6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 69
CHAPTER 1.6
Obstacles to Trade from the
Perspective of the Business
Sector: A Cross-Country
Comparison
MONDHER MIMOUNI, CAROLIN AVERBECK, and
OLGA SKOROBOGATOVA, International Trade Centre (ITC)
A multitude of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade
negotiations, as well as several voluntary commitments—
such as unilateral tariff preferences—to improve market
access have contributed to the overall decrease of tariff
rates to a historically low level. In order to foster international trade, trade-related policies have focused primarily
on reducing tariff protection measures. Other factors,
however, have proved to be more burdensome than tariffs
for exporting companies, especially in developing countries.The business sector as well as trade policymakers
are more and more concerned about non-tariff obstacles
to trade, which are less visible and more complex than
tariff protection.
These non-tariff measures (NTMs) refer to a wide
range of measures, including technical regulations and
product standards as well as customs procedures. NTMs
partly reflect the increasing sophistication of markets,
with consumers demanding more information about the
products they buy.
Often it is difficult to distinguish between NTMs
that are applied for legitimate reasons and those used as
instruments of protection, or non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
There is no international consensus on what can be
considered legitimate NTMs and what measures are illegitimate barriers to trade—making it difficult to provide
a clear picture. Moreover, not every exporter, in particular
in developing countries, is able to comply with NTMs.
From the perspective of the business sector, NTMs
increase trade-related costs. If an NTM is used for protectionist reasons, the associated costs are even higher.
The increased costs resulting from NTMs penalize not
only producers in the exporting country but also businesses and final consumers in the importing country.
Technical regulations and product standards, for example, can increase the costs of compliance in two ways.
First, they can impose additional fixed costs on exporters
who have to adapt products to the specific standards and
regulations applied by the importing country. Second,
conformity assessment procedures such as testing to
demonstrate compliance with these technical measures
induce additional costs.
Trade-related costs and non-tariff obstacles to trade
have been the subject of numerous studies. Some of
these studies use country-level data but do not capture
the experiences of exporters in their daily operations.
Others, such as time-release studies, concentrate on very
specific aspects of customs’ efficiency without taking
into consideration the global framework. Studies focusing on the national level often do not allow cross-country
comparison because they employ country-specific
methodologies. Only a few studies center on the understanding of the obstacles to trade that affect products
The authors would like to thank Benjamin Prampart, Helen Lassen, and
Mathieu Loridan for their contributions to this chapter.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
69
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
70
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 70
Table 1: Selected groups of non-tariff measures that exporting companies experienced as non-tariff barriers,
percent
Simple
cross-country
average
NTM group1
Chile
Philippines
Thailand
Tunisia
Uganda
Technical measures to trade (e.g., product characteristic
requirement; production process; conformity assessment)
70.3
76.4
93.5
62.7
64.1
73.4
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities
14.0
3.1
2.3
22.6
23.1
13.0
Licences, quotas, and other quantity control measures
6.1
0.4
2.2
0.5
0.3
1.9
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures
1.2
2.7
0.2
4.7
7.4
3.2
Finance measures regulating the access to and cost of
foreign exchange for imports and defining the terms of payment
2.1
0.6
0.1
4.2
0.2
1.4
Other
6.4
16.9
1.6
5.3
4.9
7.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
1 See Appendix B for definitions of these groups.
throughout the whole export process, from the origin
country to the destination country—either on one side
of the border or the other—from the perspective of the
business sector. Hence it remains difficult to fully capture
the various obstacles to trade faced by the business sector
or to identify their possible patterns across products and
sectors as well as countries and regions.
The International Trade Centre (ITC) aims to assist
countries to better understand the non-tariff obstacles to
trade experienced by their business sectors and to identify
potential bottlenecks at the national level. In January
2008, the ITC and the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched a joint
15-month pilot project for the collection and classification
of data on NTMs in seven developing countries. In each
country, among other activities, a company-level survey
with 300 to 400 face-to-face interviews was carried out
in order to identify, at the product level, those measures
that exporting companies perceive as barriers in their daily
business, as well as the reasons why companies experience a measure as burdensome.1 The following analysis
will be based on the survey results for five countries—
Chile, the Philippines,Thailand,Tunisia, and Uganda.2
The applied survey methodology and the questionnaire
used were the same in all countries; the surveys were carried out by trained local partners. Companies reported
their experiences with obstacles to trade by “cases.” Each
case has several parameters, including the exported product, the relevant NTM, and the partner country applying
the NTM as well as a description of the challenges the
exporter faces when complying with the applied NTM.
Table 1 presents the major groups of NTMs reported
by exporting companies as serious obstacles to trade in
five surveyed countries.The numbers are expressed in percentages, capturing a share of reports on a certain type
of measure in the total number of reports.
As is to be expected, the majority of NTMs that
exporters across the five surveyed countries experienced
as NTBs concern technical measures, which account for
an average of about 73 percent of the total measures considered per surveyed country.These measures include regulations related to product characteristics or the associated
production process. Exporters can find it challenging to
comply with these regulations, as they are sometimes very
complex and often vary significantly.
More than 93 percent of all barriers reported by
Thai exporters refer to technical measures to trade—in
comparison with between 62 percent and 64 percent for
Tunisia and Uganda, respectively. For these countries,
however, the share of reports on customs formalities is
significantly higher (around 23 percent) than the average
(13 percent).The share of reports on customs formalities
varies considerably across countries. For the Philippines
and Thailand, less than 4 percent of the reported cases
refer to this category.
Chilean exporters reported three times more than
the cross-country average on quantity control measures
such as licenses or quotas.These types of barriers are very
low for the Philippines,Tunisia, and Uganda. Exporters
in Tunisia and, in particular, Uganda complained more
often about customs surcharges and other additional
charges and taxes (4.7 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively) than exporters in the other surveyed countries.
This first highly aggregated overview of the survey
results already shows some regional patterns. In the two
African countries,Tunisia and Uganda, customs formalities
and pre-shipment inspection are of much more concern
to the private sector than they are in the other surveyed
countries.The share of reports on technical measures is
the highest for the two Asian countries,Thailand and
the Philippines, while the share of licenses, quotas, and
other quantity control measures is more than twice as
high in Chile as it is in other countries.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 71
Figure 1: Types of non-tariff measures that surveyed companies experienced as barriers, by regional destination,
percent
Most
reported
technical
measures
冦
Africa
Asia
Europe
Tolerance limits for residues
and contaminants, or restricted
use of certain substances
North America
Oceania
Latin America & the Caribbean
Labeling, marking,
and packaging requirements
Traceability requirements
Testing requirements
Certification requirements
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
Pre-shipment inspection and
other customs formalities
Charges, taxes, and
other para-tariff measures
0
5
10
15
20
25
71
Note: See Appendix A, Table A2 for absolute numbers.
Barriers in partner countries
The survey captured those NTMs applied by destination
countries that companies perceive as barriers to trade.
One would expect the reasons exporters experience these
measures as burdensome to be linked with the destination
country.To test this view, the reported cases of all the five
surveyed countries have been grouped according to the
geographic regions of the partner countries and according to the types of reported measures.
Each reported barrier refers to a specific case, which
was reported by one company in relation to a specific
product, partner country, measure and associated problem. Companies might have reported several cases, in
particular if they export a range of products to different
partner countries. As Appendix A Table A1 indicates, the
average number of cases per company varied considerably across the surveyed countries. In order to level off
these differences, for each surveyed country, the share
per total number of reported cases has been calculated.
In a second step, based on these calculations, a simple
average share across all five countries has been used.
Figure 1 illustrates the seven most prevailing types of
measures that exporters experienced as barriers. Most of
these are technical measures.The others are related to the
cross-border transaction process and to para-tariff measures, such as additional charges.
Certification requirements, which refer in particular to
the verification of the conformity of products with technical regulations, are a major concern for the surveyed
exporters, no matter which region is the destination for
their product—with the exception of Africa. For goods
exported to African countries, as well as to Latin America
and the Caribbean, the share of barriers related to customs formalities (22 percent and 15 percent, respectively)
is much higher than it is for goods shipped to other
regions.
At the same time, the shares of obstacles to trade
experienced in relation to traceability requirements and
tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or the
restricted use of certain substances are very low in these
two regions.The share of testing requirements is also
very low when goods are bound for Africa (2 percent
against 6 percent on average).
Asia (with Japan and China as main export destinations), North America, and Oceania (with Australia as
the main export destination) have similar patterns in the
sense that exporters have to comply with similar types of
measures in comparable proportions.The most frequently
reported measures for these regional destinations are
related to technical measures to trade: certification
requirements; labeling, marking, and packaging requirements; and traceability requirements (all these range
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
72
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 72
from 10 percent to 22 percent).The shares of experienced
obstacles related to pre-shipment inspection and other
customs formalities—as well as to charges, taxes, and
other para-tariff measures—are low (below 4 percent).
For Europe, on the other hand, the picture is slightly different.The share of reports on technical measures has
generally the same proportions as the shares related to Asia,
North America, and Oceania—with the exception of
certification requirements, which are less predominant.
Obstacles to trade related to customs formalities are relatively high in Europe (11 percent) compared with
other developed destinations, but lower than in Africa
(22 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (15
percent).
Thus the survey suggests that export to countries in
Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean face more
procedural barriers, including inspections, formalities, and
charges, while exports to other regions—in particular to
developed countries—are subject to technical measures
that focus on the characteristics of the specific product
and production process. Obstacles to trade in relation to
certification requirements are the most frequently reported
cases for all export destinations, with the exception of
Africa, where customs formalities are predominant.
The survey data also reveal that for Chile,Thailand,
and Uganda, and to a lesser extent Tunisia, non-tariff
obstacles are much more widespread when trading
regionally. Chile, for example, mainly exports to the
Asia-Pacific region, but most of the reported cases of
trade obstacles concern Latin American and the
Caribbean countries.3 Almost 38 percent of total
Chilean exports are destined for Asia-Pacific, but only 8
percent of all reported cases are related to this region.
The situation is the opposite in Chile’s home region:
no more than 14 percent of exports are regional, but 43
percent of all obstacles concern Latin American and
Caribbean countries. In the case of Uganda, 44 percent
of exports are bound for African countries. Uganda’s
neighboring countries—the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, and Sudan—account for more
than 40 percent of all reported trade barriers, despite
existing trade agreements.This can be partly explained
by the fact that Uganda is a landlocked country and
Ugandan exporters have to comply with transit country
requirements as well as the requirements imposed by the
countries that are their final export destinations. It could
be interesting to further analyze the patterns of intraregional barriers and potential correlations between
types of measures, provisions of trade agreements, and a
country’s export structure, but this is beyond the scope
of this chapter.
Domestic roots of the obstacles to trade
The surveyed companies reporting obstacles to trade
were asked to indicate the destinations of their exported
goods.Though the obstacles to trade are mainly related
to measures applied by these destination countries, they
may not necessarily cause the problems and challenges
about which the exporters complain.The causes can be
partly located in the origin countries.
The analysis of reported cases suggests that many
of the problems faced by the surveyed companies range
from weak customs and administrative procedures to a
lack of local facilities and infrastructure and capacity
within their own country.
Reports from Philippine furniture exporters on
certification requirements, for example, applied by the
United States illustrate the findings with regard to weak
customs and administrative procedures within the origin
country. Certification requirements are categorized into
certificates issued by government agencies of the countries of origin and those issued by local agencies in the
destination market—hence it is possible to locate where
exporters face most problems.
The furniture sector is among the Philippines’ top-10
export sectors and the United States is its major destination country, accounting in 2007 for an export value
of US$156 million and for almost 60 percent of total
exported furniture from the Philippines. Also relatively
high is the number of cases reported by Philippine
exporters on this sector: furniture is the Philippines’
second most affected sector and around one-third of all
reports on this sector are related to the United States
(34 cases).This figure is almost five times larger than the
number of reports on any other destination country for
exported furniture from the Philippines. In comparison,
Thai furniture exporters reported fewer barriers related to
the United States although Thailand’s export of furniture
to the United States is much larger (US$335 million).
The number of reported cases on the United States, however, accounts for only 16 percent of the total 44 cases
from Thailand’s furniture sector, similar to the number
of cases reported on Japan, the United Kingdom, and
other countries—so the cases reported by Thai furniture
exporters are much more balanced in terms of the partner
countries than those reported by Philippine exporters,
which are concentrated in the United States.
The reasons that Philippine companies experience
problems when exporting furniture to the United States,
however, partly originate from their own country: 50
percent of all reports on the United States pertain to
the certificates that are requested by the United States
but issued by the different agencies in the Philippines.
Philippine exporters commented on the low efficiency
of these agencies, in particular that of the customs
administration—and associated export delays of their
products.They also reported a significantly high number
of cases of irregular payments.These observations are in
line with Philippines’ assessment by the Enabling Trade
Index 2009 discussed in Chapter 1.1, which ranks the
efficiency of customs administration and of importexport procedures as well as the transparency in border
administration across countries, among other factors.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 73
The burden of customs procedures in the Philippines
is ranked 95th out of 121 countries, in comparison to
Thailand, for which it is 48th.The effectiveness and efficiency of the clearance process by the Philippines’ customs and border controls is ranked better in international comparison—48th out of 121 countries (Thailand
is ranked 11th). In contrast to this is the Philippines’
ranking with regard to irregular payments in exports
and imports: the country ranks 116th out of 121 countries, while Thailand ranks 72nd.
This finding is in line with the total number of
reports by Philippine exporters on exported furniture:
50.5 percent of all reported cases on furniture are related
to the certification procedures within the Philippines.
The global picture across all sectors is different, however:
10 percent of all reported Philippine cases and 22 percent
of those related to the United States concern certificates
that are issued in the Philippines.This might be explained
by the nature of the exported product: some products and
packaging materials—such as wood—require specific or
many certificates (for example, phytosanitary certificates)
from specialized Philippine agencies. Interestingly, a different pattern is found for Thai cases: only 12.5 percent
of all reported cases from Thai exporters on the United
States concern the certification process—less than 17
percent of these are specifically related to the certification process within Thailand. For the furniture sector,
26 percent of reported Thai cases (23 cases) refer to
certification in general; none of these are specific to the
United States or to certificates issued by Thai agencies.
However, these data should be read with caution—
a simple explanation could be that local interviewers
in Thailand categorized answers differently. Globally,
for Thailand, 5.5 percent of all reported cases concern
certification. Of these, only 12 percent are related to
certificates issued in Thailand; 88 percent are related to
certificates issued in the export destination countries.
Most of these reports are related to agricultural products.
One reason for the high percentage related to agricultural products might be that these products require a
comprehensive certification process.
The survey data revealed a similar pattern for the
Philippines’ wood sector.Wood and articles of wood
exported to the United States were mentioned 46 times,
which is the highest number of cases for a single sector
and partner country.These cases affect a significant share
of trade: the Philippines’ export of wood to the United
States amounts to almost US$30 million. Interestingly,
Thai companies, exporting wood worth US$120 million
to the United States, reported only four barriers related
to technical measures. An explanation can be found by
looking at the nature of the problems that Philippine
exporters encounter when exporting wood to the United
States.Though the measures with which Philippine
exporters need to comply are themselves applied by the
United States, the obstacles they face in relation to these
measures seem to be located in their own country.
Out of 46 reported cases, 27 refer to Philippine
agencies that are involved in the export process.
Philippine companies exporting wood in particular
report weak certification and fumigation procedures.4
From the perspective of the Philippine business sector, there is clearly an issue strongly affecting their export
of wood to the United States. Policymakers and trade
support institutions may be interested in identifying the
roots of the problems, especially for those 27 reported
cases associated with Philippine agencies. It could be the
case that US requirements are too demanding to meet.
In this context, it is worth comparing the United
States with other export destinations. Exporting companies reported 12 cases related to wood exported to
Australia, 6 cases on wood exported to China, and 3 each
to Germany and France.These numbers are significantly
lower than the number of cases reported about wood
exported to the United States. However, the value of
the bilateral trade in wood and wood articles is at least
four times higher with the United States than it is with
any of the countries listed above.Thus, at this stage it is
not possible to conclude whether the barriers related to
Philippine agencies have their roots in the United States
or in the Philippines themselves.
Uganda’s situation as a landlocked country is special, and many survey responses refer to high transportation costs in general and challenges encountered for
transit goods. An overwhelming number of exporters’
complaints refer to the high transportation costs (e.g.,
air freight charges, the low quality of roads, high fuel
costs).The Enabling Trade Index 2009 ranks Uganda’s
quality of railroad infrastructure 97th out of 112, and its
quality of roads 101st. Other reported constraints
include the limited number of cooling rooms and warehouses, or power outages in general. Also the lack of
skills and technology are experienced as obstacles to
trade for exporters. A large number of exporters explicitly mention the challenges they face due to the fact that
Uganda is landlocked, referring to two sets of problems.
First, the cost of inland transportation is high. Second,
the barriers arise in transit countries (the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda) rather than in the
destination markets.The comments mostly mention the
security situation in transit countries (e.g., roadblocks),
time delays, and bribes.
These observations suggest that some of the obstacles to trade that exporters face are located in their home
country and involve local or national agencies—as is the
case for the Philippines.The process of exporting goods
involves agencies and infrastructure in both the exporting
and importing country. Although the destination country might apply a specific measure, the challenge that
exporters face with this measure often relates to the lack
of infrastructure or efficiency in their own country, which
thus leads to difficulties with compliance.The positive
side of this conclusion is that such obstacles can be
resolved domestically.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
73
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
74
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 74
Conclusion
The elimination of NTBs has been gaining importance
on the international trade agenda. Since the overall level
of tariff protection is quite low, these obstacles are becoming a major determinant of market access conditions.
There is no international consensus on what can be
judged legitimate NTMs and which measures are protectionism in disguise. Countries may have legitimate
reasons to introduce NTMs—for example, consumer
protection, public health, or national security. Some of
these measures however, may be experienced by exporters
as obstacles to trade. First, importing countries may use
NTMs for protectionist goals. Second, even legitimate
measures can have a prohibitive cost of compliance.
Finally, exporting companies may experience difficulties
in meeting the requirements because of an inadequate
domestic business environment, such as obsolete local
facilities and procedures that are lacking in efficiency.
Policymakers as well as the business sector can benefit from a better understanding of non-tariff obstacles
to trade to make better-informed decisions. It is therefore important to identify not only those measures that
the business sector perceives as obstacles to trade, but
also their root causes.
A company-level survey designed to address these
issues is being undertaken in several developing countries across the world.The results from the first set of
countries have provided data inputs for this chapter.
Although capturing information on only five countries,
this analysis sheds light on variations that exist in the incidences and types of NTBs experienced by the business
sector across products, countries, and regions.The analysis of the reported barriers suggests that the prevailing
types of barriers are linked to the destination regions
of exports.
However, the causes that lead an exporting company
to qualify an applied measure as problematic are not necessarily associated with the country that applies the
measure.The obstacles may be caused by factors linked
to the home country of exporters—for example, a lack
of infrastructure or a lack of efficient procedures.
A more global analysis would facilitate a better
understanding about NTMs and the challenges exporting
companies face when complying with these measures,
either because they are used for protectionist purposes or
because of an inadequate domestic business environment.
This understanding could facilitate the identification of
policy options at the national and international level.
Notes
1 See Appendix A for the number of interviewed companies per
country.
2 The goal of the pilot survey was to test and validate a representative cross-country and cross-sector methodology for the collection
and classification of barriers experienced by the business sector
in developing countries; the sample size per surveyed country
was determined accordingly. The seven countries selected to test
the methodology were therefore diverse in terms of geographical
location as well as level of development. The cross-country analysis in this chapter is based on the data for five of the seven countries; a larger data analysis is planned for the future.
A number of specific and unique differences were identified in
each country owing to the nature of the topic itself, to different
levels of local expertise and activities on the topic, and to local
language requirements and cultural differences.
Across the seven surveyed countries, interviewed companies
reported the barriers they faced based on a global questionnaire.
The local interviewers categorized these obstacles to trade
according to a new classification on NTMs, which has been prepared by a number of international organizations within the framework of UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs. It might be
possible that, in this process, reported NTMs have not been consistently matched against the corresponding measures.
Furthermore, the way interviews were conducted could vary
slightly across countries—also, the way interviewed companies
responded to the survey might vary across countries. For example, in one country, interviewed companies only reluctantly shared
their experiences on non-tariff obstacles to trade, as they considered these experiences already as a comparative advantage
against their local competitors. Consequently, the results, as presented, can only show tendencies across countries.
3 The analysis of the regional distribution of trade obstacles reported by Chilean exporters is based on top-20 export destinations,
representing 88 percent of the total Chilean export value. All trade
statistics referred to in this article are sourced from United
Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, 2007 data. These
export destinations have been categorized into geographic
regions, namely Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the
Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. Similar calculations were
performed for each surveyed country.
4 Fumigation refers to a method of pest control that completely fills
an area with gaseous pesticides, or fumigants, to suffocate or poison the pests within. Fumigation can be requested before crossborder transaction of goods to control pests and to prevent transfer of exotic organisms. In the survey, exporting companies in the
Philippines often commented on the high cost of fumigation.
References
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).
2009. Classification of Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), prepared by
UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs.
UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division). Commodity Trade Statistics
Database, 2007 data. Available at http://comtrade.un.org/.
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 75
Appendix A: Scope of the survey
Table A1: Number of surveyed companies and reported cases, per country
Number of surveyed
exporting companies
Number of
reported cases
Chile
251
673
Philippines
303
851
Thailand
430
1,803
Tunisia
279
810
Uganda
210
593
Surveyed country
Table A2: Absolute number of reported cases by selected measures, per country
Measure group
Chile
Selected technical measures
Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants or restricted use of certain substances
Philippines
Thailand
Tunisia
Uganda
18
47
165
9
1
132
72
169
72
64
Traceability requirements
29
34
253
92
32
Testing requirements
17
40
140
40
69
119
244
305
86
22
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities
7
44
58
16
55
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures
8
23
4
38
44
Other
343
347
709
457
306
TOTAL
673
851
1,803
810
593
Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements
Certification requirements
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
75
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum
1.6: Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector
Part 1.r2
76
6/19/09
12:40 PM
Page 76
Appendix B: Definitions of non-tariff measures
This appendix refers to a selected group of non-tariff
measures that exporters in the surveyed countries have
experienced as obstacles to trade.These non-tariff
measures have been categorized as follows, based on
a new NTM classification prepared in a multi-agency
framework.
Technical measures to trade refers to product characteristics or their related process and production methods.
These measures include packaging, marking, and labeling
requirements as well as conformity assessment procedures.
Within the multilateral context, these measures are
categorized into technical barriers to trade (TBT) and
sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), depending on
the purpose of the measures. SPS measures are designed
to protect human, animal, and plant life or health from
risks caused by pests, diseases, and disease-carrying or
disease-causing organisms; and risks arising from additives,
contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in
foods, beverages, or feedstuffs.TBT measures are applied
for the purpose of national security, protection of human
safety, protection of the environment, and prevention of
deceptive practices. See the WTO Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade and the WTO Agreement on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) for further information.
For the purpose of the cross-country analysis, the
following selected technical measures have been covered:
purpose is to verify the conformity of products
with certain conditions.
Pre-shipment inspection and other customs formalities include all the measures related to inspection of the
products in the country of export before shipment as
well as special customs formalities not related to TBT or
SPS—for example, the requirement that a particular
shipment pass through a specified port of customs.
Licenses, quotas, and other quantity control measures
include the requirements on different forms of licensing,
quotas, and prohibitions.
Charges, taxes, and other para-tariff measures
include all the measures related to charges; taxes on
imports that are not tariffs, such as internal taxes on
imports; general sales taxes; excise taxes and charges; and
decreed customs valuations.
Finance measures regulate the access to and cost of
foreign exchange for imports, and define the terms of
payment—for example, advance payment requirement,
multiple exchange rates, restrictive official foreign exchange allocation, regulations related to terms of payment
for imports, transfer delays, and surrender requirement.
• Tolerance limits for residues and contaminants, or restricted
use of certain substances determine the maximum
limit for residues, contaminants, microorganisms, or
certain substances that can be present in products.
• Traceability requirements relate to the measures on the
disclosure of information concerning different
stages of production process and distribution of a
certain product, such as origin of materials used,
processing history, and so on.
• Labeling, marking, and packaging requirements: Labeling
is a requirement to provide certain information on
products, or their production process, while marking
is providing information that the product should
carry for transport and customs purposes. Packaging
requirements relate to the way products can be
packed and to the packaging materials.
• Testing requirements are conformity assessment procedures, required by the importing country, that
envisage verifying the conformity of the products
to certain SPS or TBT regulations by testing or
sampling.
• Certification requirements concern certification that is
required by the importing country and is issued by
either the importing or the exporting country; its
The Global Enabling Trade Report 2009 © 2009 World Economic Forum