.sieca.org.gt/SIECA.htm), as of 31/10/2004.
99.
Many complaints concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures have been lodged, despite
the absence of South-South disputes in this area at the multilateral level. The ACs South-South disputes
on SPS raise issues of a procedural nature, e.g. arbitrary granting of certificates and permissions.
Commonly noted procedural issues include:
Delays of more than 5 months in granting SPS permissions, while the maximum timeframe to
grant a permission is 10 days.
Granting an SPS permission with a validity limited to 60 days, when the minimum validity period
established by AC regulations is 90 days.
Establishing complementary requirements for granting an SPS permission, not provided for in AC
legislation.
Granting permissions to only a small portion of the products, with other products subject to
indefinitely pending approval without any stated objections on SPS grounds.
100.
In some instances, the complainant perceives the procedural problem in granting SPS approvals
as being intentional or a hidden restriction.
101.
Complaints on trade remedies rank third among AC cases, which is high and thus consistent with
the increasing trends of trade remedies cases observed for developing countries in the DSU analysis of the
AC cases (70%) concern safeguards, particularly involving sugar, and state that countries maintain
safeguards without showing proof for or documenting injury of national producers. Concerning antidumping measures, the intra-regional cases (30%) differ from those brought before the DSU: AC members
charge each other with not applying duties to imports of steel and metal from non-member countries,
thereby allowing extra-regional partners to engage in dumping practices to the detriment of the
competitiveness of regional production.
31
102.
Similarly, a relatively large number of cases challenge quantitative restrictions, mostly quotas
on agricultural products. As in the DSU analysis, there are considerable problems involving government
use of surcharges in AC intra-regional trade. These mainly concern large numbers of customs fees. In
contrast, very few cases involve TBTs and only one case involves government assistance. This supports
the conclusion drawn from the analysis of the DSU that these measures are issues arising mainly in
developing countries trade with developed countries.
103.
Several NTBs that appeared infrequently, if at all, in the review of DSU cases appear to pose
significant challenges in South-South trade relations. This is reflected for example in the number of AC
cases involving intellectual property rights, affecting mostly pharmaceuticals and relating to such issues
as the lack of protection granted for essential medicines or unclear provisions for patent registration. There
are also many cases involving administrative price fixing, particularly for agricultural products, although
most are related to the administration of the Andean Price Band. Other cases in this area challenge the
practice of fixing minimum import price at a level that exceeds the price of similar domestic products on
grounds of violation of national treatment. Finally, serious problems of intra-regional market access are
attributed to the existence of transport barriers, partly because infrastructure is poor and use costly, and
partly because government regulations allow only certain cargo carriers to operate in a market.
C.
Other regional dispute settlement bodies
104.
There are very few permanent regional trade dispute settlement bodies. Among the regional
trade agreements of developing countries, only the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) and the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) have bodies similar to the one in operation
in the Andean Community.
105.
In the case of MERCOSUR, a total of nine commercial disputes among State Parties have
reached the arbitration stage of the dispute resolution mechanism established under the Protocol of
Brasilia. While these are the only arbitral panels that have actually issued rulings to date, there are
hundreds of other disputes among members that have entered the system, but cases at early stages of
proceedings are not published on the Internet and information about them can only be obtained directly
from the Secretariat.
106.
As Table 4 shows, all of the nine cases except one (concerning tariffs) challenge alleged NTBs
interfering with the free flow of intra-regional trade. As the sample of cases is small and targets a variety
of measures ranging from import licensing and quantitative import restrictions to subsidies and trade
remedies, it is not analysed in greater detail. Consistent with the profile of AC and DSU cases, one
interesting observation is that there are no cases involving technical barriers to trade.
32
Table 4. Controversies submitted to arbitration panel of MERCOSUR
Date
04/04/03
21/05/02
19/04/02
Complainant
Argentina
Paraguay
Argentina
09/01/02
Uruguay
29/09/01
Uruguay
21/05/01
10/03/00
27/09/99
28/04/99
Brazil
Brazil
Argentina
Argentina
Respondent
Measure
Uruguay
Incentives to exports
Uruguay
Specific internal tax (mesi)
Brazil
Obstacles to imports of phytosanitary
products (registration system)
Brazil
Import ban (prohibition on the
issuance of import licenses)
Argentina
Restrictions: tariffs (involved
controversy over certificate of origin)
Argentina
Antidumping duties
Argentina
Safeguards
Brazil
Subsidies for production and exports
Brazil
Automatic and non-automatic import
licensing
Products
Wool products
Cigars
Phytosanitary products
Remolded tyres
Bicycles
Chicken
Textile products
Pork meat
Lactate products
Source: OECD, compiled from MERCOSUR Secretariat (http://www.mercosur.org.uy/pagina1esp.htm) as of 31/10/2004.
107.
The review of the cases submitted to the Court of Justice of COMESA showed that they often
involve issues other than trade measures. For instance, there are cases of alleged defamation (Ref. No.
1/2003) or compulsory acquisition of land (Ref. No. 3 of 2001), and such cases do not provide insights into
the kinds of barriers that might exist within the region. Perhaps the only judgement of the court relevant
for an intra-regional analysis of NTBs pertains to the alleged detainment of goods at ports and damages
arising from these customs procedures (Ref. No.1/99).
V.
Analysis of business surveys
108.
Another body of evidence on non-tariff barriers in developing countries consists of survey data
on barriers faced by DC exporters of goods in a range of markets. For the purpose of this analysis, a
survey is defined as a study that collects enterprise-level data or involves consultation with enterprises.
This section compiles and examines private/business sector concerns in order to balance the more public
sector-based analyses of the preceding sections.
109.
Annex VII lists a selection of surveys that are representative of private-sector responses from all
developing regions. Concerns about NTBs involve exporters and regions throughout these regions and
pertain to OECD markets and global markets (Annex VII, A and B), as well as intra-regional trade in Asia
(Annex VII, C), South America (Annex VII, D), Central America and the Caribbean (Annex VII, E),
Africa and the Middle East (Annex VII, F), and south-eastern Europe (Annex VII, G). In total, the
selection covers responses from over 6 000 exporters of goods from developing countries.
110.
Comparisons of survey data must be made with caution owing to differences in data sets,
methodologies and scope of barriers surveyed. Some surveys were open-ended whereas others involved
predefined questions focusing on a limited set of barriers. The number and profile of respondents also
varies. However, despite this heterogeneity, some patterns in NTBs concerns are evident.
A.
Barriers reported by firms: Global markets
111.
A common denominator among survey findings, which is consistent with our analyses of NAMA
notifications and the intra-regional AC legal cases, is problems with customs and administrative
33
procedures (see the synthesis of surveys in the Annex). Specifically, the business community in
developing countries cites concerns regarding bureaucracy, delays and high costs.
112.
In 2001, the Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas of Peru conducted a detailed survey of 253
of its users (122 of which were exporters/importers). The survey revealed that 56% of exporters/importers
were not well informed about customs rules and procedures.28 About two-thirds (67%) of the polled
exporters/importers affirmed that custom procedures were not modern or were inefficient, with insufficient
personnel, inadequate capacity, and non-existent or inefficient controls against corruption and/or
arbitrariness. In line with these findings, various other surveys covering trade among developing countries
reflect concerns about the lack of business ethics among customs officers and limited computerisation.
113.
As in the preceding sections, import licensing looms as a frequent concern. The surveys also
indicate frustration with excessive use of documentation and formalities, which further exacerbate the
bureaucratic obstacles of customs and administration. In terms of specific customs-related barriers by
markets, rules of origin, and pre-shipment inspection are more frequently reported to cause obstacles for
trade among developing countries than for access to the markets of developed countries. Of note, all
surveys on intra-regional trade in Africa signal customs clearance as a significant hurdle.
114.
The surveyed business community corroborates that TBTs are a major detriment to exportation.
Concerns abound regarding divergent and non-harmonised standards, delays and discrimination in TBT
application, non-transparency and lack of general information on TBT regulations. In testing and
certification arrangements, surveyed companies often complain about the lack of mutually recognised
certification bodies and insufficiency of national certificates.
115.
The World Bank Technical Barriers to Trade Survey, administered in 2002 to 698 firms in 17
developing countries, indicates the primacy of technical regulations as a hurdle for major OECD export
destinations.29 The survey findings show that performance standards, product quality standards and testing
and certification are perceived to be the most important TBTs, followed closely by consumer safety,
labelling and health and environment measures. Surveyed firms report that TBT compliance requires
investment in: additional plant or equipment (38% of firms), one-time product redesign (31%), additional
labour for production (30%), product re-design for each export market (26%), additional labour for testing
and certification (18%), and workers laid off because of higher costs (11%).
116.
A specialised survey on packaging and labelling conducted in 2001 by the Costa Rican Export
Promotion Agency (PROCOMER) indicates that 34% of the 215 surveyed businesses state that they are
unfamiliar with the packaging requirements for their products in markets to which they currently export,
and 63% have no knowledge of these requirements for markets identified as potential export destinations.30
As for environment-related rules and requirement regulating packaging/labelling arrangements, 57%
indicate lack of information for their current markets, a percentage that increases to 73% in regard for
potential markets. Against this background, 89% of firms express their interest in receiving capacitybuilding and practical assistance with packaging and labelling.31
28
Evaluacin de Servios de Aduanas. Estudio Cuantitativo: Principales Resultados, Apoyo Opinin y Mercadeo
on behalf of Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas, November 2001.
29
The countries surveyed are: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Argentina, Chile, Honduras, Panama, Iran,
Jordan, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda. The main sectors
surveyed are: raw foods; processed foods, tobacco, drugs and liquor; equipment; and textiles.
30
Capacidad Exportadora en Costa Rica: Principales Resultados, PROCOMER, 2001.
31
The areas suggested by businesses for capacity-building relating to labelling and packaging, in order of
perceived importance: technical and environmental requirements; suppliers and types of packaging/labelling;
34
117.
While customs and administrative procedures and TBTs are clearly the most prevalent nontariff barriers, there is a notable difference in their relative perceived importance depending on whether
the surveyed companies are exporting to OECD or non-OECD markets. In surveys covering trade between
developing and developed countries, TBTs rank higher as a market access obstacle. In the surveys on
barriers affecting trade among developing countries, on the other hand, customs and administrative-related
barriers invariably rank higher. The findings of the Western Balkans Survey (Table 5) is representative of
this picture.
Table 5. Ranking of barriers faced by Western Balkan exporters, by market (2004)
Ranking
(by importance
of barrier)*
1
2
EU market
(extra-DC trade)
South-eastern European market

(intra-DC trade)
Technical standards and

certification
Quality control and consumer
protection
Customs barriers
----
Bureaucratic registration
Customs procedures
Bureaucratic registration
certification
Quality control and consumer
protection
----
Note: *In descending order by degree of importance. Items in the survey not related to TBTs, customs and administrative
procedures are omitted from this table (as indicated by ---).
Source: OECD, based on Western Balkan Survey (2004).
118.
The surveys also illustrate certain problems related to sanitary and phytosanitary measures for
DCs, particularly in exporting to OECD markets. A major problem faced by some firms, especially small
and medium-sized enterprises, seems to be access to the resources required to comply with SPS standards,
given that they are often not available locally. These include information on SPS standards themselves,
scientific and technical expertise, appropriate technology, skilled labour, and general finance, amongst
others. In a survey of SPS contact/inquiry points in low and middle-income countries that are members of
the WTO and/or Codex Alimentarius, Table 6 reports problems related to SPS requirements that were
judged to be significant or access to the EU market.
costs of packaging/labelling; methods for quality control; effects of packaging/labelling on sales of product;
containers; port management, amongst others. The products identified as most important are: machines and
equipment, tubes and tube products, furniture, fragile products, fruits, and confectionary.
35
Table 6. Problems with meeting SPS requirements in the European Union (2000)
Mean Score*
1.6
2.1
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.9
Factor
Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise
Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic
production/marketing methods
Poor access to financial resources
Insufficient time permitted for compliance
Limitations in own countrys administrative arrangements for
SPS requirements
Poor awareness of SPS requirements amongst government
officials
Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture and food
industry
Poor access to information on SPS requirements
Note: *Score ranges from 1= very significant to 5=very insignificant. Survey is based on 65 fully completed questionnaires
applied to a total of 44 low and middle income countries, as classified by the World Bank.
Source: Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to Developing Countries, Survey Conducted by The University of
Reading (2000).
B.
Barriers reported predominantly for trade among developing countries
119.
All of the surveys on intra-regional trade, and particularly in Africa and the Caribbean, record
concerns regarding an impressive number and variety of additional charges, ranging from customs service
and harbour and aircargo fees, often deemed to be excessively high, to an array of additional taxes and
charges such as foreign exchange tax; stamp duty; environmental tax; statistics, consent and inspection
fees; and others. Apart from these border and transit charges, companies also report problems with regards
to internal taxes and additional charges such as consumption, value added and excise. Differences in tax
regulations and their lack of transparency are frequently cited as a problem area across members of
regional groupings.
120.
An interesting finding across the surveys is that companies attach considerable importance to
barriers not generally captured in a traditional listing of NTBs, particularly in the context of a South-South
exchange. Among these, respondent firms frequently denounce transportation regulations and costs,
which also featured prominently in the analysis of trade disputes in the Andean Community. These
concerns relate to poor or unfair regulation of goods transport in the importing country, in addition to
various problems pertaining to the quality, frequency, and lack of security of road and ship transport.
Moreover, surveyed companies indicate that the costs of international air and maritime transport are high
and impede access to foreign markets.
121.
The surveys also indicate that trade is further hampered by restrictive finance measures,
including the shortage of foreign exchange within developing regions. Private sector entities underscore
the challenges posed by barriers such as banking system weaknesses and restrictive government
regulations on exchange requirements, capital controls and finance and payment mechanisms. These
seriously affect the export potential of small and medium sized enterprises that lack easy access to external
financing sources.
36
Table 7. Non-tariff barriers cited in business surveys
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
General
Customs
Valuation
Customs
Classification
Customs
Clearance
Documentation
& Formalities
Import
Licensing
Rules of Origin
Pre-shipment
Inspection
Quantitative
Restrictions
Technical Barriers
to Trade
Maldova (2004)
European Commission (2005)
Western Balkans (2004)***
COMESA (1999)**
MENA (2000)**
South East
Europe
Morocco (2001)**
CARICOM (2002)**
Assoc. Caribbean States (2003)**
Andean Community (1997)**
Central America (1999)**
MERCOSUR (2000)**
ALADI (2001)**
Argentina (1999)*
ASEAN (date unspecified)**
Chile (2000)***
Vietnam (1999)**
General
Prohibitions
Quotas
Tariff Rate
Quotas
Embargoes
General
Technical Reg.
& Standards
Testing &
certification
Labelling &
packaging
Thailand (2001)***
China (2001)*
Africa and the

Middle East
SADC (2004)**
General
Export & other
Subsidies
State-trading &
Monopolistic
Practices
Public
Procurement
India-non-OECD Markets 2004)**
Government
Participation
India OECD Markets (2004)*
Asia and the Pacific
37
General
Testing and
Certification
Quarantine
Procedures
Charges and Fees
Various Charges
Trade Remedies
General
Antidumping
Duties
Countervailing
Duties
Safeguards
Other Barriers
Import
Restrictions
Unilateral
Sanctions
Registration
Intellectual
Property Rights
Environmental
Measures
Minimum
Pricing & Price
Control
Measures
Finance
Measures
Access to Final
Users
Extraterritorial
Application of
the Law
Legal
Differences
Lack of
information on
foreign markets
Competition
from other
countries
Transportation
Costs and/or
Regulations
COMESA (1999)**
MENA (2000)**
Morocco (2001)**
SADC (2004)**
CARICOM (2002)**
Maldova (2004)
MERCOSUR (2000)**
ALADI (2001)**
Chile (2000)***
Vietnam (1999)**
Thailand (2001)***
Sanitary and
Phytosanitary
China (2001)*
Argentina (1999)*
South East
Europe
Africa and the

Middle East
38
Corruption and
Theft
Political, Social,
or Economic
Instability
Inadequate
Infrastructure
Low Demand in
Export Markets
Cultural
Differences
Linguistic
Barriers
Unclassified
Maldova (2004)
South East
Europe
COMESA (1999)**
MENA (2000)**
SADC (2004)**
CARICOM (2002)**
MERCOSUR (2000)**
ALADI (2001)**
Argentina (1999)*
Chile (2000)***
Morocco (2001)**
Africa and the

Middle East
Vietnam (1999)**
Thailand (2001)***
China (2001)*
: Barrier is reported in survey (note: not all surveys include all listed barriers). : At least one kind of barrier is reported under the
NTB category. *: Extra-DC Surveys; **: Intra-DC- Surveys; ***: Global Surveys
Source: OECD, compiled from a selection of business surveys.
122.
Most of the surveys also show that enterprises have limited information on foreign markets in
general and on applicable regulations. In the Western Balkans survey, for instance, 48% of 2166 polled
companies affirm that they are not familiar with the EU market, with only 9% fully informed of its relevant
laws and regulations.32 With respect to intra-regional market access opportunities, over a third (37%) of
respondents note a lack of familiarity with South Eastern European markets. This would appear to be a
very high number in light of the numerous bilateral free trade agreements between countries of the region
and the current discussions tending towards a common free trade area.
123.
Finally, in the context of the dynamics of trade among developing countries, the sample of
surveys examined reveals political, social and economic factors inherent to the environment of the export
market that act as obstacles to trade. Exporters participating in these surveys cite various kinds of
problems relating to corruption, theft, social unrest, and economic volatility.
32
The survey reveals that the most important areas of EU legislation in terms of relevance to companies
operations are, in this order: product certification and technical standards; rules of origin; consumer protection
and producer liability; labels, trademarks, and patents; environmental protection; and food quality and safety.
39
VI.
Conclusions
A.
Review of sources
124.
This study has sought to identify NTBs of concern to developing countries by drawing on four
sources of data which provide a variety of perspectives. Each of these sources contributes to a better
understanding of the market access concerns of developing countries by documenting various kinds of
NTBs. Together, they represent a rich source of information.
125.
The review of the literature, while not generating accurate measures of the extent and effects of
NTBs, provides an insightful picture of the trends in the use of NTBs over time, particularly in the
aftermath of the Uruguay Round. Most research shows that core NTBs (i.e., quantity and price control
measures) have decreased significantly. At the same time, other measures that have come to the forefront
of DCs concerns have been identified. Furthermore, among the sources consulted, the literature provides
a differentiated picture of market access barriers by developing regions.
126.
The NAMA notifications represent the most recent and direct reporting exercise undertaken by
governments in this field. The set of notifying WTO members is representative of developing countries,
given that their aggregate exports account for 57% of total DC exports. It is the only source of data for
identifying not only the barriers but also the products affected, and therefore gives commodity-specific
information on NTBs. These notifications provide a solid foundation for some limited empirical analysis.
127.
The examination of dispute settlement cases has provided a limited data set of DC concerns on
NTBs. The analysis shows that NTBs are a source of significant and in fact growing friction, both in
South-North trade relations and increasingly in South-South trade. In particular, the compilation of cases
from regional dispute settlement mechanism provides a good account of market access barriers
encountered in intra-regional developing-country trade.
128.
Finally, an investigation into private-sector perceptions spanning all developing regions offers
testimony concerning difficulties that exporters experience. It reveals that market access challenges faced
by DC exporters extend beyond traditional NTBs to include other factors obstructing trade (eg. transport
costs and regulations) which may warrant more attention. This component also contributes to the
identification of barriers affecting developing countries intra-regional trade.
B.
Findings on barriers of concern to developing countries
129.
While there are variations in the main findings resulting from each data set, certain broadly
defined categories of NTBs consistently show up as a source of concern. These are summarised below.
Trade with developed countries
130.
In trade with developed countries, customs and administrative procedures and technical
barriers to trade emerge as the main NTBs of concern to developing countries. These two categories
record the highest frequency of notified barriers in the NAMA analysis. TBTs also received considerable
attention in the literature reviewed. The disputes brought to the WTO include a considerable number of
cases involving customs issues. In contrast, a much smaller number of cases pertain to TBTs, reflecting
perhaps the greater difficulty of legally challenging these measures.
131.
For other barriers, there is less consistency. SPS measures follow in importance in the NAMA
notifications, and are also cited also frequently in business surveys focusing on access to OECD markets,
in particular when developing countries are agricultural exporters. This is identified as one of the main
sources of concern in the literature review for Asia and Latin America.
40
Trade among developing countries
132.
In intra-developing country trade, customs and administrative procedures also rank very high
among reported concerns in the four components of analysis. In fact, these problems appear more
pervasive for market access to developing countries than to developed-country markets. Of particular note,
the 15 business surveys compiled on barriers to intra-regional trade all report at least one, and normally
many, customs and administrative hurdles. These include (often procedural) problems encountered with
import licensing. Furthermore, the Andean Community NTB cases reveal that customs and administrative
procedures represent the largest number of complaints brought to the dispute settlement mechanism of the
Andean Community.
133.
The data sets also provide a rich documentation identifying charges on imports as the next
important barrier in trade among developing countries. The literature reviewed draws attention to the fact
that as DCs have reduced their tariffs as a result of multilateral and regional liberalisation, they have
resorted to an array of import charges to compensate for the loss of their tariff revenues. In the analysis of
disputes brought before the WTO, the second highest number of disputes among developing countries
involves these measures. A telling instance in which developing countries removed tariffs intra-regionally,
but maintained or even increased their resort to para-tariff measures, is the Central America Common
Market (CACM). Half of the complaints brought against other CACM members during 2003-2004
involved various fees and charges. The phenomenon is not confined to Latin America. The literature and
business surveys report widely on charges in other regions, particularly Africa, the Middle East, and the
Caribbean islands.
134.
There is less consistency for other measures. Technical barriers are less often reported for trade
among developing countries. The literature review and business surveys suggest that these measures are
more prevalent for intra-regional trade in Asia. This may be partially due to the higher value-added
content of exports from Asia relative to exports from Africa or Latin America. More generally, concerns
related to TBT issues in trade among developing countries evolve more around issues of weak
infrastructure and procedural hurdles. In contrast, TBT complaints focusing on developed countries tend
to refer more to the high cost of compliance with requirements.
135.
This study also sheds light on impediments to access foreign markets that generally fall outside
discussions of NTBs. For example, business surveys in particular as well as the disputes brought to the
Andean Community underscore the importance of transport costs and regulations. There are also
geographic constraints on trade with neighbouring and other countries, for instance in Africa. Finally,
other concerns relate to various restrictive finance measures, including shortages of foreign exchange and
capital controls.
C.
Findings on products of interest to developing countries
136.
A further objective of this study has been to identify what types of NTBs affect the products of
export interest to developing countries. NAMA notifications represent the most comprehensive data set to
identify NTBs by products; these are supported and reinforced by the review of literature, disputes, and
business surveys.
137.
To the extent that the NAMA notifications are representative of the export profile of developing
countries, live animals and related products are the commodity category most deserving attention. For
this category, the most often reported NTBs relate to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, including
testing, certification and other requirements of proof of conformity. Customs-related problems,
particularly in respect rules of origin certification, are also mentioned relatively often.
41
138.
The highest number of notifications submitted to NAMA identified NTBs affecting fish and
crustaceans, molluscs, and other fisheries (e.g., tuna, trout, octopus, shrimps and prawns). The review
of eight DC export strategies and promotion programmes reveals that this would be a sector of current and
future competitive export interest. From the review of legal cases filed in the multilateral and the regional
forums for settling disputes, sugar and fructose and fresh fruits and vegetables are other sectors where DC
exports face considerable market access difficulties.
139.
Machinery and electronics, notably electrical machinery and equipment (e.g. radios,
televisions, cables), are other products very often mentioned in DC notifications to NAMA. The literature
on Asia emphasises that electrical appliances and machinery constitute the product most affected by NTBs.
Technical regulations and standards are reported to be the most significant obstacle facing DC exports
in this sector. In fact, most of the TBTs complaints in the notification to NAMA fall into this product
category. There is also a high incidence of reported import licensing problems.
140.
NAMA notifications also often concern chemical products and especially pharmaceutical
products. The sector also receives attention in the literature. Moreover, pharmaceutical products have
been subject to disputes among developing countries, as documented by the legal cases brought to the
Andean Community. Among the NAMA notifications for this sector, many complaints focus on technical
regulations.
141.
The importance of textiles for DC trade, documented by a large pool of studies, is reinforced by
the number of multilateral and regional dispute cases involving woven cotton and cotton products or
textile and apparel products in general. Some of the literature on NTBs, mostly in the Asia-Pacific
context, point to a situation where DC access to foreign markets in this area is obstructed by multiple
NTBs. While the literature describes the Multi-Fibre Agreement as the most important barrier, some work
(especially for India) draws attention to labelling requirements, and a very large number of NAMA
notifications by developing countries suggests the presence of various technical barriers to trade. The
NAMA notifications also include many references to customs valuation.
142.
Although not as important an export sector for developing countries, the literature indicates that
automobiles and auto parts are the object of many NTBs. Many of the DC notifications to NAMA for
this sector are specifically about technical regulations. They also express concerns about rules of origin
issues.
143.
The importance of addressing NTBs in the above sectors is underscored by the analysis of
developing countries export strategies, many of which identify the above-mentioned product groups as
strategic to their efforts to develop and strengthen their export performance.
42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Literature Review
Agatiello, O. (2004), Why Pay Attention to South-South Trade?, Background Paper, ITC Executive
Forum and SECO, Competitiveness through Public-Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons
Learned, Montreux, September 2004.
Andriamananjara, S., J. Dean, M. Ferrantino, M. Feinberg, R. Ludema and M. Tsigas (2004), The Effects
of Non-Tariff Measures on Prices, Trade, and Welfare: CGE Implementation of Policy-Based Price
Comparisons, Social Science Research Network, Online (papers.ssrn.com).
Bora, B. and S. Laird (2002), Quantification of Non-Tariff Measures, Policy Issues in International
Trade and Commodities, Study Series No. 18, UNCTAD, Geneva.
Dean, J., R. Feinberg, M. Ferrantino and R. Ludema (2003), "Estimating the Tariff-Equivalent of NTMS"
U.S. International Trade Commission, Office of Economic Working Paper No. 2003-12-B.
Deardorff, A. (2000), Market Access for Developing Countries, Research Seminar in International
Economics, Discussion Paper No. 461, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Deardorff, A. and R. Stern (1998), Measurement of Nontariff Barriers, University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Government (2004), South-South Trade:
Winning from Liberalisation.
Fontagn, L., F. von Kirchbach and M. Mimonu (2003), An Assessment of Environment-related SPS and
TBT, Second IDB/CEPII Conference on Economic Implications of thr Doha Development Agenda
for Latin America and the Caribbean, CEPII and IDB, Washington, D.C.
Francois, J. (2001), The Next WTO Round: North-South Stakes in New Market Access Negotiations,
Center for International Economic Studies, Adelaide.
Guerrieri, P and I. Falautino (2000), A Birds-Eye View of the Agenda: The Developing Countries and the
Millennium Round, Working Paper 2010.
Haveman, J and H. Shatz (2004a), Developed Country Trade Barriers and the Least Developed Countries:
The Current Situation, Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 19, No. 2.
Haveman, J and H. Shatz (2004b), Developed Country Trade Barriers and the Least Developed Countries:
The Economic Results of Freeing Trade, The WTO, Developing Countries and the Doha
Development Agenda: Prospects and Challenges for Trade-Led Growth, edited by Basudeb GuhaKhasnobis, Palgrave-Macmillan.
43
Hertel, T and W. Martin (1999), Developing Country Interests in Liberalizing Manufactures Trade, Purdue
University and World Bank.
Laird, S. (1999a), Millennium Round Market Access Negotiations in Goods and Services, Paper
prepared for a meeting of the International Economics Study Group, Birmingham, 14-16 September.
Laird, S. (1999b), Patterns of Protection and Approaches to Liberalization, paper presented to CEPR
Workshop on New Issues in the World Trading System, Centre for Economic Research, London.
Laird, S. (2002), Millennium Round Market Access Negotiations in Goods and Services in C. Milner
and R. Read (eds.) Trade Liberalisation, Competition and the WTO. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
2002.
Martin, W, DCs Changing Participation in World Trade, The World Bank Observer, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp. 187-203.
Michalopoulos, C. (1999), Trade Policy and Market Access Issues for DCs: Implications for the
Millennium Round, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Miranda, J., R. Torres and M. Ruiz (1998), The International Use of Antidumping: 1987-1997, Journal
of World Trade, Vol. 32 No. 5 (October), pp. 5-71.
Neven, D. (2000), Evaluating the Effects of Non-tariff Barriers: The Economic Analysis of Protection in
WTO Disputes, University of Lausanne and CEPR.
OECD (2002), Analysis of Non-Tariff Measures: The Case of Non-Automatic Import Licensing,
TD/TC/WP(2002)39/FINAL, Paris.
OECD (2002), Overview of Non-tariff Barriers: Findings from Existing Business Surveys,
TD/TC/WP(2002)38/FINAL, Paris
OECD (1997), Market Access for the Least Developed Countries: Where are the Obstacles?,
OCDE/E/GD(97)174, Paris.
Otsuki, T., J. Wilson and M. Sewadeh (2001), Saving Two in a Billion: Quantifying the Trade Effects of
European Food Safety Standards on African Exports, Food Policy 26, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Stephenson, S. (1997), "Standards and Conformity Assessment as Nontariff Barriers to Trade", World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1826, Washington, D.C.
UNCTAD (2003), Market Access Issues in the Doha Agenda: The Trade and Development Linkage,
United Nations, New York and Geneva.
Wilson, J. (2000), "Technical Barriers to Trade and Standards, Challenges and Opportunities for
Developing Countries Presented by the World Bank." Submitted to the Technical Barriers to Trade
Committee Meeting World Trade Organization, Geneva, 2000.
Wilson, J. (1999), The Post-Seattle Agenda of the WTO in Standards and Technical Barriers to Trade:
Issues for the Developing Countries, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
44
Zanardi, M. (2004), Anti-dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
Zarrilli, S. and I. Musselli (2004), The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, Food Safety Policies, and
Product Attributes, in D. Merlinda and J. Nash (eds.) Agriculture in the WTO: Creating a Trading
System for Development, World Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington, DC.
Region by Region Analysis
Asia Pacific
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (2004), Tariffs and Non-Tariff Measures: 2003 Collective Action Plan
(CAP).
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (undated). Non-Tariff Barriers.
Bhattacharyya, B. and S.Mukhopadyaha (2002a), Non-Tariff Measures on South Asias Exports: An
Assessment, August 2002, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
Bhattacharyya, B. and S. Mukhopadyaha (2002b), Barricading Trade through Non-Tariff Measures
through the Indian Eyes, in A. Dasgupta and B. Debroy (eds.), Salvaging the WTOs Future Doha
and Beyond, Konark New Delhi.
Bhattacharyya, B. (1999), Non-Tariff Measures on Indias Exports: An Assessment, Occasional Paper
No. 16, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.
Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE), Trade Liberalisation, Market
Access and Non-Tariff Barriers, Briefing Paper No. 4, 1998, Jaipur, India
Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE) (1997), Non-Tariff Barriers or
Disguised Protectionism, Briefing Paper No. 2, Jaipur, India.
Chaturvedi, S. and G. Nagpal (1999), WTO and Product Related Environmental Standards: Emerging
Issues and Policy Options before India, RIS, New Delhi.
Commonwealth Secretariat (2001), Non-Tariff Measures on India's Exports: Case Studies of
Pharmaceuticals, Engineering, Leather Products, Marine Products, and Mangoes, Commonwealth
Secretariat, London, mimeo.
Day, M., M. Khan and M. Oshikawa (2001), Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade and Economic
Development in Bangladesh, Journal of World Trade (35) 2, pp. 253-273.
Harilal, K. and P. Beena (2003), The WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin: Implications for South Asia,
Working Paper 353, December, Center for Development Studies, India.
McGuire, G., R. Scollay and S. Stephenson (2002), APEC and Non-Tariff Measures, draft.
Mohanty, S. K.. and T.R Manoharan, (2002), Analysis of Environment related Non-Tariff Measures in the
European Union. Implications for South Asian Exporters, RIS-DP No. 38/2002, RIS, New Delhi,
India.
45
Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PEEC) (1995), Milestones in APEC Liberalisation: A Map of
Market Opening Measures by APEC Economies, PEEC Secretariat, Singapore.
Riedel, J. (1999), Trade Policy Reform Issues in Vietnam, Report to the Ministry of Trade, Government
of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, James Riedel Associates, Washington, DC.
Stephenson , S. (1999), Non-tariff Barriers within APEC, paper prepared for the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council (PECC) and presented on behalf of the PECC to the meeting of the APEC
Market Access Group on 3 February, Wellington, New Zealand.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (2000), Non-Tariff
Measures with Potentially Restrictive Market Access Implications Emerging in a Post-Uruguay
Round Context, Studies in Trade and Investment 40, United Nations, New York.
Wiig, A. (2001), Non-tariff Barriers to Trade and Development: The Case of the Garment Industry in
Bangladesh, in O. Koht (ed.), Bangladesh Faces the Future, University Press Limited, Dhaka.
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) (1999), Study of Trade Obstacles of the Association of Caribbean
States, ACS Secretariat, Trinidad and Tobago.
Berlinski , J., with R. Soifer (2000), Evaluacin de Restricciones al Comercio Interno del MERCOSUR: Su
Perspectiva desde Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay. Instituto Di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bureau, J.C. , S. Drogu and P. Ramos (2003), Economic Implications of the Doha Development Agenda
for Latin America and the Caribbean: Non-Tariff Measures. Paper presented at Second IDB/CEPII
Conference om Economic Implicationas of the Doha Development Agenda for Latin America and
the Caribbean, Washington, D.C., October 2003.
Caribbean Export Development Agency (2002), Inventory on Non-Tariff, Trade Restricting Measures
Applied by Member States, CARICOM Secretariat, Georgetown, Guyana.
Centurin L. A. (2002), Restricciones no arancelarias en el MERCOSUR, Paper presented at Foro de
Politica Los Nuevos Desafios para la Integracion Regional. BID-INTAL and CEI, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, October.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2001), Barriers to Latin American
and Caribbean Exports in the U.S. Market 2000-2001, ECLAC, Washington, DC.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2003), Access of Latin American
and Caribbean Exports to the U.S. Market 2002-2003, ECLAC, Washington, DC.
Estevadeordal, A. and R. Devlin (eds.) (2001), Las Americas sin barreras, Inter-American Development
Bank, Washington, DC.
Comisin Nacional de Comercio Exterior (CINCE) (1999) Informe de barreras a las exportaciones
argentinas en el NAFTA (1999), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Comisin Nacional de Comercio Exterior (CINCE) (1999) Informe de barreras a las exportaciones
argentinas en la UE, 1999, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
46
Inter-American Development Bank (2002), Market Access in the Americas: An Unfinished Agenda, IDB,
Washington, DC.
Laird, S. (1992), Non-tariff Measures in Hemispheric Free Trade Area Negotiations, IDB-ECLAC
Working Papers on Trade in the Western Hemisphere, WP-TWH-18.
Scandizzo, S. (2002) Latin American Merchandise Trade and U.S. Trade Barriers, Andean Development
Corporation (CAF), Carcas, Venezuela.
SIECA (2004), Medidas Contrarias al Libre Comercio Intrarregional SIECA Secretariat, Guatemala.
Africa
African Bank of Development (AFDB) (1997), Export Barriers in CBI Countries Cross Border Initiative
Synthesis Paper, Online. [www.afdb.org/cbi]
Arnjadi, A. and A. J. Yeats (1995), Non-tariff Barriers Faced in Africa. What did the Uruguay Round
Accomplish and What Remains to Be Done?, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank,
Washington, D. C.
Amjadi, A., U. Reincke and A. J. Yeats (1996), Did External Barriers Cause the Marginalization of SubSaharan Africa in World Trade?, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Burmann, von, Alexandra (2004), Regionaler Handel in Africa: Umfang und Bestimmungsgrunde,
prepared on behalf of the Deutsche Welrhungerhilfe, June.
COMESA (2003), Market Access and SPS Issues, COMESA Newsletter, Vol. 1, Issues 2, July.
Coulibaly S. and L. Fontagne (2003), South-South Trade: Geography Matters. Working Paper 2004-08,
CEPII, Paris.
Erzan, R. and P. Svedberg (1991), Protection facing Exports from Sub-Saharan Africa in the EC, Japan
and the US, in A. Frimpog, R. Kanbur and P. Svedberg (eds.), Trade and Development in SubSaharan Africa, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Otsuki, T., J. Wilson and M. Sewadeh (2001), Saving Two in a Billion: Quantifying the Trade Effects of
European Food Safety Standards on African Exports, Food Policy 26, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Private Sector Foundation (n.d.) Note: it is undated., The Impact of Non-tariff Barriers on Regional Trade:
Most Prevalent NTBs in the East African Community (EAC). , Uganda,
http://www.psfuganda.org/about_us.php
Sandrey, R. (2003), Non-Tariff Measures: The Bigger Picture for South and Southern Africa, TIPS
Trade and Industry Monitor No. 28: Unlocking the Benefits of Trade Policy, Pretoria, South Africa,
December.
Stern, J. and M. Gugerty (1996), Structural Barriers to Trade in Africa, Development Discussion Paper
No. 561, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Von Koerber, E. (2003), Overcoming Barriers to Trade and Investment in the Middle East and North
Africa, Annual Conference of the Club of Rome 2003, Amman.
47
World Bank (2003), Trade, Investment, and Development in the Middle East and North Africa: Engaging
with the World, MENA Development Report, Washington, D.C.
Eastern and South-eastern Europe
Bodenstein, T., T. Plumber and G. Schneider (2003), Two Sides of Economic Openness: Non-tariff
Barriers to Trade and Capital Controls in Transition Countries, 1993-2000, Communist and PostCommunist Studies 36, pp. 231-243.
Daly, M. and H. Kuwahara (1999), Tariffs and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade in Hungary. The Impact of
the Uruguay Round and EU Accession, Economics of Transition, Vol. 7 (3), pp. 717-739.
Hanspeter, T. and L. Wiedmer (2001), Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade in the Core Countries of the Stability
Pact for South Eastern Europe, Bureau Arthur Dunkel, Geneva.
OECD (1994), Barriers to Trade with the Economies in Transition, OECD, Paris.
Legal Analysis
Bown, C. (2004), Developing Countries as Plaintiffs and Defendants in GATT/WTO Trade Disputes,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Neven, D. (2000), Evaluating the Effects of Non Tariff Barriers: The Economic Analysis of Protection in
WTO Disputes, University of Lausanne and CEPR.
Spinanger, D. (2002), Misinterpreted Governance: The Case of Antidumping Measures, paper prepared
for the EU-LDC Network Conference, Chiang-Mai, Thailand, 8-10 December.
Zanardi, M. (2004), Antidumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Oxford.
Business Surveys
ALADI (2001), Informe sobre los requerimientos de las PYMES para impulsar el comercio intraregional
que podra desarrollar la ALADI. Montevideo, Uruguay.
Andean Community Secretariat (2000), Encuesta de opinin realizada entre los empresarions asistenetes
al tercer foro empresarial andino Andean Community Secretariat, Lima.
Association of Caribbean States (2003), Trade Barriers at the Business Level and Business Facilitation in
Member States of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), ACS, Trinidad & Tobago.
Association Marocain des Exportateurs (2001), Les exportateurs marocains face aux barriers nontarifaires dans le cadre inter-islamique, Casablanca, June.
Berlinski, J. (2002), El efecto en el comercio y bienestar de las restricciones no arancelarias en el
Mercosur: El caso de las exportaciones argentinas de arroz y productos lcteos al Brasil.
Berlinski, J (2000), Evaluacin de Restricciones al Comercio Interno del Mercosur : Su perspectiva desde
Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay. Buenos Aires, Argentina
EUROCHAMBERS (2004), Competitiveness of Western Balkan Countries, Brussels.
48
European Commission and HTSPE Limited (2005), Helping to Tackle Non-tariff Barriers in the Western
Balkans, The European Unions CARDS Programme for the Western Balkans.
Fisher, R. (2003), Effects of Protectionism on Chilean Exporters: An Exploratory Survey. Paper presented
at the "APEC Capacity-Building Workshop on Quantitative Methods for Assessing Non-tariffs
Measures and Trade Facilitation", Bangkok, October 8-10, 2003.
Henson , H. et al. (2000), Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Developing Countries, The
University of Reading.
Kume, H., P. Anderson and M. Oliveira (2001), Identificacao das barreiras ao comercio no Mercosul, A
percepcao das empresas exportadoras brasileiras, , IPEA Discussion Paper No. 789, Rio de Janeiro.
McCarty, A. (1999), Vietnams Integration with ASEAN: Survey of Non-Tariff Measures Affecting Trade,
United Nations Development Project, Hanoi.
Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2001), Non-tariff Barriers Faced by India and Policy Measures, new
Delhi.
Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2004), Highlights of the Latest NTBs Study in Indias Foreign
Trade, New Delhi.
Tekere , M. (1995), Performance and Constraints to Zimbabwes manufacturing sector in intra-COMESA
trade.] Report available through COMESAs electronic Regional Integration Research Project.
(http://www.comesa.int/finance/tekere.htm).
49
ANNEX I. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES' EXPORT

PERFORMANCE
144.
This section analyses export data reported by UN Comtrade for the group of low and middleincome countries, as classified by the World Bank33. From 1993 through 2003, total merchandise exports
originating from this group of countries increased threefold, from USD 569 billion in 1993 to USD 1.8
trillion in 2003. Overall, the share of developing-country exports in world exports increase by 60% over
that decade, from 17% of world exports in 1993 to 27% in 2003. The participation of least developed
countries (LDCs) in international trade, however, remains marginal. In 2003, their combined global
merchandise exports amounted to about 44 billion $, or 0.67 per cent of world exports.34
145.
In terms of the direction of trade is concerned, developing countries as a group export
predominantly to high-income countries, which absorb approximately 70% of total DC exports. The share
of exports going to other developing countries has remained constant and amounted to 29% of their total
exports in 2003. As the regional breakdown in Figure A.1 illustrates, DC markets are more important
export destinations for the Middle East and North Africa (41%) and for Europe and Central Asia (31%)
than for Latin America and the Caribbean (24%) and Asia and the Pacific (23%).
146.
The more disaggregated picture of export performance in Table A.1 shows that some developing
regions (especially Sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser extent, the countries of the Middle East and North
Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean) increased their export dependence on developed-country
markets over the period 1993 2003.
147.
While overall trade among developing countries has not undergone significant changes over the
last decade, some regions show an important shift in the relative importance of intra-regional trade, which
may reflect their effort to engage in regional and bilateral free trade arrangements. For example, Table
A.1 shows that the regional markets in Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Central Asia have
absorbed the majority of the respective regions exports to developing countries, whereas for South Asia
and the Middle East and North Africa, the regional market has carried less weight but is becoming more
important. Meanwhile, the share of intra-regional exports in Sub-Saharan Africas exports to developing
countries rose dramatically, from 22% in 1993 to 48% in 2003.
33
These low-income and middle-income countries are referred to as developing countries for the purpose of the
analysis in this annex. The group of high-income OECD countries included in the World Banks classification
of economies by income are referred to as developed countries.
34
Market access issues related to products of export interest originating from least-developed countries. Note by
the Secretariat. WTO WT/COMTD/LDC/W/35 TN/MA/S/12, 13 October 2004.
50
Figure A1. Merchandise exports of developing regions, by destination (2003)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Intra-regional Middle and Low Income

Countries
50%
Extra-regional Middle and Low Income

Countries
40%
High Income Countries
30%
20%
10%
0%
Asia &
Pacific
South East
Asia
Latin
Middle East Sub-Saharan Europe &
America &
& North
Africa
Central Asia
Caribbean
Africa
Source: UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade). The data are extracted from World Integrated Trade Solution
(WITS), 2004.
148.
With regard to the sectoral composition of DC exports, the share of manufactured products has
steadily grown over the past two decades, whereas the share of primary commodities has declined.35 As
Figure A.2 shows, manufactured products accounted for more than 60% of DC total exports in 2003.
Moreover, within manufactures, there has been a shift in the export pattern away from low value-added
manufactured goods (such as footwear, travel goods, apparel and other products made of rubber, wood,
etc) towards electrical and electronic products, industrial equipment, machinery and other products
belonging to the category of machinery and transport equipment. Over the period 1993 2003, the share
of products falling into the latter category in total DC merchandise exports rose from 20% to 33%, whereas
the shares of manufactured goods and miscellaneous manufactures declined, respectively.
35
See for example Thomas W. Hertel and Will Martin, Would developing countries gain from inclusion of
manufactures in the WTO negotiations? Paper for the WTO/World Bank Conference on Developing Countries
in a Millennium Round, held at the WTO, Geneva on 20-21 September 1999.
51
Figure A2. Composition of developing-country merchandise exports (2003)
Food & live animals

7%
Commodities n.e.s.
Beverages & tobacco
2%
1%
Crude materials ex.
food/fuels
4%
Miscellaneous manuf
arts
15%
Mineral fuel/lubricants
17%
Animal & vegetable

oil/fat/wax
1%
Machinery & transport
equipment
33%
Chemicals/products nes
5%
Manufactured goods
15%
Note: Machinery and transport equipment includes: power generating equipment, industry special machine, metalworking
machinery, industrial equipment, telecoms equipment, office/data processing machinery, electrical equipment, road vehicles,
railway/tramway equipment. Manufactured goods include: leather articles, rubber products, cork and wood manufactures,
paper/paperboard articles, textile/yarn/fabric articles, non-metal mineral manufactures, iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, and metal
manufactures. Miscellaneous manufactures articles include: building fixtures, furniture and furnishings, travel goods, apparel
clothing accessories, footwear, scientific instruments, photographic equipment, and miscellaneous manufactures n.e.s.
Source: UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade), using the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC), Rev
3. The data are extracted from World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), 2004.
There are, however, significant differences across regions. For countries in Africa and the Middle
East, manufacturing remains much less important relative to traditional minerals and food exports. In fact,
most LDCs have not seen their export structure change much. LDCs rely on a very narrow export base
dominated by unprocessed and semi-processed primary commodities and minerals.
52
70.9
29.1
67.5
32.5
47.6
68.8
31.2
22.1
59.8
40.2
14.7
75.9
24.1
61.5
60.5
39.5
58.2
76.7
23.3
42.4*
Share (%)
569,326,044
411,286,998
158,039,046
33,087,102
18,374,133
14,712,969
3,302,124
34,199,445
24,453,098
9,746,347
1,336,713
67,096,714
38,248,743
28,847,971
2,104,490
150,518,686
108,593,515
41,925,171
28,840,693
59,987,493
38,660,265
21,327,228
11,972,285
1993
Value
Share
224,436,604
182,957,244
41,479,360
14,217,317
72.2
27.8
55.5
44.5
22.4
71.5
28.5
13.7
57.0
43.0
7.3
72.1
27.9
68.8
64.4
35.6
56.1
81.5
18.5
34.3
(% )
53
Source: UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE). The data are extracted from World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), 2004.
Note: LMI refers to Low and Middle Income countries, as classified by the World Bank. *Percentage of intra-LMI trade
1,784,548,852
1,264,806,337
519,742,515
LMI Total (All Regions)

High incom e countries
Low and m iddle incom e countries
LMI Middle East and North Africa

intra-LMI Middle East and North Africa
76,803,799
51,821,829
24,981,970
11,900,094
107,762,414
64,452,932
43,309,482
6,384,158
LMI Latin Am erica and Caribbean

intra-LMI Latin Am erica and Caribbean
LMI Sub-Saharan Africa

intra-LMI Sub-Saharan Africa
364,127,210
276,358,597
87,768,613
53,949,847
LMI Europe and Central Asia

intra-LMI Europe
85,729,273
58,947,082
26,782,191
5,927,062
425,850,695
257,845,029
168,005,666
97,707,170
LMI East Asia and Pacific

intra-LMI East Asia and Pacific
LMI South Asia

intra-LMI South Asia
2003
Value
724,275,461
555,380,868
168,894,593
71,601,828
Table A1. Developing-country export flows (thousands of USD)
213.4
207.5
228.9
132.1
182.0
69.8
260.4
150.7
141.1
174.8
343.4
60.6
68.5
50.1
203.4
141.9
154.5
109.3
87.1
609.9
567.0
687.8
716.1
222.7
203.6
307.2
403.6
% Increase
ANNEX II. NON-TARIFF BARRIER CONCERNS BY REGIONS
149.
Aggregate trends hide important differences across regions or groups of developing countries.
The following synthesis provides a more differentiated picture of barriers affecting developing countries in
Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East, and East and Southeast
Europe.
A.
150.
Perhaps the most extensive regional literature identifying non-tariff barriers (NTBs) pertains to
Asia and the Pacific region. Studies on APEC offer a comprehensive analysis of frequency and coverage
ratios of NTBs for the periods 1984-1993 (PECC for APEC, 1995), 1993-1996 (Stephenson, 1997), and
2000 (McGuire et al., 2002). Some analyses within APEC are also sectoral, for instance identifying NTMs
in forest products (APEC, 2000). Taken as a whole, these analyses, largely based on TRAINS, show a
decline in the frequency rate and coverage on NTBs. Since APEC includes both developed and developing
countries, the literature would have to be broken down to assess DC concerns.
151.
Ongoing work on identifying and eliminating NTBs in ASEAN, which is composed entirely of
developing countries, indicates that the most widespread NTBs affecting intra-regional trade are customs
surcharges, technical measures, product characteristic requirements, single channel for imports,
state trading administration, marketing requirements and technical regulations (ASEAN Secretariat).
The most widely traded products affected by these NTBs are minerals, electrical appliances, and
machinery (ASEAN Secretariat). The ASEAN Secretariat has played a central role in the efforts to
eliminate NTBs, such as removal of surcharges and harmonisation of standards and development of mutual
recognition schemes.
152.
Another body of literature draws heavily on case studies, the majority of which focus on NTMs
in the most important export destinations for Asia-Pacific countries: the United States, the EU and Japan
(Bhattacharyya, 2002, 2000; Bhattacharyya and Mukhopadhyaya, 2002). The regions main exports are
labour-intensive products.36 The NTMs applied most frequently to these products by high-income
markets are import quotas under the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA), contingency measures of
protection (especially antidumping actions and safeguard measures), technical standards and
regulations, including conformity testing requirements, and quarantine and sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) measures (Bhattacharyya, 2002; Bhattacharyya and Mukhopadhyaya, 2002;
Bhattacharyya, 2002).
153.
Anecdotal and other evidence from case studies (Laird, 1999; Michalopoulos, 1999; Stephenson,
1997; McGuire, 2000) appears to challenge the arguments in much of the research-based literature that the
use of core NTBs has substantially decreased in the post-Uruguay Round trade environment. Case
studies in Asia indicate that NTBs remain a significant issue for developing countries. In addition, these
studies reflect the high incidence of non-traditional and less transparent but potentially more detrimental
36
Major export products of the Asia-Pacific region include textiles, clothing and footwear, and leather products; a
wide range of processed and semi-processed agricultural and fish products; base metals; electrical and nonelectrical equipment; and chemicals (ESCAP, 2000).
54
NTBs that are not captured in TRAINS-based analyses (ESCAP, 2000; Bhattacharyya and
Mukhopadhyaya, 2002).
154.
A synthesis of the main NTBs faced by exporters in individual Asian countries is displayed in
Table A2. These findings, resulting from work by the UN Economics and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (ESCAP), draw from a variety of data sources, in particular TRAINS, Trade Policy
Reviews and other reports of the WTO, and various in-country official databases on foreign barriers to
exports.
Table A2. NTBs face by exporters in Asia and the Pacific
Non-Tariff Barriers
Bangladesh
MFA quota
Child Labour Laws
Sanitary Regulations
Exports
Export Markets
Ready made garments

Ready made garments
Frozen shrimp
Many
United States, Canada

United States
European Union
Many
Garlic, honey, bicycles, carbon steel

plates, canned mushrooms, others
Footwear, porcelain, ceramic
tableware, aquatic and textile
products, others
Food, porcelain products, leather
goods, cigarettes, toys, textiles,
garments, machinery, electric and
aquatic products
Poultry, aquatic products, goods in
wooden packaging
Toys, electronic goods and
machinery
Textiles
United States, European Union,

Mexico, others
European Union, Japan, others
China
Antidumping measures
Safeguard quotas
SPS regulations
Packaging and labelling
requirements
MFA quota

Japan, others
European Union, United States

United States
United States
India
MFA quota
Labelling requirements
Technical standards
Anti-dumping measures
SPS
Restricted Imports
Child Labour
Fabrics, apparel, textile

Fabrics, apparel, textile
Leather goods; coffee, tea, cigars;
pharmaceuticals; electrical
machinery
Inorganic and organic chemicals,
man-made staple fibres, iron and
steel bar and rods
Meat, fish, dairy products,
vegetables, fruit, fish, tea
Diamonds, jewellery
Carpets and floor coverings
European Union, United States

Not specified
European Union
European Union
United States, Japan

Japan
European Union
Pacific Island Countries

Testing, inspection, and quarantine

requirements
Licensing
Meat; fish and fish products; cereals

and preparations; fruit and
vegetables; sugar and sugar
preparations; coffee, tea, and spices;
vegetable oils and fats
Meat; coffee, tea, and spices; oils,
seeds, nuts and kernels
Fish and fish products; coffee, tea,
55
Japan, Australia, Malaysia
Japan, Philippines, Malaysia

Australia, Singapore, Malaysia,
Non-Tariff Barriers
Prior authorisation
Product characteristic
requirements
Technical standards
Quotas
Tariff quota
Prohibitions
Import ban
Non-automatic licensing
Production and export subsidies
Anti-dumping duty
Administrative pricing
Import inspection
Exports
and spices; hides and skins; fruits
and vegetables; wood, lumber and
cork; petroleum and products
Fish and fish products; hides and
skins; oils, seeds, nuts and kernels;
wood, lumber and cork
Fish and fish products; sugar and
sugar preparations; hides and skins;
oils, seeds, nuts and kernels; wood,
lumber and cork; vegetable oils and
fats; word products
Cereals and preparations;
miscellaneous food preparation;
electrical machinery
Fish and fish products; coffee, tea,
and spices
Sugar and preparations;
miscellaneous food preparation
Processed tuna
Process tuna
Fruit and vegetables
Sugar and preparations
Sugar and preparations;
Wood, lumber and cork; petroleum
and products
Wood, lumber and cork; petroleum
and products; sugar and preparations
Export Markets
European Union, China
European Union, Japan, Malaysia
Japan
Australia
Japan, European Union, Malaysia,

Singapore
United States, China
United States
United States
European Union
United States, European Union
New Zealand,
China
China
Singapore
Orderly market arrangement
MFA quota
Ball bearings, refrigerators,

compressors, colour TVs
Colour TVs
Textiles, clothing
Many (e.g., food)
United States, European Union

European Union (United Kingdom)
European Union, United States,
Canada, Norway, Sweden
Japan
Sri Lanka
Variable charges
Agricultural levy
Authorisation
Import license
Import suspension
Import authorisation
Import monitoring
Global Quota
Coconut
Coconut
Fisheries products, gems and
jewellery, rubber manufactures
Natural rubber, coconut, fisheries
products, gems and jewellery,
textiles and garments, rubber
manufactures, non-metallic mineral
products, paper products
Tea, coconut, fisheries products,
non-metallic mineral products, paper
products
Natural rubber, textiles and
garments, rubber manufactures, nonmetallic mineral products
Textiles and garments
Natural rubber, fisheries products,
rubber manufactures, rubber
manufactures, non-metallic mineral
56
Chile
Venezuela
Japan, European Union, Malaysia,
Mexico
China, Brazil, El Salvador,
Indonesia, Brunei, Hungary, Tunisia,
Hungary, Norway, Argentina,
Morocco, Mexico, Indonesia,
Malaysia
Algeria
India, Japan
United States
China, Brazil, Japan, United States
Non-Tariff Barriers
MFA Quota
Tariff quota
Bilateral quota
Prohibitions
MFA Consultation Agreements
MFA Export Restrictions
Non-automatic import licensing
Technical regulations
Product characteristic
requirements
Marking requirements
Sanitary inspection
Countervailing measures
Safeguard tariff rate

Administrative Pricing
Minimum import prices
Reference prices
Specified points of entry
MFA Export restraint
Recommendation system
Special custom formalities
Exports
products
Textiles and garments, rubber
manufactures
Textiles and garments, non-metallic
mineral products
Non-metallic mineral products
Tea, coconut, gems and jewellery,
fisheries products, textiles and
garments, rubber manufactures,
leather manufactures, non-metallic
mineral products, paper products
Natural rubber
products, rubber manufactures, nonmetallic mineral products
Fisheries products
Fisheries products
products, textiles and garments,
rubber manufactures, non-metallic
Coconut, fisheries products, textiles
and garments, rubber manufactures,
leather manufactures, non-metallic
Leather manufactures
Rubber manufactures
Textiles and garments, rubber
manufactures
Fisheries products
Fisheries products
Non-metallic mineral products
Export Markets
Unites States, Canada
United States
United States
Bangladesh, Oman
Canada, United States
United States
India, Hungary, India, Peru,
El Salvador
Brazil
Mexico, Venezuela, Japan,
Argentina
Japan
Canada
Algeria
Canada, Mexico, Australia, Turkey,
Argentina
Brazil, United States, Korea, Canada
United States
China
Tunisia, Morocco
European Union
Algeria
Canada
Republic of Korea
Argentina
Source: UN Economics and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), 2000.
B.
155.
The literature on barriers to trade for Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) exporters widely
acknowledges that tariffs do not constitute a serious impediment to market access for LACs (IDB, 2002;
Estevadeordal and Robert, 2001). In 2002, 76.9 percent of all LAC exports entered their principal export
market, the United States, free of duty (ECLAC, 2003). Similarly, tariffs in South-South relations in LAC
have been significantly lowered or eliminated according to a common external tariff (CET) applied in
various free trade agreements (FTAs) and customs union agreements. The centrepiece of enhanced market
access for LAC clearly lies in elimination of NTBs, as Laird (1992) argued in a paper on the importance of
NTBs in hemispheric FTA negotiations.
57
156.
Most authors identifying non-tariff distortions in the region have noted a sweeping eradication of
quantitative restrictions and licensing systems over the years (Laird, 1992; Estevadeordal and Robert,
2001). As a result, the incidence of core NTBs is quite low overall. In contrast, the literature documents
that LACs face more subtle forms of protection which prove difficult to identify. Estevadeordal and
Shearers (2002; IDB, 2002) analytical work on the incidence of NTBs in the region finds that there is a
high incidence of technical measures used for protective purposes but reveals that import charges,
government participation in trade, and customs have a very low incidence amongst a representative sample
of countries examined (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
Venezuela).
157.
In trade with developed countries, the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC) regularly publishes a report on barriers to LAC exports in the US market, the main
destination of LAC exports. The reports of the last years highlight three areas of particular relevance to
LAC (2003, 2001):
Import policies (e.g. tariffs and other import surcharges, quantitative restrictions, import licensing,
customs barriers)
Standards, testing, labelling and certification (e.g. unnecessarily restrictive application of
phytosanitary standards)
Export subsidies (e.g. export financing on preferential terms and agricultural export subsidies that
displace other foreign exports in third market countries)37
158.
The EU is increasingly looked upon as a principal market for LAC exports, particularly in light
of the interest in recent and prospective free trade arrangements. Recent work on LAC market access to
the EU has been carried out in the framework of the MERCOSUR-EU dialogue, with some analysts
expressing concern that the expected gains from tariff-free market access to the EU may be offset by
stringent rules, in particular sanitary and phytosanitary measures for food exports from MERCOSUR
countries (Bureau et al., 2003).
159.
Other studies specifically address NTBs in intra-regional trade in various free trade areas and
customs unions among LAC countries. They appear to indicate that there are important differences in the
barriers that prevail in different groupings. The database of the Technical Committee on Non-Tariff
Restrictions and Measures38 of MERCOSUR, for instance, identifies import licensing as the most
prevalent NTB in intra-regional trade (Sanguinetti and Sallustro, 2000; Centurion, 2002).39 The scenario is
different for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), for which an NTBs Inventory shows customs
duties and other charges on imports to be significant constraints on trade liberalisation (Caribbean
Export, 2001).
160.
For the Central American Common Market (CACM), SIECA has a notification mechanism in
which countries denounce measures that are maintained by their partners against intra-regional trade and
act as obstacles to free intra-regional trade. The SIECA Secretariat intermediates between the countries to
37
ECLACs classification of trade barriers is based on the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade
Barriers published by the U.S. Trade Representative.
38
Comit Tcnico No. 8 sobre Restricciones y Medidas no Arancelarias
39
There is scarce analysis on the quantification of the cost of non-tariff barriers to intra-regional trade among
developing countries. Berlinski (2001) undertakes some analysis along these lines in a study undertaken as
part of a project on intra-regional restrictions developed in the framework of Red-Mercosur. Using a model
based on Hufbauer and Elliot (1994), the study offers some estimation of the costs of non-tariff protection for
member countries of MERCOSUR.
58
remove the denounced barriers. As Table A.3 shows, most of these barriers pertain to customs
procedures, various fees and charges, and unjustified allegations of health risks and/or SPS procedural
issues (lack of issuance of certification, etc).
Table A3. Intra-regional NTBs in the Central American Common Market
Complainant
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Respondent
Honduras
Honduras
El Salvador
Honduras
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Honduras
Nicaragua
Honduras
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Honduras
Honduras
Costa Rica
Honduras
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
Honduras/Nicaragua
Honduras
Nicaragua
Measure Denounced
Customs/transit fees
Fees to obtain phytosanitary permission that reach US$ 9
and US$ 10
Various fees for the following concepts: issuing permits;
harbour; entry/exit of vehicles; business visa
Customs procedures producing delays and additional costs
Restrictions to export chicken products on the grounds of
the existence of an influenza
Prohibition of live animals, particularly pork products,
alleging risk of pest
Prohibition on poultry products
Transit fee of US$ 10 to transporters
Countervailing duties applied to milk
Prohibition of potatoes alleging a health risk without
scientific evidence
Difficulties in exporting milk products due to non-issuance
of certificates even when companies have been re-inspected
Customs/transit fees
Fines for not having exit permission from trailer
Various customs/transit fees which are unjustified and not
provided for under regional regulations
Rejection of poultry products alleging that companies have
not been certified or that permissions have expired
Customs fees for custody
Erroneous customs classifications of fruit nectars
Non-acceptance of customs documentation due to inclusion
of logos
Source: OECD, compiled from SIECA Secretariat, Medidas Contrarias al Libre Comercio Intrarregioonal, November 2001 to
October 2004.
C.
Africa and the Middle East
161.
The literature on NTBs affecting African exports is more limited than that for Asia and Latin
America. It is revealing, nevertheless, of the importance and seriousness of invisible barriers to trade,
particularly those that are not generally considered as part of the core NTBs.
162.
A World Bank study focusing on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Amjadi, Reincke and Yeats, 1996)
identifies the types of measures exports encounter most frequently in OECD markets. Based on UN
Comtrade records and information from the UNCTAD-World Bank SMART database, findings indicate
that quantitative restrictions are the most important type of NTB facing African exports (affecting 8
percent of Africa exports), followed by price-raising restrictions (covering 4 percent of African trade).
Yeats and Arnjadi (1994) maintain, however, that these measures do not have a significant cost-increasing
impact. Of greater concern, the authors argue, is the fact that certain products important to countries in the
59
region, particularly energy, are heavily NTB-ridden and were untouched by the Uruguay Round.40
Similarly, the fact that fish products were not included in the Agreement on Agriculture affects some SSA
countries. Overall, however, the research holds that the Uruguay Round has had a positive effect on SSA:
the NTB ratio covering SSA exports dropped from 11 percent pre-UR to 2 percent post-UR. Gugerty and
Stern (1997) suggest that core restrictions are not a major impediment to African exports.
163.
Sandrey (2003) offers an account of NTBs affecting South African and southern African exports
to principal OECD markets, namely the EU, United States and Japan. The EU, which is the largest
importer of African goods, maintains restrictions affecting the sectors of textiles, agriculture and coal,
which are of key importance to African countries are protected or heavily subsidised. Other barriers
affecting market access to the EU are rules of origin, cumulation, environmental regulations, and SPS
issues (COMESA, 1999). The United States also extends tariff preferences to the region through AGOA,
but these are perceived to be eroded by the use of anti-dumping actions, countervailing and
safeguarding measures , which have been compounded by recently tightened U.S. borders resulting from
national security and foreign policy measures.
164.
Of the products of export interest to South Africa and southern Africa, precious metals and
diamonds, as well as copper and aluminium exports, appear to enjoy relatively free market access; forestry
products, another important export for the region, are subject to few NTBs outside North Asia. The most
heavily NTB-ridden products are automobiles and auto parts, the regions main manufacturing sector.
The NTBs that particularly affect trade in this sector are local content rules, import charges, additional
charges (such as sales taxes, luxury taxes, statistical fees, purchase and registration fees), investment
restrictions and joint venture requirements, and others (Sandrey, 2003).
165.
Studies on NTBs in intra-regional trade in Africa underscore the importance of other kinds of
barriers. Burmann (2004) finds four prominent NTBs that emerge as significant in the literature and
analyses available on intra-regional trade in Africa. These are, in order of importance: poor
infrastructure, including telecommunications; difficulties in customs procedures; political instability;
and insufficient product diversification, including dependency on raw materials. As regards
infrastructure and notably transportation, analytical work indicates that freight costs are a much more
restrictive barrier to African exports than tariffs (Amjadi, Reincke and Yeats, 1996).
166.
The cataloguing of NTBs by African Development and Economic Consultants (2000) points to
the following factors as obstructing intra-DC trade: lengthy and cumbersome bureaucratic clearance
procedures, roadblocks erected by security officials, monopoly power granted to government-owned
entities for imports or exports, SPS regulations, and quality standards set artificially high to restrict
movements of goods. Clearance time through customs is particularly slow, averaging 14 days (Uganda,
Kenya) and even up to 18 days (Nigeria) (Wilson and Abiola, n.d.).
167.
An inventory of non-tariff import and export barriers in the Cross Border Initiative (CBI) is of
particular importance, given that seven of the 16 CBI members are LDCs. Yet the inventory is limited and
records only the categories of import quotas/bans, import licenses, state monopolies, and others, with the
first two dominating countries concerns (CBI, 1998).
D.
East and south-east Europe
168.
While research on NTBs in East and south-east Europe is limited, work has recently been
undertaken in the context of the enlargement of the EU and the implementation of the network of bilateral
40
The authors show that the NTB coverage ratios applied to OECD energy imports is 7 percentage points higher
than for all non-fuel products imported from Africa (Arnjadi and Yeats, 1994).
60
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). There are widespread calls to eliminate NTBs that may undermine the
implementation of 28 bilateral FTAs signed between countries of the region and the pursuit of a single
liberalised market in south-eastern Europe.
169.
For post-Communist eastern European nations, Bodenstein et. al. (2003) note an inverse relation
between NTBs and capital controls, which they describe as the two faces of economic transition. The
study reports that since 1993, most of the transitional countries have lowered trade barriers while
increasing capital flow controls. Financial measures are therefore identified as a restrictive practice
hampering traders in the region.
170.
The Working Group of the Trade Liberalisation and Facilitation under the Stability Pact
commissioned a study that identifies NTBs maintained south-eastern European countries, both in regional
and global trade relations, the latter focusing on the EU as the principal export market and aspiration for
future accession (Tschani and Wiedmer, 2001). The five countries investigated, including through on-site
visits, are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. All are in
transition to market economies but are at different stages in the process.
171.
Across the five countries examined, the study reveals that NTBs are a source of concern in the
areas of import licensing, customs valuation, functioning of customs, and TBT/SPS measures.
Underlying these problems are inadequacies in national laws and provisions, lack of infrastructure and
poor training of officials, among others. The study further identifies as less pervasive but important
obstacles charges other than duties that have a direct effect on exports/imports by reducing their
quantities, making them more expensive and discriminating from domestically produced goods.
172.
The authors also note that the political and constitutional situation present additional
challenges in some of the countries in the region. Specifically, they refer to problems in the distribution of
power in trade matters (between central/federal authority and other entities) that cause confusion for
exporters. There also appears to be a lack of information on trade rules between the public
administration and the private sector, which accounts in part for the lack of implementation of trade rules
(especially in customs controls and in TBT and SPS controls). An inadequate banking system also
appears as a major concern that hampers exporters in the region.
173.
While recognising that NTBs deter trade in the region, this study and others agree that NTBs are
not systematically used among countries of the region as a tool of trade policy (Tschani and Wiedmer,
2001; World Bank, 2003; European Commission and HTSPE, 2004). Only import licensing and export
and import prohibitions are widely used to control trade, particularly for hazardous products (arms, drugs,
dangerous wastes) (European Commission and HTSPE, 2004). Other problems derive mainly from the
lack of technical capacity and resources to enforce TBT and SPS standards, and from difficulties in
customs procedures and administration which result in long delays and corruption (Tschani and Wiedmer,
2001; World Bank, 2003; European Commission and HTSPE, 2004). Table A.4 summarises the main
resource and infrastructure problems affecting trade in the region, which ought to be addressed in the
context of eliminating NTBs.
61
Table A4. Problems affecting trade in South-eastern Europe
Inconsistent and non-transparent customs classification;

Inadequate customs staffing, training, and IT equipment (including lack of IT links between different national
customs administrations and lack of software for data processing);
Limited legal competences of customs offices, essentially limited to issues of origin;
Overlapping responsibilities of different agencies at national borders;
Excessive documentation requirements for the purpose of customs clearance.
Severe shortage of accredited laboratories and of competent testing and certification institutes;
Inability to participate in mutual recognition agreements and international agreements on metrology and
conformity assessment;
Small number of firms which have achieved internationally recognised certification;
Failure to adapt successfully to international standards, especially EU standards;
Unnecessary repetition of market inspections no provision for issue or standard type approvals.
Insufficient phytosanitary and veterinary inspectors at national borders, and lack of inspection equipment;
Inadequacy, or in some cases complete lack, of accredited state-level inspection institutions;
Failure to adapt to EU phytosanitary and veterinary standards due to lack of resources;
Lack of clarity over standards to be applied and degree to which other countries standards are acceptable;
Need to update applicable national laws on food safety and mainstream health and quality control procedures,
which are sometimes split between several ministries.
Other Problems that Affect Exports
Financial and economic problems, such as the inadequacy of national banking systems, lack of adequate
facilities and credit insurance schemes, high interest rates, degraded production facilities due to wartime
destruction, and inadequacies of tax administration;
Transport and infrastructure problems, such as inadequate road systems, lack of competition in road transport,
lack of professional freight forwarding agents, inability to issue required certification, degraded inland
waterway systems, and inefficient rail systems;
Corruption, increasing transaction costs at national borders, delaying clearance of goods, undermining quality
and safety standards, deterring trade by the prospect of delays or pressure to make corrupt payments.
Source: Helping to Tackle Non-Tariff Barriers in the Western Balkans (2005), The European Unions Cards Programme for
Western Balkans, EC, Brussels (2005).
62
ANNEX III. CATEGORIES OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS
174.
The following is a listing of the NAMA Inventory of Non-tariff Measures (28 November 2003,
TN/MA/S/5/Rev.1) and the adjustments made in the inventory categorisation for the purpose of the
analysis of NTB notifications presented in Section IV.
NAMA Inventory of Non-tariff Measures
I. Government Participation in Trade and
Restrictive Practices Tolerated by Government
A. Government aids, including subsidies and tax
benefits
B. Countervailing duties
C. Government procurement
D. Restrictive practices tolerated by governments
E. State trading, government monopoly practices,
etc
II. Customs and Administrative Entry Procedures
A. Anti-dumping duties
B. Customs valuation
C. Customs classification
D. Consular formalities and documentation
E. Samples
F. Rules of origin
G. Customs formalities
H. Import licensing
I. Pre-shipment inspection
III. Technical Barriers to Trade
A. General
B. Technical regulations and standards
C. Testing and certification arrangements
IV. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

A. General
B. SPS measures including chemical residue limits,
disease freedom, specified product treatment, etc.
C. Testing, certification and other conformity
assessment
IV. Specific Limitations
A. Quantitative restrictions
B. Embargoes and other restrictions of similar
effect
C. Screen-time quotas and other mixing regulations
D. Exchange controls
E. Discrimination resulting from bilateral
agreements
F. Discriminatory sourcing
Adjustment made to NAMA Categorisation

I. Government Participation in Trade
A. Government assistance, including subsidies and
tax benefits
-B. Government procurement
C. Restrictive practices tolerated by governments
D. State trading and monopolistic practices
II. Customs and Administrative Procedures
-A. Customs valuation
B. Customs classification
C. Consular formalities and documentation
D. Samples
E. Rules of origin
F. Customs formalities
G. Import licensing
H. Pre-shipment inspection
III. Technical Barriers to Trade
A. General
B. Technical regulations and standards
C. Testing and certification arrangements
D. Requirements concerning marking, labelling and
packaging
IV. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
A. General
B. SPS measures including chemical residue limits,
disease freedom, specified product treatment, etc.
C. Testing, certification and other conformity
assessment
IV. Quantitative Restrictions and Similar Specific
Limitations*
A. Quantitative restrictions
B. Embargoes and other restrictions of similar
effect
C. Screen-time quotas and other mixing regulations
D. Tariff quotas
E. Voluntary export restraints
F. Exchange controls
63
NAMA Inventory of Non-tariff Measures
G. Export restraints
H. Measures to regulate domestic prices
I. Tariff quotas
J. Export taxes
K. Requirements concerning marking, labelling
and packaging
L. Others
V. Charges on Imports
A. Prior import deposits
B. Surcharges, port taxes, statistical taxes, etc
C. Discriminatory film taxes, use taxes, etc.
D. Discriminatory credit restrictions
E. Border tax adjustments
VI. Other
A. Intellectual property issues
B. Safeguard measures, emergency actions
C. Distribution constraints
D. Business practices or restrictions in the market
E. Other
Adjustment made to NAMA Categorisation

G. Export restraints
H. Discrimination resulting from existing bilateral
agreements
V. Trade Remedies
A. Antidumping duties
B. Countervailing duties
C. Safeguard measures
VI. Charges on Imports
A. Prior import deposits
B. Surcharges, port taxes, statistical taxes, etc
C. Discriminatory film taxes, use taxes, etc.
-D. Border tax adjustments
E. Other non-tariff charges
VII. Other
A. Intellectual property issues
-B. Distribution constraints
C. Business practices or restrictions in the market
-D. Administrative price fixing
E. Discriminatory sourcing
F. Export taxes
G. Not classified
*Based on typology of non-tariff barriers by Deardorff and Stern (1997).

Format for WTO NTB Notifications
175.
Pursuant to the format and instructions circulated in the Negotiating Group on Market Access
(NAMA), Members were invited to submit information on the following seven items:
Maintaining participant
Products affected by the barrier
Nature of the barrier
Trade effects of the barrier
Inventory category
Relevant WTO provisions
Treatment of the barrier
64
ANNEX IV. ANALYSIS OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS NOTIFIED BY
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, BY PRODUCT GROUP
Live Animals and Related Products41
A.

37%
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
35%
Rules of Origin
28%
Import Licensing
6%
Other
1%

26%
Quantitative Restrictions and Similar

Specific Limitations
2%
Data Set:
Number of notifications under this product group: 309 NTBs
Developing countries represented by the notifications: Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Hong-Kong,

Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Senegal, Venezuela.
Breakdown of Product Group

Fish and crustaceans, molluscs, and other aquatic invertebrates 98% of notifications for product group
Dairy products
1% of notifications for product group
Poultry products
41
In every chart, one of the NTB categories shown is broken down further into sub-categories of measures. The
category selected for breakdown does not necessarily correspond to the largest NTB category but is meant to
draw attention to the high incidence of one or several measures that stand out within that NTB category.
65
B.
Prepared Foodstuffs and Beverages

5%
Charges on Imports
3%

11%
General
5%
Technical Regulations and Standards
8%
Technical
Barriers
45%
Testing and Certification Arrangements

11%
Marking, Labelling and Packaging
Requirements
21%
Customs and Administrative

Procedures
31%
Government Participation in trade

5%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented by the notifications: Bangladesh, China, Chinese Taipei,

Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Preparations of meat, of fish, or of crustaceans, molluscs, or 55% of notifications for product group
other aquatic invertebrates
Preparations of cereals, flour, starch, or pastry products
Beverages and spirits
Other
66
C.
Textiles and Textile Products

4%
Customs Valuation
17%
46%
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
40%
1%
Import Licensing
11%
Rules of Origin
9%
Preshipment Inspection
2%

10%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented by the notifications: Argentina, China, Bangladesh,

China, Egypt, Hong-Kong, India, Macao, Pakistan, Philippines, Uruguay.
Apparel and clothing accessories

Generic and miscellaneous
Other made-up textiles
Other vegetable and textile fabrics
Silk, wool, and cotton
Woven fabrics
Man-made filaments
Carpets

67
D.
Chemicals, Alloys and Related Products
Trade Remedies
4%
Other Barriers
6%
Customs Valuation
3%
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
18%

63%
Customs Formalaties
5%
Consular Fees and Documentation
3%
Import Licensing
8%

3%
5%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented under category notifications: Argentina, Bangladesh,

Bulgaria, China, Chinese Taipei, Croatia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines,
Singapore, Uruguay.

Pharmaceutical products
Miscellaneous chemical products
Perfumery, cosmetics, and toilet preparations
Fertilisers
Soap and washing preparations
Explosives, matches, and fireworks
Paints and colouring matter
68
E.
Metals and Metal Products

14%
7%
Charges on Imports
2%
Trade Remedies
31%
Anti-dumping Duties
21%
Countervailing Duties
5%
Safeguards
5%

Procedures
41%

5%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented by the notifications: Argentina, China, Chinese Taipei,

Croatia, Jordan, Malaysia, Philippines, Venezuela.

Iron and steel
Miscellaneous articles of base metals
Articles of steel and iron
Aluminium and articles of aluminium
69
F.
Other Barriers
2%
Trade Remedies
1%
1%
General
5%
Technical
Barriers to Trade
67%

Procedures
28%

53%

7%
Requirements
3%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented by the notifications: China, Chinese Taipei, Croatia,

Egypt, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago.

Electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof;
television image and sound reproducers, and parts and
accessories of such articles
Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical
appliances, and parts thereof
70
G.
Vehicles, Aircraft and Vessels
Trade Remedies
4%
6%
General
16%
Technical
Barriers to Trade
52%
Procedures
34%

16%
18%
Requirements
2%

4%
Data Set:

Philippines, Venezuela.
Vehicles and parts of vehicles

Ships and boats

71
H.
Plastics
Trade Remedies
7%
Other Barriers
4%
Customs Formalaties
11%
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
46%

35%
Import Licensing
11%
Rules of Origin
21%
Other
4%

7%
Data Set:
Developing countries represented by the notifications:

Philippines, Singapore, Thailand.
Plastic and plastic articles

Rubber and rubber articles
Argentina, China, Malaysia,

72
I.
Miscellaneous Manufactures
Other Barriers
9%
6%
Customs Valuation
6%
3%
Customs and
Administrative
Procedures
46%
Import Licensing
20%
Rules of Origin
17%

33%

6%
Data Set:

Egypt, Malaysia, Philippines.
Multi-product submissions
Furniture and parts of furniture
Miscellaneous
Works of art
Toys

73
ANNEX V. STRATEGIC PRODUCTS AND SECTORS OF INTEREST TO DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES
Country(ies)
Export market(s)
Products/sectors
Middle East and North Africa

Jordan1
USA, Algeria, Dubai and

selected
European,
African
and
other
markets
developed-country
markets and emerging
markets in Asia and
Latin America
cosmetics; apparel and garments; pharmaceuticals; food and

beverages; information technology; tourism; health services
Namibia3
not specified
Economic
Community of West
African States
(ECOWAS)4
14 African countries
and
6
Asian
countries5
Southern
African
Development
Community
(SADC)6
Southern
African
Customs
Union
(SACU)7
intra-regional
(ECOWAS)
fish processing (horse mackerel, tuna, tooth fish etc); mineral

processing (dimension stone, white fillers, other industrial
minerals); horticulture (fresh fruits and vegetables incl. table
grapes, dates, melons, oranges, sub-tropical fruit, asparagus);
hides and skins and leather (processed hides and skins, leather
garments and products); crafts (wood, textile and metal items,
hand woven carpets, gemstone jewellery); cash crops (cotton and
oriental tobacco growing)
aluminum oxide; frozen fish; woven fabrics of cotton; polymers;
wood; footwear
Africa-Asia
interregional trade
aluminum; coal; nuts; frozen fish; diamonds; iron ores and ferroalloys
Southern
African
Customs Union (SACU)
coke or semi-coke of coal; fabrics and apparel; frozen, prepared,

preserved fish and crustacean
India
Southern
Customs
(SACU)8
Mercado comn del Sur

(MERCOSUR)
parts and accessories of automatic data processing machinery;

refined sugar, in solid form; transmission apparatus for
radiotelephony; medicaments; paper (fine, wood-free, in rolls and
sheet)
aircraft parts; motor vehicle parts, components, tires and wheels;
fertilisers; filtering machinery; flat rolled products of iron/nonalloyed steel; medicaments; structures and parts for structures;
transmission apparatus for radiotelephony; wooden furniture
Saudi Arabia2
all sectors other than petroleum sector.
Sub-Saharan Africa
African
Union
74

Grenada9
Jamaica10
not specified
EU
not specified
Peru11
not specified
Antigua
Barbuda12
and
eco-tourism
fish
services, especially entertainment services (music); telecom and
information technology; tourism
agricultural products (such as vegetables; textiles and apparel;
fishery and aquaculture; wood products; jewellery; crafts
tourism and other services
not specified
Asia
India13
global
Latin
America
countries)
USA, EU, Japan
(43
Japan
Pakistan14
not specified
Philippines15
not specified
Cambodia16
ASEAN, selected
SAARC countries
and China17
Europe
not specified
intra-regional trade
engineering (incl. instruments and items of repair); textiles, gems

and jewellery; chemicals and allied; agriculture and allied; leather
and footwear items; electronics, electrical and engineering goods
textiles (incl. ready-made garments, carpets and handicraft);
chemical products (incl. drugs/pharmaceuticals)
electronic and electrical products; automobiles and auto
components; other engineering items (incl. pumps, electrical
machine parts, heating appliances, sports equipment); textiles
marine products (such as frozen and fresh fish, crustaceans,
molluscs)
with a view to export diversification: fisheries; fruit, vegetables
and wheat; marble and granite; engineering goods; healthcare
services; poultry; IT software and services; gems and jewellery;
chemicals; general services
13 other sectors, including garments, computer software,
construction services, professional services
handicrafts (furniture, ceramics, gifts and house wares)
agriculture (rice etc) ; fisheries; handicrafts; tourism; garments;
digital monolithic integrated circuits; hybrid integrated circuits;
fuel oils; rice; parts of electronic integrated circuits; storage units;
palm oil; digital processing units
Europe and Central Asia

Albania18
markets in the region, in

Eastern Europe and the
EU
Kyrgyz Republic19
WTO countries, CIS

countries, ECO countries
CIS intra-regional trade
5 Central Asian
members of the CIS
(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan)20
In the agricultural and agro-industrial sectors: medicinal plans

and herbs; early and late season fruits and vegetables; preserved
products such as olives, olive oil, canned tomatoes; tobacco and
cigarettes; fresh and processed fish; cheese; meat and meat
products; wine; alcoholic beverages, honey and leather.
Further sectors: garments and footwear; wood products; tourism
and sectors such as chromium, gas production,
telecommunication, power distribution.
tourism; processing industry; hydropower; information
technology; services
textiles and clothing (apparel and clothing accessories of fur
skin); heavy machinery (parts of lifting, handling, loading
machinery; liquid dialect transformers; parts of harvesting, and
other agricultural and mowing machinery; air or gas compressors,
hoods; chemicals (Portland cement); natural gas; iron and steel
products (flat rolled rod etc.); petroleum oils and oils obtained
from bituminous minerals; vehicles (wheeled tractors n.e.s.)
75
The essential elements of a successful national export strategy. A country paper contributed by the Jordanian Strategy Team.
ITC Executive Forum: Competitiveness through Public-Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons Learned, Montreux,
September 2004
Arving Gupta, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A vision for export promotion. February 27, 2001 (draft)
Namibia National export strategy: Scope, focus and process. ITC Executive Forum: Small States in Transition From
Vulnerability to Competitiveness, Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, January , 2004.
ITC, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS): Statistical indicators for subregional trade potential.
Working document, May 2000.
ITC, Africa-Asia Business Forum II. Statistical indicators for inter-regional trade and investment potential. Working
document, July 2000.
ITC, Market opportunities in South Africa as a result of the SADC Trade Protocol. Subregional trade expansion in Southern
Africa. Working document, Projects No. RAF/61/71 and INT/W2/04, January 2001.
ITC, Southern African Customs Union-India: Identifying export potential and study of the automotive assembly and
components industry. Working document, Project SAF/47/70, 30 November 2001.
ITC, Statistical indicators for identifying export potential between SACU and MERCOSUR. Working document. Project
SAF/47/70 INT/W2/04, 31 July 2001.
Most gracious speech to both Houses of Parliament by His Excellency the Governor-General on Friday, the ninth of
January, 2004.
10
Jamaicas approach to the development of non-tourism services exports. ITC, Executive Forum: Small States in Transition
From Vulnerability to Competitiveness, Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, January 2004.
11
The National strategic export plan. A country paper contributed by the Peruvian Strategy Team. ITC Executive Forum:
Competitiveness through Public-Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons Learned, Montreux, September 2004.
12
Tripartite Committee (ECLAC, IDB, OAS), National strategy to strengthen trade-related capacity. Antigua and Barbuda.
Free Trade Area of the Americas. Hemispheric Cooperation Programme, October 8, 2003 (FTAA.sme/inf/158/Rev.1, May
27, 2004)
13
Medium term export strategy 2002-2007. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, January
2002 (http://commerce.nic.in/medium_term/cover.htm)
14
Pakistan
Export
Strategy,
Export
Promotion
(http://www.epb.gov.pk/epb/jsp/export_vision.jsp)
15
Rodolfo P. Ang & Jesse C. Teo, Philippine export promotion policies and their responsiveness to European market
conditions. A case study of Philippine handicraft exports to Belgium and Germany. ASEAN Business Case Studies No. 3,
Centre for ASEAN Studies and Centre for International Management and Development Antwerp, September 1995
16
A Trade perspective. A country paper contributed by the Cambodian Strategy Team. ITC, Executive Forum:
Competitiveness through Public-Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons Learned, Montreux, September 2004.
17
ITC, Statistical indicators for identifying trade potential in ASEAN, selected SAARC countries and China. Working
Document Project INT/W2/04, South-South Trade Promotion Programme, March 2001.
18
Margret Will & Dr. Antila Tanku, Promoting exports from Albania. Recommendation for an Albanian export promotion
strategy. GTZ Office Tirana, 2002.
19
The essential elements of a successful national export strategy. A country paper contributed by the Kyrgyz Strategy Team.
ITC Executive Forum: Competitiveness through Public-Private Partnership: Successes and Lessons Learned, Montreux,
September 2004
20
ITC, Identifying export potential among selected Central Asian CIS member countries. Working Document Project No.
INT/W2/04, South-South Trade Promotion Unit. Division of Technical Cooperation Coordination, May 2002.
76
Bureau
(EPB)
Pakistan,
Karachi,
Pakistan,
ANNEX VI. TRENDS IN NTB CASES FILED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
14
12
Cases
10
8
S-N
S-S
4
2
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
S-N: South North dispute settlement cases; S-S: South-South dispute settlement cases
Source: OECD, compiled from records of WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, as of 31/10/2004.
77
Survey
Export
Market
Data Set
EU
India (2004 and 2001 combined)

Japan
Australia
Testing and
certification
Restrictions on
market access
Bans on certain
imports
Subsidies
Strict certification
Labelling
requirements
Strict SPS
requirements
Differences in State
rules & regulations
Extraterritorial
application of law
Embargo
Pesticide residues
measures
Health and hygiene
conditions
Non-harmonisation
of standards
Labelling rules and
regulations
Stringent SPS
measures
Import prohibitions
Excessive fees for

customs & harbour
Customs clearance
Tariff quotas
78
Strict
certification
Food sanitation
law
Large Scale
Retail Store Law
Standards
Labelling
Administrative
procedures
Standards and
specifications
Quarantine
procedures
Authorisation
requirements
Import quotas
Non refund of VAT
Health inspection
Import restrictions
SPS standards
Prohibitions
Holding up of
samples for SPS
Quarantine and
inspection process
Pesticide residues
Unspecified number of Indian firms exporting a wide range of products
USA
Standards/
technical
requirements
Testing
procedures
Rules of origin
Strict customs
laws
Customs fees
Certification
Mexico
Anti-dumping
duties
Quantitative
restrictions
Import licenses
Turkey
A. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Principal OECD and Global Markets
Environmental issues
Discriminatory bilateral
agreements
Pre-shipment inspection
Anti-dumping duties
Import bans
Company and product

registration
Product registration
only
WHO-GMP
certification
India (2004)
Global (mainly USA,
Japan, EU)
10 pharmaceutical firms
ANNEX VII. PRIVATE SECTOR PERCEPTIONS ON NON-TARIFF BARRIERS FACED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Survey
Export
Market
Data Set
Absence of policy (3.17)

Language differences (3.08)
Complex customs &
administration (3.05)
SPS measures (3.05)
Access to final end-users
Bureaucratic company
registration
Complex government
structure (3.03)
Restrictions and quotas
(3.03)
(3.03)
Slow administrative
measures (2.97)
Differences in business
custom (2.89)
Exclusive culture (2.88)
Cultural difference (2.82)
Protectionism (3.38)
Lack of information (3.47)

certification
Quality control and
consumer protection
Customs procedures
79
Additional charges (4%)
Differences in business
custom (3.24)
Language differences
(3.18)
Restrictions and quotas
(3.16)
Technical barriers to
trade (3.09)
Unfairness and
corruption (3.05)
Complex government
structure (2.94)
Licenses (2.85)
Complex customs &
administration (2.83)
Intellectual property rights

(4%)
Trade remedies (6%)
Restrictions on services
(8%)
Subsidies (6%)
Import policies (34% of

firms)
Technical measures (30%)
Chile (2000)
EU, US, Asia, Latin
America
220 firms (goods &
services)
SPS measures (3.30)
Lack of information
(3.45)
Absence of policy
(3.42)
Cultural differences
(3.37)
Protectionism (3.32)
115 Chinese firms (of 2500 approached)
2,166 Western Balkan

companies
China (2001)
Korea
Japan
EU
Balkans (2004)
Argentina (1999)
EU
Technical
measures
Environmental
measures
Discriminatory
public policies
Import policies
SPS measures
Environmental
measures
Technical
measures
Import policies
SPS measures
224 Argentine firms (out of 2391

approached)
NAFTA
B. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Principal OECD and Global Markets
Survey
Export
Market
Data Set
Foreign exchange surrender

requirement (stronger)
Quotas and prohibitions (stronger)

requirements
Certification and testing (delays,

discrimination)
Customs delays and fees
Regional Trading Agreements
Health rules
Heavy fines
Import restrictions
Inspection
80
Lack of clarity and frequent

changes of trade policy
Minimum price lists (much the

same since 1996)
Trade licensing (weaker since
1996)
Monopolistic measures (weaker)
Special customs formalities

(stronger)
Restrictive foreign exchange

(stronger)
Government monopoly
Registration of imports
Ineffective/unclear government
export promotion policy (6.3)
Complicated export and shipping
documentation (5.4)
Improper packaging (5.2)
Lack of financial resources to

market products overseas (6.5)
Language barrier (5.6)
Little knowledge of foreign market

characteristics (7.5)
Difficulty of obtaining government
support (6.6)
International trade regulations (7.7)
Lack of investment (8.0)
Increased competition from other

APEC nations (9.3)
Lack of advanced technological
production processes (9.0)
Unspecified number of SMEs
31 Vietnamese enterprises
Customs surcharges (stronger
since 1996)
Special consumption tax, internal
taxes (stronger)
Thailand (2001)
Asia and Pacific
Vietnam (1999)
ASEAN countries
Legalisation of documents
India (2004)
Africa, Asia, Latin America,
Baltic countries
Unspecified number of firms
Customs classification and valuation
Standards and other technical

requirements
Import licensing/permits
Import restrictions
Other levies and charges
Trade documentation and customs

procedures
Monopolistic practices
331companies (of 2000 approached)
ASEAN (unspecified date)

ASEAN countries
C. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in Asia and the Pacific
Survey
Export
Market
Respondent
412 Brazilian firms
(of 4683 firms approached)
Freight and insurance cost
(49% of firms)
Customs clearance fees and
charges (48%)
82 Argentine firms (of 174

firms approached)
Quantity control measures
Excessive customs
procedures (35%)
(32%)
Inspection and testing
requirements (31%)
Import licensing (23%)
Product registration (21%)
Technical certification (19%)
Indirect taxes (17%)
Exporters registration
requirements 916%)
Transportation regulations
(15%)
SPS requirements not

commonly applied
Collection of
payments/cashing problems
Price control measures
Customs delays
Monopolistic measures
Inspection
Rules of origin
Financing restrictions
Labelling requirements (48%)
Product registration
problems
Differences in internal taxes
MERCOSUR (2001-2000)
MERCOSUR countries
MERCOSUR countries
81
Internal taxes
Product standards: lack of information

(17 notifications)
Customs and bureaucratic procedures
(12)
Transportation:
costs,
frequency,
insecurity (9)
Lack of information-regulations and
regional agreements (7)
SPS and heterogeneous technical
measures (5)
Asymmetrical
physical
and
technological infrastructure (5)
Political and economic instability (1)
Customs procedures
Product and company
registration
Rules of origin
Competition in costs and production (9)
Non-tariff barriers not specified (9)
Finance and payment mechanisms (11)
Product standards: lack of information

(17 notifications)
Customs and bureaucratic procedures
(12)
30 SMEs (of 220 approached)
ALADI (2001)
ALADI countries
Import licensing
Transportation costs
(esp. rail transportation)
Customs fees
33 Uruguayan firms
(of 52 firms approached)
MERCOSUR countries
Anti-dumping
investigations
Rules of origin
Administrative barriers
Public procurement
Customs procedures
Product requirements
Import licenses
1 firm exporting rice/

milk products
Brazil
Argentina (2002)
D. Highlights from Existing Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in South America
Export
Market
Respondent
Survey
Cost of international air transport

(32%)
(16%)
Customs procedures
(11%)
Application of ACs regulations (7%)
Differences in tax systems (5%)
Legal differences and other

requirements
Limitations to licenses
Local problems in other countries

(such as strikes)
Conditions of the road
Competition from other countries
Requirement for special bills of

import by some countries
Unexpected changes in customer
demand low demand
Lack of professionalism by
transport companies
Excessive formalities
Frequency of vessels (32%)
Administrative barriers (18%)
Theft
Documentation requirements
(28%)
Cost of international land transport
(28%)
Mobilisation of international land
transport (28%)
Sanitary requirements (23%)
Regulations of transport of goods (5%)
82
Government restrictions for public

procurement (5%)
Brokerage costs (32%)
Control on market of capitals (5%)
Damage to goods during removal

from storage (36%)
Cost of international maritime

transport (41%)
Limited knowledge of market

(59% rated as poor/very poor)
Quality and cost of local
transportation (45%)
Not specified (29% of respondents)
Customs problems
70% to CACM, ACS, CACM, G-3

(excluding Mexico)
22 ACS firms (of 518 firms
approached)
Association of Caribbean
States (2003)
6 Member States of the Andean

Community (AC)
118 AC firms
Andean Community (2000)
Countries of the Central

American Common Market
45 Guatemalan industrial firms
Central America (1999)
Countervailing duties
Technical measures
Quantity control measures (quotas and

prohibitions)
Monopolistic measures
(single channel for imports)
Import licensing measures (automatic

and non-automatic)
Finance measures
Para-tariff measures (customs charges,

internal taxes, others)
Price control measures (administrative
price fixing)
Broad consultation of private sector

and other actors
Caribbean Community countries
CARICOM (2002)
E. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in Central America and the Caribbean
Survey
Export
Market
Respondent
Difficulties in issuing passport or visa
Credit risk (average percentage

75%)
Corruption (74%)
Unharmonised axle load limitations
Exchange rate- volatility and control

(61%)
Border regulations & border taxes,
import quotas (60% each)
State intervention & socio-political
instability (57% each)
Export incentives (44%)
Government procurement domestic

content requirements (44%)
Health and safety regulations (36%)
Linguistic barriers
83
Inconsistent application of SPS

requirements
Foreign exchange restrictions
Non-acceptance of certificates of origin
Inconsistent application of standards
Insecurity of transit traffic and high

charges related to transit and air cargo
Inadequate physical and communication
infrastructure
Unjustified import bans
Financing administration and cost

(64 and 62%. respectively)
Interest rate (63%)
Customs and excise (61%)
Labour - training & productivity

(65% and 64%, respectively)
Bureaucracy (70%)
Studies conducted involving consultation

with private sector
238 South African firms (of 2040

firms approached)
Cumbersome and bureaucratic customs

clearance, i.e. centralised clearing process
for licenses
Non-standardisation of customs
documentation
COMESA (1999)
COMESA countries
SADC (2003)
SADC countries
Requirements for additional

documentation (3)
Problems with customs procedures
(3)
Conformity assessment procedures

(3)
Country risk (3)
Import licensing and prior import

declaration (3)
SPS measures (3)
Subsidies and government

assistance (4)
Additional charges for registration
of products (4)
Exchange rate problems (4)
Pre-shipment inspection (5)
Customs clearance procedures (9)
Administrative regulations (12

countries
Customs valuation (10)
Morocco (2001)
Members of the Organization on
the Islamic Conference
3 associations and 29 firms
Inspection, conformity certification

(2.2)
Trans-shipment regulatory
measures (2.1)
Entry visa restrictions for business
(1.8)
Public sector corruption (2.4)
Customs clearance (2.5)
Customs duties (average score =

3.0)
Domestic taxes (6.0)
MENA (2000)
9 markets in the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA)
250 firms (manufacturing and
services)
F. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in Africa and the Middle East
Standards
(labelling)
Fraudulent
certification
Discriminatory toll
rates
Charges levied for

sanitary inspection
Discriminatory
excise tax rates
Transport licenses
Transit charges &

licenses
Import licensing
Rules of origin
Customs
classification
Testing procedures
(unclear, long)
SPS requirements
Quotas
Conformity
assessment
Import licensing
Western Balkan
countries
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Western Balkan
countries
Albania
Verifying origin of
goods
Testing procedures
and laboratories
Surcharges on
imports
Non-recognition of
certification
State monopoly
Environmental tax
Transport
requirements
Tariff rate quotas
Import prohibitions
Domestic content
requirements
State trade monopoly
Restrictions on
transport routes
Conformity testing of
trucks
Road tolls
High fees for

financial transactions
Transport costs
Import bans
Import licensing
Export duties
Arbitrary allocation
of import quotas
Parking taxes and
transit taxes
Non-application of
EU standards
Registration
Transit taxes and

other import charges
SPS inspections
Regime for transport
Certificate of origin
Customs procedures
and formalities
Public procurement
Western Balkan
countries
Republic of Serbia
and Montenegro
Rules of origin
State protection of
domestic production
Import licensing
procedures
Health examination
of products
Public procurement
Customs procedures
Customs valuation
and classification
Customs clearance
formalities
Lack of coordination
customs authorities
SPS certification
Import licensing
European Commission Survey in South East Europe (2004)

Western Balkan
Western Balkan
Western Balkan
countries
countries
countries
Bulgaria
Croatia
Macedonia
Customs procedures
Import licensing
Determination of
origin
Quotas and tariff
rate quotas
Transit taxes
Western Balkan
countries
UNMIK/Kosovo
84
Note: The information collected above derives from questionnaires completed by firms in addition to broad consultation with general trade stakeholders. The table above is a synthesis
of measures cited in these sources.
Survey
Export
Market
Respondent
G. Highlights from Business Surveys: Concerns about NTBs in Trade among Developing Countries in South-East Europe

Barriers 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Please cite this paper as:

OECD (2005), Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern

OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 16

Organisation de Coopration et de Dveloppement Economiques

Working Party of the Trade Committee

ANALYSIS OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS OF CONCERN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 16

Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine

Copyright OECD 2005

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Asia and the Pacific........................................................................................................................ 54

Annex III. Categories of non-tariff barriers ................................................................................................ 63

Live Animals and Related Products ............................................................................................... 65

Prepared Foodstuffs and Beverages ............................................................................................... 66

Annex V. Strategic products and sectors of interest to developing countries.............................................. 74

NTBs reported for specific product groups............................................................................. 22

Frequency of notifications by NTB category........................................................................ 17

Association of Caribbean States

Advisory Centre on WTO Law

African Growth and Opportunity Act

Latin American Integration Association

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Central American Common Market

Cross Border Initiative

Common external tariff

Commonwealth of Independent States

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

Doha Development Agenda

Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO)

Economic Community of West African States

European Free Trade Association

Free trade agreement

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Genetically modified organism

Harmonised System (Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System)

Inter-American Development Bank

International Monetary Fund

International Trade Centre

Latin America and the Caribbean

Least developed country

Middle East and North Africa

Southern Common Market

Not elsewhere specified

North American Free Trade Agreement

Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-agricultural Products

Organization of American States

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

Pacific Economic Cooperation Council

Regional trade arrangement

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

Southern African Customs Union

Southern African Development Community

Special and differential treatment

Secretariat for Central American Economic Integration

Standard International Trade Classification

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures