Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the

Obstacles to Trade from the Perspective of the Business Sector: A Cross-Country comparison Third Meeting of Trade Ministers of Landlocked Developing Countries By Mondher Mimouni, ITC Ezulwini, Swaziland, 21 -22 October 2009

Plan • Obstacles to trade Raising concern of the business sector Trade costs Empirical evidence Types of obstacles • ITC’s Project on non-tariff Measures NTM classification Official data collection Survey of the business sector perceptions • Conclusions

NTMs – Why important for ITC?

Definition of non-tariff measures (NTMs) Several definitions exists. Definition adopted by multi-agency team working on NTMs: Non-tariff measures (NTMs) are policy measures, other than ordinary customs tariffs, that can potentially have an economic effect on international trade in goods, changing quantities traded, or prices or both. Difficult to make a distinguish between NTMs and non-tariff barriers. Business sector is most concerned with the costs associated with NTMs and related trade cost.

Trade costs composition (I/III) Trade costs include all costs incurred in getting a good to a final user other than the marginal cost of producing the good itself: • transportation costs (both freight costs and time costs); • policy barriers (tariffs and non-tariff barriers); • information costs; • contract enforcement costs; • costs associated with the use of different currencies; • legal and regulatory costs; • local distribution costs (wholesale and retail).

Trade costs composition (II/III) Estimate of the tax equivalent of representative trade costs for industrialised countries is … 170%. This number breaks down as follows (2. 7=1. 21*1. 44*1. 55): 21% transportation costs have to be added to 44% border related trade barriers, plus 55% retail and wholesale distribution costs. The border related barrier is a combination of direct observation and inferred costs. Anderson and van Wincoop (2004)

Trade costs composition (III/III) High transaction costs in trade are not simply analogous to high tariffs, which arise from a single policy instrument and can be reduced by a single action. High transaction costs are associated with interactions among multiple layers of transport, infrastructure, policy, and geography, often involving several countries. This means that trade facilitation efforts targeted at a single point in the process can be easily frustrated. With the increased supply chains interdependency, imported products delivery delays have turned into a severe constraint on production. This is why customs clearance and delivery of imported products have become a quite important determinant of the production process. That is why Trade Facilitation has become a crucial aspect of trade policy.

Documents, time and cost for export and import Documents Time to to export (number) (days) LLDCs examples Bhutan 8 38 Bolivia 8 19 Botswana 6 31 Burkina Faso 11 45 Burundi 9 47 Central African Republic 8 57 Chad 6 78 Ethiopia 8 46 Lesotho 6 44 Malawi 12 45 Mali 9 38 Niger 8 59 Swaziland 9 21 Uganda 6 39 Uzbekistan 7 80 Best practice economies Denmark 5 France 2 Malaysia Singapore Developing economy Egypt 6 14 Cost to export (US$ per container) 1210 1425 2508 2132 2147 5121 5367 2087 1549 1671 2012 3547 2184 3090 3100 World Bank, Doing Business Report 2009 Documents to import (number) 11 7 9 11 10 18 9 8 8 10 11 7 11 Time to import (days) 38 23 42 54 71 66 102 42 49 54 42 64 33 37 104 2 450 737 6 3 15 Cost to import (US$ per container) 2140 1747 3064 3630 3705 5074 6020 2893 1715 2550 2902 3545 2249 3290 4600 439 823

Estimated Ad valorem Tariff Equivalent for trade facilitation barriers in Egypt Chahir Zaki (2009)

Cost Rwandan coffee: 1, 500 km to Mombasa (up to 40% of total costs) Uganda apparel: transport costs add the equivalent of an 80% tax on clothing exports West Africa shea butter producers: high transport costs from poor roads and vehicle repair costs Unexpected detours increase costs Source: N. Christ & M. Ferrantino(2009) (extracted from M. Ferrantino presentation Chile 2009) Land Transport for Exports: The Effects of Cost, Time, and Uncertainty in Sub-Saharan Africa

Time Kenya–Uganda border: avg. 2 days to cross Uganda–Rwanda border: avg. 1 day to cross CAR–Cameroon border: up to 2 weeks to cross In 2003, wait at Bietbridge reached 6 days Some West African corridors may have roadblocks every 30 km Unexpected detours increase time Source: N. Christ & M. Ferrantino(2009) (extracted from M. Ferrantino presentation Chile 2009) Land Transport for Exports: The Effects of Cost, Time, and Uncertainty in Sub-Saharan Africa

Road transport corruption: Landlocked countries more affected USAID (2009) West Africa Trade Hub

Developing Country Exports Decline in 2009 Decline in Imports from Developing Country Groups 2008 -2009 (USD Billions) Imports Q 1 -2 2009 % Change World $ 5, 584. 2 $ 3, 776. 7 -32. 4% LDC $ 61. 2 $ 34. 4 -43. 8% LLDC $ 46. 5 $ 23. 4 -49. 7% SIDS $ 66. 5 $ 46. 1 -30. 8% SSA $ 137. 2 $ 70. 5 -48. 6% SVE Exporter Imports Q 1 -2 2008 $ 55. 7 $ 38. 3 -31. 2% Decline in Imports from Developing Country Groups 2008 -2009 (USD Billions) exl HS 27 Exporter World LDC LLDC SIDS SSA SVE Imports Q 1 -2 2008 -2 2009 $ 4, 566. 3 $ 3, 245. 0 $ 17. 7 $ 15. 3 $ 16. 0 $ 10. 0 $ 50. 0 $ 36. 6 $ 49. 7 $ 33. 1 $ 39. 1 $ 28. 9 % Change -28. 9% -13. 5% -37. 7% -26. 7% -33. 4% -26. 1% Per Capita Change* $ -181 $ -3 $ -15 $ -232 $ -20 $ -38 Decline in Imports from Developing Country Groups 2008 -2009 (USD Billions) Importing countries: USA, EU 27, Japan, Switzerland, China, Turkey, Australia; Period: Q 1 -2 2008, 2009 Source: Trade. Map, Market Analysis Tools, International Trade Centre,

Q 1 -2 2008 -2009 Exporters 1 Afghanistan* 2 Armenia 3 Azerbaijan 4 Bhutan* 5 Bolivia 6 Botswana 7 Burkina Faso* 8 Burundi* 9 Central African Republic* 10 Chad* 11 Ethiopia* 12 Kazakhstan 13 Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic 14 Republic* 15 Lesotho* 16 Malawi* 17 Mali* 18 Mongolia 19 Nepal* 20 Niger* 21 Paraguay 22 Republic of Moldova 23 Rwanda* 24 Swaziland 25 Tajikistan The former Yugoslav Republic 26 of Macedonia 27 Turkmenistan 28 Uganda* 29 Uzbekistan 30 Zambia* 31 Zimbabwe Total LLDCs Change LLDCs (USD Thousands) - including 16 LDCs Top Exports (HS 2, Desc, % Share 2008) % Change 1 2 3 $ -27, 540 $ -144, 500 $ -6, 638, 313 $ 1, 540 $ -210, 171 $ -273, 736 $ -52, 338 $ 19, 949 $ -14, 219 $ -936, 481 $ 44, 114 $ -11, 400, 344 $ -70, 378 -33. 8% -53. 1% -56. 8% 89. 0% -31. 3% -41. 6% -32. 2% 113. 1% -25. 7% -48. 7% 9. 9% -53. 7% -62. 7% 8 72 27 27 27 71 52 71 44 27 9 27 8 Fruit Iron, steel Oil Oil Precious stones Cotton Precious stones Wood Oil Coffee Oil Fruit 51% 20% 97% 49% 50% 53% 49% 97% 36% 69% 24% 57 71 73 9 26 75 71 9 71 52 12 72 62 Carpets Precious stones Articles of iron, steel Coffee Ores Nickel Precious stones Coffee Precious stones Cotton Oil seed, etc Iron and steel Apparel, not knit 41% 16% 0% 46% 8% 29% 17% 33% 28% 1% 16% 9% 12% 9 22 8 8 23 26 12 87 52 13 7 74 7 Coffee Beverages Fruit Food residue Ores Oil seed, etc Vehicles Cotton Gums, etc Vegetables Copper Vegetables 3% 15% 0% 1% 6% 6% 13% 1% 14% 4% 11% $ $ $ 108, 925 -68, 939 71, 252 -52, 149 -340, 563 -21, 276 -33, 157 -220, 243 -174, 185 2, 380 -49, 232 -93, 108 62. 3% -25. 2% 40. 1% -60. 3% -41. 1% -18. 5% -26. 1% -49. 1% -29. 7% 5. 4% -24. 7% -32. 7% 74 71 26 57 26 12 22 9 17 76 Copper Precious stones Tobacco Precious stones Ores Carpets Ores Oil seeds, etc Beverages Coffee Sugar Aluminum 36% 41% 67% 75% 57% 12% 58% 37% 12% 45% 21% 63% 61 61 17 52 27 72 1 2 62 26 33 52 Apparel, knit Sugars Cotton Oil Iron and steel Live animals Meat Apparel, not knit Ores Essential Oils Cotton 12% 34% 6% 11% 18% 12% 9% 14% 10% 34% 12% 16% 44 62 9 1 71 39 63 15 85 22 21 8 Wood Apparel, not knit Coffee Live animals Precious stones Plastics Other textiles Fats & oils Electronics Beverages Misc edible Fruit 11% 21% 5% 6% 9% 7% 6% 13% 7% 8% 10% 11% $ -661, 482 $ -912, 242 $ -66, 292 $ -538, 390 $ -114, 571 $ -251, 485 $ -23, 117, 174 -45. 0% -60. 0% -17. 9% -45. 6% -15. 2% -47. 6% -49. 7% 72 27 9 27 74 75 27 Iron, steel Oil Coffee Oil Copper Nickel Oil 32% 94% 26% 36% 66% 21% 63% 62 52 3 52 26 24 72 Apparel, not knit Cotton Fish Cotton Ores Tobacco Iron and steel 17% 3% 7% 12% 13% 14% 5% 73 39 85 87 81 72 74 Articles of iron, steel Plastics Electronics Vehicles Other metals Iron, steel Copper 6% 1% 5% 12% 6% 13% 4%

Non-tariff measures and trade liberalisation Shallow liberalisation (only tariff elimination) can in certain cases lead to a small welfare decline. Deep integration (inlcluding elimination of regulatory barriers and red tape and an improvement in the business environment) can results in the substantial welfare gains. Example: Egypt-EU - Egypt already has duty-free access to the EU for manufactures. Given Egypts trade patterns, the loss in tariff revenues that will be incurred outweighs any trade creation. - Deep integration can results in welfare gains (more than 4% growth in real GNP) Hoekman, B. and D. E. Konan (1999), Konan, Denise and Keith E. Maskus (1997)

Types of NTMs: Current situation • Only limited information on NTMs existing • Existing information scattered across various countries & various sources within countries • Poor access to existing information • Time consuming for exporters to research measures that may concern their products

Implications Urgent need for a common international NTM classification and methodology to systematically collect, analyse and disseminate data on NTMs This can address the following issues: • Lack of common definition • No agreed taxonomy • Inadequate data: Existing data is limited, not structured and not comparable • No agreed methodology for quantification: In-depth analysis currently not possible due to lack of information

Multi-Agency Team Members: FAO, IMF, ITC, OECD, UNIDO, UNCTAD, World Bank, WTO. Observers: EC, USDA, USITC Biannual meetings Agenda • Provide clear and concise definition of NTMs • Develop classification system of NTMs to facilitate data collection process and analysis • Devise ways to collect efficiently the information on NTMs taking into account existing mechanism of collecting specific elements of NTMs by each member agency • Provide guidelines for the use of data, including their quantification methodology

ITC-UNCTAD pilot project – Activities Country programme in 7 pilot countries: • Large-scale business survey (300 -500 face-to-face interviews) with exporters and importers about their daily experiences with NTMs; • Collection and classification of official NTM data applied by the pilot countries; • Inititialisation of sustainable country-level data collection mechanism; • Inititialisation of public-private dialogue. Initialisation of official NTM data collection from major importing countries (share in world imports larger than 1%; including EU, US, Japan, China, Canada, Russia, Mexico, Turkey, etc. )

The way forward Official launch of new NTM classification (5 November 2009) UNCTAD Group of Eminent Persons Meeting ITC-UNCTAD collaboration on the collection, classification and dissemination of NTM regulations Data collection: • Targeting 50 countries by year (ITC and UNCTAD), • Collaboration with national and regional partners, (ALADI, ASEAN, COMESA, monitoring intra-regional NTMs); • priority on major importing countries (>1% of world’s imports) Dissemination: • New, integrated application on market access data, including NTMs (ITC, UNCTAD, World Bank). ITC country projects on obstacles to trade (company surveys) 2009 -2012: Roll-out in 27 countries; financed by DFID

Collaboration on NTM: official data NTM Classification: 16 Chapters

Official data on NTMs (I/III) Example: Descriptive overview of applied measures/regulations by the Philippines Share of different types of measures/regulations (number of regulations 819) Share of different types of measures/regulations (number of regulations at the national product line level is 404'909) 1%3% 2% 17% 2% 23% 30% 54% 6% 20% A. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures B. Technical barriers to trade C. Pre-shipment inspection and other formalities D. Price control measures E. Licences, quotas, prohibitions and other quantity control measures F. Charges, taxes and other para-tariff measures H. Anti-competitive measures I. Trade-related investment measures J. Distribution restrictions P. Export related measures 4% 1% 3% 32%

Official data on NTMs (II/III) Example: Applied measures/regulations and imports in the Philippines Distribution of regulations and imports by HS Section, in % (number of regulations at the national product line level is 404'909) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Share of regulations 11 12 13 14 15 16 Share of imports 17 18 19 20 21

Company level survey on non-tariff barriers (NTBs) experienced by the business sector (I/II) Interview period: July-September 2008 Objectives: Identify measures that companies perceive as non-tariff barriers and their possible patterns across sectors, countries and regions; identify potential bottlenecks at the national level. Countries: Brazil, Chile, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia and Uganda Nb. of responded companies: 1 730 responded companies in total (290 -500 per country) Nb. of contacted companies 7 000 + contacted companies Method: Face-to-face interviews

Company level survey on non-tariff barriers (NTBs) experienced by the business sector (II/II) Categorisation of obstacles to trade New classification of non-tariff measures that has been prepared in the framework of UNCTAD’s multi-agency initiative on NTMs. Questionnaire Companies were asked to report cases of non-tariff barriers impeding their trade. Each case includes a reference to 1 product (or product group) 1 export destination, 1 measure according to the new NTM classification and the related “procedural obstacle” they face in relation to the applied measure. Example of one non-tariff barrier case: Export of Cane or Beet Sugar from Uganda to Burundi, “Inspection and clearance requirement”, “Too complex mechanism”.

Survey: Key Findings from 5 Countries* • The analysis suggests that trade barriers vary considerably across countries, sectors and trading partners. • Destination countries: • Many obstacles to trade are experienced when trading regionally. • Many obstacles to trade are highly concentrated on specific sectors – sometimes, these sectors account for a major share in exports to this destination, sometimes only for a marginal share. • The affected goods often enjoy preferential tariff treatment by the destination country. • The experienced obstacles to trade can be often associated with a lack of infrastructure and efficient procedures in the country of origin. * One landlocked country (Uganda) and four developing countries (Chile, The Philippines, Thailand, and Tunisia)

Survey: Types of Reported Barriers *Based on the data analysis for 5 countries: Chile, the Philippines, Thailand Tunisia, Uganda

Survey: Export destination matters

Selected results from the survey of the business perceptions in Uganda Overwhelming number of the interviewed exporters complained about poor infrastructure (roads and railway), high air freight charges, power shortages, access to loans, low skills on technology, low access to information. Very few comments concern destination markets outside Africa (EU, US, Asian markets). • “The government should standardise and improve on its facilities like warehouses and cold rooms. Sometimes the Entebbe cold room malfunctions and this leads to spoiling of many flowers awaiting export, thus revenue is lost. ” • “Trade with Sudan is really ok. The only problem is roads. ” • “Transport from Mombasa to Kampala is more expensive than transporting a container from China to Mombasa. ”

Survey: Business environment at home matters Selected results from the survey of the business sector in the Philippines: Procedures in the Philippine Customs (89 reports): • the behaviour of the customs officers (46; 52%) - corruption (25) - too slow (17) • recognizing other registrations (3) • inconsistent (1) • increasing rate of duty / varying rate of duty (11; 12%) • excessive documentation causing delays (6; 7%) • regulations to obtain export permit to strict (6; 7%) Certificates needed from the Philippine authorities (169 reports) • the Certificate of Origin (41; 11%) • the phytosanitary certificate needed from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) (30; 8 %) • the fumigation certificate (19; 5%) • too detailed, strict or excessive documentation (17; 4, 5%) • documents should be authenticated by embassy (8; 2%) • quarantine clearance (8; 2%)

Survey: Reported Procedural Obstacles

Conclusions Survey and research show that • NTBs are a major impediment to trade • Part of the NTBs are directly related to business environment • In many cases intra-regional trade is more affected. Business sector in the landlocked countries experience more obstacles to trade due to • Implications for transport (cost, time, uncertainty) • Requirements to comply not only with domestic and partner country requirements but also with the requirements in the transit country(ies) The target ITC’s project on non-tariff measures: • Identify problems (through business surveys and official data collection) • Discuss them with national, regional and international institutions In order to be effective, economic policies should address NTBs.

Thank you for your attention!