A partnership with academia

Building knowledge for trade and development

Vi Digital Library - Text Preview

Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical and Diversification Products

Report by Disdier, Anne-Célia, Fekadu, Belay; Murillo, Carlos; Wong, Sara A./ICTSD, 2008

Download original document (English)

The 2004 Framework Agreement reached during the Doha Round notes that the full implementation of the liberalization of trade in tropical agricultural products is “overdue and will be addressed effectively in the market access negotiations.” However, the way in which the commitment is to be implemented, and even the identification of such products, remains far from clear. \\n Multilateral discussions on the full liberalization of trade in tropical and diversification products have focused almost exclusively on the reduction of tariffs, and tariff escalation for those products and the overlap with the mandate on preference erosion. There has been no debate and analysis on NTBs and more specifically on SPS measures and technical barriers to trade (TBTs). This is surprising, since as the following paper reveals, imports of tropical and diversification products from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and some Latin American countries are particularly affected by SPS and TBT measures.

ICTSD Project on Tropical Products


By Anne-Célia Disdier, French National Institute for Agricultural Research, INRA
Belay Fekadu, International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI
Carlos Murillo, International Centre of Economic Policy for Sustainable Development, CINPE
Sara A. Wong, Escuela Superior Politécnica Del Litoral, ESPOL


Trade Effects of SPS and TBT
Measures on Tropical and
Diversification Products


ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable DevelopmentMay 2008


Issue Paper No. 12




Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures
on Tropical and Diversification Products


By Anne-Célia Disdier, French National Institute for Agricultural Research, INRA
Belay Fekadu, International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI
Carlos Murillo, International Centre of Economic Policy for Sustainable Development, CINPE
Sara A. Wong, Escuela Superior Politécnica Del Litoral, ESPOL







May 2008 l ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


ICTSD


Issue Paper No. 12




ii Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Published by


International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
International Environment House 2
7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 22 917 8492 Fax: +41 22 917 8093
E-mail: ictsd@ictsd.ch Internet: www.ictsd.org


Chief Executive: Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Programmes Director: Christophe Bellmann
Programme Officer: Marie Chamay


Acknowledgments


ICTSD is grateful for the generous support of the Department for International Development (DFID) of
the United Kingdom, the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation (DGIS), Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Netherlands, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.


ICTSD would like to thank Jane Earley, James MacGregor, Ivan Mbirimi, and Stephen Mbithi for providing
critical input into the production of this issue paper. Thank you also to support of colleagues, including
Christophe Bellmann, Caitlin Zaino and Tamara Asamoah at ICTSD, and Colette Holden.


The authors thank all the export companies and farmers who responded to the survey and generously
gave up their time to participate in the interviews. We also thank the diligent research assistance of
Solomon Lemma, Greivin Hernández, Ketty Rivera and Rafael Sánchez. The usual disclaimer applies: the
opinions expressed in this report and any errors are those of the author.



For more information about ICTSD’s Programme on Agriculture, visit www.agtradepolicy.org.


ICTSD welcomes feedback and comments on this document. These can be forwarded to Marie Chamay,
mchamay@ictsd.ch.


Citation: Disdier, A-C., Fekadu, B., Murillo, C., Wong, S., (2008). Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures
on Tropical and Diversification Products. ICTSD Project on Tropical Products, Issue Paper no.12,
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.


Copyright © ICTSD, 2008. Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational,
non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.


The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of ICTSD or those of the funding institutions.


ISSN 1817 3551




iiiICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v


LIST OF BOXES vii


LIST OF FIgurES vii


ABBrEvIATIOnS AnD AcrOnyMS viii


FOrEwOrD x
EXEcuTIvE SuMMAry xiii


1. InTrODucTIOn 1
1.1 context 1
1.2 coverage of the Study 1


2. BAcKgrOunD 8
2.1 The SPS and TBT Agreements 8
2.2 Private Sector requirements 13
2.3 Quick Survey on non-tariff Barriers to Trade (Definition, Measure


of their Trade Impact) 16


3. cASE STuDIES 18
3.1 SPS and TBT Measures on Banana and Pineapple Trade in Ecuador 18
3.2 SPS and TBT Measures on Banana, Melon and Pineapple Trade in costa rica 34
3.3 SPS and TBT Measures on the coffee Trade in Ethiopia and the cut-flower


Trade in Kenya 41


4. STATISTIcAL AnALySIS: DATA AnD DEScrIPTIvE STATISTIcS 48
4.1 Data Sources on SPS and TBT Measures 48
4.2 Typology and Motivations for SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical and


Diversification Products 49
4.3 Stringency of SPS and TBT Measures 55


5. EcOnOMETrIc AnALySIS OF THE TrADE IMPAcT OF SPS AnD TBT
MEASurES On TrOPIcAL AnD DIvErSIFIcATIOn PrODucTS 91
5.1 Estimated gravity Equation 91
5.2 results 92


6. cOncLuSIOn 96




iv Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


7. rEcOMMEnDATIOnS 97
7.1 reinforcement of Existing Programmes 97
7.2 Additional Policy responses 100


APPEnDIX 1: EcuADOr: EXPOrTEr FIrMS (cOOPErATIvES,
ASSOcIATIOnS) – SurvEy On SPS AnD TBTS 102


APPEnDIX 2: EcuADOr: FArMErS – SurvEy On SPS AnD TBTS 106
APPEnDIX 3: cOSTA rIcA: QuESTIOnnAIrE FOr PrODucErS,


DISTrIBuTOrS AnD EXPOrTErS 109
APPEnDIX 4: ETHIOPIA: cOFFEE cOOPErATIvES AnD EXPOrTErS –


SurvEy On SPS AnD TBTS 110
APPEnDIX 5: KEnyA: cuT-FLOwEr PrODucErS AnD EXPOrTErS –


SurvEy On SPS AnD TBTS 114
EnDnOTES 117
rEFErEncES 119




vICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Tropical and Diversification Products Considered in the Study


(List Proposed by the Cairns Group) – HS 1996 Classification 2


Table 1.2. Exporting Countries Considered in the Study 5


Table 2.1. Examples of Private Standards 15


Table 3.1. Ecuadorian Exports of Tropical and Diversification Products, 2004 18


Table 3.2. Banana Productive Structure in Ecuador, 2004 19


Table 3.3. Banana Exporters: Share in the Ecuadorian Banana Market 21


Table 3.4. Pineapple Productive Structure in Ecuador, 2000 21


Table 3.5. SPS and TBT Requirements: General Trend, Cost Impact and Government
Assistance in Ecuador 28


Table 3.6. Bananas: Factors Determining Farmers’ and Exporters’ Ability to Satisfy SPS
in Ecuador 30


Table 3.7. Pineapples: Factors Determining Farmers’ and Exporters’ Ability to Satisfy SPS
in Ecuador 30


Table 3.8. Impact of SPS and TBTs on Ecuadorian Exporters 32


Table 3.9. Impact of SPS and TBTs on Ecuadorian Farmers 33


Table 3.10. Costa Rica’s Banana Producers According to the Number of Hectares Planted,
by Region, 2006 34


Table 3.11. Typology of Costa Rica’s Melon Producers, 2003 35


Table 3.12. Typology of Costa Rica’s Pineapple Producers, 2007 36


Table 3.13. Number and Distribution of Ethiopian Coffee Traders and Cooperatives 42


Table 3.14. Major Sub-Saharan Africa Flower Exporters 43


Table 3.15. Codes Used in Kenya Cut-Flower Industry 44


Table 3.16. Compliance Costs Across Time 47


Table 4.1. Distribution of SPS and TBTs, by Type of Measure and Importing Country 49


Table 4.2. Distribution of Motives, by Importing Country 50


Table 4.3. Number of Tropical and Diversification Products Affected by SPS or TBTs,
by Importing Country 51


Table 4.4. Number of SPS and TBTs, by Tropical and Diversification Product
and Importing Country 51


Table 4.5. Number of Tropical and Diversification Products Affected by
More than one SPS or TBT, by Importing Country 54


Table 4.6. Exports of Tropical and Diversification Products by Exporting Country 56




vi Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 4.7. Exports of ACP Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products 60


Table 4.8. Exports of LA8 Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products 66


Table 4.9. Exports of other Latin American Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products 73


Table 4.10. Exports of Asian Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products 79


Table 4.11. Share and Value of Exports Affected by SPS and TBT Measures, by Exporting Country 86


Table 4.12. Use of SPS and TBT Measures by Importing Countries 90


Table 5.1. Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures – General Overview 93


Table 5.2. Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures – Sector Analysis 94




viiICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


LIST OF BOXES
Box 2.1. Definition of a SPS Measure 8


Box 2.2. SPS or TBT: Which Agreement Does a Measure Come Under? 9


Box 2.3. Private Standards: The Example of EurepGAP 13


Box 3.1. Banana Standards 22


Box 3.2. Pineapple Standards 24


Box 3.3. Public Regulations Applied on Tropical Products in Europe and the US 37


Box 3.4. Quality Standard Imposed For Exported Coffee 45


Box 7.1. European SPS Trade-Related Assistance 99


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Ecuador’s Banana Exports by Major Export Destinations, 2006 19


Figure 3.2. Minimum Price vs. Price Received by Ecuadorian Producers, 2002–2006 20


Figure 3.3. SPS and TBT Requirements Faced by Banana Exporters and Farmers in Ecuador 26


Figure 3.4. SPS and TBT Requirements Faced by Pineapple Exporters and Farmers in Ecuador 26


Figure 3.5. SPS and TBT Requirements Faced by Banana Exporters and Farmers in Ecuador:
The Most Difficult and More Frequent 27


Figure 3.6. SPS and TBT Requirements Faced by Pineapple Exporters and Farmers in Ecuador:
The Most Difficult and More Frequent 27


Figure 3.7. Costa Rica’s Banana Export Destinations, 2006 35


Figure 3.8. Costa Rica’s Melon Export Destinations, 2006 36


Figure 3.9. Costa Rica’s Pineapple Export Destinations, 2006 36




viii Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


ABBREvIATIONS ANd ACRONymS


ACP Alliance of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
AVE Ad-valorem equivalent
BACI Base pour l’Analyse du Commerce International (Database of International Trade


Analysis)
CEPII Centre of Prospective Studies and International Information
CIF cost, insurance and freight
CNA Censo Nacional Agropecuario (Ecuador’s National Agriculture Census)
COLEACP Comité de Liaison Europe-Afrique-Caraïbes-Pacifique (Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific


Liaison Committee)
COMTRADE Commodity Trade Statistics Database
CORPEI Corporación Ecuatoriana de Promoción de Exportaciones e Inversiones (Ecuadorian


Corporation for Export and Investment Promotion)
EC European Community
EU European Union
EU25 Twenty-five Members of the European Union
EUREP Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group
EurepGAP Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FPEAK Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya
GAP good agricultural practices
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP gross domestic product
GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative
GLOBALGAP Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice
GSP Generalized System of Preferences
HS Harmonized System of the United Nations
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ICTSD International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
ITC International Trade Center
LA8 Eight Latin American countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala,


Nicaragua, Panama and Peru)
LDCs least developed countries
MacMap Market Access Map
NES not elsewhere specified
NTB non-tariff barrier
ODA official development assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PIP Pesticides Initiative Programme
PROFIAGRO Programa Fitosanitario para el Agro para la Mitigacion de Barreras Tecnicas de Acceso


al Mercado de EE.UU.
SESA Servicio Ecuatoriano de Sanidad Animal (Ecuadorian Service for Animal Health)
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary (Agreement)
STDF Standards and Trade Development Facility
TBT Technical Barrier to Trade (Agreement)
TRAINS Trade Analysis Information System
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development




ixICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


US United States of America
USITC United States International Trade Commission
WITS World Bank Integrated Trade Solution
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization




x Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


FOREwORd


Agriculture remains the main source of livelihood for more than 2.6 billion people in the world, the
majority of whom are located in developing countries. Rising incomes, urbanization and shifting food
use patterns have increased food consumption in most areas of the world. But despite spectacular
increases in food production per capita, major distributional inequalities in access to food persist. In
2002, an estimated 852 million people remained undernourished and, according to the UN Millennium
Development Goals 2007 report, if current trends continue, the target to halve the proportion of
underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in southern
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.


At the same time, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, if the productivity of cultivated
systems cannot keep pace with demand, there is a very real threat to global food security, with
the daunting challenge of providing sufficient food to sustain another 2 billion people by 2020. As
agricultural systems are under increasing pressure to meet the growing need for cultivated products,
it becomes vital from a sustainable development perspective to address environmental challenges
associated with food production, such as water pollution, pesticide use, land degradation and
greenhouse gas emissions.


The reform of the global agriculture trading system currently being negotiated in the context of the
Doha Round – with the objective of establishing a “fair and market-oriented trading system” – will play
a major role in this process. Over the past 15 years, world agriculture trade has grown almost twice
as fast as production. However, exports from developing countries, of tropical and diversification
products in particular, face a variety of specific challenges, including non-tariff barriers (NTBs), such as
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical requirements, tariff peaks, tariff escalation,
preference erosion, and subsidized agricultural production and exports from Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.


The importance of tropical products for developing countries is undeniable. Their significance has been
recognized in an array of studies, fora and organizations. As indicated in a document by the Common
Fund for Commodities, 2004):


The livelihoods of hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people in developing countries, and in
particularly in the least developed countries, are heavily dependent on commodities. Commodities
form the backbone of the economies and account for the bulk of the export earnings of these countries.
The development of commodities is thus vitally important in the global struggle to alleviate poverty.


However, there are no studies estimating the importance of tropical and other basic products using
economic, social and foreign trade indicators. Nonetheless, the participation of such products in
exports from developing countries is significant: the 20 main tropical products account for 36 percent
of developing countries’ incoming foreign currency from agricultural exports. This proportion reaches
46 percent for low-income developing countries (Perry, 2008).


Many of these products are grown primarily by small farmers in developing countries (coffee, cocoa,
tobacco and cotton). Others are vital in the generation of rural employment (sugar, rubber and rice).
Therefore, besides their considerable contribution to foreign currency generation, they also play an
important role from a social point of view.


The built-in agenda of the Agreement on Agriculture reflects the longstanding priority attached to
tropical and diversification products that:




xiICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


having agreed that in implementing their commitments on market access, developed country Members
would take fully into account the particular needs and conditions of developing country Members by
providing for a greater improvement of opportunities and terms of access for agricultural products of
particular interest to these Members, including the fullest liberalisation of trade in tropical agricultural
products as agreed in at the Mid-Term Review, and for products of particular importance to the
diversification of production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops;


The 2004 Framework Agreement reached during the Doha Round notes that the full implementation of
the liberalization of trade in tropical agricultural products is “overdue and will be addressed effectively
in the market access negotiations.” However, the way in which the commitment is to be implemented,
and even the identification of such products, remains far from clear.


Multilateral discussions on the full liberalization of trade in tropical and diversification products have
focused almost exclusively on the reduction of tariffs, and tariff escalation for those products and the
overlap with the mandate on preference erosion. There has been no debate and analysis on NTBs and
more specifically on SPS measures and technical barriers to trade (TBTs). This is surprising, since this
paper reveals that imports of tropical and diversification products from African, Caribbean and Pacific
(ACP) countries and some Latin American countries are particularly affected by SPS and TBT measures.
This paper also reveals that ACP countries are the exporters for which the most sectors are influenced
negatively and significantly by SPS measures and TBTs.


This paper represents a contribution to a knowledge-based discussion in this area. The purpose of this
study is to analyse the trade effects of SPS measures and TBTs on tropical and diversification products.
The authors examine to what extent and for what products SPS and technical requirements under
public law represent barriers for exports of tropical and diversification products to enter developed
countries’ markets, namely the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Japan, Canada, Australia
and Switzerland. The objective of the study is also to generate solution-oriented analyses and to
identify possible policy responses.


By way of introduction, the paper provides information on the SPS and TBT agreements, the private
sector requirements and NTBs to trade. The paper presents case studies documenting the effects of
SPS and TBT measures on producers and exporters. These cases studies are based on surveys and
interviews. They focus on production and export of bananas and pineapples in Ecuador, bananas,
melons and pineapples in Costa Rica, coffee in Ethiopia and cut flowers in Kenya.


The paper provides a statistical analysis of SPS and TBT measures applied by main developed countries on
their imports of tropical and diversification products. Results of the surveys and case studies are not easily
generalized. The main advantage of the statistical analysis is to be more exhaustive. This analysis reveals
information on the types of measure used (authorizations, technical measures), the motives to impose
SPS and TBT measures on tropical and diversification products, the number of notifications by country,
the stringency of SPS and TBT measures, and the affected exports. Furthermore, the paper presents
econometrical estimations of the trade impacts of public standards through the gravity equation.


Finally, the paper describes the existing technical assistance programmes to help farmers and exporters
of developing countries to conform with SPS and TBT requirements adopted by main developed
markets. It assesses their strengths and weaknesses, and it provides recommendations to improve their
efficiency. The paper analyses how the Aid for Trade initiative can help developing countries to meet
these standards. Additional policy responses resulting from the study are also suggested.




xii Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


This paper was produced under an International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
dialogue and research project that seeks to address the opportunities and challenges of the full
liberalization of trade in tropical and diversification products, and explores possible areas of convergence
between different groupings and interests in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. The
project seeks to generate solutions-oriented analyses and possible policy responses from a sustainable
development perspective.


Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Chief Executive, ICTSD




xiiiICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


EXECUTIvE SUmmARy


The study analyses the trade effects of SPS measures and TBTs on tropical and diversification products.1
We examine to what extent and for what products sanitary, phytosanitary and technical requirements
under public law represent barriers for exports of tropical and diversification products to enter
developed countries’ markets, namely the EU, the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. The
purpose of this study is also to generate solution-oriented analyses and to identify possible policy
responses.


The study focuses on the tropical and diversification products listed by the Cairns Group in the document
JOB(07)/31, dated 16 March 2007, which were supported by eight Latin American countries (Bolivia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru; hereafter referred to as LA8)
that circulated a proposal on the full liberalization on tropical and diversification products on 28 April
2006. The list covers 134 products at the six-digit level. Countries of interest for the study are ACP,
Latin American and Asian countries.


The SPS and TBT Agreements


WTO Members are allowed to adopt regulations under both SPS and TBT agreements in order to protect
human, animal and plant health, environment, wildlife and human safety. Both agreements contain
provisions on technical assistance and special and differential treatment to help developing countries
and least developed countries (LDCs) to implement and take advantage of this agreement. However,
despite this support, developing countries and LDCs face difficulties in the implementation of both
agreements. Besides, developing countries and LDCs protest regularly against the increasing use of SPS
and TBTs by developed countries and view this use as a disguised form of protectionism. Furthermore,
producers and exporters should also compete with private sector requirements. The development of
private standards is recent but very rapid, and one can question whether today these standards do not
influence trade more than public standards do.


Case Studies


Our study first provides case studies documenting the effects of SPS and TBT measures on producers
and exporters. These case studies are based on surveys and interviews. We focus on production and
export of bananas and pineapples in Ecuador, bananas, melons and pineapples in Costa Rica, coffee in
Ethiopia and cut flowers in Kenya.


Bananas are Ecuador’s main tropical export. They represent approximately two thirds of total tropical
exports. Pineapples are less important but are an export product on the rise and are the third most
exported product. All banana and pineapple farmers and producers reported that they had to deal
with SPS and TBT measures and that each year it seems they have to comply with more and more
requirements. Compliance with SPS and TBT measures implies higher costs, in either production or
export, according to the nature of the business. This higher cost did not mean, however, that the
businesses lost export markets. In general, the ability to cope with SPS and TBT measures varies with
the size of the business. It seems that large businesses may be able to cope, while medium-sized and
small businesses find it more difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the most stringent SPS and
TBT requirements from developed markets. One solution, however, could be to act in cooperatives.
Another aspect in coping with these standards is the growing importance of export contracts (between
farmers and exporters) to establish long-term business relationships that ensure quality controls.




xiv Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Costa Rica is the world’s second largest exporter of bananas after Ecuador. Melons are the fifth largest
contributor to Costa Rica’s agriculture gross domestic product (GDP) determination. Finally, pineapple
exports grew from USD159 million in 2002 to USD430 million in 2006, which represents an annual
growth rate of 28.2 percent. Adopting international norms and certifications imposes high economic
costs. However, most banana producers consider changes introduced by norms as positive and an
opportunity to access more profitable markets. Others consider that the main export barrier is tariffs,
especially to the EU market. Banana producers and exporters do not report market losses due to
SPS and TBT measures. Melon producers point out that the main obstacle in applying SPS and TBT
requirements is the constant change in the allowed maximum residue levels. These variations produce
constant changes in production practices, with a significant economic cost in terms of inputs and staff
training. But melon producers also state that SPS and TBT measures have helped them to improve
their competitiveness. They recognize that practices and inputs demanded by certifiers create safer
working conditions and at the same time increase productivity and company discipline. Pineapple
producers also complain that the EU often changes the agrochemical tolerance levels, as well as the
list of permitted agrochemicals, raising the risk of fruit rejection. Despite the cost induced by SPS and
TBT measures, pineapple producers consider that the main barrier to export to the EU and US markets
remains tariffs. Surveyed pineapple producers consider that the norms and technical regulations, as
well as private sector requirements, benefit their exports. The cost of not complying with SPS and
TBT measures or with voluntary norms is to sell their products in the local market or in less profitable
international markets.


Ethiopia is a leading producer and exporter of coffee in Africa. The annual production of coffee
represents about 2.5 percent of the world’s marketable coffee. Until recently, coffee generated over
60 percent of Ethiopia’s export earnings. Coffee production in Ethiopia is dominated by small-scale
farmers. Faced with a situation in which improved quality has not necessarily brought better prices for
the farmer, Ethiopian farmers have been reluctant to take on additional costs for the sake of standards.
Coffee farmers and exporters have little knowledge about SPS and TBT measures.


Kenya is one of the biggest world producers and exporters of cut flowers. The cut-flower industry has
become a fast-growing sector and is increasing its contribution to the overall economy of Kenya. The export
value of cut flowers increased tremendously between 1997 and 2004, with an average annual growth rate
of 20 percent. Kenya’s cut-flower industry is well developed and dominated by large- and medium-scale
producers. Producers and exporters interviewed reported that they internalized the standards set by their
buyers and other stakeholders. However, this was not without cost and induced a shift in their mode of
production (such as water and pesticide usage), but it did not cause a product shift.


Statistical Analysis


Statistical analysis of SPS and TBT measures notified by main developed countries (the EU, the US,
Canada, Japan, Australia and Switzerland) on their imports of tropical and diversification products
provides more exhaustive results. The data used for such an analysis come from the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) database. This database is based on notifications
made by importing countries to the WTO and completed by individual countries’ trade policies surveys
by the WTO, as well as a series of national sources, ranging from custom authorities to specialized
publications. Unfortunately, these notifications include only public ones. To date, no database on
private standards is available. Our statistical analysis will therefore focus only on public measures.


Results suggest differences between importing countries. First, they do not use exactly the same
measures. Twenty-five members of the European Union (EU25), Canada and Switzerland mainly use
authorizations, while the US, Japan and Australia mostly notify technical measures related to product




xvICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


characteristics requirements or to testing, inspection or quarantine requirements. Furthermore,
importing countries adduce different motives to impose SPS and TBT measures on tropical and
diversification products: EU25 aims to protect wildlife, Canada focuses on the protection of plant
health, the US, Japan and Switzerland aim to protect human health, and Australia’s most frequent
concerns are the protection of human and plant health. The number of notifications also differs
significantly across importing countries: EU25 and Japan notify few products, Canada and the US are
in the middle of the ranking, and Australia notifies SPS and TBT measures on all except three tropical
and diversification products.


By merging information on notifications with trade data, one can analyze the stringency of SPS and TBT
measures. Although EU countries notify few standards, some exporting countries are highly affected
by these measures. Results also suggest differences in terms of affected exports between countries
belonging to the same sub-group of exporters (ACP, LA8, other Latin American or Asian countries). For
example, if we focus on LA8 countries, results show that exports of Guatemala are much more affected
by EU standards than are exports of other LA8 countries. However, Guatemala’s exports to Canada are
no more affected than those of other LA8 countries.


Econometric Analysis


We also estimate econometrically the trade impact of public standards. To conduct such an analysis,
we use the gravity equation. In its basic form, the gravity equation explains bilateral trade with the
size of the countries and their bilateral distance. Additional explanatory variables are usually included
to account for countries’ proximity. We also control for the bilateral tariff barriers applied by importing
countries and SPS and TBT measures.


Results show strong differences between exporting countries. Only imports from ACP and LA8 countries
are affected significantly by SPS and TBT measures. Estimated coefficients for other Latin American
and Asian countries are not significant. Furthermore, ACP countries are much more affected than LA8
countries. ACP countries are also the sub-sample of exporters for which the most sectors are influenced
negatively and significantly by SPS and TBT measures.


Thus, our results suggest that special attention should be paid to ACP countries in the next WTO
negotiations. These countries should be supported in their efforts to comply with SPS and TBT
requirements. Provisions on technical assistance and special and differential treatment included in the
SPS and TBT agreements should be maintained and reinforced in order to help them to implement and
take advantage of the agreements. However, the main impediments faced by ACP countries are not only
cost but also that these standards may not be justifiable from a risk basis or may be disproportionate.
Thus, WTO should also make sure that SPS and TBT measures are not implemented disproportionately
to the level of risk.


Policy Responses


Size matters: the ability to cope with SPS and TBT measures varies with the size of business. •
Generally, medium-sized and small producers find it harder to comply with the requirements.
Upgrading benefits but costs: high investments to comply with SPS and TBT measures yield •
improved competitiveness and better access to profitable markets for large businesses.
Role for union and government: one solution for medium-sized and small businesses to comply •
with the most stringent SPS and TBT requirements could be to act in cooperatives. Government’s
help could also be useful. However, if the role played by either the government or the union is
too large, this could obscure the market requirements of international buyers from the producers,




xvi Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


who have little direct knowledge of market trends other than international buyers from the
producers.
Stability of private requirements: another difficulty mentioned by exporters is the variation •
in requirements between different importing countries. Interviewed producers also point out
that the main obstacle in applying private SPS and TBT measures is the constant change in
the requirements. These variations produce constant changes in production practices, with a
significant economic cost in terms of inputs and staff training.
Requirements justifiable from a “risk” basis: the main impediments faced by exporters are not only •
cost but also that these standards may not be justifiable from a risk basis or may be disproportionate,
and their implementation requires measures far outside what is provided for. Thus, WTO should
also make sure that SPS and TBT measures are not implemented disproportionately to the level
of risk.




1ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


1. INTROdUCTION


1.1 Context


Tropical products have been a special negotiating
sector since the Kennedy Round (1964–67). These
products were given “special attention” during
the Uruguay Round (1986–94). The 31 July 2004
Framework Agreement (Paragraph 43 of Annex
A) notes that the full implementation of the
longstanding commitment to achieve the fullest
liberalization of trade in tropical agricultural
products is “overdue and will be addressed
effectively in the market access negotiations.”2


The negotiations on modalities started in 2004.
However, there is no specific group or committee
in charge of handling negotiations in tropical and
diversification products. The WTO Committee
on Agriculture covers such negotiations.
Furthermore, there is still no agreed definition
as to which agricultural commodities should be
considered as tropical and diversification products
in the agricultural negotiations at the WTO. In
addition, WTO Members still have to agree on
the way in which the longstanding commitment
to achieve the fullest liberalization of trade in
these agricultural products will be worked out.


The present study aims to understand the extent
to which SPS and TBTs represent obstacles
preventing tropical and diversification products
exports from ACP, Latin American and Asian
countries from entering developed countries’
markets, namely the EU, the US, Canada, Japan,
Australia and Switzerland. The purpose of this
work is to generate solution-oriented analyses
and to identify possible policy responses.


Our study applies econometric and survey data
approaches. We first provide some descriptive
statistics on SPS and TBT measures by merging
information on notifications with trade data.
Then, we estimate econometrically the impact
of such measures on bilateral trade in tropical
and diversification products. Our source data
are WTO Members’ notifications of SPS and TBT
measures. We also include case studies of SPS
and TBTs. The case studies are based on surveys
conducted on Ecuadorian, Costa Rican, Ethiopian
and Kenyan farmers and agricultural export
businesses.


1.2 Coverage of the Study


1.2.1 Products of Interest for the Study


The Uruguay Round negotiating group on
tropical w focused on seven categories of
product.3 However, they have never constituted
a definitive list. Since 1995, the Committee on
Agriculture has not put together a list of tropical
and diversification products, and the Chair of
the Committee has expressed pessimism on this
issue, acknowledging that no agreement on an
exhaustive list has ever been reached in the
history of General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT)/WTO negotiations.


This study will focus on the products listed by
the Cairns Group in the document JOB(07)/31,
dated 16 March 2007. Eight Latin American
countries (LA8) supported this list: Bolivia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala,


Nicaragua, Panama and Peru in a communication
dated 11 April 2007 (JOB(07)/31/Add.1).


Table 1.1 presents the list of covered products. It
includes 134 products at the six-digit level of the
Harmonized System (HS). This list differs slightly
from that proposed by LA8 in their document
JOB(06)/129 of 28 April 2006. This latter list
included 86 products at the four-digit level of
the HS classification (i.e. 317 products at the
HS6 level). Of the 134 products included in the
Cairns Group list, 126 are also included in that
established by LA8 in 2006. The eight products
present only in the Cairns list are: HS 070310
(onions and shallots), HS 100640 (broken rice),
HS 110230 (rice flour), HS 110620 (flour, meal and
powder of sago or of roots or tubers of heading




2 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


07.14), HS 110630 (flour, meal and powder of
dried leguminous vegetables), HS 151410 (low
erucic acid rape or colza oil, crude), HS 151490


(low erucic acid rape or colza oil, other) and HS
220720 (ethyl alcohol).


Table 1.1. Tropical and Diversification Products Considered in the Study (List Proposed by the
Cairns Group) – HS 1996 Classification


CoDe HS6 DeSCriPtion


060240 Roses, grafted or not
060290 Live plants, including their roots, and mushroom spawn
060310 Cut flowers and flower buds for bouquets, etc., fresh
060390 Cut flowers and flower buds for bouquets, etc., dried
060491 Foliage, branches, for bouquets, etc., fresh
060499 Foliage, branches, for bouquets, etc., except fresh
070190 Potatoes, fresh or chilled except seed
070310 Onions and shallots
070960 Peppers (Capsicum, Pimenta), fresh or chilled
070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES
071190 Other vegetables; mixtures of vegetables
071390 Other dried leguminous vegetables
071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried
071420 Sweet potatoes
071490 Arrowroot, salep, etc., fresh or dried, and sago pith
080111 Desiccated coconuts
080119 Other coconuts
080290 Nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled
080300 Bananas, including plantains, fresh or dried
080420 Figs, fresh or dried
080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried
080440 Avocados, fresh or dried
080450 Guavas, mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried
080510 Oranges, fresh or dried
080520 Mandarin, clementine and citrus hybrids, fresh or dried
080530 Lemons and limes, fresh or dried
080590 Other citrus fruit, fresh or dried
080711 Watermelons, fresh
080719 Melons, fresh
080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas”
081090 Fresh tamarinds, passion fruit, carambola, pitahaya and other edible fruit
081190 Fruits and nuts (uncooked, steamed, boiled), frozen
081290 Fruit and nuts, provisionally preserved
081340 Other fruit
081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits
081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons
090112 Coffee, not roasted, decaffeinated
090121 Coffee, roasted, not decaffeinated
090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated
090190 Coffee, other roasted
090210 Tea, green (unfermented) in packages < 3 kg
090412 Pepper, crushed or ground
090420 Capsicum or Pimenta, dried, crushed or ground
090700 Cloves (whole fruit, cloves and stems)




3ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe HS6 DeSCriPtion


091010 Ginger
100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough)
100620 Husked (brown) rice
100630 Semi-milled or wholly milled rice, whether or not polished or glazed
100640 Broken rice
110230 Rice flour
110620 Flour, meal and powder of sago or of roots or tubers of heading 07.14
110630 Flour, meal and powder of the dried leguminous vegetables
110814 Manioc (cassava) starch
120210 Ground-nuts in shell, not roasted or cooked
120220 Ground-nuts, shelled, whether or not broken
120890 Other flours and meals of oil seeds or oleaginous fruits
121190 Plants and parts, pharmacy, perfume, insecticide use NES
121210 Locust beans, locust seeds
121299 Vegetable products NES for human consumption
130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES
140190 Other vegetable materials
150710 Crude soya-bean oil and its fractions
150790 Other soya-bean oil and its fractions
150810 Crude ground-nut oil
151110 Palm oil, crude
151190 Palm oil or fractions simply refined
151211 Crude sunflower-seed or safflower oil and fractions thereof
151219 Other sunflower-seed or safflower oil and fractions thereof
151311 Crude coconut (copra) oil and its fractions
151319 Other coconut (copra) oil and its fractions
151321 Crude palm-kernel or babassu oil
151329 Palm-kernel or babassu oil and fractions thereof, other
151410 Low erucic acid rape or colza oil, crude
151490 Low erucic acid rape or colza oil, other
151530 Castor oil and its fractions
151550 Sesame oil or fractions not chemically modified
151620 Vegetable fats, oils or fractions hydrogenated, esterified
151710 Margarine, excluding liquid margarine
152190 Beeswax, other insect waxes and spermaceti
170111 Raw sugar, cane
170191 Containing added flavouring or colouring matter
170199 Refined sugar, in solid form, NES, pure sucrose
170310 Cane molasses
180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted
180320 Cocoa paste, wholly or partly defatted
180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil
180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened
180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened
180620* Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa > 2 kg
180631 Chocolate, cocoa preparations, block, slab, bar, filled, > 2 kg
180632 Chocolate, cocoa preparations, block, slab, bar, not filled, > 2 kg
180690* Chocolate, cocoa food preparations, NES
200190 Vegetables, fruit, nuts, NES prepared or preserved by vinegar
200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen
200520 Potatoes, prepared or preserved, not frozen/vinegar
200590 Vegetables, NES, mixes, prepared/preserved, not frozen/vinegar




4 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe HS6 DeSCriPtion


200600 Fruits, nuts, fruit-peel, etc. preserved by sugar
200710 Homogenised jams, jellies, etc.
200791 Citrus-based jams, jellies, marmalade, etc.
200799 Jams, fruit jellies, purees and pastes, except citrus
200811 Ground-nuts otherwise prepared or preserved
200819 Nuts, seeds and mixes otherwise prepared or preserved
200820 Pineapples otherwise prepared or preserved
200830 Citrus fruits otherwise prepared or preserved
200870 Peaches otherwise prepared or preserved
200891 Palm hearts otherwise prepared or preserved
200892 Fruit mixtures otherwise prepared or preserved
200899 Fruit, edible plants NES otherwise prepared or preserved
200911 Orange juice, frozen, not fermented or spirited
200919 Orange juice, not fermented, spirited or frozen
200920 Grapefruit juice, not fermented or spirited
200930 Citrus juice NES (one fruit), not fermented or spirited
200940 Pineapple juice, not fermented or spirited
200980 Single fruit, vegetable juice NES, not fermented or spirited
200990 Mixtures of juices, not fermented or spirited
210111 Coffee extracts, essence
210112 Coffee preparations of extracts
210120 Tea and mate extracts, essences and concentrates
210390 Sauces NES, mixed condiments, mixed seasoning
220720 Ethyl alcohol
220840 Rum
230610 Oil-cake and other solid residues, of cotton seeds
230660 Oil-cake and other solid residues, of palm nuts or kernels
240110 Tobacco, not stemmed/stripped
240120 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped
240130 Tobacco refuse
240210 Cigars, cheroots and cigarillos, containing tobacco
240220 Cigarettes containing tobacco
240290 Cigars, cheroots and cigarettes, with tobacco substitutes
240310 Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes
240391 “Homogenised” or “reconstituted” tobacco
240399 Other manufactured tobacco
330112 Essential oils of orange
330113 Essential oils of lemon


Source: JOB(07)/31 document of 16 March 2007.
*Excluding more disaggregated lines that have a majority of their ingredients that are not tropical or alternative products.


1.2.2 countries of Interest for the Study


Exporting countries


The group of ACP countries includes 79 members.4
Among them, 56 are members of the WTO and
77 have signed the Cotonou Agreement with the
EU.5


Regarding the group of Latin American countries, the
study focuses on the eight Latin American countries
(Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Panama and Peru) that circulated a
proposal on the full liberalization on tropical and
diversification products on 28 April 2006.




5ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Finally, we focus on a third group of Latin
American and Asian countries that are
members of the WTO and producers of
products (defined here as countries being
located between the Tropic of Cancer and the
Tropic of Capricorn). These countries could
also be affected by the trade liberalization of
tropical and diversification products. This third


group includes Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras,
Mexico, Paraguay, Venezuela, Bangladesh,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Thailand and Viet Nam.


The list of exporting countries covered by our
study is provided in Table 1.2.


table 1.2. exporting Countries Considered in the Study


Country un CoDe iSo CoDe ACP56 ACP77


ACP79
Angola 024 AGO Yes Yes
Antigua


and
Barbuda


028 ATG Yes Yes


Burundi 108 BDI Yes Yes
Benin 204 BEN Yes Yes


Burkina
Faso 854 BFA Yes Yes


Bahamas 044 BHS Yes
Belize 084 BLZ Yes Yes


Barbados 052 BRB Yes Yes
Botswana 072 BWA Yes Yes
Central
African


Republic
140 CAF Yes Yes


Cote
d’Ivoire 384 CIV Yes Yes


Cameroon 120 CMR Yes Yes
Congo 178 COG Yes Yes
Cook


Islands 184 COK Yes


Comoros 174 COM Yes
Cape Verde 132 CPV Yes


Cuba 192 CUB Yes
Djibouti 262 DJI Yes Yes
Dominica 212 DMA Yes Yes
Dominican
Republic 214 DOM Yes Yes


Eritrea 232 ERI Yes
Ethiopia 231 ETH Yes


Fiji 242 FJI Yes Yes
Federation
States of


Micronesia
583 FSM Yes


Gabon 266 GAB Yes Yes
Ghana 288 GHA Yes Yes
Guinea 324 GIN Yes Yes
Gambia 270 GMB Yes Yes
Guinea-
Bissau 624 GNB Yes Yes




6 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Country un CoDe iSo CoDe ACP56 ACP77


Equatorial
Guinea 226 GNQ Yes


Grenada 308 GRD Yes Yes
Guyana 328 GUY Yes Yes


Haiti 332 HTI Yes Yes
Jamaica 388 JAM Yes Yes
Kenya 404 KEN Yes Yes
Kiribati 296 KIR Yes
St Kitts


and Nevis 659 KNA Yes Yes


Liberia 430 LBR Yes
St Lucia 662 LCA Yes Yes
Lesotho 426 LSO Yes Yes


Madagascar 450 MDG Yes Yes
Marshall
Islands 584 MHL Yes


Mali 466 MLI Yes Yes
Mozambique 508 MOZ Yes Yes
Mauritania 478 MRT Yes Yes
Mauritius 480 MUS Yes Yes
Malawi 454 MWI Yes Yes
Namibia 516 NAM Yes Yes


Niger 562 NER Yes Yes
Nigeria 566 NGA Yes Yes
Niue 570 NIU Yes


Nauru 520 NRU Yes
Palau 585 PLW Yes


Papua New
Guinea 598 PNG Yes Yes


Rwanda 646 RWA Yes Yes
Sudan 736 SDN Yes


Senegal 686 SEN Yes Yes
Solomon
Islands 090 SLB Yes Yes


Sierra
Leone 694 SLE Yes Yes


Somalia 706 SOM Yes
Sao Tome


and
Principe


678 STP Yes


Suriname 740 SUR Yes Yes
Swaziland 748 SWZ Yes Yes
Seychelles 690 SYC Yes


Chad 148 TCD Yes Yes
Togo 768 TGO Yes Yes
Tonga 776 TON Yes


Trinidad
and Tobago 780 TTO Yes Yes


Tuvalu 798 TUV Yes
Tanzania 834 TZA Yes Yes
Uganda 800 UGA Yes Yes


St Vincent
and


Grenadines
670 VCT Yes Yes




7ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Country un CoDe iSo CoDe ACP56 ACP77


Vanuatu 548 VUT Yes
Samoa 882 WSM Yes
South
Africa 710 ZAF Yes Yes


Democratic
Republic of
the Congo


180 ZAR Yes Yes


Zambia 894 ZMB Yes Yes
Zimbabwe 716 ZWE Yes Yes


Timor
Leste 626 TLS Yes


LA8
Bolivia 068 BOL


Colombia 170 COL
Costa Rica 188 CRI
Ecuador 218 ECU


Guatemala 320 GTM
Nicaragua 558 NIC
Panama 591 PAN


Peru 604 PER


other countries


Central and Latin America
Brazil 076 BRA


Honduras 340 HND
Mexico 484 MEX


Paraguay 600 PRY
El Salvador 222 SLV
Venezuela 862 VEN


Asia


Bangladesh 050 BGD
Brunei


Darussalam 096 BRN


Indonesia 360 IDN
India 699 IND


Cambodia 116 KHM
Sri Lanka 144 LKA
Myanmar 104 MMR
Malaysia 458 MYS


Philippines 608 PHL
Thailand 764 THA
Viet Nam 704 VNM


ACP, Alliance of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.
ACP56, ACP country Members of the WTO.
ACP79, ACP countries.
ACP77, signatories of the Cotonou Agreement.
LA8, signatories of the April 2006 proposal on tropical and diversification products.


Importing countries


We consider the main developed countries’
markets: EU25, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia
and Switzerland.




8 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


2. BACKGROUNd


2.1 The SPS and TBT Agreements


2.1.1 The SPS Agreement


The SPS Agreement allows countries to adopt
scientifically based measures in order to protect
human, animal and plant life or health (Box 2.1).


It entered into force on 1 January 1995. Least
developed countries were allowed to delay
implementation for five years (Article 14).


Box 2.1. Definition of a SPS Measure


Source: www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm


Annex A of THe AGreeMenT DefineS A SPS MeASure AS Any MeASure APPLieD To:
• protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from


the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease-carrying organisms or disease-
causing organisms;


• protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising
from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages or
feedstuffs;


• protect human life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from diseases
carried by animals, plants or products thereof, or from the entry, establishment or spread of pests;


• prevent or limit other damage within the territory of the Member from the entry, establishment
or spread of pests.


The SPS Agreement pursues two main
objectives: first, it recognizes the sovereign
right of WTO Members to provide the level
of health protection they deem appropriate;
second, it ensures that SPS measures are not
disguised restrictions on international trade.
To achieve both objectives, the agreement
encourages Members to base their measures
on international standards (from the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World
Health Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarius
Commission, the World Organization for Animal
Health, etc.), guidelines and recommendations,
where they exist (Article 3.1). If international
standards do not exist, or if countries want to
adopt higher standards, then they must be able


to demonstrate that their measures are based on
an “appropriate” risk assessment (Article 3.3).
In cases where relevant scientific evidence is
not available, a country may provisionally adopt
SPS measures on the basis of available pertinent
information (Article 5.7). Furthermore, the SPS
measures should be applied only to the extent
necessary to protect health, and arbitrary
discrimination between countries where similar
conditions prevail is forbidden (Article 2.2).


Notifying countries must publish all their SPS
measures and ensure that an enquiry point
exists. This enquiry point should be able to
answer all reasonable questions from other
Members (Annex B).


2.1.2 The TBT Agreement


The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the
1979 TBT Agreement or “Standards Code”) is one
of the important results of the Tokyo Round. It took


effect for ratifying countries on 1 January 1980 and
was superseded by the 1995 WTO TBT Agreement,
which is applicable to all WTO Members.




9ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


This agreement deals with all technical
requirements, voluntary standards and conformity
assessment procedures, except when these
measures are covered by the SPS Agreement,
and ensures that they do not create unnecessary
obstacles to trade. To do so, the agreement calls
upon Members to use international standards
(Article 2.4). It also encourages Members to
recognize as equivalent the requirements of
other Members, even if they differ from their
own, provided that they fulfil the same final
objective (Article 2.7). Similarly, in order to
avoid the multiplication of tests, Members
are encouraged to recognize other Members’


conformity assessment procedures (Article 6.1).
Furthermore, Members should not discriminate
between countries: the same requirements should
be applied to imported and domestic products. If
a measure is applied to imports from one source,
then it also has to be applied to imports from all
other sources.


All technical regulations and conformity
assessment procedures that have been adopted
must be published promptly (Articles 2.11 and
5.8). Enquiry points that are able to answer to all
reasonable questions from other members must
be established (Article 10.1)


2.1.3 Differences between SPS and TBT Measures


Both agreements deal with health-related trade
restrictions. There are, however, differences
in the scope of the two agreements. The SPS
Agreement covers measures as defined in Box


2.1. The TBT Agreement covers all technical
regulations, standards or procedures, except
when these measures are included in the SPS
Agreement (Box 2.2).


Box 2.2. SPS or TBT: Which Agreement Does a Measure Come under?


Source: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_agreement_cbt_e/c1s5p1_e.htm


iS iTS oBjeCTive To ProTeCT one of THeSe?


Human life
risks from:


• additives
• contaminants
• toxins
• plant-, product- or animal-carried disease
• disease-causing organisms
• pests entering, establishing or spreading


▶ yES ➜ SPSAnimal life risks from: • additives• contaminants• toxins• diseases• plant-, product- or animal-carried disease• disease-causing organisms• pests entering, establishing or spreadingPlant life risks from: • pests entering, establishing or spreading• diseases• disease-causing organisms
A country
risks from: • pests entering, establishing or spreading


no


Is it a technical regulation, a standard or a procedure for assessing
whether a product conforms to a technical requirement? ➜ yES ➜ TBT


no


other




10 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


As mentioned on the WTO website:6


The SPS Agreement applies to a narrowly defined
range of health protection measures, but it places
quite strict requirements on these measures, for
example that they always be based on scientific
principles. The TBT Agreement on the other hand
applies to a wide range of technical requirements,
and solely notes that available scientific
information is one of the relevant elements of
consideration in assessing risks. Some of these
technical requirements are introduced for health
or safety purposes, but others are introduced to
standardize products, ensure quality, or to avoid
consumer deception.


Following are some examples that illustrate
the differences between SPS and TBT measures
(source: WTO website):


Fertilizer:


fertilizer residue in food and animal feed – •
SPS;


specifications to ensure fertilizer works •
effectively – TBT;
safe handling instructions to protect farmers •
from possible harm from handling fertilizer
– TBT.


Food labelling:


health warnings, use, dosage – SPS;•
label’s position, lettering, composition, •
nutrient content, quality – TBT.


Containers for shipping grain:


fumigation, disinfectant, etc. to prevent •
disease from spreading –SPS;
size, construction/structure, safe handling •
– TBT.


Fruit:


treatment of imported fruit to prevent pests •
from spreading – SPS;
quality, grading and labelling of imported •
fruit – TBT.


2.1.4 The case of Developing countries in both Agreements


Both the SPS and TBT agreements contain
provisions on technical assistance (Article 9
in the SPS Agreement and Article 11 in the
TBT Agreement), and special and differential
treatment (Article 10 in the SPS Agreement
and Article 12 in the TBT Agreement) to help
developing countries and LDCs to implement
and take advantage of the agreement.


Despite this support, developing countries
and LDCs encounter difficulties in the
implementation of the SPS and TBT agreements.
One of their main concerns arises from the


definition of standards, shaped largely by
the interests of developed countries, which
are the main players in the standards-setting
bodies.


To enhance the capacity of developing
countries and LDCs to participate in
negotiations and to implement standards,
FAO, the World Organization for Animal
Health, the World Bank, the Codex
Alimentarius, WHO and WTO launched the
global programme “Standards and Trade
Development Facility”7 in 2002.


2.1.5 SPS and TBT Measures as a Source of Trade Dispute


The increasing notification of SPS and TBTs and
their potential use in a protectionist way could
be a source of trade disputes between countries.
Many disputes on SPS measures have already


occurred. A much smaller number of disputes
on TBTs have arisen. We provide below three
examples of trade disputes:




11ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Ecuador’s complaint on the fresh fruit import
procedures applied by Turkey8


In August 2001, Ecuador requested consultations
with Turkey concerning certain import procedures
for fresh fruits and, in particular, bananas applied
by Turkey. According to these procedures, an
importer must obtain a control certificate issued
by the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Affairs in order to be able to seek the SPS clearance
certificate that is a prerequisite for presentation
of the goods for customs clearance.


Ecuador highlighted the following:


Until November 1999, importers of bananas •
could request control certificates at any
time for any quantity of bananas, and the
certificates were issued without undue
delays.
Since November 1999, the control •
certificates are, however, issued only for
limited quantities, for limited periods of
time and with considerable delays.
A control certificate can be used for only •
one shipment. If a quantity less than that
indicated in the certificate is imported,
then it is deemed exhausted.
A new control certificate is issued only •
after the shipment for which the previous
certificate was issued has been cleared
through customs. As up to two months can
lapse between the application for a control
certificate and customs clearance, this means
that an importer may be able to request a
control certificate only six times a year.
The quantities for which control certificates •
are issued are not published, but importers
are advised orally of the quantities that will
be accepted.
Turkey alleged before the Committee on •
SPS Measures that it could issue control
certificates only for limited quantities
because it had limited laboratory capacity.
However, the maximum quantities for which
control certificates were issued and the
periods during which they were valid have
not varied with Turkey’s laboratory capacity
and, in its replies to questions by Ecuador,
Turkey failed to confirm that it imposes


similar requirements and limitations on
domestic production.


For Ecuador, these procedures were inconsistent
with the obligations of Turkey under GATT 1994
(Articles II, III, VIII, X and XI), the SPS Agreement
(Articles 2.3 and 8 and Annexes B and C), the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures
(Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1), the
Agreement on Agriculture (Article 4) and the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
(Articles VI and XVII).


As regards more specifically the SPS agreement,
Ecuador underlined the following:


The administration of the control certificate •
system cannot be reconciled with the
requirements set out in Article 2.3 of the
SPS Agreement, which stipulates among
other things that the procedures for the
application of import licenses shall be “as
simple as possible” and that SPS measures
shall not be a disguised restriction on
international trade.
Turkey’s failure to apply to domestic bananas •
a testing and certification procedure
equivalent to that applied to bananas from
other WTO Members and to allocate access
to its laboratory capacity appropriately
between importers and domestic producers
is inconsistent with its obligation under
Article 8 and Paragraph 1 of Annex C of the
SPS Agreement.
Turkey’s failure to publish the quantities •
of domestic and imported bananas that its
laboratories accept for inspection and for which
control certificates are issued violates Turkey’s
obligations under Article 7 and Paragraph 1 of
Annex B of the SPS Agreement.


In September 2001, the European Community (EC)
requested to join the consultations. In June 2002,
Ecuador requested the establishment of a panel.
A month later, Ecuador requested the dispute
settlement body to suspend the composition of
the panel as negotiations were engaged between
the parties. Turkey modified its application of
the control certificate system. Henceforth, with
the submission of the necessary documents, the




12 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


control certificates for the importation of bananas
are being issued by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Affairs for the quantities requested
by the importers and for the validity periods
indicated in Amending Communiqué, Number
2002/21, published in the Official Gazette dated
20 July 2002.


Therefore, in November 2002, the parties
informed the dispute settlement body that
they had found a mutually agreed solution to
their dispute.


Nicaragua’s complaint on certain measures
imposed by Mexico and affecting the imports of
black beans


In March 2003, Nicaragua requested consultations
with Mexico concerning certain measures imposed
by Mexico, and that affected the imports of black
beans from Nicaragua. Nicaragua was concerned
particularly about the following measures:


the administration of the procedures set out •
in Official Standard 006-FITO-95 and Official
Standard 028-FITO-95, including the refusal
of the competent Mexican authorities
to furnish importers with the document
containing the phytosanitary requirements
necessary for the importation of black
beans from Nicaragua;
the more favourable treatment that the •
competent Mexican authorities accord in
the administration of the above procedures
to like products originating in countries
other than Nicaragua;
failure to publish the specific phytosanitary •
requirements for the importation of black
beans from Nicaragua;
failure to publish the rules, requirements •
and procedures concerning the tender for
the quota allocation of black beans from
Nicaragua, including, but not limited to, the
Public Tender No. 44/2002 for the period
2002–03.


For Nicaragua, these measures were inconsistent
with Mexico’s obligations under GATT 1994
(Articles I:1, X:1, X:3a, XI:1 and XIII:1) and the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures


(Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4a and 2.2a). Furthermore,
Nicaragua claimed that, if the measures applied
by Mexico were SPS measures as defined in
the SPS Agreement, then they would also be
inconsistent with the following articles of this
Agreement:


Article 2.1, which stipulates that SPS •
measures put in place should not be
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS
Agreement;
Article 2.2, which specifies that SPS measures •
should be based on scientific principles and
should not be maintained without sufficient
scientific evidence;
Article 2.3, which specifies that SPS •
measures should not constitute a disguised
restriction on international trade;
Article 5.1, which specifies that SPS measures •
should be based on an assessment of risks,
as appropriate to the circumstances;
Article 7, which specifies that changes and •
information in the SPS should be provided
by Members;
Paragraph 1 of Annex B, which specifies that •
SPS measures should be published promptly
by Members in such a manner as to enable
interested Members to become acquainted
with them.


In March 2003, the US and Canada requested to
join the consultations.


In March 2004, Nicaragua withdrew its request for
consultations as its complaint had been addressed
adequately as a result of negotiations with Mexico.
It seems that the excellent political and trade
relations between the countries were useful in
finding a positive solution to this dispute.


Argentina, Canada and US complaints on EU
measures affecting the approval and marketing
of biotech products


In May 2003, the US, Canada and Argentina
launched a WTO case against the EU by
requesting consultations concerning different
measures adopted by the EU affecting
US, Canadian and Argentine exports of
biotechnology products.




13ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


According to the complainants, these measures
were inconsistent with the EU obligations under
GATT 1994 (Articles I, III, X and XI), the SPS
Agreement (Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8 and Annexes
B and C), the TBT Agreement (Articles 2 and
5), and the Agriculture Agreement (Article
4). Argentina stated that these measures
were also inconsistent with Article 10 of the
SPS Agreement and Article 12 of the TBT
Agreement.


The consultations did not allow the dispute to
be solved, and in August 2003 the US, Argentina
and Canada requested the establishment of a
dispute settlement panel. The panel report
concluded that the EU violated its obligations
under Annex C(1)(a) first clause of the SPS


Agreement and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.
In addition, certain EU Member States also
violated their obligations under Articles 2 and
5 of the SPS Agreement.


The report, however, mentioned that the EU and
its Member States have not acted inconsistently
with their obligations under other provisions
raised by the complainants.


In December 2006, the EU announced its
intention to conform to the recommendations.
Due to the complexity of the issues involved,
the EU would need a reasonable period of time
in which to implement these recommendations
and was ready to discuss the timeframe with
the complainants.


2.2 Private Sector Requirements


2.2.1 Definition


Private sector requirements are standards set
by the private sector (e.g. supermarket chains).
Examples include good agricultural practices
(GAP) set by the Euro-Retailer Produce Working
Group (EUREP; now called Global Partnership for
Good Agricultural Practice, GlobalGAP) (Box 2.3),
and requirements of the retailer-driven Global
Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the food safety
management system standard ISO 22000 from the
International Organization for Standardization
(ISO). Private standards have existed since trading


began, but the development of formal private
standards is recent and is increasing. Indeed,
private standards are becoming so important and
widespread that one can question whether today
these standards do not influence trade more than
public standards do. One explanation for this
increase is that private standards are seen by
firms in developed markets as a way to fill a void
left by the slow process of public sector setting
and implementation of standards.


Box 2.3. Private Standards: The example of eurepGAP


WHAT iS eurePGAP?


• Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices (EurepGAP) members


include retailers, producers/farmers and associate members from the input and service side


of agriculture.


• EurepGAP started in 1997 as an initiative by retailers belonging to the Euro-Retailer Produce


Working Group (EUREP). EUREP is an association that joins big European leadership supermarkets


in the food sector.


• GAP stands for good agricultural practices. EurepGAP is a private sector body that has placed


a wide range of private quality standards under one umbrella for producers of fish, fruits,


vegetables and ornamental plants. These standards are voluntary.




14 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Box 2.3. continued


Sources: Central Bank of Ecuador (2004); Association of Banana Exporters of Ecuador (undated); www.eurepgap.org/
Languages/English/about.html; www.globalgap.org/cms/front_content.php?idart=3&idcat=9&lang=1


• EurepGAP is a pre-farm-gate standard, which means that the certificate covers the process of


the certified product from before the seed is planted until it leaves the farm. EurepGAP is a


business-to-business label and is therefore not directly visible to consumers.


• In September 2007, EurepGAP became Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice


(GLOBALGAP).General information


EurepGAP implies the following aspects:


• food security of the product (appropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides);


• environmental management of the farm;


• health, security and wellbeing of workers.


The fulfilment of this norm is a requirement of the fruit purchasers in Europe.


Requirements


This norm consists of compliance with some requirements, such as registration to apply pesticides


and requirements for the storage area, etc. Therefore, compliance with EurepGAP requirements


implies financial costs to the producer both on- and off-farm (those related to implementation


of special facilities, warehouse construction for pesticides, etc.). If the firm complies with all


requirements, it can obtain a certificate. An external audit must be done by a certificated


organization in order to obtain a EurepGAP certificate. Audits are conducted regularly, often


annually, and this cost is borne by the producer.


Regulations to get certification


The producers should fulfil the following requirements:


• registration of farm and production;


• training and sanitary certificate for the fruit or vegetable;


• risk analysis;


• visual check-up;


• quality of water and treatment of residual waters;


• plastic and container uses;


• social aspects:


carrying out with the current law about social conditions such as social security, allowance fund, etc.;


having decent housing for workers who work and live on the farm;


• infrastructure and projects.




15ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Private standards are voluntary. However, as
mentioned by Henson and Northen (1998) and
Fulponi (2006), they are required for doing
business, thus making them de facto mandatory.
These private standards could be trade-
enhancing if they help producers to improve
the quality of their products and provide access
to new markets. This potential positive impact
of standards on market access explains partly
why producers in exporting countries try to
fulfil them, despite the associated costs. But
standards also exclude producers that are not
able to adapt their production systems. More
generally, private standards usually represent
an additional cost of production, which
causes concern over the differential impact
of increasing private standards. Furthermore,
producers often argue that such requirements
are not transparent as they are not notified
to WTO and are not science-based. Private
standards also often conflict with those set by


governments or international organizations. In
a recent workshop on private and commercial
standards organized by WTO and UNCTAD in June
2007,9 several countries emphasized that private
standards cover not only food safety but also
other issues (e.g. quality, production methods,
environmental concerns) and consequently
impose additional burdens. A special treatment
was asked for developing countries.


In 2007, the number of private schemes is
estimated by UNCTAD at 400 and rising (WTO,
2007). Schemes range from those developed
by individual firms to collective industry-wide
international schemes. Table 2.1, extracted
from WTO (2007), provides some examples.
Standards could also be divided between pre-
and post-farm-gate standards, or between
business-to-business standards and standards
tied to a particular labelling or logo scheme
intended for consumers.


Table 2.1. examples of Private Standards


inDiviDuAL
FirM SCHeMeS CoLLeCTive nATionAL SCHeMeS


CoLLeCTive inTernATionAL
SCHeMeS


Tesco Nature’s
Choice Assured Food Standards EurepGAP


Carrefour
Filière Qualité


British Retail Consortium
Global Standard – Food International Food Standard


QS Qualitat Sicherheit Global Food Safety Initiative


Label Rouge ISO 22000: food safety management systems
Food and Drink Federation/


British Retail Consortium Technical
Standard for the Supply of Identity
Preserved Non-Genetically Modified


Food Ingredients and Product


Safe Quality Food (SQF) 1000 and 2000


ISO 22005: traceability in
the feed and food chain


Source: WTO (2007)


2.2.2 Private Sector requirements and the SPS and TBT Agreements


Relationship of private standards schemes with
the SPS Agreement


How do private standards relate to the SPS
Agreement, and particularly to Article 13? Article
13 states:


Members are fully responsible under this
Agreement for the observance of all obligations
set forth herein. [...] Members shall take such
reasonable measures as may be available to them
to ensure that non-governmental entities within
their territories [...] comply with the relevant
provisions of this Agreement.




16 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


2.3 QuickSurveyonNon-tariffBarrierstoTrade(Definition,Measureoftheir
Trade Impact)


A recent document by the WTO (2007) asks two
questions:


What positive measures are open to •
Members to support observance of the SPS
Agreement by a non-governmental entity?
What should be a reasonable measure to •
ensure compliance by a non-governmental
entity?


The SPS Agreement does not provide answers to
these questions and there is no jurisprudence on
this matter.


Relationship of private standards schemes with
the TBT Agreement


As underlined in WTO (2007), the TBT Agreement
is more explicit on this issue. Article 4 of the TBT
Agreement requires Members to take reasonable
measures to ensure that non-governmental bodies
accept and comply with the Code of Good Practice
for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of
Standards (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement).


SPS and TBTs are the main NTBs in agriculture,
and our study is restricted to them. However, the
estimation of their trade impact is similar to that


used for other NTBs. Therefore, in this section,
we use the term NTBs instead of focusing only on
SPS and TBTs.


2.3.1 Definition


An NTB is any measure other than a tariff
that distorts trade. Different NTB nomenclature
exists; see, for example, Deardorff and
Stern (1997), USITC (2002) and UNCTAD10.
In our work, we use the UNCTAD classification.
Its main advantage is that it is used in
the UNCTAD Trade Analysis Information
System (TRAINS) database, which is our source
for identifying the SPS and TBT measures
notified on tropical and diversification
products.


The UNCTAD nomenclature distinguishes seven
broad categories of NTB:


para-tariff measures•
price control measures•
finance measures•
automatic licensing measures•
quality control measures•
monopolistic measures•
technical measures.•


SPS and TBT measures fit into all of these
categories, except for price control measures.


2.3.2 Measure of non-Tariff Barriers Trade Impact


Four main approaches have been developed in
the trade literature for measuring the trade
effects of NTBs (Deardorff and Stern 1998;
Beghin and Bureau 2001; Disdier et al., 2008):


Frequency and coverage-type measures


The frequency index provides information
on the presence or absence of an NTB, while
the coverage index gives information on the


relative value of affected products. The
latter index should ideally be weighted by the
value of imports that would have occurred in
the absence of NTBs. This value is, however,
unobservable and home or world imports are
usually used as alternative weights. In cases
where trade barriers reduce imports, however,
this methodology suffers from an endogeneity
problem and biases downward the coverage
ratio.




17ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Furthermore, in the presence of incomplete
information on traded products, some NTBs such
as SPS and TBT measures can facilitate trade by
signalling that products are safe to the consumer.
In their absence, there might be no trade at all.


Deardorff and Stern (1998) suggest two other
limits of frequency and coverage indexes:


No information is provided on the deterrent •
effects that NTBs may have on exporters’
pricing and quantity decisions.
These indices do not indicate the possible •
effects of trade barriers on prices,
production and international trade.


Quantity-impact measures


In this approach, information on the trade effects
of NTBs comes from the comparison between
predicted trade flows in the absence of NTBs and
actual trade flows. Trade models (mainly gravity
equations), in which a frequency or a coverage
index of NTBs is introduced as an explanatory
variable, are estimated. However, this approach
suffers from two main drawbacks:


the endogeneity problem between •
trade barriers and imports is usually not
addressed;
the sensitivity of trade flows to models’ •
assumptions.


The two last measures provide ad-valorem
equivalents (AVEs) of NTBs, which are directly
comparable with a tariff.


Price-comparison measures


The trade impact of NTBs is detected here by
comparing the domestic prices of imported
goods with some reference prices. Since the
price that would prevail in the absence of
barriers is unobservable, the price effect or
“price wedge” is commonly computed by simply
comparing domestic and world prices in the
presence of NTBs. Potential quality differences
between domestic and imported goods, which
could impact prices, are not taken into account
in this approach, however.


Price effect measures based on import demand
elasticities


This last measure is based on Leamer’s (1990)
comparative advantage approach, which consists
of predicting imports using factor endowments
and observing its deviations in the presence of
NTBs. Following this approach, Kee et al. (2006)
estimate the quantity impact of core NTBs
and agricultural domestic support on imports.
Quantity impact is then converted into an AVE
using import demand elasticities. The main
problem in this method is the indirect derivation.
However, the unavailability of detailed price data
for all countries and products prevents the use of
the price-comparison method described above in
studies aiming to be exhaustive.




18 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


This section explores the impact of SPS and
TBTs requirements from major export markets
on Ecuadorian banana and pineapple farmers
and exporters. It looks specifically at whether
technical or SPS requirements on the one hand,
or tariffs on the other, are the main concern
for farmers and exporters and how SPS and
TBT measures impact upon Ecuadorian banana
and pineapple farmers and exporters.


Bananas are Ecuador’s main tropical export.
They represent approximately two thirds of
Ecuador’s tropical exports. Pineapples are
less important as an agricultural export (they
represent barely 2 percent of total tropical
exports by Ecuador), but they are an export
product on the rise and are in the top three
most exported tropical products by Ecuador
(Table 3.1).


3. CASE STUdIES


3.1 SPS and TBT measures on Banana and Pineapple Trade in Ecuador


Table 3.1. ecuadorian exports of Tropical and Diversification Products, 2004


ProDuCt exPortS By ProDuCt to
SHAre DeveLoPeD


MArketS in
WorLD (%)


rAnking in
exPortS By
eCuADor to


WorLD MArkeTS


DeveLoPeD MArkeTS1 WorLD exPorTS


uSD1000 SHAre (%) uSD1000
SHAre


(%)
Bananas 1 129 709 64.83 1 676 088 67.57 67.40 1
Flowers 304 943 17.50 346 427 13.97 88.03 2


Pineapples 43 430 2.49 45 707 1.84 95.02 3


Fruit or
vegetable juice 37 371 2.14 39 611 1.60 94.34 4


Heart palm 21 015 1.21 32 303 1.30 65.05 5
Others2 206 216 11.83 340 262 13.72 60.61
Total 1 742 684 100.00 2 480 399 100.00 70.26


Source: Base pour l’Analyse du Commerce International (Database of International Trade Analysis) (BACI) (Centre of
Prospective Studies and International Information, CEPII).
1Developed markets include EU25, Canada, US, Japan, Australia and Switzerland.
2“Others” includes tropical and diversification products such as living plants and flower-growing products; vegetables, plants
and roots and tubers; coffee, tea, herbal mate and species; cereals; miller products; seeds and other fruits; resins and
vegetable extracts; other products of vegetable origin; fats and animal or vegetable oils; sugars; cocoa paste; vegetable and
fruit preparations; food product preparations; drinks and alcoholic liquids; and tobacco.


3.1.1 Overview of the Banana and Pineapple Markets in Ecuador


The banana market in Ecuador


There are thousands of banana producers in
Ecuador, operating at different levels in terms of
technology, productivity and cultural practices.
Most banana producers are located in three
provinces: Guayas, Los Rios and El Oro. Small banana
farms are predominant in El Oro, whereas the big
banana farms tend to be in Guayas and Los Rios.
Banana production centres on large and medium-
sized producers (by farm size) that are more
productive and have better cultural practices. Most
banana producers sell their produce to exporters.
In a few cases, producers (in general, multinational
companies) sell directly to foreign markets.


The average size of a big banana producer is 219
hectares, while that of medium-sized and small
producers is 44 hectares and 8 hectares, respectively.
Medium-sized banana producers make up 46 percent
of total land dedicated to banana production, big
banana producers 30 percent and small banana
producers 24 percent. Small producers produce only
around 23 percent of total bananas, and medium-
sized and big banana producers each produce around
40 percent (Table 3.2). From Table 3.2 it is evident
that productivity is higher among medium-sized and
big producers than small producers. According to
banana farmers, economies of scale, agro-ecological
conditions, degree of technological implementation
and cultural practices in banana plantation create




19ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 3.2. Banana Productive Structure in ecuador, 2004


iteM
SMALL MeDiuM Big


ToTAL
0 < HA ≤20 0 < HA ≤20 > 100 HA


Qty % Qty % Qty % Qty %
Number of producers 4453 71 1618 26 211 3 6282 100


Area (ha) 36 626 24 71 880 46 46 279 30 154 785 100
Average size per


producer (ha) 8 – 44 – 219 – 25 –


Production (MT) 1 230 610 23 2 162 291 40 2 060 318 38 5 453 220 100
Average production
per producer (MT) 276 – 1336 – 9765 – 868 –


Source: own construction using data from Ministry of Agriculture (2004).
ha, hectares; MT, metric tons.


these differences in productivity. Big farms have
easier access to technology for banana growing,
access to credit and connections with foreign


markets where they sell their crops. Small banana
farmers usually lack technological advances, credit
access and marketing capabilities.


Banana farmers also differ in their cultural
practices. According to data from the last
agricultural census in Ecuador on water use,
pesticide use and SPS measures in small,
medium-sized and big farms, 77 percent of
medium-sized and 96 percent of big farms have
access to irrigation, but only 22 percent of small
farms apply irrigation. Similarly, 84 percent of
medium-sized and 97 percent of big farms use
fertilizers, while the figure for small farms is 12
percent. Finally, 11 percent of small, 84 percent
of medium-sized and 97 percent of big farms
apply SPS measures (CNA, 2000).


Currently, the main export markets for Ecuadorian
bananas are the EU (the Mediterranean – which
includes Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece – and
the Baltic Sea), the US and Russia, where 43, 22


and 20 percent of Ecuadorian banana exports go,
respectively (Figure 3.1). This is in contrast with
market destinations in the 1990s, when the US
used to be the main export market. According to
the Central Bank of Ecuador (2004), Ecuador has
reduced its share in the US banana market from 58
percent in 1990 to 25 percent in 2003. The same
publication argues that among the reasons why
Ecuador has lost market share in the US banana
market are the disadvantage of distance and the
difficulties faced when trying to obtain entry
to the US market due to the market policies of
Chiquita and Dole, whose main interests are the
banana farms in Central America. Another reason
mentioned in this document is the preference
that the US gives to bananas from Colombia as a
result of the US interest in encouraging banana
substitution for drug-related crop production.


Figure 3.1. ecuador’s Banana exports by Major export Destinations, 2006 (As a Percentage of export volume)


Source: statistics from the Banana Exporters Association of Ecuador.




20 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


figure 3.2. Minimum Price vs. Price received by ecuadorian Producers*, 2002–2006 (in uSD per
Box of 18.14 kg)


Source: Serrano (2007).
*Average price per annum.


It has long been said that the banana market in
Ecuador is oligopsonistic because it comprises
a few big export companies that buy bananas
from many – very heterogeneous – banana
producers. Thus, in order to protect the small
banana producers, the Ecuadorian government
(in agreement with exporters and producers, at
least in theory) sets a minimum price for banana


production. However, when world banana prices
are low, it has been the case that exports
companies pay less than the minimum price. On
the other hand, it has also been the case that
when there is high world demand for bananas, or
domestic supply is short, exporters end up paying
more than the minimum price to Ecuadorian
banana producers11 (Figure 3.2).


The fact that the number of banana export
companies has increased in the past decade
may help to explain why banana farmers in
Ecuador have been receiving better prices
for their fruit in recent years. Traditional big
banana players, Dole, Del Monte, Chiquita and
Noboa, have seen their market share fall from
76 percent in 1994 to 60 percent in 2000 and
48 percent in 2006 (Table 3.3). New companies
have entered the export banana business in
Ecuador, among which the most important
are Russian companies. In fact, all the banana


export companies interviewed said that they
perceive an increase in competition between
banana export companies (see Table 3.8). Less
concentration in the banana export market in
Ecuador has undermined the market power of
export companies, which, coupled with higher
demand in new markets (Russia and Eastern
Europe), has determined higher prices now paid
to Ecuadorian banana producers. Banana export
companies have pursued vertical integration as
a means to reduce costs and stay competitive in
the local market.




21ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Important trends in the distribution of bananas
include the concentration on retailers, obligatory
certifications, and more and more consumer and
retailer involvement in determining standards
for bananas. Indeed, consumers are looking for
healthier food, which implies stricter demands
on quality (Zuñiga, 2007). These developments
in the fresh fruit retail industry affect the way
bananas are commercialized and the price that
local banana farmers get. It seems to be the case
that, although consumers set higher standards for
quality and presentation of bananas, the price
they are willing to pay is not increasing. How
this increasing demand for quality reflects as a
TBT and SPS and has an impact on local banana


producers is an issue that will be addressed in
the next section.


The pineapple market in Ecuador


In Ecuador, there are approximately 6000 hectares
of pineapple farms located in the provinces of Los
Rios, Guayas and Pichincha. About a third of these
hectares are dedicated to growing pineapples for
exports. In general, pineapples for export are grown
on big or medium-sized farms, and, in terms of the
number of agricultural productive units with these
characteristics, only a few farms are big enough to
grow pineapples for export. Small pineapple farms
usually produce for the local market (Table 3.4).


Table 3.3. Banana exporters: Share (%) in the ecuadorian Banana Market


BAnAnA exPort
CoMPAny 1994 1997 2000 2002 2005 2006 2007e 2008e


Main brands
(Dole, Bonita Noboa, Del
Monte, Chiquita Banana)


76 77 60 63 49 48 43 43


Secondary brands
(Fav, Excelban) 4 13 18 24 25 22 26 26


Russians
(Bonanza, Sunway, DC, PD) 0 0 0 4 13 16 17 17


Other independents
(several) 11 6 15 4 8 10 10 9


South America
(several) 9 4 6 5 5 5 5 5


Total industry volume
(1000 boxes of 18.4 kg each) 157 481 212 502 218 231 210 674 237 486 240 493 248 716 250 418


Source: banana exporters’ reports.
Note: E = Estimated.


Table 3.4. Pineapple Productive Structure in ecuador, 2000


iteM
SMALL MeDiuM Big


ToTAL
0 < HA ≤ 10 10 < HA ≤ 50 > 50 HA


Qty % Qty % Qty % Qty %


Number of UPAs 4574 99 50 1 7 0.2 4632 100


Area (ha) 3952 69 1006 17 792 13.8 5750 100


Average size (ha) 1 20 107 1


Production (MT) 21 018 43 8495 18 18 994 39.2 48 507 100


Average production
per UPA (MT) 5 169 2573 10


Source: own calculations based on CNA (2000).
ha, hectares; MT, metric tons.




22 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Cultural practices also differ among the big and
medium-sized pineapple farms, on the one hand,
and small pinea pple farms, on the other. Most
big pineapple farms (and, in general, medium-
sized farms) have irrigation systems (83 percent
of big farms and 33 percent of medium-sized
farms), apply fertilizer (96 percent of big farms
and 95 percent of medium-sized farms) and follow
consistent SPS standards (96 percent of big and
93 percent of medium-sized farms). In contrast,
most small pineapple farms do not have irrigation
(85 percent), do not apply fertilizer (71 percent)
and do not follow SPS practices (76 percent).


Pineapple production is growing sharply, especially
in the varieties that are exported (Cayena and
Golden Sweet or MD2). The variety grown for
local consumption is known as “Perolera” or
“Milagreña”. Pineapple exports have had an
explosive growth in the 2000s. In 2000 pineapple
exports reached almost USD3 million, in 2002
USD13 million, and in 2006 USD30.4 million.
The expansion in 2002 can be explained by the
increase in the production areas made by the


Dole Food Company and because other producers
– which also believe in the export potential of
pineapples – expanded their production as well
(Contreras, 2004).


According to the trade statistics of the Central
Bank of Ecuador, the main export markets of
Ecuadorian pineapples are the EU and the US. In
2006, 47 percent of the total value of pineapple
exports went to the EU and 40 percent to the
US. The EU is steadily increasing its share in
Ecuador’s pineapple exports at the expense of
the US share. Eighty percent of pineapple exports
are done by banana export companies (Ecuador
Exporta, 2007).


Pineapple producers are about to form their own
association of producers. The main aim of this
association will be to oversee the production
process in order to ensure quality, preserve the
environment and help producers to comply with
private sector standards of good agricultural
practices, such as EurepGAP.


3.1.2 Measuring SPS and TBTs in the Ecuadorian Banana and Pineapple Markets


Survey method


Boxes 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the standard types
required of bananas and pineapples, respectively,
by Ecuador’s main banana and pineapple export


markets (the US and the EU). Governments and
international organizations usually set these food
standards and food import regulations; however,
they do not preclude the demands made by
private sector standards.


Box 3.1. Banana Standards


requireMenTS froM THe eu (THiS LiST iS noT CoMPreHenSive or exHAuSTive):
Green and unripe.•


Sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded.•


Clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter.•


Practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce and damages.•


Free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage, and bananas •
packed under modified atmosphere conditions.


Free of any foreign smell and/or taste and free of bruises; firm.•


Free of damage caused by low temperatures.•


Free of malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers.•


With pistils removed and the stalk intact, without bending, fungal damage or desiccation.•


THe DeveLoPMenT AnD ConDiTion of THe BAnAnAS MuST Be SuCH AS To enABLe THeM:
to reach the appropriate stage of physiological maturity corresponding to the characteristics of the variety;•


to withstand transport and handling and to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination in order to •
ripen satisfactorily.




23ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Box 3.1. continued


Source: Codex Standards for Bananas (Codex Stan 205-1997, AMD. 1-2005), pp.1–4; and maximum residue limits from FAS
Online – USDA.


Sizing
The reference fruit for measurement of the length and grade is:


for hands, the median finger on the outer row of the hand;•


for clusters, the finger next to the cut section of the hand, on the outer row of the cluster;•


the minimum length should not be less than 14.0 cm and the minimum grade not less than 2.7 cm.•


ToLerAnCeS
For all classes, 10 percent by number of bananas not satisfying the sizing characteristics, up to a limit of 1 cm for the
minimum length of 14 cm.


PreSentAtion
The contents of each package must be uniform and consist exclusively of bananas of the same origin, variety and/•
or commercial type and quality.


The visible part of the contents of each package must be representative of the entire contents.•


The bananas must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.•


The materials used inside the package must be new, clean and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external •
or internal damage to the produce.


The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade specifications, is allowed, provided the •
printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.


Packages must be free from any foreign matter.•


The bananas must be presented in hands or clusters (parts of hands) of at least four fingers.•


Clusters with not more than two missing fingers are allowed, provided that the stalk is not torn but is cleanly cut, •
without damage to the neighbouring fingers.<


Not more than one cluster of three fingers with the same characteristics as the other fruit in the package may be •
present per row; in the producing regions, the stem may market bananas.


ContAinerS
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure suitable handling,
shipping and preserving of the bananas. Packages must be free of all foreign matter and smell.


MArking
Identification.•


The word ‘Bananas’ where the contents are not visible from the outside.•


The name of the variety or commercial type.•


Country of origin and, in the case of Community produce, production area and (optionally) national, regional or •
local name. Present the class and net weight.


Size, expressed as minimum length and, optionally, maximum length; official control mark (optional).•


requireMenTS froM uS: MAxiMuM reSiDue LiMiTS (MrL) for PeSTiCiDeS




24 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Box 3.2. Pineapple Standards


Source: Pineapple Report Market from Servicio de Información y Censo Agropecuario (SICA).


requireMenTS froM THe eu (THiS LiST iS noT CoMPreHenSive or exHAuSTive)
Good colour and condition of the crown.•


If the pineapple is totally mature, it should have a clear and brilliant appearance.•


Leafs from the crown should be bright green.•


Crown should be green and well developed.•


Practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce.•


Free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage.•


Free of any foreign smell and/or taste and free of damage caused by low and/or high temperatures.•


CLASSifiCATion for freSH PineAPPLe


CAtegory CALiBre*
nuMBer oF


FruitS/BoxeS
WeiGHT (G) AverAGe (G) SyMBoLS


A 1 8 1800– 2200 18/22


A 2 8 1500– 1799 15/18


B 3 12 1300– 1499 13/15


B 4 12 1100– 1299 11–13


C 5 12 900– 1099 9–11


D 6 20 700– 899 7–9


*On each calibre, fruits are classified according to maturity grade.


M1: one quarter of the fruit is yellow red.


M2: one half of the fruit is yellow red.


M3: two thirds of the fruit is yellow red.


M4: fruit is totally yellow red.


The exported fruits by air may have a maximum grade of maturity (M2).•


The crown is cut up to a height of 50–130 mm, depending on the fruit size; it leaves a small stem and the section •
is disinfected.


EU markets prefer pineapples where weight is 0.7–1.5 kg. The most accepted variety on the members is:•


Germany: Smooth Cayenne, with pineapples that weigh 1–1.2 kg and the fruit must be mature, with yellow- .


red colour;


France: Smooth Cayenne, with sizes B and C; the stem may be a maximum of 2 cm long and cut in a similar .


way; and the crown should be 5–12 cm long, very clean, green colour and with no sign of damage;


United Kingdom: the fruit must be yellow and intense orange colour; the crowns of best-quality pineapple .


must be dense and with bright brilliant colour, with no sign of damage.


MArkinG or LABeLLinG
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package should be labelled with the name of the produce and •
may also be labelled with the name of the variety and/or commercial type.


The absence of the crown should be indicated.•


Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and indelibly •
marked and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment:


Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional). .


Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name. .


Commercial identification: class; size (size code or average weight in grams), number of unit (optional), net .


weight (optional).


Official inspection mark (optional). .


PeStiCiDeS
Maximum residue limits for pineapples in (mg/kg): ethoprophos 0.02; deltamethrin 0.01; diazinon 0.1; disulfoton 0.1;
fenaminphos 0.05; heptachior 0.01; methidathion 0.05; methomyl 0.2; oxamyl 1; triadimenol 1.


requireMenTS froM THe uS (THiS LiST iS noT CoMPreHenSive or exHAuSTive)
Maturity; humidity; good formation (developed eyes); free of rotten sections and damage from the sun.•


Free of damage caused by bruises, sunburn, diseases, insects, rodents and any mechanical instrument.•


The base should be well cut; leafs should be of the same colour, individuals and more or less straight; good stick •
on the fruit. No more than five per crown.


The length of the leaves should be not less than 10 cm or more than twice the fruit size.•


US market prefers pineapple with weight of 1.3–2.0 kg, principally from the variety Smooth Cayenne.




25ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


In this study, we surveyed 13 banana exporters
and farmers and 5 pineapple exporters
and farmers. Each survey questionnaire
was complemented by interviews with the
corresponding exporter and farmer, except
for one case. In general, the companies were
selected so that the sample represents the
majority of bananas and pineapple exports in
Ecuador.12 In the case of bananas, the sample
includes at least one representative of a big,
a medium-sized and a small (by volume of
exports or production) company, a cooperative
of farmers and an export association. For
pineapples, the sample was planned in the
same way as the banana sample, but the
pineapple sample included companies that
can be considered big and medium-sized (no
small farmers, cooperatives or association of
pineapple producers/exporters were found).


The complete questionnaire for exporters (of
either bananas or pineapples) included 28
questions. The questions were of a general
nature (years in business, volume/value of dollar
exports, main export markets, transport used),
about the SPS and TBTs faced, their impact on
costs, the degree of competition from other
export companies and assistance received,
either from the Ecuadorian government or from
private firms.


The survey for banana or pineapple farmers
included 23 questions. These questions also
included general questions (years in business,
volume/value of dollar produce, main buyers
of produce), about the SPS and TBTs faced,
their impact on costs, choice of crop and mode
of production and about assistance received
from the Ecuadorian government. Both
questionnaires for exporters and farmers are
presented in the appendices.


Characteristics of businesses surveyed


Five businesses (farmers or exporters of banana
or pineapples) with 20 or more years in the
business were interviewed, four with 10–20 years
in the business, and eight with up to 10 years in
business. Twelve of the businesses interviewed
produce or export over USD1 million a year, four
USD0.5–1 million a year, and two (small banana
farmers) less than USD0.5 million a year (this list
does not include the Banana Exporter Association
of Ecuador). The major export destinations for the
banana and pineapple producers and exporters
are the EU (including the Mediterranean region),
the US and Russia (the latter only in the case of
bananas).


SPS and TBT requirements13


Overview of results from the survey and
interviews of Ecuadorian banana and pineapple
farmers and exporters


All the farmers and exporters interviewed
reported at least three SPS and TBT measures
in the case of bananas and at least seven in
the case of pineapples. Figures 3.3 and 3.4
show a summary of SPS and TBT measures
faced by farmers and exporters of bananas and
pineapples, respectively. All of the farmers and
exporters interviewed reported that they had
to deal with SPS and environmental rules and
requirements. Almost all of the banana farmers
and exporters, and all of the pineapple producers
and exporters, mentioned that they also had
to deal with labelling regulations and labour
requirements. Some farmers and exporters also
reported certification requirements. Procedures
and administration in general were reported in
particular by medium-sized and small farmers
and exporters.




26 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


figure 3.3. SPS and TBT requirements faced by Banana exporters and farmers in ecuador*, §


Source: interviews with Ecuadorian banana farmers and exporters.
*Other responses that were mentioned once or twice from exporters include quarantine, slow customs clearance, complex
regulations, arbitrary enforcement of rules, lack of harmonization, competition-related restrictions on market access,
quantitative restrictions, investment restrictions or requirements, transport regulations or costs, and local marketing
regulations.
§Other responses from farmers that were mentioned once or twice include quarantine, excessive documentation required,
complex regulations, arbitrary enforcement of rules, lack of harmonization, transport regulations or costs, restrictions of
services, and local marketing regulations.


figure 3.4. SPS and TBT requirements faced by Pineapple exporters and farmers in ecuador*, §


Source: interviews with Ecuadorian farmers and exporters.
*Other responses that were mentioned once or twice from exporters include quarantine, slow customs clearance, complex
regulations, arbitrary enforcement of rules, lack of harmonization, procedures and administration (general), transport
regulations or costs, and local marketing regulations.
§Other responses from farmers that were mentioned once or twice include quarantine, excessive documentation required,
slow customs clearance, complex regulations, arbitrary enforcement of rules, lack of harmonization, quantitative
restrictions, procedures and administration (general), transport regulations or costs, restrictions of services, and local
marketing regulations.


Without doubt, the most difficult and frequent
measure faced by farmers and exporters of
banana and pineapple are the SPS standards.
The majority of banana farmers and exporters


interviewed (11 of 13) state that SPS standards are
the most frequent requirement they encounter
when producing/exporting bananas. Seven of the
13 interviewed farmers and exporters point out




27ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


figure 3.5. SPS and TBT requirements faced by Banana exporters and farmers in ecuador: The
Most Difficult and More frequent


Source: interviews with Ecuadorian banana farmers and exporters.


figure 3.6. SPS and TBT requirements faced by Pineapple exporters and farmers in ecuador: The
Most Difficult and More frequent


Source: interviews with Ecuadorian pineapple farmers and exporters.


that SPS measures are the most difficult standards
they have to meet in order to be able to export
bananas. All of the pineapple producers/exporters
state that SPS standards are the most frequent and
most difficult measure they face when producing/
exporting pineapples. Other barriers to trade


encountered by farmers include certification and
testing requirements, labelling and environmental
rules. Among the most difficult measures for some
businesses are the labour rules, certification and
testing requirements, labelling and environmental
rules (Figures 3.5 and 3.6).


All of the farmers and exporters interviewed
stated that it seems that each year they have
to comply with more and more SPS and TBT
requirements. When asked about private sector
standards for fresh bananas and pineapples, only


small farmers said that they did not know about
these standards. Big and medium-sized farmers
reported as private sector standards those of
EurepGAP and consumers’ demand for a certain
size, weight, presentation and quality (Table 3.5).




28 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Most of the businesses (31 percent of banana
farmers and exporters and 60 percent of
pineapple farmers and exporters) reported that,
in order to respond to SPS and TBT requirements,
they make adjustments in production and
management processes. Thirty-eight percent of
banana farmers and exporters and 40 percent of
pineapple farmers and exporters stated that they


hire consultants and technicians in order to be
able to comply with SPS and TBT requirements. In
the banana sector, some businesses (23 percent)
responded that they make investments in order
to meet technical and SPS standards.


In all of the banana and pineapple businesses,
compliance with SPS and TBT measures implies


Table 3.5. SPS and TBT requirements: General Trend, Cost impact and Government Assistance in
ecuador1 (Percentage and number of Businesses that responded)


toPiC BAnAnA PineAPPLe


% nuMBer % nuMBer


SPS and TBTs: trend


Increasing 100 13 100 5
Decreasing 0 0 0 0
No change 0 0 0 0


13 5


Private standards faced


EurepGAP 46 6 80 4
Quality, size, weight 23 3 20 1


Unknown/did not respond 31 4 0 0
13 5


response to SPS and tBt requirements


Hiring consultants
and technicians 38 5 40 2


New investments 23 3 0 0
Adjustments in production


and management 31 4 60 3


Did not respond 8 1 0 0
13 5


Cost impact


Increase in costs 100 13 100 5
13 5


export market loss


Yes 8 1 0 0
No 92 12 100 5


13 5


government assistance


Received 23 3 40 2
Not received 77 10 60 3


13 5


Source: interviews with farmers and exporters of bananas and pineapples in Ecuador.
1SPS and TBT requirements refer to items such as sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, labelling regulations,
quarantines, certification and testing requirements, excessive documentation required, slow customs clearance, complex
regulations, arbitrary enforcement of rules, lack of harmonization, labour requirements, environmental rules and
requirements, competition-related restrictions on market access, quantitative restrictions, procedures and administration
(general), public procurement practices, investment restrictions or requirements, transport regulations or costs, restrictions
of services, local marketing regulations, and others.




29ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


higher costs, of either export or production,
according to the nature of their business. This
higher cost did not mean, however, that the
businesses lost export markets. (Only the Banana
Exporters Association of Ecuador reported a loss
in export markets.)


Seventy-five percent of banana exporters and
producers and 60 percent of pineapple exporters
and producers stated that they have not received
any assistance from the Ecuadorian government
when trying to meet requirements. The banana
exporters and producers that mentioned receiving
some help from the government pointed out that
this help consisted of maintaining a minimum price
for bananas and providing information on SPS and
TBTs. The information they receive comes from the
Ecuadorian Corporation for Export and Investment
Promotion (Corporación Ecuatoriana de Promoción
de Exportaciones e Inversiones; CORPEI), which is
the Ecuadorian corporation in charge of promoting
exports and foreign direct investments in Ecuador.14
Farmers and exporters also reported receiving
information from the Ecuadorian Service for Animal
Health (Servicio Ecuatoriano de Sanidad Animal;
SESA). Interestingly, small farmers declared that
they had not received any assistance from the
government in dealing with SPS and TBTs. The
Ministry of Agriculture provided only normative
inputs (meaning policies) and not technical inputs.
The current government wants to change this
situation and have the Ministry of Agriculture
provide technical assistance to farmers, especially
small farmers. CORPEI may be an exception, but its
programmes may not target small banana/pineapple
producers or may not be of national reach.


To gauge the farmers and exporters’ capability
to comply with SPS in their main export markets,
we asked them how important the following
factors were in terms of their businesses’
ability to satisfy SPS requirements:


insufficient access to scientific/technical •
expertise;
incompatibility of SPS requirements •
with domestic production/marketing
methods;
poor awareness of SPS requirements •
within agriculture;
poor access to information on SPS •
requirements;
period of time permitted for compliance •
is relatively short.


For both banana and pineapple exports to the
US or the Mediterranean countries of the EU,
all these factors were considered insignificant
or very insignificant. Only when exporting
bananas or pineapples to the northern part
of the EU did some of the businesses answer
that insufficient access to scientific/technical
expertise was an important factor in their
ability to satisfy SPS. Incompatibility of SPS
requirements with domestic production/
marketing methods was mentioned as an
important or very important factor in some
businesses’ ability to comply with SPS.
Poor awareness of SPS requirements within
agriculture was reported as an important
factor in banana businesses’ ability to satisfy
SPS when exporting to the EU and Russia
(Tables 3.6 and 3.7).




30 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 3.6. Bananas: factors Determining farmers’ and exporters’ Ability to Satisfy SPS in ecuador
(number of Business that responded)


exPortS to eu
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 4 3 1 2 0


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 3 5 1 1 0


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 4 3 1 2 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 6 1 2 0 1
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 3 4 2 1 0


exPortS to uS
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 4 2 0 0 0


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 3 2 0 1 0


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 4 1 1 0 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 5 1 0 0 0
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 4 1 1 0 0


exPortS to ruSSiA
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 5 1 1 0 0


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 5 0 1 1 0


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 4 0 0 3 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 4 1 0 1 1
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 3 1 3 0 0


exPortS to MeDiterrAneAn CountrieS oF tHe eu
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 3 1 0 0 0


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 2 2 0 0 0


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 2 1 1 0 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 3 1 0 0 0
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 3 0 1 0 0


Source: interviews with pineapple farmers and exporters.
1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


Table 3.7. Pineapples: factors Determining farmers’ and exporters’ Ability to Satisfy SPS in
ecuador (number of Business that responded)


exPortS to eu
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 0 2 0 3 0


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 2 0 1 1 1


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 2 2 1 0 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 2 2 1 0 0
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 0 4 1 0 0


exPortS to uS
Item 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 0 2 0 0 1


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 2 0 0 1 0


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 3 0 0 0 0
(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 2 0 1 0 0
(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 0 0 0


Source: interviews with pineapple farmers and exporters.
1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.




31ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


It seems clear that businesses’ ability to satisfy
SPS varies depending on whether the business
is a farmer or an exporter and whether it is big
or small. A big banana exporter declared that
they could comply with the world’s highest SPS
standards (such as those of the EU). For this firm,
standards are an essential part of food security
and safety policy, which in turn is part of the
firm’s corporate and social responsibility.


Another big national banana exporter and
producer explained how it had prepared for
compliance with EurepGAP and other technical
and SPS standards by EU governments or the
private sector. According to the manager of
this national banana firm, compliance with
technical requirements and SPS standards posed
no problems. In fact, the firm’s preparedness
(reflecting an ongoing process to keep abreast
of any changes) meant that it had a competitive
edge over its less prepared rivals.


However, small firms in particular cannot be
expected to reach the same level of preparedness
because they do not have the infrastructure
(knowledge, human or physical capital,
equipment, etc.) needed to do so. Compliance
with SPS and technical requirements seems to
be a burden and a difficult task for medium-
sized and small farmers. A medium-sized
pineapple producer declared that consumers
are demanding better quality and presentation
of the fruit (pineapple) each time, but, in
general, consumers are not willing to pay extra
money when those demands are met. Medium-
sized and small banana producers also stated
that SPS standards and quality demands are
higher each year but that these demands are
not reflected in higher prices paid for bananas.
According to one medium-sized banana
producer whose banana production goes to
the EU, if the market paid for the extra cost
that compliance with technical requirements
implies, then he would be more than willing
and able to comply with those requirements.
Without compensation for the USD 3000 per
year that compliance with the EU technical
requirements implies, the farmer would prefer
to sell its production to export companies
that do not demand stringent technical


requirements (usually those that ship to the
Russian market). As a result, this medium-sized
banana producer was considering selling his
fruit to a banana export company. Small banana
producers had also considered changing crops
in order to cultivate produce that did not face
too demanding technical requirements and/or
SPS measures and that fetched a better price.


In general, it seems that the ability to cope with
SPS and technical requirements is not the same
for big, medium-sized and small banana and
pineapple producers. For big producers there
seems to be no problem in complying with SPS
and technical standards, but for medium-sized
and small producers it is very difficult, if not
impossible, to comply with the most stringent
SPS and technical requirements from markets
such as the EU. One solution, however, could
be to act in cooperatives. An interview with a
banana cooperative was illustrative of the good
results that small farmers can achieve if they
work together and prepare to face and meet
world market demands. The cooperative gives
some (local) market power to small producers,
allowing the farmers to receive better prices
for the bananas they sell (compared with if
they were to sell the fruit by themselves); it
also gives the associates information on the
standards they need to meet in order to be
able to sell their fruit, follows them up to
ensure they meet requirements standards,
and keeps them abreast of the newest world
market demands.


Another aspect that came up in the interviews
with regard to coping with these standards is
the growing importance of exports contracts
(between exporters and farmers) to establish
long-term business relationships that ensure
quality controls.


Analysis of feedback from exporters


The interviews with exporters included a
specific set of questions directed solely at
them (exporters). These questions dealt with
the duration of exports, proof of compliance,
choice of export markets and new markets
(Table 3.8).




32 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


For all banana and pineapple exporters, except
for one (banana exporter), the standards did not
increase the duration of exports. All the exporters
reported that they prove their compliance with
the standards through certifications (issued
by third parties). For most of the banana and
pineapple exporters, the standards did not affect
the choice of the country to which they export
their fruit. The products for which the standards
seem to be the most difficult to meet are
pineapples, papayas, plantains, baby bananas,
mangoes and organic products.


Banana exporters see China, Japan, the EU
(despite all current difficulties), Russia and
Korea as potential markets for new or increasing
exports in the near future. Pineapple exporters
look to the Mediterranean countries of the EU and
England as future potential markets. However,
the major difficulties in establishing new markets
are tariffs (in the case of bananas and the EU),


transportation costs, the Ecuadorian legislation,
lack of government support, the existence of
SPS and TBTs and – in the case of the Russian
market – favouritism towards national (Russian)
companies. As an additional comment, one of
the banana companies reported that transport
costs (all the shipments are shipped by vessel)
are a big problem nowadays. This aspect reduces
the competitiveness of the firm in relation to the
competition from, for instance, Asian banana
producers.


Analysis of feedback from farmers


Interviews with farmers covered a specific set
of questions. These questions tried to identify
the difficulties encountered by a farmer when
complying with SPS and technical standards set
by the importing countries and the impact of SPS
and technical standards on their choice of crops


Table 3.8. impact of SPS and TBTs on ecuadorian exporters


QueStion BAnAnA PineAPPLe
% nuMBer % nuMBer


1. Do these standards increase the durations of export?
Yes 20 1 0 0
No 80 4 100 2


5 2


2. How do you prove that you respect the standards?
Certifications 100 5 100 2


5 2


3. Degree of competition with other exporting firms
Increasing 100 4 100 2
Decreasing 0 0 0 0


About the same 0 0 0 0
4 2


4. Do these standards affect the choice of the country towards which you export?
Yes 20 1 50 1
No 80 4 50 1


5 2


5.
If you export more than one agricultural


product, for what products is the
situation the most difficult?


Pineapple, papaya, plantains,
baby banana (‘orito’), mangoes


and organic products
Papaya


6. Potential markets/regions for your exports in the near future China, Japan, EU, Russia, Korea
Mediterranean countries


of the EU, England


7. Major difficulties in establishing new markets


Tariffs, transportation costs,
Ecuadorian legislation, lack of
government support, SPS and


TBT barriers and (for the Russian
market) favouritism among


national (Russian) companies


Source: interviews with banana and pineapple exporters in Ecuador.




33ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 3.9. impact of SPS and TBTs on ecuadorian farmers


QueStion BAnAnA PineAPPLe
% nuMBer % nuMBer


1.
Which are the difficulties met by you so that


your production complies with standards
imposed by the importing countries?


None 25 2 0 0
High cost of compliance 50 4 33 1


Financial constraints 25 2 67 2
8 3


2. Does this affect your choice of products?
No 62.5 5 67 2
Yes 37.5 3 33 1


8 3
3. Does this affect your mode of production?


No 12.5 1 0 0
Yes 87.5 7 100 3


8 3
If Yes, how?


Hiring more workers 40 4 20 1
More infrastructure and mechanization 40 4 40 2


Changing cultural practices 20 2 40 2
10 5


Source: interviews with banana and pineapple producers in Ecuador.


and mode of production. For most of the banana
and pineapple farmers interviewed, the high
cost of compliance and the financial constraints
they face are the most difficult aspects they
have to overcome in order to meet the standards
imposed by importing countries. In spite of these
difficulties, for most of the farmers the standards
do not affect their choice of product (the


exception seems to be small farmers). However,
standards do affect the mode of production.
For most banana farmers (88 percent) and all
pineapple farmers, the standards imply changes
in the mode of production, which can include
hiring more workers, having more infrastructure
and mechanization, and changing cultural
practices (Table 3.9).


In order to get a sense of how farmers and
exporters perceive the SPS and TBT requirements
we asked them: (i) whether they thought these
requirements are a trade barrier, (ii) whether
their production or export increases when their
businesses comply with SPS and TBT requirements,
and (iii) to compare SPS and TBT requirements
and tariffs and state whether they consider SPS
and TBT requirements or tariffs as a trade barrier
in the case of the fruit they export.


For banana exporters and producers, most (85
percent) reported that they did not consider the
standards (SPS, technical and others) a trade
barrier. This was also the case for most pineapple
exporters and producers (60 percent). In fact,
when asked whether their production or exports
had increased as a consequence of compliance
with the standards imposed by the importing


countries, 54 percent of banana exporters and
producers said yes (but 46 percent of the banana
producers and exporters did not respond) and 60
percent of the pineapple exporters and producers
said yes (but 40 percent of the pineapple
producers and exporters did not respond).


Finally, banana exporters and producers all
agree that tariffs and not the SPS or technical
standards set by the importing markets are the
main barrier to banana trade (due to the 176
euros per metric ton that banana exporters
have to pay in order to enter the EU). On
the contrary, for pineapple producers and
exporters (given that pineapples in general are
not subject to tariffs in their main importing
countries – the US and the EU), it is the SPS and
TBT requirements rather than tariffs that are
considered a trade barrier.




34 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


We now investigate the trade effects of SPS and
TBT measures on selected tropical products in


Costa Rica. We focus on three products: bananas,
melons and pineapples.


3.2 SPSandTBTMeasuresonBanana,MelonandPineappleTradeinCostaRica


3.2.1 The Banana Market in costa rica


The banana industry is the main employer in
both the agricultural sector and the economy
as a whole. The importance of this industry
is particularly notable in the Atlantic zone of
the country. Official numbers show that 91 of


100 workers in this economic region are linked
directly or indirectly to banana production
(Corbana, 2005). The regional distribution of
banana producers according to the number of
hectares planted is provided in Table 3.10.


Table 3.10. Costa rica’s Banana Producers According to the number of Hectares Planted, by
region, 2006


StrAtuM 1 StrAtuM 2 StrAtuM 3
region ≤100 HA 100.01–500 HA >500 HA


nuMBer oF
ProDuCerS HA


nuMBer oF
ProDuCerS HA


nuMBer oF
ProDuCerS HA


Pococí 4 226 18 4795 5 4119
Siquirres 1 61 19 5902 2 1783
Matina – – 34 8679 2 1513


Limón Central 5 406 2 658 2 2333
Guácimo 1 63 12 3476 – –
Sarapiquí – – 5 1070 6 5128


Talamanca – – 5 1049 1 1009
Pacific zone – – – – 1 518
Corredores – – 1 213 – –


Parrita – – 1 305 – –
Total 11 756 97 26 147 19 16 403


Source: own elaboration. Statistics section of the Corporación Bananera Nacional, 2006.


The volume of banana exports now stands at
an annual average of 100 million boxes (1.8
million metric tons), and this makes Costa Rica
the second largest world exporter of the fruit,
after Ecuador.


The fruit export trade is largely in the hands
of transnational companies such as Chiquita,
Dole, Fiffes and Del Monte. In most cases,
producers enter into sales contracts with
these companies obliging them to supply fruits
that meet certain quality specifications and
other regulations. For example, producers
working with COBAL (subsidiary of Chiquita
in Costa Rica) must implement and maintain
programmes supported on a corporate level,
such as socio-environmental rules of the
Rainforest Alliance, EurepGAP and, in the
future, Social Accountability 8000. There


are, however, exceptions to the rule. Some
producers (for example, Roberto Acon and the
Platanera Río Sixaola) directly export their
production. Platanera Río Sixaola trades the
fruit in Germany and is certified with EurepGAP
and ISO 14001.15


Regarding banana destinations, Costa Rica’s
production is historically exported to the US
and EU markets. In 2006, 49 percent of the
exports had the US as the destination, while
Sweden had 12 percent, Germany 9 percent,
Belgium 8 percent, the United Kingdom (UK)
8 percent, Italy 5 percent, Portugal 3 percent
and Holland 2 percent. Those are the main
European destinations. Only 4 percent of the
exports went to other markets, such as Eastern
Europe (Figure 3.7).




35ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


3.2.2 The Melon Market in costa rica


figure 3.7. Costa rica’s Banana export Destinations, 2006


Source: Promotora del Comercio Exterior de Costa Rica (Procomer)


Melons are the fifth most important product in
terms of contribution to the agriculture GDP.
Melon production in Costa Rica is characterized
by a yearly increase in the use of land for
sowing. In 2006, the cultivated land was 10 202
hectares (3000 hectares more than in 2002).
Approximately 20 000 people are employed
directly in the production or export of melons.
Much of this employment is temporary, reflecting
the seasonal nature of melon production. Field
tasks start in October and harvest starts in


December and extends until May. Some places
have two harvests per year (December to
February, and February to May).


National production of melons is located in the
North Pacific Region and the Central Pacific
Region. Small producers use 100 hectares,
medium-sized producers 200 hectares, and large
producers more than 1000 hectares (CNP, 2005).
Table 3.11 reports the number of small, medium-
sized and big producers.


Table 3.11. Typology of Costa rica’s Melon Producers, 2003


CLASSifiCATion (HA) ProDuCtion SiteS ToTAL AreA (HA)
4–29 14 246


30–40 7 260
41–100 13 865
>100 20 8451
Total 54 9822


Source: elaborated with data from the Dirección de Servicio de Protección
Fitosanitaria, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG), 2003


New and growing markets, such as the EU, are an
appealing option to melon producers. Access to
such markets motivates continuous technological
improvements. This means that production needs
to undergo significant improvements in order to
comply with the norms and standards applied on
these export markets.


The production and export process is made
through private agents. Some melon producers
sell their own production to transnational


companies such as Del Monte and Dole. Contracts
between producers and traders are signed before
the sowing of the melons. In these contracts,
national producers commit to produce certain
quantities and specific kinds of melon, while
brokers give a down payment to the national
producer.


The main export market for Costa Rica’s melons
is the US. In 2006, other important markets
were European countries such as Germany,




36 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


figure 3.8. Costa rica’s Melon export Destinations, 2006


Source: Promotora del Comercio Exterior de Costa Rica (Procomer)


the Netherlands and the UK (Figure 3.8). Total
exports of melons from Costa Rica have increased
annually by 11.5 percent during the past five


years. Exports grew from USD55 million in 2002
to USD85 million in 2006. This places melons
among the top 10 exports of the country.


3.2.3 The Pineapple Market in costa rica


Currently 38 500 hectares are dedicated to
pineapple production in Costa Rica. Table 3.12
shows the regional distribution of producers.
The north of the country is the main zone of


production. There are 91 companies dedicated
to the plantation and export of pineapples,
generating around 7000 direct jobs.


Table 3.12. Typology of Costa rica’s Pineapple Producers, 2007


region nuMBer oF ProDuCerS ToTAL AreA (HA)


Huetar Norte* 1100 7500
Brunca 3 16500


Huetar Atlántica 6 12500
Central 41 2000
Total 1150 38500


Source: elaborated with data from the National Pineapple Program, MAG, 2007.
*The structure is composed of small and medium-sized producers that have between 2–5 ha.


Costa Rica’s pineapple exports grew from USD159
million in 2002 to USD430 million in 2006, which
represents an annual growth rate of 28.2 percent.
The main export destination is the US (50 percent


of exports in 2006), followed by the Netherlands
(14 percent), Belgium (10 percent), Germany (8
percent), Italy (7 percent), the UK (6 percent)
and Portugal (2 percent) (Figure 3.9).


figure 3.9. Costa rica’s Pineapple export Destinations, 2006


Source: Promotora del Comercio Exterior de Costa Rica (Procomer)




37ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Box 3.3 describes the regulations applied in
Europe and the US on tropical products. Recently
private standards have become an important
issue in market access strategies. They require


precise levels of compliance and are often
mandatory if the producer wants to preserve the
business relation.


3.2.4 Measuring SPS and TBTs in costa rica’s Banana, Melon and Pineapple Markets


Box 3.3. Public regulations Applied on tropical Products in europe and the uS


Source: Ministerio de Comercio Exterior de Costa Rica (COMEX).


eu
Technical requirements:•


Regulation (EC) No. 1615/2001 for melon. .
Requirements for innocuousness:•


Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, by which general principles on food innocuousness are .
established. It includes aspects of traceability, equivalent and responsibility of the
operators.
Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on hygiene of food products. .
Maximum limit of pesticide residues in food (norms are constantly changing, although .
their unification is planned).
Directive 90/642/EEC relative to the fixation of maximum contents of pesticide residues .
in determined vegetable products, including fruits and vegetables.
Directive 76/895/EEC relative to the fixation of maximum contents of pesticide in fruits .
and vegetables.
Directive 2006/59/EEC on the maximum limits of residues of carbaril, deltametrin, .
endosulfan, fenitrotion, metidation and oxamil.
Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 relative to the maximum limits of pesticide residues in .
vegetables and animal food and fodder.
Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 on the maximum contents of polluters in food .
products.
Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 on materials and objects destined to enter in contact .
with food.


Phytosanitary requirements:•
Phytosanitary certificate (free from plagues – for fresh products). .
Directive 2000/29/EC. .
Official controls at the border. .
Documentary control, identity control, physical control. .
Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004. .


Norms relative to organic production:•
Regulation (EC) No. 2092/91. .
Costa Rica was certified as third country in 2003; the certification was ratified in 2006 .
(comparative advantage).


uS
Law on bioterrorism.•
Hazard analysis and critical control points•
Codex Alimentarius (applies for the US as well as Europe).•
Residue controls in products, by the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as by the •
Food and Drug Administration.




38 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


3.2.5 Analysis of Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures


In April 1997 the Law of Phytosanitary Protection
was promulgated, taking WTO agreements as
a basis and directly incorporating the general
principles of the SPS Agreement. The State
Phytosanitary Service (Servicio Fitosanitario del
Estado), a decentralized institution of the Ministry
of Agriculture and Cattle (Ministerio de Agricultura
y Ganadería), was created. This service is legally,
technically and administratively independent.
The Law of Phytosanitary Protection has a wide
range of applications. It includes vegetable
sanitation, pesticides and organic agriculture and
creates the Biosecurity Commission.


Costa Rica created the National Committee of
SPS Measures by legal decree in 1997 to apply
the dispositions included in the SPS Agreement
and to meet the objectives, especially in
matters of harmonization. However, due to the
lack of experience, the results obtained by the
Committee are far below the expectations.


Despite the efforts made by Costa Rica, the
effective reinforcement of sanitary protection
measures and the re-conversion of non-competitive
sectors did not go hand in hand with the action
taken to enhance market access through trade
agreements (e.g. tariff reduction, non-tariff


barriers). In other words, reinforcement of SPS
and TBTs lagged behind tariff liberalization.


Compliance with sanitary regulations carries a
significant cost for producers and exporters. The
literature points out that compliance with current
legislation is one of the main Central American
problems. This results from a lack of human
and budget resources and a lack of supportive
infrastructure, including specialized installations
and more diagnostic and software laboratories.


The private sector is currently very active
(increasing numbers of producers and exporters’
organizations) and more dynamic than the public
sector regarding SPS issues.


There are some problems regarding food
innocuousness, except in terms of legislation
and diagnosis (Bernardo et al., 2003). There
are weaknesses affecting human resources,
specialized installations and some procedures of
certification. For instance, there is no access to
basic virology equipment, no random inspections
for plagues and other diseases, incomplete
documented procedures or work instructions
regarding certifications, and not enough
inspectors for the task (George Bush School for
Government and Public Service, 2003).


In this study, we surveyed banana, melon and
pineapple producers and exporters. Each survey
questionnaire was complemented with interviews
with the corresponding exporter and farmer. We
surveyed small, medium-sized and big farmers
and exporters. The questionnaire is presented in
the appendix.


Banana production process and exports


The Banana Environmental Commission (Comisión
Ambiental Bananera) and the Corbana transmit
new market requirements (such as the EurepGAP
Protocol) to producers and exporters. Both
institutions provide technical assistance.


Adopting norms and international certifications
implies a high economic cost. However, most


producers consider changes introduced by norms
as positive and as an opportunity to access more
profitable markets. Some others consider that the
main export barrier is tariffs, especially on the EU
market. Producers and exporters do not report
market losses due to SPS and TBT measures. For
small producers, the main export restriction is
their size, which does not allow them to satisfy
the requirements of the international buyers.


Banana producers have adopted different
measures to overcome barriers such as SPS and
TBTs. In general, big transnational companies
have the capacity to absorb the costs that
arise from adapting production in order to
meet SPS and TBT requirements. A number of
small producers that sell their produce through
transnational companies also get assistance from




39ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


the transnationals. Other small producers work
through associations. The case of the Asociación
de Pequeños Productores de Talamanca, an
association of 1200 small farmers that produces
mashed and dehydrated bananas for export to
Canada and England, was also documented.
This association complies with certifications
of fair trade and organic production such as
FLO-CERT GmbH. It was able to overcome the
barriers of SPS and TBTs by creating its own
certification system.


Melon production process and exports


Melon exporters must meet national and
international SPS and TBT requirements
and private sector requirements. National
regulations are elaborated and verified by the
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería of Costa
Rica. Producers and exporters consider that
this process is necessary in order to improve
sanitary and phytosanitary innocuousness.


Applying technical rules of international
governing entities appears to be difficult. Melon
producers point out that the main obstacle is
the constant change in the allowed maximum
residue levels. These variations produce
constant changes in production practices, with
a significant economic cost in terms of inputs
and staff training. There is even a documented
case of one of the largest melon companies
losing a great part of its melon harvest
because it failed to pass the residue control
of a particular agrochemical. The company
lost several million dollars and its financial
situation became critical. The company took
the case to Costa Rican courts, arguing that
the agrochemical causing the problem did
not meet the conditions guaranteed by the
manufacturer.


In the case of voluntary norms, the situation
is even more variable. Interviewed producers
point out that variations in international supply
and demand tend to trigger further inspections
from institutions such as EurepGAP, and that
these inspections in turn trigger changes in
tolerance and fulfillment levels of the agreed
norms.


Producers state that trade barriers such as
SPS play an important role when choosing the
products they cultivate. They state that if there
were no barriers, then they would assign part
of their farms to the production of vegetables
in controlled environments (greenhouses).
However, they focus their production on melons
because they are able to overcome trade
barriers, such as SPS measures, applied on this
product.


Producers also report that the socio-labour and
environmental conditions required to obtain
certifications such as EurepGAP are among
the most difficult conditions to satisfy. They
argue that the initial investment to guarantee
the sanitary innocuousness and the education
of agricultural unskilled workers is too high. In
addition, variable costs such as social changes
and practices for environmental friendly
production are difficult to overcome, especially
for smaller producers.


Furthermore, the major problem they face on
international markets is the non-payment of
contracts by foreign buyers. They also point
out as problems the lack of transparency, price
determination and profit margins of traders in
the EU market. This problem is less common
in the US market thanks to the Department of
Agriculture’s periodical publication of average
import and sales prices for all agricultural
products.


Producers have overcome barriers such as SPS
and TBTs in different ways. While big producers
have to assume the adaptation cost of their
productive processes to the new standards and
complain about the little help received from
the state, small producers say they had support
from government entities such as the Ministerio
de Agricultura y Ganadería and the Promotora
de Comercio Exterior.


Finally, producers state that SPS and TBT
measures have helped them to improve their
competitiveness. They recognize that practices
and inputs demanded by certifiers create better
working conditions and at the same time increase
productivity and company discipline.




40 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Pineapple production process and exports


Pineapple exporters must also meet a series
of SPS measures, as well as national and
international technical norms and regulations.
Pineapple producers that also produce melons
and bananas mention that SPS and TBT measures
notified on pineapple are the hardest to meet.
The most important national requirement is the
agrochemical residue control made in the packing
plant before sending the product to the shipping
port. Producers consider that this control is
necessary in order to improve the sanitary and
phytosanitary innocuousness of pineapple and is
done in an objective and transparent way.


After the revision in the plant, the authorities
of the destination country inspect shipped
products. Pineapple producers faced problems
in entering the US market, due to quarantine.
The most difficult requirement to overcome
on the EU market is the agrochemical residue
controls.


As with melons, pineapple producers highlight
that the EU often changes the agrochemical
tolerance levels, as well as permitted
agrochemicals, raising the risk of fruit rejection.
This obliges producers to modify their agricultural
practices.


Regarding fresh pineapple shipments, import
permits established by the destination country
are required. Fruit must have no leaves,
branches or other plant parts. In case of a
previous treatment, phytosanitary certificates
are required.


Pineapple is included in the list of non-
propagative products. The US Department of
Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) requests special treatments
for these products. APHIS works with the Plant
Protection and Quarantine, whose inspectors
examine non-propagative products when they
arrive in the US ports before allowing them to
enter the US market.


In the EU market, colour and crown condition
appear to be the most important characteristics.


Producers must demonstrate to the European
inspection services that their production process
is sustainable and that their pineapples satisfy
food security requirements.


As in the case for melons, one of the most difficult
challenges to overcome in terms of norms and
technical regulations concerns the way pineapples
are produced. The initial investment to guarantee
the sanitary and environmental innocuousness
conditions is too high. Furthermore, norms
and international certifications, which require
the use of environment- and labour-friendly
practices, significantly increase variable costs.


Despite the cost induced by SPS and TBTs,
pineapple producers consider that the main
barrier to export to the EU and US markets
remains tariffs. Pineapple is a product for which
access to the EU and the US depends on unilateral
preference regimes such as the Caribbean
Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), which can be suspended. This
is a source of uncertainty.


Producers have adopted different strategies
to overcome SPS and TBT requirements. Big
producers, which have resources to invest, are
better placed to absorb the costs of adopting
new production modes and pay certifications;
on the other hand, small producers face a
harder situation. Small produces therefore
decided to create the Chamber of Pineapple
Export Producers (Cámara de Productores
de Piña de Exportación). The Chamber
established an inspection and certification
programme that disseminates information to
the associates.


Surveyed pineapple producers consider that
the norms and technical regulations as well
as private sector requirements benefit their
exports when they are established objectively
and not used arbitrarily. In the first case, SPS
and TBT requirements help them to improve
the quality of their products and their level
of competitiveness. The cost of not complying
with SPS and TBTs or with voluntary norms is to
sell their products in the local market or in less
profitable international markets.




41ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


We now investigate the trade effects of SPS and
TBT measures on Ethiopian coffee and Kenyan
cut flowers. Ethiopia and Kenya are leading


producers and exporters in Africa of coffee and
cut flowers, respectively.


3.3 SPSandTBTMeasuresontheCoffeeTradeinEthiopiaandtheCut-flower
Trade in Kenya


3.3.1 Overview of the coffee and cut-Flower Markets in Ethiopia and Kenya


The coffee market in Ethiopia


Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ethiopian
economy and contributes more than 50 percent
of GDP, 80 percent of exports and 85 percent of
employment. Until recently, coffee generated
over 60 percent of export earnings. This has
now declined to 47 percent due to rival export
commodities such as oil seeds and flowers and
the collapse of the international coffee price.
The country’s annual production of coffee is
estimated to be more than 3.5 million bags, which
constitutes about 2.5 percent of the world’s
marketable coffee. It provides employment to 25
percent of the population directly and indirectly.
Essentially, coffee is sold as green coffee beans,
with further processing such as blending, roasting
and grinding taking place elsewhere. Ethiopian
coffee has a good appreciation in the world
market. The country produces a number of rare
varieties of coffee. Currently, the major markets
for Ethiopian coffee are the EU (for about 50
percent exports) and eastern Asia (for about 25
percent). Japan and the US are also important
trading partners.


Although coffee is Ethiopia’s main export crop,
it is cultivated on only 3 percent of the cropped
area, located mainly in eastern and central
Ethiopia. Subsistence farmers are responsible for
the production of more than 95 percent of coffee
produced in the country, while large state-owned
plantations supply the remainder. Small farmers
cultivate coffee as a cash crop in combination
with food crops and allocate on average about
20–40 percent of their land to it. Their cultivation
practices are simple. They use little fertilizer and
rarely any other chemicals, and average yield is
around 600 kg per hectare. In several coffee-
growing districts, agriculture extension workers
(three in each kebele16) are assigned in order to


enhance cultivation and marketing of coffee by
renewing coffee bushes with improved varieties,
supplying farm inputs, and constructing roads
and warehouses. These help farmers to address
the standard (quality) imposed by importing
countries.


The production of this coffee can be categorized
as organic and other coffee, which is produced
using fertilizer and other organized coffee-
producing technology. Coffee production is
unmechanized and highly labour-intensive.
Agricultural production methods and tools have
changed little for centuries, at least in smallholder
agriculture. Ploughing is usually carried out by
locally manufactured ploughshare, and weeding
and harvesting are carried out by hand using
basic traditional hand tools. The ripe (red) berries
are harvested using traditional baskets, which
presumably is inconvenient for harvesters. There
are two types of coffee processing in Ethiopia:
wet and sun-dried. Nearly 80 percent of the
country’s coffee exports are sun-dried (Kilcher
et al., 2002). Only ripe berries can undergo wet
processing and have to be processed immediately
after harvest.


In Ethiopia, coffee grading and quality control are
implemented at the producer, central and export
levels. This integrated control system helps to
grade coffee before auction and export, which
is very important for all those involved in the
production, collection, export and consumption
of coffee. Unlike the situation in other countries,
exporters are not allowed to buy directly from
farmers. For the past decade, the influence
of cooperatives and unions in the sector has
increased dramatically, due partly to the
emphasis given by government to strengthening
them and shortening the market chain from coffee
grower to final customer. Coffee farmers are now




42 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 3.13. number and Distribution of ethiopian Coffee Traders and Cooperatives


LoCATion CooPerAtiveS PrivAte


SouTH nATion nATionALiTy reGion


Sidama 80 69
Gedio 36 43
Amaro 3 3
Bench 3 2


Kefiticho 4 3
North Omo 1 2


Subtotal 127 122
Oromya


Illibabure 3 9
Borena 5 26
Jimma 28 29


West wollega 1 8
Subtotal 37 72


Source: Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority.


organized in different cooperative societies on
the basis of proclamation N147/1998 (Table 3.13).
Consequently, the large role played by either
government or union has obscured the market


requirements of international buyers from the
producers, who have little direct knowledge of
market trends other than price.


The integrated control system includes different
steps:


In every major coffee-producing district, •
there is a quality inspection office, which
checks the grade and quality of every
truckload of coffee before it leaves for the
central quality grading and auction centre.
Any coffee that does not meet the minimum
standard is rejected on the spot. Any coffee
with more than 11.5 percent moisture
content and 8 percent impurities by volume
is not allowed to be transported to the
auction centre.
At the central level, the grading of the coffee •
is done in two ways – by visual green analysis
and by cup tasting. Exporters usually buy
different grades and qualities of different
origins from the auction. In many cases,
the exporter has to reprocess the coffee to
match the country’s export standard.
Every exporter must bring the coffee to •
central quality control for checking and
certification, with the following objectives:
to check whether the green and cup qualities
have met the export standard, to check the


origin character, so as to keep the country’s
export reputation for its coffee quality, and
to protect the overseas clients’ interests.


The cut-flower market in Kenya


The cut-flower industry has become the fastest-
growing sector of the Kenyan economy. Kenya’s
cut-flower exports are often cited as a success
story in African agriculture (Minot and Ngigi,
2004). Data from 2006 show that Kenyan
horticulture exports account for USD700 million,
growing at 14 percent annually, and are larger
than tea and coffee exports. Cut flowers account
for 52 percent of total horticultural sector. The
Netherlands is a key trade partner of Kenya in
the flower industry. For instance, for the past
10 years, the Netherlands imported more than
60 percent of Kenyan flowers. Some of these
imports by the Netherlands are re-exported to
other EU countries. The UK imported more than
20 percent of Kenyan flowers from 1997 to 2006.


In 2005, Kenya was the fourth largest supplier (6.1
percent) of cut flowers to world markets, after
the Netherlands (54.3 percent), Colombia (15.8




43ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 3.14. Major Sub-Saharan Africa flower exporters


Country 2005 vALue (€ MiLLion) 2005 eu25 MArkeT SHAre (%)


CoMPounD AnnuAL
groWtH rAte
2001–2005 (%)


Kenya 267 38 11
Zimbabwe 32 5 –18


Uganda 22 3 15
South Africa 16 2 14


Zambia 13 2 –8
Ethiopia 10 1 77
Tanzania 5 1 –14


Source: Hornberger et al. (2007).


percent) and Ecuador (6.4 percent) (Hornberger
et al., 2007). Kenya’s flower export share in
EU market is significant (38 percent, excluding
intra-EU trade), while other sub-Saharan African
flower exports to the EU are very small. Table
3.14 shows Kenya’s dominance in the region in


the cut-flower industry. However, Hornberger et
al. (2007) reported that the recent remarkable
growth of Ethiopian flower export (annual growth
rate of 77 percent) indicates potential threats to
Kenya’s dominance in the region.


A report from Learn Africa indicates that large
foreign companies and white Kenyan farmers
own 90 percent of Kenyan farms.17 Hornberger
et al. (2007), however, argued that the sector
benefited from foreign direct investments by
upgrading the cluster’s technology, production
skills and market know-how. Moreover, the
industry employs an estimated 56 000 people,
approximately two thirds of them women, in more
than 140 commercial farms supporting hundreds
of thousands of Kenyans. The most important
production areas are Lake Navasha, Thika,
Limuru, Athi River, North Kinangop, Kericho and
Eldoret (Omosa et al., 2005).


There are various stakeholders who play crucial
roles in the success and proper functioning of
the industry. These include government, non-
government and private organizations. The role
of these organizations might be classified into
two major components:


those that promote market, standards, •
ethical social behaviour and workers rights
(Milieu Programme Stiftung, Flower Label
Programme, Fresh Produce Exporters
Association of Kenya, Kenya Flower
Council, EUREPGAP, Agricultural Employers
Association, Horticultural Ethical Business
Initiative, Workers Rights Alert, the Kenya


Human Rights Commission, Kenya Women
Workers’ Organizations, etc.);
those engaged in formulating polices •
(various governmental stakeholders,
including Horticultural Crops Development
Authority).


In terms of code adoption, the Kenyan cut-
flower industry is frequently cited favourably
in comparison with competitors elsewhere in
Africa or Latin America (Omosa et al., 2005).
The different codes fall into four main types:
(i) northern environmental and social code
certifiers, (ii) European organizations selling
flowers with social and environmental labelling,
(iii) European retailer codes, and (iv) local
(Kenyan) membership organizations (Table
3.15). The codes cover freedom of employment,
conditions of employment, child labour,
discriminatory practices, living wage, working
hours, safe and hygienic working conditions
(including maternity issues), inhumane treatment,
freedom of association, and the right to
collective bargaining, management systems and
environmental protection. Moreover, Omosa et
al. (2005) reported that, in 2004, approximately
half of the 145 grower-exporters, employing
around 75 percent of workers in the cut-flower
industry, were signed up to at least one code,
with several belonging to more than one.




44 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Two main associations represent flower growers
in Kenya: the Fresh Produce Exporters Association
of Kenya (FPEAK), which was started in 1976, and
has the bulk of horticultural members, and the
Kenya Flower Council, which groups together
mainly the large-scale flower growers. The Kenya
Flower Council was launched in March 1997, partly
in response to the growing number of European
flower industry codes of practice. The hope in
creating a robust Kenyan code was that local
growers would be able to avoid having to comply
simultaneously with two or more European
codes. Consequently, the Kenya Flower Council
has had to raise its profile in Europe in order to
convince buyers that its code is of a sufficiently
high standard. To a large extent this has been
achieved, although the pressure to comply with
the European codes has not disappeared entirely
(Collinson, 2001). The Kenya Flower Council offers


two levels of code compliance. The silver standard
covers worker terms and conditions, health and
safety and environmental responsibilities. Having
successfully complied with this standard, Kenya
Flower Council Members are free to progress
to the gold standard, which concentrates on
achieving much higher standards of environmental
performance. The Kenya Flower Council code is
benchmarked to EurepGAP (now GLOBALGAP). A
second code, KenyaGAP, is also internationally
benchmarked. Both are recognized in the
markets. In addition to these, there are several
international certification schemes working
in Kenya (e.g. MPS of the Netherlands, Bureau
Veritas and Africert). A central concern by both
producers and markets had been whether in-house
certification process by industry associations can
be considered as unbiased when compared with
external certification.


table 3.15. Codes used in kenya Cut-Flower industry


CoDe tyPe nAMe


Northern environmental and
social code certifiers


Milieu Programme Stiftung (MPS)
EurepGAP


European organizations selling flowers
with social and environmental labelling


Max Havelaar Switzerland Criteria
for Fairtrade Cut Flowers


Flower Label Programme (FLP)


European retailer codes Separate company codes in UK usually based on the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) base code


Local (Kenyan) membership organizations
Fresh Produce Exporters Association


of Kenya (FPEAK)
Kenya Flower Council (KFC)


Source: Omosa et al. (2005).


3.3.2 Analysis of Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures


We surveyed Ethiopian coffee and Kenyan cut-
flower producers and exporters. Each survey
questionnaire was complemented with interviews
with the corresponding exporter and farmer. The
questionnaires are presented in the appendix.


Coffee production process and exports


Quantitative and qualitative data were collected
from farmers producing coffee in the southern
part of Ethiopia. The survey included 28 coffee-
grower households. We purposefully selected


Wenago, Cuko and Gachere woredas (counties)
from the Gedo Zone of the South Nation
Nationality Region. These are some of the main
coffee growers in Ethiopia. From each woreda,
we purposefully selected kebeles and then
farmers from each kebele. Coffee exporters from
Harar, Sidamo and Jimma and three cooperatives
(Sidamo, Yirgachefi and Oromia cooperatives)
were also part of the survey.


The main standard imposed by cooperatives to
purchase coffee from farmers includes timely




45ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


harvesting, proper handling during harvesting,
good filtering according to size, and not
affected by fungus. Box 3.4 describes some
of the Ethiopian Quality Standard Authority
requirements for coffee to be exported. From
the survey results obtained in the Gedio Zone
of Yiregachfe woreda, producers sell on average
62.2 percent of their total production to private
sellers and 27.3 percent to cooperatives and
unions. On the other hand, 73.7 percent of
private collectors and suppliers (who have the
licence to supply to the central auction market
in Addis Ababa), which purchase the coffee from
farmers, do not impose any specific standard
on quality of coffee. Cooperatives give better
attention towards quality and impose quality
standards.


Farmers were asked whether they changed
their mode of production due to the standards
imposed by the purchaser: 63.6 percent of them
uprooted coffee trees and replaced them with
other local cash crops such as tef (Eragrostis
tef), enset and chat (Chata edulis) for two basic
reasons, which are the low price paid and the


difficulty in complying with standards set by
their purchasers. Furthermore, 77.2 percent of
farmers changed their method of production.
However, only 36.3 percent of farmers lost
market shares due to the low quality of their
coffee. Most cooperatives and unions complain
about the unfair trade competition that exists
with private collectors. A total of 77.2 percent
of farmers have taken training on coffee
production and handling by government and
non-governmental organizations.


In Ethiopia there is neither a mechanism for
ensuring coordination between government
agencies involved in human, animal and plant-
related standards, nor a common method for
sharing information among themselves or with
the public. The survey result shows that 79
percent of farmers do not have awareness about
international standard quality of coffee. Lack of
coordination among national authorities is often
cited as an obstacle to developing countries’
compliance with SPS issues. Communication
between the public and private sectors is also
deficient.


Box 3.4. quality Standard imposed for exported Coffee


Source: Ethiopian Quality Standard Authority.


Select – cherry-picking only fully ripe red cherries.•
Pulped on the same day to avoid fermentation.•
Thickness of drying cherry shall not exceed 5 cm.•
Moisture content by mass 12%.•
No dry cherry shall be allowed on earthly floor.•
Coffee must be free from pesticide, plastic fibres and fragmentation.•
Olfactory examination according to Ethiopian Standard ISO 4140.•
Appearance colour, shape and make.•
Size analysis according to Ethiopian Standard ISO 4149.•


Coffee grading and quality assessments take
place at the central coffee board. This means
that farmers have little or no information
about the quality of coffee required. However,
suppliers to the central auction system as well
as exporters know the types of coffee that fetch
a high price. Coffee standards are linked mainly
to (i) the origin of the coffee and (ii) whether
it is washed or not. SPS and TBT measures do


not seem to feature highly among the concerns
of coffee exporters.


Cut-flower production process and exports


The Kenya Flower Council and two flower
producers and exporters (both of them large-
scale) 18 were interviewed.




46 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


The cut-flower industry in Kenya faces both
international and national standards. These
standards are northern environmental and social
code certifiers (Milieu Programme Stiftung and
EurepGAP), European organizations selling flowers
with social and environmental labelling (Flower
Label Programme and Max Havelaar Switzerland
Criteria for Fairtrade Cut Flowers), and European
retailer codes (separate company codes in the
UK usually based on the Ethical Trading Initiative
base code). Locally, the Kenya Flower Council
and Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya
have their own codes of conduct.


Both the local and international codes relate
to environmental, social and quality standards.
Cut-flower producers interviewed in this study
reported that they have to comply with one or more
of these standards in order to access the foreign
market and build a good reputation. However,
these standards increase their production costs.
All of the companies interviewed reported the
growing influence of European retailers in the
Kenya flower industry.


Both flower producers and exporters interviewed
reported that they internalized the standards set
by their buyers and other stakeholders (designing,
certification, testing, labelling and packaging,
etc.). However, this was not without cost and
induced a shift in their mode of production
(such as water and pesticide usage), but it did
not cause a product shift. Compared with the
previous case studies, Kenya’s cut-flower industry
is less impacted by SPS and TBT measures because
this sector is owned largely by industries from the
countries that impose these measures.


Importing countries have their own food safety and
animal and plant health standards at their borders
based on the SPS Agreement. This means that cut
flowers must be sampled and tested before they
gain entry into the country. Export destination
countries have their own level of minimum residue
levels of pesticides. Beyond this level, refusal to
entry is the outcome. The companies interviewed
reported that they did not experience any rejection
from any countries, but one of the companies
mentioned that Japan’s SPS measures, in particular,
are difficult to comply with.


The companies reported that almost their entire
production is exported to foreign markets,
especially the EU. They also indicated that the
standards and technical regulations do not preclude
them from exporting cut flowers to any developed
country market. The cut-flower industry in Kenya
is well developed compared with that in other
countries, but the companies complain about poor
infrastructure and bureaucracy in Kenya, which
affect their activity negatively. Both producers and
exporters do not see tariff measures as an obstacle
for the Kenya flower trade with its major trading
partner. This is due to the fact that Kenya currently
enjoys the preferential treatment of the Cotonou
Agreement, which exempts Kenya’s cut flowers
from EU tariffs.19


The Kenya Flower Council Members, mainly large
and medium-sized producers, are responsible for
more than 60 percent of the production.20 The
Council has three quality certifications (silver, gold
and platinum), which are benchmarked to European
import standards. John Njenga, Principal Auditor
of the Council, argued that the codes introduced
are good for the health and sustainability of the
industry. He acknowledges that producers and
exporters face additional costs to comply with
these standards, which might discourage them.
However, the export volume and value of cut flowers
increased exponentially due to the better quality
and practice of the industry. He also reported that
the standards and technical regulations do not
prevent their members from entering developed
countries’ markets. This is partly because their
members are mainly large and medium-sized flower
farmers. However, the story is quite different for
small-scale farmers. As Hornberger et al. (2007)
pointed out, the small growers lack critical export
volume and scale to compete with larger exporters
in areas such as logistics infrastructure and food
and safety standards.


A few studies have tried to estimate compliance
cost for local and international codes. Collinson
(2001) tried to estimate the compliance cost (Kenya
Flower Council silver standard) of five flower-growing
companies (one small-scale and four medium- and
large-scale) of Kenya Flower Council Members
(Table 3.16). He argued that year 1 costs differ
from those of subsequent years for two reasons.




47ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


First, compliance was not necessarily started right
at the beginning of the calendar year. Second, year
1 includes the cost of management time used to
plan and implement the majority of compliance
actions. Subsequent years do not require such large


management inputs. Collinson (2001) also shows
that most of the companies already comply with
many of the code requirements before their audits
by the Kenya Flower Council.


Table 3.16. Compliance Costs Across Time (£)


CoMPAny yeAr 1 yeAr 2 yeAr 3 yeAr 4 yeAr 5


A (small-scale) 4971 2887 2887 2887 2887


B (medium-scale) 297 716 716 716 716


C (large-scale) 341 5745 5837 5837 5837


C (large-scale) ? 10 018 10 018 10 018 10 018


C (large-scale) 1919 2617 2617 2642 2642


Source: Collinson (2001).




48 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


In this section, we provide a statistical analysis
of the SPS and TBT measures applied by major
developed importing countries (EU25, Canada,
the US, Japan, Australia and Switzerland) on
their imports of tropical and diversification
products. Results of surveys and case studies
are not easily generalized. The main advantage


of the following statistical analysis is to be more
exhaustive.


Unfortunately, no database on private standards
is available. Therefore, our statistical analysis
(as well as the econometric analysis in the next
section) will focus only on public measures.


4. STATISTICAL ANALySIS: dATA ANd dESCRIPTIvE STATISTICS


4.1 data Sources on SPS and TBT measures


Our data on SPS and TBT measures applied
by main developed countries on tropical and
diversification products come from the UNCTAD
database on NTBs. To collect and analyse the
notifications, the UNCTAD proceeds as follows:


UNCTAD uses notifications made by countries
to the WTO, completed by individual countries’
trade policies surveys by the WTO, as well
as a series of national sources, ranging from
custom authorities to specialized publications.
The source file lists sources such as “WTO TBT/
Notification93.481, 23.12.93” (notification to
the WTO), “Acuerdo de 29/X/91. Secretaría
de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología” (national
source) and “MOCI 1370, 31st December 1998”
(specialized publication).


Information on notifications made to the WTO is
taken from the source files of TRAINS. For each
HS6 position, measures applied are recorded by
importing country, according to a classification
developed by the UNCTAD.21 In the database,
the nomenclature of measures goes up to four
digits. This is the level used in this study.


TRAINS is currently disseminated online through
the World Bank Integrated Trade Solution
(WITS). The database comprises 119 countries.


The UNCTAD-WITS website22 reproduces the
explanations available on the UNCTAD site and
provides additional information regarding the
four-digit decomposition used for “sensitive
product categories” and for “technical
regulations”. The four-digit level permits one to
identify the following justifications of applied
measures: to protect human health; to protect
animal health and life; to protect plant health;
to protect environment; to protect wildlife; to
control drug abuse; to ensure human safety; to
ensure national security; and for purposes not
elsewhere specified (NES). We have collected
a nomenclature that identifies 115 potential
environmental measures out of 210 headings.


For each notification, the UNCTAD database
provides the notifying country (the importing
country), the affected product at the six-digit
level of the HS and the classification code of the
SPS or TBT measure. Data do not have a bilateral
dimension. With rare exceptions, measures are
enforced unilaterally by importing countries
and applicable to all exporting countries.
Unfortunately, such data focus only on public
standards and do not include private sector
requirements. This information on notifications
can be matched with trade data at the HS six-
digit level.


4.1.1 Limits of the wTO notifications


TRAINS suffers from weaknesses. First,
it is based on the declarations made by
governments applying NTBs on their imports.
Second, the database has not been updated for
all countries. We, however, consider that both


limits do not bias our analysis significantly, since
these limits mainly concern notifications made
by non-WTO Members. Besides, as mentioned
previously, the UNCTAD completes countries’
notifications to the WTO with individual




49ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


4.2 TypologyandMotivationsforSPSandTBTMeasuresonTropicalandDiversification
Products


countries’ trade policies surveys and a series
of national sources. More importantly, WTO
Members have to notify only changes to their
SPS and TBT regimes; measures that have been
in place without change do not need to be


notified and therefore could be missing in our
study. However, TRAINS is currently the most
widely available source of information on non-
tariff barriers, and consequently we based our
analysis on it.


Among the 115 potential environmental measures
that could be imposed for environment,
wildlife, health or safety purposes, only 11 are
enforced by importing countries on tropical and
diversification products in our sample. These
measures are as follows:


6171: Authorization to protect human •
health
6172: Authorization to protect animal •
health
6173: Authorization to protect plant health•
6175: Authorization to protect wildlife•
6271: Quota to protect human health•
8111: Product characteristics requirements •
to protect human health
8113: Product characteristics requirements •
to protect plant health
8131: Labelling requirements to protect •
human health
8151: Testing, inspection or quarantine •
requirements to protect human health


8152: Testing, inspection or quarantine •
requirements to protect animal health and
life
8153: Testing, inspection or quarantine •
requirements to protect plant health


These 11 measures represent 521 notifications.
Table 4.1 presents their distribution by importing
country. An HS6 position can be affected by several
notifications. This is why the number of notifications
is higher than the number of products for Australia
(220 notifications versus 134 products).


Table 4.1 shows that importing countries do not
use exactly the same measures. EU25, Canada
and Switzerland use mainly authorizations (codes
6171, 6172, 6173 or 6175), while the US, Japan
and Australia notify mostly technical measures
related to product characteristics requirements
or related to testing, inspection or quarantine
requirements. Australia also applies technical
measures related to labelling requirements.


Table 4.1. Distribution of SPS and TBTs, by Type of Measure and importing Country


CoDe DeSCriPtion ToTAL eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


6171 Authorization to protect human health 70 70


6172 Authorization to protect animal health 16 16


6173 Authorization to protect plant health 101 61 40


6175 Authorization to protect wildlife 24 6 6 5 1 5 1


6271 Quota to protect human health 1 1


8111
Product characteristics
requirements to protect


human health
44 31 13


8113
Product characteristics
requirements to protect


plant health
36 6 30


8131 Labelling requirements to protect human health 54 54




50 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


One can also analyse the motives adduced by
importing countries to impose SPS and TBT
measures on tropical and diversification products.
Countries can adduce six different motives:


protection of human health•
protection of animal health•
protection of plant health•
protection of the environment•
protection of wildlife•
protection of human safety•


Table 4.2 suggests that only four of these
six motives are used in our sample. Neither


protection of the environment nor protection of
human safety is used. Protection of human health
and protection of plant health are the two main
motives adduced by importing countries in our
sample. They are adduced in 251 and 228 cases,
respectively.


As in Table 4.1, one can see some differences
between importing countries: EU25 measures
aim to protect wildlife; Canada’s most frequent
concern is the protection of plant health; the
US, Japan and Switzerland aim first to protect
human health; and Australian standards focus on
the protection of human and plant health.


CoDe DeSCriPtion ToTAL eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


8151
Testing, inspection or


quarantine requirements
to protect human health


82 31 1 50


8152
Testing, inspection or


quarantine requirements to
protect animal health and life


2 2


8153
Testing, inspection or


quarantine requirements
to protect plant health


91 3 9 79


Total 521 6 67 116 25 220 87


Table 4.2. Distribution of Motives, by importing Country


Motive ToTAL eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


Protection of
human health 251 62 15 104 70


Protection of
animal health 18 2 16


Protection of
plant health 228 61 49 9 109


Protection of
environment
Protection of


wildlife 24 6 6 5 1 5 1


Protection of
human safety


We now investigate the number of tropical and
diversification products affected by SPS and/or
TBT measures. Table 4.3 reports this number
for each importing country. Of the 134 tropical
and diversification products, 131 face an SPS
or TBT measure in our sample. Only HS 200190
(Vegetable, fruit, nuts not classified elsewhere
prepared or preserved by vinegar), HS 330112
(Essential oils of orange) and HS 330113 (Essential
oils of lemon) do not face any barrier in any
importing country.


However, the number of notified products differs
strongly among importing countries.23 EU25
notifies measures on only 6 products and Japan
on 18 products. In the middle of the ranking, we
find Canada (61 notified products), the US (67
products) and Switzerland (72 products). Finally,
Australia notifies SPS and TBT measures on all
except three products (HS 200190 – Vegetable,
fruit, nuts not classified elsewhere prepared or
preserved by vinegar; HS 330112 – Essential oils of
orange; and HS 330113 – Essential oils of lemon).




51ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


We pursue the investigation by analysing the
distribution of SPS and TBT measures by product
and importing country. This provides information
on which products are the most affected by
SPS and TBT measures and on which exports
market. Results are described in Table 4.4. First,
we can see that all importing countries except
EU25 notify more than one measure on several
products. Second, it appears that:


EU25 notifies mainly products of Chapter •
HS06 (SPS and TBT measures are applied
on all tropical and diversification products
of this chapter, except for HS 060240 –
Roses, grafted or not) and product HS
152190 (Beeswax, other insect waxes or
spermaceti);
Canada notifies all tropical and diversification •
products of Chapters 06–14;


the US notifies all tropical and •
diversification products of Chapters
06, 07, 08, 10, 20 (except HS 200190 –
Vegetable, fruit, nuts not classified
elsewhere prepared or preserved by
vinegar), 21 and products HS 120890
(Other flours and meals of oil seeds or
oleaginous fruits) and HS 121210 (Locust
beans, locust seeds);
Australia notifies all products except •
for HS 200190 (Vegetable, fruit, nuts
not classified elsewhere prepared
or preserved by vinegar), HS 330112
(Essential oils of orange) and HS 330113
(Essential oils of lemon);
for Japan and Switzerland, it seems to •
be more difficult to highlight a strategy.
Both countries notify several products in
different chapters.


Table 4.3. number of Tropical and Diversification Products Affected by SPS or TBTs, by importing
Country


ToTAL eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


355 6 61 67 18 131 72


Table 4.4. number of SPS and TBTs, by Tropical and Diversification Product and importing
Country


CoDe DeSCriPtion eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


060240 Roses, grafted or not 0 2 2 0 1 1


060290 Live plants, including their roots, and mushroom spawn 1 2 3 0 2 1


060310 Cut flowers and flower buds for bouquets, etc., fresh 1 2 3 0 2 0


060390 Cut flowers and flower buds for bouquets, dried, etc. 1 2 3 0 2 0


060491 Foliage, branches, for bouquets, etc. – fresh 1 2 3 0 2 1


060499 Foliage, branches, for bouquets, etc. – except fresh 1 2 3 0 2 1


070190 Potatoes, fresh or chilled except seed 0 1 1 0 2 1


070310 Onions and shallots 0 1 1 0 2 0


070960 Peppers (Capsicum, Pimenta) fresh or chilled 0 1 1 0 2 0


070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES 0 1 1 0 2 0
071190 Other vegetables; mixtures of vegetables 0 1 1 0 2 0
071390 Other dried leguminous vegetables 0 1 2 2 3 1
071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried 0 1 1 0 2 1
071420 Sweet potatoes 0 1 1 0 2 1


071490 Arrowroot, salep, etc., fresh or dried and sago pith 0 1 1 0 2 1


080111 Desiccated coconuts 0 1 1 0 3 0




52 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


080119 Other coconuts 0 1 1 0 3 0


080290 Nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled 0 1 1 0 3 0


080300 Bananas, including plantains, fresh or dried 0 1 1 0 3 0


080420 Figs, fresh or dried 0 1 1 0 3 0
080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried 0 1 1 0 3 0
080440 Avocados, fresh or dried 0 1 3 0 3 0


080450 Guavas, mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried 0 1 3 0 3 0


080510 Oranges, fresh or dried 0 1 3 0 3 0


080520 Mandarin, clementine and citrus hybrids, fresh or dried 0 1 1 0 3 0


080530 Lemons and limes, fresh or dried 0 1 3 0 3 0
080590 Other citrus fruit, fresh or dried. 0 1 1 0 3 0
080711 Watermelons, fresh 0 1 1 0 2 0
080719 Melons, fresh 0 1 1 0 2 0
080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas” 0 1 1 0 2 0


081090
Fresh tamarinds, passion


fruit, carambola, pitahaya
and other edible fruit


0 1 1 0 2 0


081190 Fruits and nuts (uncooked, steamed, boiled) frozen 0 1 3 0 3 0


081290 Fruit and nuts, provisionally preserved 0 1 1 0 2 0
081340 Other fruit 0 1 1 0 3 1
081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits 0 1 1 0 3 1
081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons 0 1 1 0 3 0
090112 Coffee, not roasted, decaffeinated 0 1 0 0 1 1
090121 Coffee, roasted, not decaffeinated 0 1 0 0 1 1
090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated 0 1 0 0 1 1
090190 Coffee, other roasted 0 1 0 0 1 1


090210 Tea, green (unfermented) in packages < 3 kg 0 1 0 0 1 1


090412 Pepper, crushed or ground 0 1 0 0 1 0


090420 Capsicum or Pimenta, dried, crushed or ground 0 1 0 0 1 0


090700 Cloves (whole fruit, cloves and stems) 0 1 0 0 1 0
091010 Ginger 0 1 0 0 1 0
100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough) 0 1 1 2 1 1
100620 Husked (brown) rice 0 1 1 2 1 1


100630 Semi-milled or wholly milled rice, whether or not polished or glazed 0 1 1 2 1 1


100640 Broken rice 0 1 1 2 1 1
110230 Rice flour 0 1 0 2 2 1


110620 Flour, meal and powder of sago or of roots or tubers of heading 07.14 0 1 0 0 2 1


110630 Flour, meal and powder of the dried leguminous vegetables 0 1 0 0 2 1


110814 Manioc (cassava) starch 0 1 0 1 2 0


120210 Ground-nuts in shell, not roasted or cooked 0 1 0 1 1 1


120220 Ground-nuts, shelled, whether or not broken 0 1 0 2 1 1


120890 Other flours and meals of oil seeds or oleaginous fruits 0 1 1 0 2 1


121190 Plants and parts, pharmacy, perfume, insecticide use NES 0 1 0 1 1 1


121210 Locust beans, locust seeds 0 1 1 0 1 1


121299 Vegetable products NES for human consumption 0 1 0 2 1 1


130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES 0 1 0 0 1 1
140190 Other vegetable materials 0 1 0 0 1 0




53ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


150710 Crude soya-bean oil and its fractions 0 0 0 0 2 1
150790 Other soya-bean oil and its fractions 0 0 0 0 2 1
150810 Crude ground nut oil 0 0 0 0 2 2
151110 Palm oil, crude 0 0 0 0 2 2
151190 Palm oil or fractions simply refined 0 0 0 0 2 2


151211 Crude sunflower-seed or safflower oil and fractions thereof 0 0 0 0 2 2


151219 Other sunflower-seed or safflower oil and fractions thereof 0 0 0 0 2 2


151311 Crude coconut (copra) oil and its fractions 0 0 0 0 2 2


151319 Other coconut (copra) oil and its fractions 0 0 0 0 2 2


151321 Crude palm kernel or babassu oil 0 0 0 0 2 2


151329 Palm kernel or babassu oil and fractions thereof, other 0 0 0 0 2 2


151410 Low erucic acid rape or colza oil, crude 0 0 0 0 2 2
151490 Low erucic acid rape or colza oil, other 0 0 0 0 2 2
151530 Castor oil and its fractions 0 0 0 0 2 2


151550 Sesame oil or fractions not chemically modified 0 0 0 0 2 2


151620 Vegetable fats, oils or fractions hydrogenated, esterified 0 0 0 0 1 2


151710 Margarine, excluding liquid margarine 0 0 0 0 2 2


152190 Beeswax, other insect waxes and spermaceti 1 0 0 1 2 1


170111 Raw sugar, cane 0 0 0 0 1 1


170191 Containing added flavouring or colouring matter 0 0 0 0 1 0


170199 Refined sugar, in solid form, NES, pure sucrose 0 0 0 0 1 1


170310 Cane molasses 0 0 0 0 1 0
180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted 0 0 0 0 2 1
180320 Cocoa paste, wholly or partly defatted 0 0 0 0 2 1
180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil 0 0 0 0 2 1
180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened 0 0 0 0 2 1
180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened 0 0 0 0 2 1


180620 Chocolate and other food preps containing cocoa > 2 kg 0 0 0 1 2 1


180631 Chocolate, cocoa preparations, block, slab, bar, filled, > 2 kg 0 0 0 0 2 1


180632 Chocolate, cocoa preparation, block/slab/bar, not filled, > 2 kg 0 0 0 0 2 1


180690 Chocolate/cocoa food preparations NES 0 0 0 1 2 1


200190 Vegetables, fruit, nuts NES prepared or preserved by vinegar 0 0 0 0 0 0


200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen 0 0 2 0 1 1


200520 Potatoes, prepared or preserved, not frozen/vinegar 0 0 2 0 1 1


200590 Vegetables NES, mixes, prepared/preserved, not frozen/vinegar 0 0 2 0 1 1


200600 Fruits, nuts, fruit-peel, etc., preserved by sugar 0 0 2 0 1 0


200710 Homogenized jams, jellies, etc. 0 0 2 0 1 0
200791 Citrus-based jams jellies marmalade, etc. 0 0 2 0 1 0


200799 Jams, fruit jellies, purees and pastes, except citrus 0 0 2 0 1 0


200811 Ground-nuts otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200819 Nuts, seeds and mixes, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200820 Pineapples, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0




54 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


200830 Citrus fruits, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200870 Peaches, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200891 Palm hearts, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200892 Fruit mixtures, otherwise prepared or preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200899 Fruit, edible plants NES otherwise prepared/preserved 0 0 2 0 1 0


200911 Orange juice, frozen, not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 0


200919 Orange juice, not fermented, spirited, or frozen 0 0 2 0 1 0


200920 Grapefruit juice, not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 0


200930 Citrus juice NES (one fruit) not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 0


200940 Pineapple juice, not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 0


200980 Single fruit, vegetable juice NES, not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 1


200990 Mixtures of juices not fermented or spirited 0 0 2 0 1 1


210111 Coffee extracts, essence 0 0 2 0 2 1
210112 Coffee prep. of extracts 0 0 2 1 2 1


210120 Tea and mate extracts, essences and concentrates 0 0 2 1 2 1


210390 Sauces NES, mixed condiments, mixed seasoning 0 0 2 0 2 1


220720 Ethyl alcohol 0 0 0 0 2 1
220840 Rum 0 0 0 0 2 1


230610 Oil-cake and other solid residues, of cotton seeds 0 0 0 0 1 1


230660 Of palm nuts or kernels 0 0 0 0 1 1
240110 Tobacco, not stemmed/stripped 0 0 0 0 1 0


240120 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 0 0 0 0 1 0


240130 Tobacco refuse 0 0 0 1 1 0


240210 Cigars, cheroots and cigarillos, containing tobacco 0 0 0 0 1 0


240220 Cigarettes containing tobacco 0 0 0 0 1 0


240290 Cigars, cheroots, cigarettes, with tobacco substitutes 0 0 0 0 1 0


240310 Smoking tobacco, whether or not containing tobacco substitutes 0 0 0 0 1 0


240391 “Homogenised” or “reconstituted” tobacco 0 0 0 0 1 0


240399 Other manufactured tobacco 0 0 0 0 1 0
330112 Essential oils of orange 0 0 0 0 0 0
330113 Essential oils of lemon 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 67 116 25 220 87


Finally, we could observe the number of products
by importing country on which more than one
measure is notified. Results are shown in Table


4.5. Australia and the US do not hesitate to adopt
several notifications on the same product.


Table 4.5. number of Tropical and Diversification Products Affected by More than one SPS or TBT,
by importing Country


ToTAL eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


139 0 6 38 7 72 16




55ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


In order to analyse the stringency of SPS and
TBTs, we merge information on notifications with
trade data at the HS6 level. Data on trade are for
the year 2004 and come from the BACI (Base pour
l’Analyse du Commerce International) database24
developed by the Centre d’Etudes Prospectives
et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII) (see
Gaulier et al., 2007. This database uses original
procedures to harmonize Commodity Trade
Statistics Database (COMTRADE) data: evaluation
of the quality of country declarations to average
mirror flows, evaluation of cost, insurance and
freight (CIF) rates to reconcile import and export
declarations, etc. Unfortunately, BACI data
are in HS 1992, while the list of tropical and
diversification products established by the Cairns
group is based on HS 1996. Three codes of HS
1992 are slipped into two different codes in HS
1996:


080110 (Coconuts, fresh or dried, whether •
or not shelled) in HS 1992 is slipped into


080111 (Desiccated coconuts) and 080119
(Other coconuts) in HS 1996;
080710 (Melons, including cantaloupes and •
watermelons, fresh) in HS 1992 is slipped
into 080711 (Watermelons, fresh) and 080719
(Melons, fresh) in HS 1996;
210110 (Coffee extracts) in HS 1992 is slipped •
into 210111 (Coffee extracts, essence) and
210112 (Coffee prep. of extracts) in HS 1996.


For these codes, we therefore divide by two the
trade flow observed in BACI and distribute half of
the flow to each HS 1996 code.


Notifications of SPS and TBTs are compiled up
to 2004. We mentioned previously that data on
notifications do not have a bilateral dimension.
They are applied by importing countries to
all exporting countries. However, exporting
countries are affected differently by these
measures depending on the structure of their
exports in terms of products and markets.


4.3 Stringency of SPS and TBT measures


4.3.1 The Exports of Tropical and Diversification Products to Main Developed Markets


Before studying the impact of SPS and TBTs,
we briefly describe the exports of tropical and
diversification products to main developed
markets. Table 4.6 reports for each exporting
country the value of world exports of tropical
and diversification products and the share
exported to each main developed market. Three
observations could be derived from the table.


There is a strong variation in the value •
of exports: Some countries export a high
amount of tropical and diversification
products, while others do not trade a lot.
The five smallest exporters are Lesotho
(USD2.2 thousand), Tuvalu (USD3.2
thousand), Palau (USD13.2 thousand),
Chad (USD25.6 thousand) and Nauru
(USD25.9 thousand). On the other hand,
the top five exporting countries are
Brazil (USD8 440 134 thousand), Malaysia
(USD7 463 273 thousand), Thailand
(USD6 450 874 thousand), Indonesia
(USD6 066 241 thousand) and India
(USD3 053 028 thousand). Interestingly,


we see that the five biggest exporters
of tropical and diversification products
are not ACP or LA8 countries. The first
Latin American country in the ranking is
Ecuador (seventh position), followed by
Costa Rica (eighth position) and Colombia
(tenth position). The first ACP country is
South Africa (eleventh biggest exporter),
followed by Cote d’Ivoire (twelfth biggest
exporter).
The share of tropical and diversification •
products exported to main developed
markets varies significantly: Seven countries
export less than 10 percent of their
tropical and diversification products to the
main developed markets. These countries
are Gabon (1.03 percent), Burma (1.04
percent), Seychelles (2.42 percent), Brunei
Darussalam (4.20 percent), Tuvalu (5.12
percent), Bolivia (5.31 percent) and Niue
(5.69 percent). Thirty-six countries export
less than 50 percent of their tropical and
diversification products to main developed
markets, while 67 countries export more




56 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 4.6. exports of Tropical and Diversification Products by exporting Country


CoDe WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


ACP79
Angola 422.9 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Antigua and
Barbuda 1967.1 21.0 2.4 2.4 0.4 0.0 6.5


Burundi 5124.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Benin 30 598.3 15.3 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.01


Burkina Faso 54 757.0 30.3 0.02 0.1 0.04 0.0 0.5


Bahamas 299 119.4 96.5 0.1 1.5 0.03 0.0 0.01


Belize 150 297.0 53.6 3.4 25.6 1.2 0.0 0.01
Barbados 69 262.7 46.6 5.8 13.9 0.01 0.3 0.01
Botswana 195.3 13.9 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Central
African


Republic
955.6 53.6 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


than 50 percent. Among these 67 countries,
39 export more than 75 percent of their
products to developed markets; for 23
countries, the amount reaches 90 percent.
The five countries that export the most to
developed markets are Cape Verde (99.08
percent), Rwanda (99.62 percent), Sao
Tome and Principe (99.97 percent), Palau
(100 percent) and Marshall Islands (100
percent).
There is a strong variation in the share •
exported to each developed market: At this
stage of the analysis, we do not take into
account the tariffs and trade preferences
applied by developed countries on their
imports of tropical and diversification
products. This will be done in the next
section. However, a first look at the
results suggests that distance between the
exporting and importing countries seems
to be an important determinant of the
exports’ destination.


Exports to Asia (Japan) and Australia


Four countries export more than 50 percent of
their tropical and diversification products to
Japan: Cook Islands (53.31 percent), Tonga (87.21
percent), Micronesia Federation (94.49 percent)
and Palau (100 percent). The shares exported
to Australia are much smaller; the five main
exporting countries to Australia are Vanuatu
(1.81 percent), Tonga (2.13 percent), Fiji (5.56
percent), Solomon Islands (9.72 percent) and


Samoa (10.49 percent). All of these countries
are located near Japan and Australia.


Exports to North America (Canada and the US)


Seven countries send more than 50 percent of
their tropical and diversification exports to North
America. These countries are Liberia (50.32
percent), Guatemala (56.16 percent), Dominican
Republic (59.74 percent), Honduras (61.64
percent), Haiti (71.87 percent), Mexico (85.65
percent) and Marshall Islands (98.86 percent).
Again, distance seems to impact the exports’
destination. Five of these seven countries are
located in Central America and the Caribbean.


Exports to Europe (EU25 and Switzerland)


Forty-five countries send more than 50 percent
of their exports of tropical and diversification
products to Europe. Distance here also has
an influence, although its effect tends to be
counterbalanced by the EU market size. The EU
market size is so big that it mitigates the negative
impact of transaction costs on trade flows and
distant countries are encouraged to trade with
the EU. However, for 7 of the 10 biggest exporters
of tropical and diversification products to the
EU, the EU is the closest developed market.
These countries are Equatorial Guinea (94.36
percent), Gambia (94.72 percent), Mauritius
(95.28 percent), Namibia (95.42 percent), Sierra
Leone (96.45 percent), Rwanda (99.62 percent)
and Sao Tome and Principe (99.97 percent).




57ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %
Cote d’Ivoire 1 290 448.0 73.3 2.3 5.3 0.9 1.0 0.2


Cameroon 281 714.0 88.1 0.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Congo 31 128.8 44.1 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1


Cook Islands 2466.3 13.6 1.8 1.5 53.3 0.03 0.0
Comoros 8614.8 19.2 0.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.1


Cape Verde 171.1 62.2 0.0 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cuba 594 313.1 43.7 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.3 3.6


Djibouti 825.8 1.9 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dominica


Island 17 616.3 56.4 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.01 0.5


Dominican
Republic 666 325.8 36.3 1.4 58.3 0.3 0.1 1.5


Eritrea 243.7 93.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Ethiopia 29 215.2 59.3 0.1 5.4 2.6 0.02 0.01


Fiji 158 040.1 69.0 0.2 5.8 3.6 5.6 0.01
Micronesia,
Federated
States of


34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.5 0.0 0.0


Gabon 15 418.8 0.7 0.05 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ghana 298 997.9 74.3 0.3 4.9 0.2 0.03 2.6
Guinea 2802.4 46.6 1.4 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gambia 17 410.4 94.7 0.01 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2


Guinea-Bissau 204.5 65.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equatorial


Guinea 219.6 94.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2


Grenada 624.4 66.2 5.1 18.0 1.3 0.0 0.4
Guyana 241 567.8 64.3 1.0 3.4 0.05 0.1 0.2


Haiti 13 234.2 25.7 1.6 70.3 0.1 0.0 0.04
Jamaica 212 764.0 59.4 5.6 20.3 1.5 0.3 0.03
Kenya 622 758.1 72.4 0.2 3.2 3.3 0.1 1.8


Kiribati 1176.9 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
St Kitts and


Nevis 11 071.8 77.4 0.01 20.9 0.0 0.01 0.0


Liberia 232.3 5.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
St Lucia 26 149.4 97.2 0.2 0.8 0.03 0.0 0.0
Lesotho 2.2 56.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Madagascar 145 457.0 70.8 1.1 2.1 0.3 0.02 0.2
Marshall
Islands 1604.5 0.2 0.0 98.9 0.8 0.0 0.1


Mali 8713.6 60.1 0.1 12.2 0.5 1.0 0.8
Mozambique 95 327.2 39.2 0.1 6.8 0.8 0.01 0.7
Mauritania 523.3 76.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0
Mauritius 379 054.8 95.3 0.05 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.4
Malawi 383 810.1 46.7 0.01 10.2 3.1 0.9 1.0
Namibia 2373.9 95.4 0.03 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.0


Niger 29 537.8 11.3 0.1 11.4 0.01 0.0 0.03
Nigeria 61 571.5 73.9 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.01 0.01
Niue 33.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Nauru 25.9 61.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0
Palau 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0


Papua New
Guinea 209 487.1 97.2 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.0


Rwanda 673.1 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sudan 107 246.4 51.1 0.01 0.0 0.9 0.03 0.2


Senegal 87 057.5 46.3 0.01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4
Solomon
Islands 298.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0


Sierra Leone 2332.9 96.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Somalia 300.9 4.8 6.9 6.6 19.5 0.3 0.0


Sao Tome
and Principe 355.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0




58 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %
Suriname 21 139.9 81.2 0.01 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.02
Swaziland 168 300.7 87.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.04 0.01
Seychelles 12 778.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5


Chad 25.6 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Togo 23 487.9 39.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0
Tonga 12 789.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 87.2 2.1 0.0


Trinidad and
Tobago 105 866.9 29.9 1.5 5.6 0.05 0.01 0.02


Tuvalu 3.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tanzania 175 337.8 52.8 0.02 1.2 0.9 0.3 4.2
Uganda 153 907.7 60.9 0.01 0.7 3.8 0.5 1.3


St Vincent
and the


Grenadines
21 652.2 61.3 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.01


Vanuatu 13 593.0 67.6 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.8 0.0
Samoa 7193.1 20.5 0.0 43.8 13.8 10.5 0.0


South Africa 1 752 459.0 42.2 2.5 5.4 5.2 0.6 1.2
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo


9272.5 57.6 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.6


Zambia 146 770.0 38.9 0.0 0.04 1.0 0.2 0.01
Zimbabwe 649 475.4 38.3 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.7 1.0


LA8
Bolivia 189 655.5 1.0 0.2 3.1 0.9 0.01 0.2


Colombia 1 995 957.0 26.7 3.7 44.2 1.4 0.1 1.0
Costa Rica 2 403 004.0 51.8 4.4 31.6 0.3 0.02 1.6
Ecuador 2 480 399.0 41.5 2.6 23.0 2.2 0.1 1.0


Guatemala 934 779.8 7.1 6.8 49.4 0.4 0.01 0.1
Nicaragua 168 776.8 12.8 11.5 37.1 0.01 0.8 0.3
Panama 488 491.0 82.7 0.1 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.8


Peru 332 840.5 50.1 2.5 34.9 1.4 0.4 0.9


other countries


Central and Latin America


Brazil 8 440 134.0 22.9 2.3 8.7 2.4 0.5 0.8
Honduras 602 170.1 14.7 3.8 57.9 0.2 0.01 0.3
Mexico 2 955 777.0 5.3 5.4 80.3 3.9 0.1 0.1


Paraguay 260 672.5 7.1 0.4 9.5 0.2 0.0 0.5
El Salvador 123 075.8 5.2 6.2 26.7 0.1 0.03 0.0
Venezuela 158 357.3 47.3 0.1 8.0 0.5 0.0 0.2


Asia


Bangladesh 65 693.7 39.4 0.4 3.9 0.02 0.1 0.0
Brunei


Darussalam 29.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Indonesia 6 066 241.0 20.8 0.2 3.5 0.7 0.7 0.2
India 3 053 028.0 20.8 1.3 8.2 2.1 0.5 0.5


Cambodia 13 148.9 20.2 0.5 0.5 0.02 1.7 0.01
Sri Lanka 254 488.1 49.2 0.8 1.6 2.6 0.6 1.2
Myanmar 154 339.1 0.7 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Malaysia 7 463 273.0 15.3 0.5 4.9 5.0 1.6 0.2


Philippines 2 236 330.0 16.7 1.3 21.5 29.0 0.6 0.3
Thailand 6 450 874.0 12.3 1.3 8.5 6.5 1.1 0.5
Viet Nam 939 104.6 4.7 1.0 2.3 4.0 0.4 0.1


Exports by tropical and diversification product


Tables 4.7–4.10 present the exports of tropical and
diversification products by product. Each table


focuses on a sub-group of exporting countries.
Table 4.7 describes the exports of ACP countries,
Table 4.8 the exports of LA8 countries, Table 4.9
the exports of other Latin American countries and




59ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 4.10 the exports of the Asian countries
included in our sample. The distance effect
mentioned above also appears in these tables.
More interestingly, this divide by product
and sub-group of exporters suggests some
differences in the tropical and diversification
products exported by each sub-group of
countries. Below we list the five most exported
products for each sub-group of exporters. We
consider world exports and exports to main
developed markets. We indicate in bold the
products that are present in both rankings.


ACP countries to world:


HS 240210 – Cigars, cheroots and cigarillos, •
containing tobacco (flow= 449,897.9)
HS • 220840 – Rum (flow = 510 121.9)
HS • 080300 – Bananas, including
plantains, fresh or dried (flow =
652 209.9)
HS • 240120 – Tobacco, partly or wholly
stemmed/stripped (flow = 927 455.6)
HS • 170111 – Raw sugar, cane (flow =
1 850,309)


ACP countries to main developed markets:


HS 060310 – Cut flowers and flower buds for •
bouquets, etc., fresh (flow = 433,272.4)
HS • 240120 – Tobacco, partly or wholly
stemmed/stripped (flow = 438 986.4)
HS • 220840 – Rum (flow = 464 182.5)
HS • 080300 – Bananas, including plantains,
fresh or dried (flow = 637 579.5)
HS • 170111 – Raw sugar, cane (flow =
1 340 022)


LA8 countries to world:


HS 170199 – Refined sugar, in solid form, •
NES, pure sucrose (flow = 252 858.5)
HS • 170111 – Raw sugar, cane (flow =
409 127.9)
HS • 080430 – Pineapples, fresh or dried
(flow = 560 762.1)
HS • 060310 – Cut flowers and flower
buds for bouquets, etc., fresh (flow =
1 095 801)
HS • 080300 – Bananas, including plantains,
fresh or dried (flow = 4 099 032)


LA8 countries to main developed markets:


HS 080719 – Melons, fresh (flow = 97 017)•
HS • 170111 – Raw sugar, cane (flow =
189 983.5)
HS • 080430 – Pineapples, fresh or dried
(flow = 550 291.6)
HS • 060310 – Cut flowers and flower buds for
bouquets, etc., fresh (flow = 1 023 036)
HS • 080300 – Bananas, including plantains,
fresh or dried (flow = 3 438 376)


Other Latin American countries to world:


HS • 200911 – Orange juice, frozen, not
fermented or spirited (flow = 745 475.1)
HS 170199 – Refined sugar, in solid form, •
NES, pure sucrose (flow = 1 115 507)
HS 150710 – Crude soya–bean oil and its •
fractions (flow = 1 343 298)
HS • 240120 – Tobacco, partly or wholly
stemmed/stripped (flow = 1 345 640)
HS 170111 – Raw sugar, cane (flow = •
1 844 845)


Other Latin American countries to main
developed markets:


HS 070990 – Vegetables, fresh or chilled •
NES (flow = 318 508.8)
HS 200919 – Orange juice, not fermented, •
spirited, or frozen (flow = 430 590.5)
HS 070960 – Peppers (Capsicum, Pimenta) •
fresh or chilled (flow = 535 713.1)
HS • 200911 – Orange juice, frozen, not
fermented or spirited (flow = 644 624.5)
HS • 240120 – Tobacco, partly or wholly
stemmed/stripped (flow = 760 765)


Asian countries to world:


HS • 151311 – Crude coconut (copra) oil and
its fractions (flow = 716 437.1)
HS • 080300 – Bananas, including plantains,
fresh or dried (flow = 769 736.6)
HS • 151110 – Palm oil, crude (flow = 2 721 504)
HS 100630 – Semi-milled or wholly milled •
rice, whether or not polished or glazed
(flow = 3 858 787)
HS • 151190 – Palm oil or fractions simply
refined (flow = 6 466 100)




60 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 4.7. exports of ACP Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


060240 Roses, grafted or not 33 535.5 95.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


060290
Live plants, incl.
their roots, and


mushroom spawn
15 959.7 59.5 1.4 13.0 1.7 0.2 0.4


060310


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
etc., fresh


449 574.3 90.4 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.3 3.5


060390


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
dried, etc.


6283.2 61.3 1.2 11.9 17.0 0.0 0.5


060491


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets,
etc. – fresh


14 038.6 87.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 4.6


060499


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets, etc.
- except fresh


10 954.8 71.9 0.3 23.6 0.4 0.0 0.9


070190
Potatoes,


fresh or chilled
except seed


26 837.8 5.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


070310 Onions and shallots 31 154.8 21.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


070960


Peppers
(Capsicum,


Pimenta). fresh
or chilled


14 048.5 47.4 4.9 35.8 0.0 0.0 0.4


070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES 108 288.2 78.4 1.7 2.1 10.1 0.3 1.1


071190


Other
vegetables;
mixtures of
vegetables


1492.5 54.1 0.7 2.8 0.1 0.6 3.5


071390
Other dried
leguminous
vegetables


11 166.1 6.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0


Asian countries to main developed markets:


HS • 080300 – Bananas, including plantains,
fresh or dried (flow = 476 706)
HS 200820 – Pineapples, otherwise prepared •
or preserved (flow = 496 410.6)
HS • 151311 – Crude coconut (copra) oil and
its fractions (flow = 519 949.2)
HS • 151110 – Palm oil, crude (flow =
770 733.6)
HS • 151190 – Palm oil or fractions simply
refined (flow = 1 015 341)


Two remarks can be made. First, products in
both rankings are very similar. Four products are
present in both rankings in each case except for
the sub-group of other Latin American countries


(only two products are present in both rankings
for this sub-group). Second, each sub-group of
exporting countries exports different tropical
and diversification products. For example, the
two main products exported by Asian countries
to developed markets are HS 151110 (Palm oil,
crude) and HS 151190 (Palm oil or fractions
simply refined). Neither product appears in the
top five exported products of other sub-groups
of exporting countries. These differences are
weaker, however, if we focus only on ACP and
LA8 countries. Three products are present in the
top five exported products to main developed
markets of both sub-groups: HS 060310 (Cut
flowers and flower buds for bouquets, etc., fresh),
HS 080300 (Bananas, including plantains, fresh or
dried) and HS 170111 (Raw sugar, cane).




61ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried 4301.6 46.9 0.9 17.1 0.1 14.1 1.2


071420 Sweet potatoes 8827.2 35.6 15.9 38.8 0.0 0.0 0.3


071490


Arrowroot,
salep, etc.,


fresh or dried
and sago pith


61 818.8 24.6 3.4 51.0 0.1 3.9 0.1


080111 Desiccated coconuts 16 244.2 42.4 2.6 12.8 0.2 0.9 1.1


080119 Other coconuts 16 244.2 42.4 2.6 12.8 0.2 0.9 1.1


080290


Nuts, fresh or
dried, whether
or not shelled


or peeled


100 619.6 20.9 2.0 39.3 10.5 0.0 0.2


080300


Bananas,
including
plantains,


fresh or dried


652 209.9 96.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.9


080420 Figs, fresh or dried 365.4 71.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4


080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried 259 913.2 92.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1


080440 Avocados, fresh or dried 100 294.0 77.1 0.1 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.6


080450


Guavas,
mangoes and
mangosteens,
fresh or dried


65 820.5 67.6 1.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 5.3


080510 Oranges, fresh or dried 436 987.1 57.5 4.6 3.5 1.2 0.0 0.3


080520


Mandarin,
clementine and
citrus hybrids,
fresh or dried


81 135.3 63.5 2.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


080530
Lemons and
limes, fresh


or dried
64 992.7 46.7 0.0 1.4 7.1 0.1 0.4


080590
Other citrus
fruit, fresh


or dried
5583.3 24.5 0.9 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.2


080711 Watermelons, fresh 5483.1 36.4 17.8 31.4 0.0 0.0 1.3


080719 Melons, fresh 5483.1 36.4 17.8 31.4 0.0 0.0 1.3


080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas” 27 474.5 24.2 18.0 54.0 0.7 0.1 0.3


081090


Fresh tamarinds,
passion fruit,
carambola,


pitahaya and
other edible fruit


102 002.3 93.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.9


081190


Fruits and nuts
(uncooked,
steamed,


boiled), frozen


10 322.4 56.7 0.2 17.0 19.7 0.9 0.3


081290
Fruit and nuts,
provisionally
preserved


3926.1 72.0 6.0 13.7 0.0 0.5 0.0


081340 Other fruit 4580.1 50.5 3.3 12.3 0.4 9.7 2.3


081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits 1153.5 26.0 0.8 3.1 0.0 1.6 0.4


081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons 3463.5 89.4 0.0 4.5 5.5 0.0 0.2


090112
Coffee, not


roasted,
decaffeinated


8928.6 11.8 0.1 16.3 0.5 1.1 0.0


090121
Coffee,


roasted, not
decaffeinated


6418.6 18.5 2.0 22.4 22.6 3.3 0.4




62 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated 672.5 5.5 1.6 10.6 3.9 0.0 0.0


090190 Coffee, other roasted 9679.6 35.1 3.7 5.2 0.5 0.7 1.6


090210
Tea, green


(unfermented) in
packages < 3 kg


7221.3 3.0 0.7 1.6 39.2 0.0 0.2


090412 Pepper, crushed or ground 2137.4 40.7 3.4 17.8 0.5 0.4 2.6


090420


Capsicum
or Pimenta,


dried, crushed
or ground


25 544.9 63.2 2.4 8.3 2.1 2.0 0.5


090700
Cloves (whole
fruit, cloves
and stems)


62 429.8 5.7 0.3 2.2 1.2 0.1 0.0


091010 Ginger 13 473.6 49.2 0.6 8.5 0.2 7.8 0.2


100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough) 1467.7 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


100620 Husked (brown) rice 73 614.7 47.8 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0


100630


Semi-milled or
wholly milled
rice, whether


or not polished
or glazed


18 620.4 11.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.2


100640 Broken rice 26 957.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4


110230 Rice flour 8.8 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


110620


Flour, meal
and powder of
sago or of roots


or tubers of
heading 07.14


1 931.1 34.0 2.2 14.1 0.0 0.0 1.1


110630


Flour, meal and
powder of the


dried leguminous
vegetables


739.0 26.6 0.2 29.6 3.3 0.1 0.4


110814 Manioc (cassava) starch 751.3 62.3 2.6 10.9 0.0 0.1 0.0


120210


Ground-nuts
in shell, not
roasted or


cooked


7982.2 27.9 0.0 0.3 29.7 0.0 5.0


120220
Ground-nuts,


shelled, whether
or not broken


37 449.7 43.7 0.3 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0


120890


Other flours
and meals of
oil seeds or


oleaginous fruits


8386.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0


121190


Plants and parts,
pharmacy,
perfume,


insecticide
use NES


68 946.1 51.1 1.5 4.2 1.3 0.4 1.4


121210 Locust beans, locust seeds 581.7 0.5 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


121299


Vegetable
products NES


for human
consumption


75 877.5 56.7 0.0 1.4 2.7 0.8 0.0


130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES 22 142.9 48.0 5.4 34.3 1.0 0.1 0.1


140190 Other vegetable materials 6933.3 60.2 0.8 5.8 0.4 0.3 0.3




63ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


150710
Crude soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


21 701.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0


150790
Other soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


15 877.7 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0


150810 Crude ground nut oil 46 817.4 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6


151110 Palm oil, crude 142 334.7 91.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151190
Palm oil or


fractions simply
refined


140 306.9 27.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0


151211


Crude sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


2271.9 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151219


Other sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


11 315.9 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


151311
Crude coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


53 936.8 84.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0


151319
Other coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


4532.9 56.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 10.5 0.0


151321
Crude palm
kernel or


babassu oil
16 170.7 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151329


Palm kernel
or babassu oil
and fractions
thereof, other


715.3 1.1 0.0 29.7 0.0 1.5 0.0


151410
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, crude
6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151490
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, other
345.5 25.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 7.0 0.0


151530 Castor oil and its fractions 93.2 55.4 1.7 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


151550


Sesame oil or
fractions not
chemically
modified


269.0 18.3 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.6 3.7


151620


Vegetable fats,
oils or fractions
hydrogenated,


esterified


17 449.8 19.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.0


151710
Margarine,


excluding liquid
margarine


28 797.8 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


152190
Beeswax, other


insect waxes
and spermaceti


4734.2 39.3 0.0 27.2 30.6 0.0 0.0


170111 Raw sugar, cane 1 850 309.0 63.1 0.0 7.1 2.1 0.0 0.1


170191
Containing added


flavouring or
colouring matter


36 525.1 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


170199
Refined sugar, in
solid form, NES,


pure sucrose
161 354.0 19.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0


170310 Cane molasses 43 940.2 66.8 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted 385 964.9 68.8 4.2 7.9 0.2 3.1 0.1




64 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


180320
Cocoa paste,


wholly or partly
defatted


91 111.1 64.8 6.7 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil 318 436.6 78.2 4.7 8.0 3.7 0.2 0.0


180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened 96 141.2 53.5 3.6 18.0 0.0 0.3 0.0


180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened 3867.1 5.7 1.6 7.7 0.0 0.1 0.0


180620


Chocolate and
other food


preparations
containing


cocoa > 2 kg


36 897.8 64.1 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0


180631


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block, slab, bar,
filled, > 2 kg


6555.6 10.0 3.5 12.0 0.0 0.3 0.0


180632


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block/slab/bar,
not filled, > 2 kg


6893.9 13.4 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.4 0.1


180690
Chocolate/
cocoa food


preparations NES
12 450.6 28.5 2.1 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.3


200190


Vegetables,
fruit, nuts


NES prepared
or preserved
by vinegar


8016.5 72.9 1.4 14.5 0.0 3.2 2.1


200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen 513.0 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.0


200520


Potatoes,
prepared or


preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


6439.4 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1


200590


Vegetables NES,
mixes, prepared/
preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


8122.3 50.7 5.4 30.3 0.3 0.3 2.4


200600


Fruits, nuts,
fruit-peel,


etc., preserved
by sugar


2195.5 27.9 0.3 18.0 0.0 3.6 0.0


200710
Homogenized
jams, jellies,


etc.
2891.2 23.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.1


200791
Citrus based
jams jellies


marmalade, etc.
2118.7 77.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1


200799


Jams, fruit
jellies, purees


and pastes,
except citrus


11 312.5 18.1 1.2 13.6 0.1 7.1 1.2


200811


Ground-nuts
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


10 891.3 21.3 0.0 40.7 2.0 0.0 0.0


200819


Nuts, seeds and
mixes, otherwise


prepared or
preserved


10 674.6 13.2 1.8 51.4 0.7 0.0 0.0


200820


Pineapples,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


78 020.3 91.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.5




65ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


200830


Citrus fruits,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


24 221.8 87.0 1.9 4.1 5.4 0.4 0.0


200870


Peaches,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


69 219.4 34.8 3.3 2.8 22.8 2.6 4.8


200891


Palm hearts,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


3290.2 87.5 0.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 4.2


200892


Fruit mixtures,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


45 134.4 43.5 6.8 2.1 15.1 2.0 9.8


200899


Fruit, edible
plants NES
otherwise
prepared/
preserved


28 496.3 41.1 2.4 29.7 0.3 5.1 0.8


200911


Orange juice,
frozen, not
fermented
or spirited


52 084.8 44.7 0.0 34.8 1.2 0.6 1.4


200919


Orange juice,
not fermented,


spirited, or
frozen


20 715.4 52.6 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.3 4.3


200920
Grapefruit juice,
not fermented


or spirited
38 925.4 67.5 0.1 6.9 5.8 0.8 1.8


200930


Citrus juice
NES one fruit)
not fermented


or spirited


4668.0 28.6 0.9 25.2 4.6 21.4 0.3


200940
Pineapple juice,
not fermented


or spirited
31 130.0 86.5 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.1


200980


Single fruit,
vegetable


juice NES not
fermented
or spirited


21 900.0 14.0 5.4 10.7 19.9 3.2 0.1


200990


Mixtures of
juices not
fermented
or spirited


34 579.3 4.7 4.8 6.4 7.6 0.5 0.1


210111 Coffee extracts, essence 22 162.3 37.7 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1


210112
Coffee


preparation
of extracts


22 162.3 37.7 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1


210120


Tea and mate
extracts,


essences and
concentrates


17 651.8 17.8 0.8 22.8 45.1 0.1 0.0


210390


Sauces
NES, mixed
condiments,


mixed seasoning


41 602.9 26.7 2.7 22.0 1.3 4.0 0.8


220720 Ethyl alcohol 11 110.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 11.4
220840 Rum 510 121.9 82.6 2.6 5.0 0.5 0.3 0.0


230610


Oil-cake and
other solid
residues, of
cotton seeds


19 077.9 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0




66 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 4.8. exports of LA8 Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


060240 Roses, grafted or not 1651.1 3.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


060290


Live plants,
including their


roots, and
mushroom spawn


58 686.0 57.2 2.0 27.2 4.9 0.3 0.0


060310


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
etc., fresh


1 095 801.0 13.6 3.4 73.9 1.3 0.0 1.2


060390


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
dried, etc.


9336.4 18.8 13.2 12.6 48.2 0.0 0.4


060491


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets,
etc. – fresh


91 214.2 81.0 0.2 8.4 5.6 0.1 0.6


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


230660


Oil-cake and
other solid


residues, of palm
nuts or kernels


5427.3 67.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0


240110
Tobacco, not
stemmed/
stripped


251 151.3 27.4 0.0 10.1 1.1 1.0 0.5


240120


Tobacco, partly
or wholly
stemmed/
stripped


927 455.6 40.0 0.1 3.4 1.9 0.7 1.3


240130 Tobacco refuse 35 121.3 46.9 0.0 15.6 0.4 0.0 3.1


240210


Cigars, cheroots
and cigarillos,


containing
tobacco


449 897.9 33.9 1.3 48.5 1.0 0.4 5.2


240220
Cigarettes
containing
tobacco


188 394.0 4.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.0


240290


Cigars, cheroots,
cigarettes,


with tobacco
substitutes


4110.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4


240310


Smoking
tobacco,


whether or
not containing


tobacco
substitutes


107 029.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8


240391


“Homogenized”
or


“reconstituted”
tobacco


346.8 26.7 12.6 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


240399
Other


manufactured
tobacco


2558.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.6


330112 Essential oils of orange 4488.7 55.3 4.6 26.8 1.6 0.0 0.0


330113 Essential oils of lemon 3312.3 41.9 1.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 6.6




67ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


060499


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets, etc.
– except fresh


7141.5 69.3 1.3 17.2 6.8 0.0 0.0


070190
Potatoes,


fresh or chilled
except seed


13 646.9 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0


070310 Onions and shallots 25 941.4 10.3 1.4 60.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


070960


Peppers
(Capsicum,


Pimenta) fresh
or chilled


2377.3 6.7 3.6 13.9 0.2 0.0 0.0


070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES 27 047.2 11.3 4.7 79.1 0.1 0.0 0.1


071190


Other
vegetables;
mixtures of
vegetables


2326.1 7.6 1.2 72.2 0.2 0.2 0.0


071390
Other dried
leguminous
vegetables


421.5 54.6 19.7 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried 40 847.7 19.2 1.9 75.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


071420 Sweet potatoes 606.0 25.6 58.2 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0


071490


Arrowroot,
salep, etc.,


fresh or dried
and sago pith


33 420.9 7.9 1.0 90.2 0.4 0.0 0.1


080111 Desiccated coconuts 989.5 31.4 1.2 11.0 1.4 0.0 0.4


080119 Other coconuts 989.5 31.4 1.2 11.0 1.4 0.0 0.4


080290


Nuts, fresh or
dried, whether
or not shelled


or peeled


14 123.9 36.4 2.4 46.9 0.9 0.0 2.5


080300


Bananas,
including
plantains,


fresh or dried


4 099 032.0 53.6 3.6 24.0 1.1 0.0 1.5


080420 Figs, fresh or dried 844.7 65.5 10.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 6.7


080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried 560 762.1 54.8 8.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 1.4


080440 Avocados, fresh or dried 21 020.8 92.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3


080450


Guavas,
mangoes and
mangosteens,
fresh or dried


82 825.2 38.0 5.2 52.3 0.0 0.0 0.3


080510 Oranges, fresh or dried 1895.3 27.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


080520


Mandarin,
clementine and
citrus hybrids,
fresh or dried


14 675.6 81.9 10.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1


080530
Lemons and
limes, fresh


or dried
5385.4 18.5 0.5 31.4 0.0 0.0 0.3


080590
Other citrus
fruit, fresh


or dried
496.1 3.6 17.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3


080711 Watermelons, fresh 99 565.0 40.7 9.3 47.3 0.0 0.0 0.1


080719 Melons, fresh 99 565.0 40.7 9.3 47.3 0.0 0.0 0.1




68 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas” 5026.0 55.9 13.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


081090


Fresh tamarinds,
passion fruit,
carambola,


pitahaya and
other edible fruit


24 524.4 77.4 3.3 4.2 0.5 0.0 3.2


081190


Fruits and nuts
(uncooked,
steamed,


boiled) frozen


33 412.1 30.2 2.2 62.8 1.3 0.5 0.2


081290
Fruit and nuts,
provisionally
preserved


1132.8 75.5 4.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


081340 Other fruit 424.7 31.0 4.3 35.4 0.0 0.4 0.6


081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits 122.5 41.2 16.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.9


081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons 4528.0 67.1 0.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.4


090112
Coffee, not


roasted,
decaffeinated


62 352.4 6.0 2.3 88.9 0.3 0.1 0.0


090121
Coffee,


roasted, not
decaffeinated


12 781.8 18.2 1.8 28.8 5.7 0.1 1.2


090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated 2278.8 9.2 40.8 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.1


090190 Coffee, other roasted 777.4 3.9 19.9 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.3


090210
Tea, green


(unfermented) in
packages < 3 kg


92.4 8.5 37.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


090412 Pepper, crushed or ground 642.6 14.2 1.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


090420


Capsicum
or Pimenta,


dried, crushed
or ground


58 044.1 49.4 0.4 36.6 0.1 0.0 0.0


090700
Cloves (whole
fruit, cloves
and stems)


43.8 10.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


091010 Ginger 1508.3 11.8 4.2 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough) 1417.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


100620 Husked (brown) rice 105.1 18.2 0.0 79.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


100630


Semi-milled or
wholly milled
rice, whether


or not polished
or glazed


2537.0 1.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


100640 Broken rice 989.5 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


110230 Rice flour 284.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


110620


Flour, meal
and powder of
sago or of roots


or tubers of
heading 07.14


1932.6 10.5 3.4 42.4 33.3 2.1 0.5


110630


Flour, meal and
powder of dried


leguminous
vegetables


1019.7 30.8 1.2 23.3 4.3 0.1 0.0


110814 Manioc (cassava) starch 582.7 3.3 2.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0




69ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


120210


Ground-nuts
in shell, not
roasted or


cooked


5911.9 89.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


120220
Ground-nuts,


shelled, whether
or not broken


43 019.6 20.7 2.0 3.0 0.0 3.1 0.0


120890


Other flours
and meals of
oil seeds or


oleaginous fruits


49.6 13.8 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


121190


Plants and parts,
pharmacy,
perfume,


insecticide
use NES


12 319.8 22.0 6.2 34.2 5.1 0.2 0.3


121210 Locust beans, locust seeds 106.2 22.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0


121299


Vegetables
products NES


for human
consumption


2816.7 5.5 0.3 25.8 1.0 0.0 0.0


130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES 8156.7 6.1 0.4 57.4 15.0 0.0 1.6


140190 Other vegetable materials 225.8 1.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.4 0.0


150710
Crude soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


108 472.8 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


150790
Other soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


29 494.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


150810 Crude ground-nut oil 5955.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151110 Palm oil, crude 196 665.5 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2


151190
Palm oil or


fractions simply
refined


58 391.4 3.6 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.7


151211


Crude sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


10 093.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151219


Other sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


13 348.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


151311
Crude coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


64.3 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 1.2 26.1


151319
Other coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


372.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.0


151321
Crude palm
kernel or


babassu oil
31 640.7 28.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


151329


Palm kernel
or babassu oil
and fractions
thereof, other


934.0 0.9 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.1 0.0


151410
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, crude
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151490
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, other
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151530 Castor oil and its fractions 821.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0




70 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


151550


Sesame oil or
fractions not
chemically
modified


936.5 31.2 0.0 54.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


151620


Vegetable fats,
oils or fractions
hydrogenated,


esterified


41 921.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


151710
Margarine,


excluding liquid
margarine


10 873.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


152190
Beeswax, other


insect waxes
and spermaceti


53.0 48.5 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


170111 Raw sugar, cane 409 127.9 0.6 11.1 34.2 0.5 0.0 0.0


170191
Containing added


flavouring or
colouring matter


2286.5 0.1 1.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


170199
Refined sugar, in
solid form, NES,


pure sucrose
252 858.5 0.3 3.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


170310 Cane molasses 36 575.4 7.3 3.1 86.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted 10 621.9 27.5 0.8 21.4 2.4 7.2 0.0


180320
Cocoa paste,


wholly or partly
defatted


8002.8 49.4 8.8 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil 59 927.8 52.8 0.2 40.5 0.0 0.8 0.7


180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened 12 193.4 3.5 0.0 11.5 0.2 0.0 0.1


180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened 8739.1 0.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


180620


Chocolate and
other food


preparations
containing


cocoa > 2 kg


2233.0 4.7 0.2 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


180631


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block, slab, bar,
filled, > 2 kg


6157.7 0.9 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


180632


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block/slab/bar,
not filled, > 2 kg


17 709.4 1.3 0.1 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


180690
Chocolate/
cocoa food


preparations NES
23 819.6 0.9 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


200190


Vegetables,
fruit, nuts


NES prepared
or preserved
by vinegar


10 595.1 21.1 0.6 46.0 0.1 2.8 0.5


200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen 651.1 1.3 0.0 4.0 71.4 0.0 0.0


200520


Potatoes,
prepared or


preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


8187.1 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0


200590


Vegetables NES,
mixes, prepared/
preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


60 601.2 66.5 1.4 27.8 0.2 0.9 0.6




71ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


200600


Fruits, nuts,
fruit-peel,


etc., preserved
by sugar


1249.7 3.3 0.1 59.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


200710
Homogenized
jams, jellies,


etc.
9579.6 42.7 1.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


200791
Citrus-based
jams jellies


marmalade, etc.
919.8 6.8 1.4 41.1 0.0 0.4 0.4


200799


Jams, fruit
jellies, purees


and pastes,
except citrus


37 616.7 53.5 3.5 24.1 0.9 0.6 0.2


200811


Ground-nuts
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


1331.2 5.7 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


200819


Nuts, seeds and
mixes, otherwise


prepared or
preserved


3635.5 7.9 0.0 79.5 0.0 0.0 2.2


200820


Pineapples,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


1525.5 29.7 7.1 17.4 0.8 0.0 1.9


200830


Citrus fruits,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


309.4 85.7 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


200870


Peaches,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


309.7 16.0 0.4 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


200891


Palm hearts,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


60 117.5 54.7 4.1 11.4 0.1 0.0 0.1


200892


Fruit mixtures,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


2786.2 23.0 1.0 59.8 0.0 0.4 0.0


200899


Fruit, edible
plants NES
otherwise
prepared/
preserved


67 119.1 38.7 1.4 40.2 3.5 0.9 1.2


200911


Orange juice,
frozen, not
fermented
or spirited


37 401.8 11.1 0.0 88.0 0.2 0.0 0.0


200919


Orange juice,
not fermented,


spirited, or
frozen


43 048.6 20.8 0.0 38.2 0.1 0.0 0.0


200920
Grapefruit juice,
not fermented


or spirited
322.0 95.3 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.8 0.0


200930


Citrus juice
NES (one fruit)
not fermented


or spirited


2109.5 65.0 0.2 11.1 6.6 0.0 3.1


200940
Pineapple juice,
not fermented


or spirited
25 123.3 83.7 0.0 8.8 1.1 0.0 0.1




72 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


200980


Single fruit,
vegetable


juice NES, not
fermented
or spirited


65 861.3 58.6 2.9 19.5 0.9 0.5 0.9


200990
Mixtures of juices


not fermented
or spirited


4636.5 16.8 0.1 19.4 0.4 4.4 0.0


210111 Coffee extracts, essence 83 065.7 46.3 1.0 15.1 9.7 0.7 0.4


210112
Coffee


preparation
of extracts


83 065.7 46.3 1.0 15.1 9.7 0.7 0.4


210120


Tea and mate
extracts,


essences and
concentrates


701.0 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


210390


Sauces
NES, mixed
condiments,


mixed seasoning


53 657.1 1.0 0.5 7.0 0.8 0.0 0.0


220720 Ethyl alcohol 1397.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
220840 Rum 27 867.7 20.1 0.6 16.9 2.0 0.0 0.2


230610


Oil-cake and
other solid
residues, of
cotton seeds


262.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


230660


Oil-cake and
other solid


residues, of palm
nuts or kernels


98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


240110
Tobacco, not
stemmed/
stripped


32 332.3 24.4 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.6


240120


Tobacco, partly
or wholly
stemmed/
stripped


65 599.6 44.8 0.3 44.1 1.0 0.0 0.0


240130 Tobacco refuse 813.7 29.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


240210


Cigars, cheroots
and cigarillos,


containing
tobacco


25 034.6 8.9 0.5 43.6 0.1 0.2 2.6


240220
Cigarettes
containing
tobacco


102 879.0 0.3 0.0 61.6 0.1 0.0 0.0


240290


Cigars, cheroots,
cigarettes,


with tobacco
substitutes


1094.7 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0


240310


Smoking
tobacco,


whether or
not containing


tobacco
substitutes


374.5 18.8 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


240391


“Homogenized”
or


“reconstituted”
tobacco


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


240399
Other


manufactured
tobacco


40.7 78.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


330112 Essential oils of orange 2817.1 1.6 0.0 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


330113 Essential oils of lemon 5669.0 50.7 2.8 31.3 0.0 0.0 0.0




73ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 4.9. exports of other Latin American Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


060240 Roses, grafted or not 827.8 4.1 29.5 65.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


060290


Live plants,
including their


roots, and
mushroom spawn


20 593.4 68.9 0.8 16.5 7.4 0.1 0.1


060310


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
etc., fresh


21 586.4 12.0 1.3 85.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


060390


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
dried, etc.


3209.4 4.3 22.3 68.3 0.3 0.0 0.0


060491


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets,
etc. – fresh


17 036.2 73.5 1.3 24.0 0.8 0.0 0.2


060499


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets, etc.
– except fresh


5335.5 22.6 0.9 73.6 0.3 0.0 0.0


070190
Potatoes,


fresh or chilled
except seed


993.1 0.6 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


070310 Onions and shallots 180 579.7 1.2 8.2 87.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


070960


Peppers
(Capsicum,


Pimenta), fresh
or chilled


537 201.0 0.0 6.5 93.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES 320 267.7 1.2 5.7 88.5 4.1 0.0 0.0


071190


Other
vegetables;
mixtures of
vegetables


12 562.5 10.5 0.7 88.4 0.0 0.5 0.0


071390
Other dried
leguminous
vegetables


137.7 0.0 25.8 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried 778.6 52.7 1.3 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.1


071420 Sweet potatoes 1848.7 59.7 14.1 18.8 1.1 0.0 0.0


071490


Arrowroot,
salep, etc.,


fresh or dried
and sago pith


8744.4 44.4 4.4 45.5 1.4 0.2 0.0


080111 Desiccated coconuts 2269.8 9.9 1.0 60.7 0.0 0.0 0.9


080119 Other coconuts 2269.8 9.9 1.0 60.7 0.0 0.0 0.9


080290


Nuts, fresh or
dried, whether
or not shelled


or peeled


12 571.4 4.3 17.4 76.3 0.0 0.0 0.2


080300


Bananas,
including
plantains,


fresh or dried


305 530.4 28.5 4.5 58.1 0.8 0.0 0.2


080420 Figs, fresh or dried 4875.9 82.5 0.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 5.0


080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried 66 833.4 49.8 4.1 39.8 0.0 0.0 1.8


080440 Avocados, fresh or dried 215 947.4 15.2 10.4 32.7 21.3 0.0 0.0




74 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


080450


Guavas,
mangoes and
mangosteens,
fresh or dried


222 431.2 34.0 9.9 50.4 3.3 0.2 0.2


080510 Oranges, fresh or dried 40 918.1 57.3 0.7 12.9 0.3 0.0 0.3


080520


Mandarin,
clementine and
citrus hybrids,
fresh or dried


11 531.9 19.2 17.2 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


080530
Lemons and
limes, fresh


or dried
195 742.8 18.4 3.8 73.1 3.3 0.0 0.3


080590
Other citrus
fruit, fresh


or dried
912.3 71.1 2.1 0.6 3.2 0.0 0.0


080711 Watermelons, fresh 175 652.1 27.0 5.9 58.2 6.4 0.0 0.2


080719 Melons, fresh 175 652.1 27.0 5.9 58.2 6.4 0.0 0.2


080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas” 119 914.0 31.5 1.4 64.6 0.0 0.0 1.9


081090


Fresh tamarinds,
passion fruit,
carambola,


pitahaya and
other edible fruit


56 769.7 3.0 0.9 93.8 0.2 0.0 0.0


081190


Fruits and nuts
(uncooked,
steamed,


boiled) frozen


31 689.3 19.2 1.6 61.7 11.9 3.4 0.2


081290
Fruit and nuts,
provisionally
preserved


2281.2 84.4 4.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0


081340 Other fruit 1715.4 23.3 0.8 63.7 0.3 0.0 1.4


081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits 59.5 37.0 6.7 47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons 6741.3 86.7 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0


090112
Coffee, not


roasted,
decaffeinated


37 482.7 8.2 1.9 80.6 0.0 0.3 0.3


090121
Coffee,


roasted, not
decaffeinated


33 267.1 26.8 8.7 44.3 2.7 0.2 0.0


090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated 3365.1 5.3 8.8 16.6 0.3 0.5 0.0


090190 Coffee, other roasted 2997.9 39.1 0.4 26.1 0.1 1.8 0.0


090210
Tea, green


(unfermented) in
packages < 3 kg


1634.9 0.5 1.8 48.1 47.5 0.0 0.0


090412 Pepper, crushed or ground 5470.8 42.3 3.0 43.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


090420


Capsicum
or Pimenta,


dried, crushed
or ground


55 424.3 41.8 0.6 51.7 1.1 0.1 0.0


090700
Cloves (whole
fruit, cloves
and stems)


14 448.8 9.2 0.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


091010 Ginger 7242.1 51.0 4.5 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.4


100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough) 2496.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


100620 Husked (brown) rice 796.0 0.3 0.0 22.1 3.1 0.0 0.0




75ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


100630


Semi-milled or
wholly milled
rice, whether


or not polished
or glazed


13 585.0 0.5 0.0 4.4 0.1 1.7 0.0


100640 Broken rice 6192.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.6


110230 Rice flour 308.3 2.0 0.4 55.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


110620


Flour, meal
and powder of
sago or of roots


or tubers of
heading 07.14


1203.1 31.4 0.2 30.2 9.6 0.4 0.5


110630


Flour, meal and
powder of dried


leguminous
vegetables


1057.9 25.0 0.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.3


110814 Manioc (cassava) starch 7372.8 18.1 2.7 32.2 0.1 0.1 0.0


120210


Ground-nuts
in shell, not
roasted or


cooked


3431.7 97.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


120220
Ground-nuts,


shelled, whether
or not broken


27 713.8 89.3 0.2 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.0


120890


Other flours
and meals of
oil seeds or


oleaginous fruits


693.2 42.2 0.0 18.0 0.0 1.8 0.0


121190


Plants and parts,
pharmacy,
perfume,


insecticide
use nes


29 157.4 22.1 3.8 53.3 10.4 0.2 0.4


121210 Locust beans, locust seeds 36.9 30.1 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0


121299


Vegetable
products NES


for human
consumption


2693.5 47.2 0.9 31.3 12.5 0.0 0.1


130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES 48 747.1 33.4 0.4 53.1 4.7 0.1 0.4


140190 Other vegetable materials 357.5 8.1 0.0 65.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


150710
Crude soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


1 343 298.0 2.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0


150790
Other soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


225 874.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0


150810 Crude ground-nut oil 6511.6 96.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8


151110 Palm oil, crude 43 846.2 10.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


151190
Palm oil or


fractions simply
refined


24 467.0 1.2 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


151211


Crude sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


44 532.5 23.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.2


151219


Other sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


12 190.1 0.2 0.6 80.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


151311
Crude coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


1599.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0




76 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


151319
Other coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


318.6 0.0 2.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


151321
Crude palm
kernel or


babassu oil
4846.9 2.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


151329


Palm kernel
or babassu oil
and fractions
thereof, other


272.9 3.4 0.6 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


151410
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, crude
3641.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


151490
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, other
848.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


151530 Castor oil and its fractions 1310.3 10.2 9.5 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


151550


Sesame oil or
fractions not
chemically
modified


11 212.4 27.7 2.1 54.0 10.2 0.8 0.0


151620


Vegetable fats,
oils or fractions
hydrogenated,


esterified


29 940.2 29.2 0.4 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


151710
Margarine,


excluding liquid
margarine


30 746.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


152190
Beeswax, other


insect waxes
and spermaceti


7544.6 0.7 0.2 1.0 75.6 0.0 0.0


170111 Raw sugar, cane 1 844 845.0 2.1 5.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


170191
Containing added


flavouring or
colouring matter


44 009.0 0.3 0.1 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


170199
Refined sugar, in
solid form, NES
pure sucrose


1 115 507.0 1.9 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1


170310 Cane molasses 44 844.4 22.8 2.5 66.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted 19 076.0 6.4 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0


180320
Cocoa paste,


wholly or partly
defatted


19 739.6 6.3 9.9 59.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil 124 670.3 22.2 6.1 49.5 0.0 0.0 0.6


180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened 61 623.9 11.4 9.7 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened 9 476.6 0.2 0.0 66.5 0.2 0.0 0.0


180620


Chocolate and
other food


preparations
containing


cocoa > 2 kg


40 360.8 0.1 5.5 85.7 0.1 0.0 0.0


180631


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block, slab, bar,
filled, > 2 kg


18 716.2 2.2 1.9 27.8 2.2 1.1 0.0


180632


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block/slab/bar,
not filled, > 2 kg


40 595.0 0.8 0.7 66.7 2.0 0.3 0.0




77ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


180690
Chocolate/
cocoa food


preparations NES
116 660.0 2.1 7.8 42.9 0.9 1.1 0.0


200190


Vegetables,
fruit, nuts


NES prepared
or preserved
by vinegar


121 877.7 3.2 3.0 92.0 0.8 0.2 0.0


200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen 324.3 1.1 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.0 0.0


200520


Potatoes,
prepared or


preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


73 416.9 0.9 13.3 82.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


200590


Vegetables NES,
mixes, prepared/
preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


22 818.7 3.8 2.4 80.4 0.2 1.9 0.0


200600


Fruits, nuts,
fruit-peel,


etc., preserved
by sugar


3913.7 4.8 0.1 65.4 0.3 0.0 0.0


200710
Homogenized
jams, jellies,


etc.
9652.4 5.4 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.0


200791
Citrus-based
jams, jellies,
marmalade


1075.7 1.8 0.2 1.5 4.5 0.0 0.1


200799


Jams, fruit
jellies, purees


and pastes,
except citrus


19 406.0 10.7 0.3 40.9 1.5 1.1 0.0


200811


Ground-nuts
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


12 356.7 5.2 0.4 40.5 0.3 0.0 0.0


200819


Nuts, seeds and
mixes, otherwise


prepared or
preserved


9735.5 5.1 5.0 44.4 3.1 2.2 0.0


200820


Pineapples,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


1209.4 3.2 0.0 24.0 0.2 0.0 0.1


200830


Citrus fruits,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


18 924.0 17.6 0.6 63.8 15.0 0.0 0.1


200870


Peaches,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


2212.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.1 0.0 0.0


200891


Palm hearts,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


7730.7 21.9 0.0 56.4 4.8 0.0 0.7


200892


Fruit mixtures,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


7714.8 5.9 0.1 88.7 0.3 0.0 0.0


200899


Fruit, edible
plants NES
otherwise
prepared/
preserved


108 555.9 8.5 1.9 84.3 1.4 0.2 0.2


200911


Orange juice,
frozen, not
fermented
or spirited


745 475.1 53.7 4.6 15.1 8.9 3.5 0.7




78 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


200919


Orange juice,
not fermented,


spirited, or
frozen


447 460.4 82.9 1.1 4.7 2.3 0.2 5.1


200920
Grapefruit juice,
not fermented


or spirited
12 675.7 21.8 0.5 75.2 0.0 0.0 1.0


200930


Citrus juice
NES (one fruit)
not fermented


or spirited


26 885.5 31.2 3.4 55.9 2.4 3.3 0.4


200940
Pineapple juice,
not fermented


or spirited
24 100.8 70.0 0.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.7


200980


Single fruit,
vegetable


juice NES, not
fermented
or spirited


67 552.6 14.1 0.5 50.0 3.6 1.2 0.2


200990


Mixtures of
juices not
fermented
or spirited


12 874.5 13.9 0.1 65.3 0.1 1.3 0.1


210111 Coffee extracts, essence 174 961.1 20.4 0.8 19.8 9.6 0.4 0.1


210112
Coffee


preparation
of extracts


174 961.1 20.4 0.8 19.8 9.6 0.4 0.1


210120


Tea and mate
extracts,


essences and
concentrates


25 244.7 1.5 0.9 90.0 0.2 0.2 0.0


210390


Sauces
NES, mixed
condiments,


mixed seasoning


95 891.4 3.6 0.4 60.2 4.7 0.0 0.0


220720 Ethyl alcohol 58 316.7 19.6 14.8 13.3 7.0 0.0 0.1


220840 Rum 55 505.9 48.6 0.0 12.1 0.6 0.1 2.4


230610


Oil-cake and
other solid
residues, of
cotton seeds


6338.7 39.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


230660


Oil-cake and
other solid


residues, of palm
nuts or kernels


834.1 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


240110
Tobacco, not
stemmed/
stripped


71 539.1 40.7 0.1 11.0 0.6 0.0 6.7


240120


Tobacco, partly
or wholly
stemmed/
stripped


1 345 640.0 34.1 0.6 14.9 4.6 0.6 1.7


240130 Tobacco refuse 61 365.0 36.7 0.2 17.4 2.6 1.3 0.7


240210


Cigars, cheroots
and cigarillos,


containing
tobacco


79 235.2 8.1 0.7 86.4 0.1 0.1 0.4


240220
Cigarettes
containing
tobacco


92 692.0 0.9 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


240290


Cigars, cheroots,
cigarettes,


with tobacco
substitutes


393.6 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0




79ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 4.10. exports of Asian Countries, by Tropical and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


060240 Roses, grafted or not 241.8 5.1 0.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0


060290


Live plants,
including their


roots, and
mushroom spawn


50 291.9 21.4 0.8 9.3 21.5 1.7 0.2


060310


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
etc., fresh


121 131.4 20.2 0.6 5.7 53.3 1.3 0.7


060390


Cut flowers and
flower buds


for bouquets,
dried, etc.


27 263.0 17.6 1.1 4.1 39.7 0.3 0.2


060491


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets,
etc. – fresh


20 429.2 20.3 0.3 4.1 44.3 0.4 0.5


060499


Foliage,
branches, for


bouquets, etc.
– except fresh


35 030.2 49.9 0.6 28.4 0.9 0.7 0.3


070190
Potatoes,


fresh or chilled
except seed


14 005.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0


070310 Onions and shallots 195 862.9 2.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0


070960


Peppers
(Capsicum,


Pimenta) fresh
or chilled


23 691.8 9.4 0.3 0.1 4.6 0.0 1.7


070990 Vegetables, fresh or chilled NES 134 852.7 36.6 1.2 0.2 14.8 0.7 5.0


071190


Other
vegetables;
mixtures of
vegetables


17 562.9 48.9 0.3 5.6 18.2 3.4 0.4


071390
Other dried
leguminous
vegetables


161 842.3 1.0 0.1 8.3 0.1 0.0 0.0


071410 Manioc (cassava), fresh or dried 556 512.4 38.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


240310


Smoking
tobacco,


whether or
not containing


tobacco
substitutes


52 361.6 12.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


240391


“Homogenized”
or


“reconstituted”
tobacco


20 066.7 54.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9


240399
Other


manufactured
tobacco


10 936.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


330112 Essential oils of orange 60 028.9 37.4 1.5 32.7 5.1 0.7 7.0


330113 Essential oils of lemon 11 609.6 37.2 0.7 54.4 0.3 0.5 0.5




80 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %
071420 Sweet potatoes 6047.8 1.2 3.5 0.3 11.4 0.1 0.8


071490


Arrowroot,
salep, etc.,


fresh or dried
and sago pith


7308.2 19.9 1.4 4.6 12.4 2.6 0.4


080111 Desiccated coconuts 120 511.7 27.8 2.5 15.8 1.0 2.6 0.4


080119 Other coconuts 120 511.7 27.8 2.5 15.8 1.0 2.6 0.4


080290


Nuts, fresh or
dried, whether
or not shelled


or peeled


71 404.1 3.5 0.1 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.0


080300


Bananas,
including
plantains,


fresh or dried


769 736.6 0.3 0.0 0.7 60.8 0.0 0.1


080420 Figs, fresh or dried 1 291.1 5.4 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.1 13.1


080430 Pineapples, fresh or dried 125 800.9 3.2 0.3 3.8 60.3 0.4 0.2


080440 Avocados, fresh or dried 99.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0


080450


Guavas,
mangoes and
mangosteens,
fresh or dried


194 492.3 4.1 2.0 7.6 13.5 0.4 0.9


080510 Oranges, fresh or dried 3819.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0


080520


Mandarin,
clementine and
citrus hybrids,
fresh or dried


1575.1 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


080530
Lemons and
limes, fresh


or dried
5830.6 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4


080590
Other citrus
fruit, fresh


or dried
5957.2 12.3 11.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0


080711 Watermelons, fresh 12 048.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0


080719 Melons, fresh 12 048.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0


080720 Fresh pawpaws “papayas” 35 000.8 14.8 0.7 0.4 18.3 0.0 0.1


081090


Fresh tamarinds,
passion fruit,
carambola,


pitahaya and
other edible fruit


337 425.7 8.7 3.4 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.6


081190


Fruits and nuts
(uncooked,
steamed,


boiled) frozen


44 217.0 25.9 3.4 14.9 23.7 6.5 0.3


081290
Fruit and nuts,
provisionally
preserved


9135.8 16.8 6.4 12.9 2.9 0.8 0.0


081340 Other fruit 66 887.5 5.8 1.2 9.1 0.2 0.8 0.1


081350 Mixtures of nuts or dried fruits 4695.6 16.5 8.6 32.1 0.1 1.9 0.0


081400 Peel of citrus fruit or melons 1345.4 36.9 0.7 4.2 8.0 0.2 0.0


090112
Coffee, not


roasted,
decaffeinated


21 874.3 5.8 7.0 70.7 1.5 0.4 0.2


090121
Coffee,


roasted, not
decaffeinated


10 362.1 28.7 3.8 19.8 14.3 1.7 0.1




81ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


090122 Coffee, roasted, decaffeinated 2664.5 24.6 0.5 21.1 0.3 0.1 0.0


090190 Coffee, other roasted 9384.8 18.7 0.2 8.5 13.9 0.9 0.3


090210
Tea, green


(unfermented) in
packages < 3 kg


23 925.3 23.7 2.6 8.9 0.9 1.1 0.4


090412 Pepper, crushed or ground 37 688.8 35.9 11.2 16.3 13.9 2.5 0.3


090420


Capsicum
or Pimenta,


dried, crushed
or ground


130 616.1 7.9 1.3 18.8 0.9 1.0 0.1


090700
Cloves (whole
fruit, cloves
and stems)


36 221.3 4.2 0.3 2.2 0.6 0.4 0.2


091010 Ginger 52 172.7 19.6 1.0 5.6 40.0 0.9 0.1


100610 Rice in the husk (paddy or rough) 136 924.8 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


100620 Husked (brown) rice 252 568.7 64.5 0.6 4.9 0.0 0.1 1.0


100630


Semi-milled or
wholly milled
rice, whether


or not polished
or glazed


3 858 787.0 2.9 1.1 5.0 0.8 0.7 0.2


100640 Broken rice 535 067.1 5.3 0.1 0.2 2.2 0.5 1.4


110230 Rice flour 33 443.9 8.6 2.5 10.6 1.5 2.5 0.3


110620


Flour, meal
and powder of
sago or of roots


or tubers of
heading 07.14


6883.8 2.6 1.5 6.8 22.8 0.2 0.2


110630


Flour, meal and
powder of dried


leguminous
vegetables


28 592.5 31.6 0.4 3.1 1.9 1.0 0.2


110814 Manioc (cassava) starch 293 858.2 2.6 0.9 2.0 8.6 0.6 0.0


120210


Ground-nuts
in shell, not
roasted or


cooked


20 174.0 13.8 1.6 2.6 0.1 0.4 0.0


120220
Ground-nuts,


shelled, whether
or not broken


108 627.8 27.2 5.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0


120890


Other flours
and meals of
oil seeds or


oleaginous fruits


4548.5 6.2 0.3 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1


121190


Plants and parts,
pharmacy,
perfume,


insecticide
use NES


125 042.8 17.3 1.3 24.2 12.7 1.1 0.6


121210 Locust beans, locust seeds 292.6 21.3 0.4 6.3 40.1 0.2 0.0


121299


Vegetable
products NES


for human
consumption


10 244.6 25.1 0.7 2.5 15.6 2.6 0.8


130219 Vegetable saps and extracts NES 70 090.1 15.5 1.1 41.0 24.9 1.6 0.1


140190 Other vegetable materials 4318.4 27.3 1.1 12.7 3.9 1.2 0.2




82 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


150710
Crude soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


51 193.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.2 0.0 0.0


150790
Other soya-
bean oil and
its fractions


88 848.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 4.7 10.8 0.0


150810 Crude ground-nut oil 66 804.1 77.0 0.0 16.6 0.2 0.8 4.6


151110 Palm oil, crude 2 721 504.0 27.7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0


151190
Palm oil or


fractions simply
refined


6 466 100.0 9.7 0.1 1.8 3.3 0.7 0.1


151211


Crude sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


5986.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.0 3.3


151219


Other sunflower-
seed or safflower
oil and fractions


thereof


21 824.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0


151311
Crude coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


716 437.1 48.4 0.4 22.9 0.0 0.4 0.5


151319
Other coconut
(copra) oil and
its fractions


301 195.3 6.8 2.1 26.9 13.5 1.7 0.0


151321
Crude palm
kernel or


babassu oil
456 272.3 38.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.2 0.1


151329


Palm kernel
or babassu oil
and fractions
thereof, other


453 428.0 12.5 1.3 26.9 7.4 1.7 0.1


151410
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, crude
2140.8 2.6 1.4 2.3 0.2 1.6 0.1


151490
Low erucic acid
rape or colza


oil, other
20 336.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 20.6 28.0 0.0


151530 Castor oil and its fractions 232 726.3 45.4 0.6 13.5 8.4 0.4 0.7


151550


Sesame oil or
fractions not
chemically
modified


9308.0 15.3 0.9 10.0 27.7 1.3 0.5


151620


Vegetable fats,
oils or fractions
hydrogenated,


esterified


454 627.7 13.4 1.3 2.1 3.4 1.8 0.0


151710
Margarine,


excluding liquid
margarine


50 584.1 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.1


152190
Beeswax, other


insect waxes
and spermaceti


1378.0 26.6 0.0 7.2 47.5 0.0 0.0


170111 Raw sugar, cane 540 894.6 2.7 0.1 10.7 24.5 0.0 0.0


170191
Containing added


flavouring or
colouring matter


4252.7 0.5 3.0 4.6 3.7 0.4 0.0


170199
Refined sugar, in
solid form, NES,


pure sucrose
429 017.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0


170310 Cane molasses 91 092.8 9.8 0.2 1.2 13.0 0.0 0.0


180310 Cocoa paste, not defatted 20 646.3 4.4 0.0 1.1 12.6 16.5 0.0




83ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


180320
Cocoa paste,


wholly or partly
defatted


75 763.2 43.6 3.5 21.0 1.7 2.6 0.0


180400 Cocoa butter, fat, oil 404 959.2 28.8 4.6 35.8 5.2 9.9 0.4


180500 Cocoa powder, unsweetened 154 386.1 10.5 0.9 11.9 4.5 8.5 0.0


180610 Cocoa powder, sweetened 20 079.4 4.2 0.5 1.3 9.8 1.1 0.0


180620


Chocolate and
other food


preparations
containing


cocoa > 2 kg


18 299.6 1.2 0.2 1.2 20.3 6.7 0.2


180631


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block, slab, bar,
filled, > 2 kg


25 211.8 0.4 0.0 0.7 5.0 0.1 0.0


180632


Chocolate, cocoa
preparations,


block/slab/bar,
not filled, > 2 kg


11 967.9 9.9 0.0 17.0 2.3 0.7 0.0


180690
Chocolate/
cocoa food


preparations NES
28 886.1 0.7 0.1 2.4 1.2 1.8 0.0


200190


Vegetables,
fruit, nuts


NES prepared
or preserved
by vinegar


33 580.7 44.6 5.8 10.2 10.8 4.1 1.8


200410 Potatoes, prepared, frozen 3482.9 4.7 0.0 1.2 5.0 0.3 0.0


200520


Potatoes,
prepared or


preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


12 137.8 8.8 0.6 1.0 6.6 5.8 0.0


200590


Vegetables NES,
mixes, prepared/
preserved, not
frozen/vinegar


86 022.4 32.0 3.8 18.3 27.8 3.7 0.4


200600


Fruits, nuts,
fruit-peel,


etc., preserved
by sugar


33 470.3 22.7 1.4 33.4 10.5 0.8 1.5


200710
Homogenized
jams, jellies,


etc.
6093.3 21.6 1.8 12.2 5.9 1.9 0.4


200791
Citrus-based
jams, jellies,
marmalade


970.6 3.8 2.7 2.8 0.4 3.3 0.1


200799


Jams, fruit
jellies, purees


and pastes,
except citrus


25 112.8 7.6 1.5 18.5 3.8 1.7 0.2


200811


Ground-nuts
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


21 866.5 7.9 4.1 13.7 0.8 1.8 0.1


200819


Nuts, seeds and
mixes, otherwise


prepared or
preserved


85 969.8 34.7 11.6 28.8 5.9 0.4 0.1


200820


Pineapples,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


598 598.0 35.7 2.7 36.1 6.5 0.9 1.1




84 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


200830


Citrus fruits,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


19 500.3 6.7 15.1 71.9 2.0 0.1 0.1


200870


Peaches,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


26 920.0 4.0 6.3 87.8 0.1 0.0 0.0


200891


Palm hearts,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


605.7 8.0 12.3 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.7


200892


Fruit mixtures,
otherwise


prepared or
preserved


115 404.9 14.0 3.7 53.5 5.3 0.3 0.2


200899


Fruit, edible
plants NES
otherwise
prepared/
preserved


225 610.1 27.0 2.9 22.5 16.9 3.1 0.9


200911


Orange juice,
frozen, not
fermented
or spirited


1608.1 22.4 0.1 11.3 0.7 1.6 0.0


200919


Orange juice,
not fermented,


spirited, or
frozen


5090.8 4.2 0.5 1.2 1.9 0.2 0.0


200920
Grapefruit juice,
not fermented


or spirited
1138.9 5.8 0.4 1.5 13.4 0.7 0.0


200930


Citrus juice
NES (one fruit)
not fermented


or spirited


2384.9 11.4 1.8 3.6 3.6 1.7 0.0


200940
Pineapple juice,
not fermented


or spirited
199 866.2 45.7 3.4 26.9 5.0 3.0 0.1


200980


Single fruit,
vegetable


juice NES, not
fermented
or spirited


70 630.7 10.2 3.2 19.6 1.9 1.5 0.1


200990


Mixtures of
juices not
fermented
or spirited


16 085.7 7.5 9.1 11.0 1.2 0.5 0.2


210111 Coffee extracts, essence 97 562.2 15.4 0.2 1.3 4.2 0.7 0.0


210112
Coffee


preparation
of extracts


97 562.2 15.4 0.2 1.3 4.2 0.7 0.0


210120


Tea and mate
extracts,


essences and
concentrates


47 325.1 26.3 0.3 18.1 25.6 0.6 1.3


210390


Sauces
NES, mixed
condiments,


mixed seasoning


221 580.8 21.0 2.3 16.2 14.4 8.0 1.1


220720 Ethyl alcohol 6703.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
220840 Rum 3015.9 2.7 2.6 0.7 2.5 1.0 0.0


230610


Oil-cake and
other solid
residues, of
cotton seeds


944.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0




85ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


CoDe DeSCriPtion WorLD eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


USD1000 % % % % % %


230660


Oil-cake and
other solid


residues, of palm
nuts or kernels


271 134.2 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0


240110
Tobacco, not
stemmed/
stripped


165 966.3 44.2 0.0 5.5 0.5 0.6 2.2


240120


Tobacco, partly
or wholly
stemmed/
stripped


441 111.9 41.2 0.2 8.1 1.1 2.1 1.3


240130 Tobacco refuse 18 962.2 21.6 0.0 2.5 1.8 0.0 0.3


240210


Cigars, cheroots
and cigarillos,


containing
tobacco


17 475.8 51.4 0.6 18.3 0.4 2.7 0.2


240220
Cigarettes
containing
tobacco


491 835.4 2.0 0.0 6.1 0.5 0.2 0.0


240290


Cigars, cheroots,
cigarettes,


with tobacco
substitutes


8994.3 7.2 0.0 6.3 0.3 0.1 0.0


240310


Smoking
tobacco,


whether or
not containing


tobacco
substitutes


94 851.7 16.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1


240391


“Homogenized”
or


“reconstituted”
tobacco


6234.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0


240399
Other


manufactured
tobacco


35 576.4 4.7 0.1 2.5 1.9 0.2 0.0


330112 Essential oils of orange 643.0 67.0 0.0 7.6 2.6 0.0 0.0


330113 Essential oils of lemon 482.5 23.2 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.4 0.5


4.3.2 Impact of SPS and TBT Measures on Trade Flows: Descriptive Analysis


Before we estimate econometrically the impact
of SPS and TBT measures on bilateral trade flows
of tropical and diversification products (see next
section), we provide some descriptive statistics
on the impact of standards on trade.


First, we calculate for each exporting country the
share of exports of tropical and diversification
products affected by SPS and TBTs in each
importing market. Results are presented in Table
4.11. The share of affected exports on each
market of course depends on the notification
of SPS and TBTs by the importing country.
Australia notifies standards on almost all tropical
and diversification products. Consequently, the


share of exports towards Australia affected by
these standards is very high. The fact that other
main developed countries do not notify as many
measures as Australia suggests that Australia
tends to use these standards in a protectionist
way. Furthermore, many countries do not export
to Australia. One can assume that, in such cases,
the degree of stringency of SPS and TBT measures
is very high and prevents imports.


Although EU countries notify few standards,
some exporting countries are affected highly by
these measures. For example, 78.91 percent of
Burundi’s exports to EU25 are affected by SPS
and TBTs. We could also mention Central African




86 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Republic (84.57 percent), Kenya (63.23 percent),
Niue (100 percent), Rwanda (72.61 percent)
and Brunei Darussalam (100 percent). The same
result is observed for exports to Japan. Japan
notifies (only) 25 SPS and TBTs on tropical and
diversification products. However, eight countries
have more than half of their exports to Japan
affected by these measures. These countries
are Union of Myanmar (71.81 percent), Ethiopia
(76.05 percent), Nigeria (63.63 percent), Paraguay
(91.67 percent), Somalia (50 percent), Sri Lanka
(58.52 percent), Sudan (100 percent) and United
Republic of Tanzania (56.46 percent).


Table 4.11 also suggests differences in terms of
affected exports between countries belonging
to the same sub-group of exporters (ACP, LA8,
other Latin American and Asian countries). For
example, if we focus on LA8 countries, Table 4.11
shows that exports of Guatemala are affected by
EU standards much more than exports of other
LA8 countries. However, Guatemala’s exports to
Canada are not affected any more than those of
other LA8 countries.


Table 4.11. Share and value of exports Affected by SPS and TBT Measures, by exporting Country


Country eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD
vALue


AFFeCteD
exPortS


% % % % % % USD1000


ACP79
Angola 0.00 – – – – – 0


Antigua and
Barbuda 0.00 33.76 7.60 0.00 – 1.01 20.92


Burundi 78.91 – – – – 100.00 486.14


Benin 0.02 0.00 23.13 – – 0.00 4.57


Burkina Faso 0.49 100.00 0.00 0.00 – 9.88 120.37


Bahamas 0.00 4.16 11.64 0.00 – 0.00 546.27


Belize 0.04 96.37 86.02 2.36 – 0.00 38137.73


Barbados 0.15 3.38 0.89 0.00 100.00 0.00 481.24


Botswana 0.00 – 100.00 – – – 9.86


Central
African


Republic
84.57 – 0.00 – – – 432.84


Cote d’Ivoire 0.57 0.05 9.62 0.00 100.00 1.39 24 679.42


Cameroon 0.94 5.90 0.34 – – 22.99 2682.46


Congo 0.00 – 0.00 – – 88.21 13.76


Cook Islands 0.00 11.49 100.00 0.00 100.00 – 44.04


Comoros 0.00 100.00 0.00 – – 0.00 36.98


Cape Verde 0.00 – 0.00 – – – 0.00


Cuba 0.11 10.76 – 0.00 100.00 0.26 2758.72


Djibouti 0.00 – 2.23 – – – 2.70


Dominica 0.14 98.07 93.51 0.00 100.00 35.80 237.11


Dominican
Republic 0.42 57.13 16.97 0.00 100.00 3.36 73 146.76


Eritrea 38.70 100.00 – – – 0.00 90.43


Ethiopia 38.18 92.82 0.14 76.05 100.00 0.00 7226.16


Fiji 0.00 70.49 22.45 0.12 99.73 95.69 11 049.75


Micronesia,
Federated
States of


– – – 0.00 – – 0.00


Gabon 0.00 100.00 0.00 – – – 7.44




87ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Country eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD
vALue


AFFeCteD
exPortS


% % % % % % USD1000


Ghana 0.03 44.46 24.75 2.82 100.00 5.80 4619.25


Guinea 3.70 100.00 0.00 – – – 88.10


Gambia 0.00 100.00 4.54 – – 100.00 377.76


Guinea-Bissau 0.00 – 0.00 – – – 0.00


Equatorial
Guinea 0.40 0.00 – – – 100.00 1.32


Grenada 0.59 71.97 0.13 0.00 – 100.00 28.15


Guyana 0.00 14.64 19.08 23.19 100.00 74.00 2478.49


Haiti 2.72 86.94 87.80 0.00 – 8.93 8441.61


Jamaica 0.01 34.88 68.08 0.44 100.00 99.07 34 351.33


Kenya 63.23 77.78 94.45 38.68 100.00 0.95 313 048.10


Kiribati 0.00 – – – – – 0.00


St Kitts and
Nevis 0.00 100.00 6.29 – 100.00 – 145.92


Liberia 0.00 – 0.00 – – – 0.00


St Lucia 0.00 37.20 91.74 0.00 – – 212.12


Lesotho 0.00 – – – – – 0.00


Madagascar 0.32 99.95 23.28 0.76 100.00 6.88 2650.23


Marshall
Islands 0.00 – 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.00


Mali 2.93 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 7.14 252.72


Mozambique 0.83 0.00 5.28 0.00 100.00 0.00 651.61


Mauritania 1.54 – – 0.00 – 0.00 6.17


Mauritius 0.53 20.99 0.42 0.00 100.00 79.02 3461.69


Malawi 0.17 89.25 10.41 1.27 100.00 2.89 8035.85


Namibia 8.91 100.00 0.00 – 100.00 – 209.64


Niger 0.31 100.00 0.40 0.00 – 100.00 57.92


Nigeria 0.16 93.74 7.62 63.63 100.00 50.13 299.06


Niue 100.00 – – – – – 1.90


Nauru 0.00 – – 0.00 – – 0.00


Palau – – – 0.00 – – 0.00


Papua New
Guinea 0.00 – 0.14 0.00 100.00 – 784.67


Rwanda 72.61 – – – – – 486.91


Sudan 0.01 100.00 – 100.00 100.00 95.14 1154.01


Senegal 0.41 100.00 16.47 – – 80.43 485.47


Solomon
Islands – 0.00 – – 100.00 – 28.97


Sierra Leone 0.87 100.00 0.00 – – – 28.95


Somalia 27.35 84.25 47.23 50.00 100.00 – 60.93


Sao Tome
and Principe 13.34 – – – – – 47.41


Suriname 1.57 0.00 0.00 – – 100.00 273.22


Swaziland 0.00 0.00 87.51 0.00 100.00 46.38 510.95


Seychelles 0.00 – – – – 42.14 26.35


Chad 0.00 – – – – – 0.00


Togo 0.76 94.10 34.28 – – 20.04 245.90




88 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Country eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD
vALue


AFFeCteD
exPortS


% % % % % % USD1000


Tonga – – 100.00 0.00 100.00 – 519.89


Trinidad and
Tobago 0.04 63.68 75.15 5.69 100.00 100.00 5518.94


Tuvalu 0.00 – – – – – 0.00


Tanzania 7.41 6.19 5.36 56.46 100.00 0.53 8402.17


Uganda 27.27 100.00 2.36 0.00 100.00 0.47 26 327.03


St Vincent
and the


Grenadines
0.00 100.00 91.18 – – 100.00 237.34


Vanuatu 0.00 – 0.00 0.00 100.00 – 245.39


Samoa 0.00 – 94.29 0.00 100.00 – 3725.81


South Africa 5.06 57.99 73.98 11.03 97.81 13.36 156 068.70


Democratic
Republic of
the Congo


0.21 93.35 18.22 – – 58.92 81.64


Zambia 29.44 – 18.43 0.00 100.00 0.00 17 141.40


Zimbabwe 19.52 5.57 0.69 0.00 100.00 0.05 52 936.11


LA8
Bolivia 0.16 39.92 13.82 20.01 100.00 99.17 1675.36


Colombia 13.58 88.69 87.24 22.82 99.96 10.47 916 965.90


Costa Rica 6.95 87.81 91.02 0.00 100.00 0.50 871 503.4


Ecuador 7.09 90.70 92.91 3.10 100.00 3.16 663 759.10


Guatemala 38.52 67.86 75.62 0.07 100.00 41.37 418 171.90


Nicaragua 9.62 5.43 35.12 0.00 100.00 11.63 26 523.70


Panama 0.00 94.18 58.67 0.00 – 0.50 16 419.65


Peru 1.86 91.43 56.46 6.87 79.81 24.33 78 545.39


other countries
Central and Latin America


Brazil 0.50 6.73 28.98 14.25 98.92 3.94 310 835.70


Honduras 8.10 93.63 71.04 0.00 100.00 0.01 276 077.80


Mexico 7.07 85.63 83.89 0.22 94.07 76.16 2 143 618.0


Paraguay 0.76 5.70 1.30 91.67 – 65.10 1914.95


El Salvador 40.62 40.02 26.91 0.00 100.00 – 14 534.50


Venezuela 0.07 24.39 53.30 1.20 – 0.90 6861.15


Asia


Bangladesh 0.52 79.88 15.27 25.74 96.81 – 817.44


Brunei
Darussalam 100.00 – – – – – 1.22


Indonesia 0.12 24.50 20.52 15.02 100.00 22.55 96 860.71


India 3.39 62.01 36.65 23.83 97.17 73.42 178 994.50


Cambodia 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 357.04


Sri Lanka 4.44 71.91 50.29 58.52 75.62 18.44 14 658.93


Myanmar 0.98 100.00 – 71.81 – 100.00 462.68


Malaysia 0.46 1.73 2.24 1.60 99.98 95.94 153 944.00


Philippines 0.97 34.06 42.67 0.32 99.99 48.50 236 973.10


Thailand 2.99 58.98 92.38 14.05 99.40 52.19 727 636.60


Viet Nam 1.01 68.17 72.28 38.09 96.91 14.89 41 234.39


– = no exports at all.




89ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


We can also investigate which exporting countries
are affected the most by SPS and TBTs notified by
main developed markets. Most affected countries
are defined using two different rankings. The
first refers to the value of affected exports (last
column of Table 4.11) and the second is based on
the ratio of affected exports over total exports
to main developed markets. This ratio is derived
from Table 4.11 for the numerator and Table 4.6
for the denominator.


The 10 most affected exporting countries (by
value of notified exports – in USD thousands)
are:


Mexico (2 143 618)•
Colombia (916 966)•
Costa Rica (871 503)•
Thailand (727 637)•
Ecuador (663 759)•
Guatemala (418 172)•
Kenya (313 048)•
Brazil (310 836)•
Honduras (276 078)•
Philippines (236 973)•


The 10 most affected exporting countries (in
terms of affected exports/total exports to main
developed markets – in percent) are:


Brunei Darussalam (100)•
Niue (100)•
Burundi (79.19)•
Mexico (76.28)•
Rwanda (72.61)•
Guatemala (70.12)•
Haiti (65.30)•
Kenya (62.15)•
Colombia (59.63)•
Honduras (59.62)•


These rankings are somewhat different. Five
countries are present in both rankings (Mexico,
Guatemala, Kenya, Colombia, Honduras). Only
one ACP country is included in the first ranking
(Kenya), while five are included in the second
ranking (Niue, Burundi, Rwanda, Haiti, Kenya).
The most affected countries in terms of value
of affected exports are big Latin American and
Asian exporting countries. This latter result
could be explained easily by the size of these
countries. They are large and export more
products; therefore, a high value of their exports
is affected by SPS and TBTs.


Descriptive statistics could also be used to
study the value of imports of main developed
countries affected by standards and the share of
affected imports in the total imports of tropical
and diversification products. Results are given
in Table 4.12. Our results show strong variations
in the share of affected imports in the total
of imports. This share is above 50 percent for
Canada (55.3 percent), the US (66.2 percent) and
Australia (99.3 percent). On the other hand, it
equals only 5 percent for EU25 and 7.6 percent
for Japan. Both countries notify fewer SPS and
TBTs than other importing countries (see Table
4.1). Interestingly, the share is 18.1 percent for
Switzerland. In Table 4.1 we saw that Switzerland
notifies more measures than EU25, Japan
and Canada. The smallest share of affected
imports for Switzerland than the one observed
for Canada (18.1 percent versus 55.3 percent)
seems, therefore, to suggest that Switzerland’s
notifications reduce trade more than Canadian
measures do.




90 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Table 4.12. use of SPS and TBT Measures by importing Countries


iMPorting
Country


eu25 CAnADA uS JAPAn AuSTrALiA SWiTzerLAnD


Total
imports of


tropical and
diversification


products
(USD1000)


15 946 583 1 056 462 9 119 398 2 192 672 372 593 345 747


Imports of
tropical and


diversification
products


affected by
standards
(USD1000)


797 041 584 134 6 036 727 165 780 369 937 62 701


Share of
affected


imports (%)
5.0 55.3 66.2 7.6 99.3 18.1


We now study which tropical and diversification
products are the most affected by SPS and
TBTs. Using Tables 4.4 and 4.7–4.10, we rank
products according to the following criteria: (i)
the value of affected exports and (ii) the share
of affected exports over total exports to main
developed markets. The top 10 affected tropical
and diversification products are described
below. Products are mostly different in each
ranking. Only three of them are present in both
rankings: HS 060310 (Cut flowers and flower buds
for bouquets, etc., fresh), HS 070960 (Peppers
– Capsicum, Pimenta – fresh or chilled) and HS
070310 (Onions and shallots).


The 10 most affected tropical and diversification
products (by value of affected exports – USD
thousands) are:


HS 060310 – Cut flowers and flower buds for •
bouquets, etc., fresh (1 463 514)
HS 080300 – Bananas, including plantains, •
fresh or dried (1 334 696)
HS 070960 – Peppers (Capsicum, Pimenta) •
fresh or chilled (541 685)
HS 070990 – Vegetables, fresh or chilled, not •
elsewhere classified (331 817)
HS 100630 – Semi-milled or wholly milled •
rice, whether or not polished or glazed
(302 075)
HS 080430 – Pineapples, fresh or dried •
(270 977)


HS 200820 – Pineapples, otherwise prepared •
or preserved (222 750)
HS 080450 – Guavas, mangoes and •
mangosteens, fresh or dried (209 583)
HS 200911 – Orange juice, frozen, not •
fermented or spirited (190 463)
HS 070310 – Onions and shallots (189 358)•


The 10 most affected products (by the share
of affected exports over total exports to main
developed markets – in percent) are:


HS 060499 – Foliage, branches, for bouquets, •
etc. – except fresh (98.30)
HS 070960 – Peppers (Capsicum, Pimenta) •
fresh or chilled (98.03)
HS 060310 – Cut flowers and flower buds for •
bouquets, etc., fresh (92.82)
HS 070310 – Onions and shallots (90.92)•
HS 060491 – Foliage, branches, for bouquets, •
etc. – fresh (89.12)
HS 152190 – Beeswax, other insect waxes •
and spermaceti (87.12)
HS 060290 – Live plants, including their •
roots, and mushroom spawn (86.29)
HS 071390 – Other dried leguminous •
vegetables (84.86)
HS 200520 – Potatoes, prepared or preserved, •
not frozen/vinegar (83.06)
HS 210120 – Tea and mate extracts, essences •
and concentrates (77.36)




91ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


5. ECONOmETRIC ANALySIS OF THE TRAdE ImPACT OF SPS ANd TBT
mEASURES ON TROPICAL ANd dIvERSIFICATION PROdUCTS


5.1 Estimated Gravity Equation


5.1.1 Framework


In this section we estimate econometrically the
trade impact of SPS and TBT measures notified
by main developed countries on their imports of
tropical and diversification products. To conduct
such an analysis, we use the gravity equation.
In its basic form, the gravity equation explains
bilateral trade in terms of the size of the countries
and the distance between them. This latter
term is a proxy for transaction costs. Additional
explanatory variables (such as common language,
past colonial links, etc.) are usually included to
account for countries’ cultural proximity.


An important issue is the level of aggregation.
We decided to work at the six-digit level of
the HS classification. The list of tropical and
diversification products proposed by the Cairns
Group covers a limited number of HS six-digit
codes. However, our results could be biased if
SPS and TBTs are notified by importing countries
on products for which imports have to be kept
under control in the absence of sizeable tariffs.
We therefore test the robustness of our results
by aggregating products at the four-digit level


and measuring the stringency of SPS and TBT
measures within each of these categories with
our information at the six-digit level. Results of
both sets of estimations are very similar.25


Different specifications could be used to estimate
a gravity equation. In our study, we introduce fixed
effects for each exporting and importing country.
These fixed effects include the size effects, but
also the price and number of varieties of the
exporting country for each sector and the size
of demand and the price index of the importing
partner. Since we use sector-level trade data, we
interact HS two-digit sector and country fixed
effects to fully capture the unobserved price
indexes at the sector level. Due to the degree of
freedom constraint, we have to limit the number
of fixed effects. Our estimations therefore
include only HS two-digit sector-specific exporter
fixed effects and do not interact importer fixed
effects with sector dummies; that is, they include
1648 sector-specific exporter fixed effects (103
exporter fixed effects × 16 sector fixed effects)
and 29 importer fixed effects.


5.1.2 Dependent and Explanatory variables


Dependent variable


For our dependent variable, we use bilateral
import data of each main developed country
included in our study from each country exporting
tropical and diversification products. As in the
previous section, trade data are extracted
from the CEPII database BACI. Notifications are
compiled up to 2004 and tariff data are available
for 2004. Trade data are therefore for 2004.


Explanatory variables


Bilateral distances come from the CEPII database
on distances.26 These distances are calculated as
the sum of the distances between the biggest


cities of both countries, weighted by the share of
the population living in each city. We also include
a dummy variable “Common border” (cbord) that
equals 1 if both countries share a border and is
0 otherwise.


We control for countries’ cultural proximity,
which could foster bilateral trade, and introduce
two dummies, respectively equal to 1 if both
countries share a language (clang) or if they
have had a colonial relationship (col). Data come
from the previously mentioned CEPII database on
distances.


We also control for the bilateral tariff barriers
applied by importing countries. This allows us




92 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


to distinguish the impact of SPS and TBTs on
trade from that of tariffs. Our data on tariffs
come from the Market Access Map (MacMap)
database jointly developed by the CEPII and the
International Trade Center (ITC).27 Data include
not only the applied tariff but also specific
duties, tariff quotas and anti-dumping duties. All
of these barriers are converted into an AVE and
summarized in one measure. Data are available
at the six-digit level.


Finally, to capture the trade effects of SPS and
TBT measures, we include a dummy variable
equal to 1 if the importing country notifies at
least one measure at the six-digit level of the HS
classification, and 0 if there are no measures in
place.


After taking logs, our estimated equation is as
follows:


where i is the exporting country, j the importing
country and k the tropical product. We use


cluster regressions to deal with the problem of
clustering of errors.


5.2 Results


Estimation results are described in Table 5.1.
Fixed effects estimations are presented in all
columns. Column 1 includes only tariff barriers.
SPS and TBTs are introduced in column 2. Column
3 analyses the influence of SPS and TBTs for the
different sub-samples of exporting countries
included in our sample (ACP, LA8 and other Latin
American and Asian countries).


The overall fit is consistent with what is found
in the literature. Distance has a negative and
significant impact on trade flows, while sharing a
border increases bilateral imports. Both variables
are significant at the 1 percent level. Interestingly,
cultural proximity variables (common language
and colonial links) do not have a significant
influence. One explanation could be that tropical
and diversification products are usually traded on
organized exchanges or have a reference price.
Therefore, and as suggested by Rauch (1999),
common language is less important for such
goods than for differentiated products. Tariffs
do not have a significant influence on trade. This
result could be explained by the fact that we are
studying tropical and diversification products for
which many exporting countries benefit from
preferential access to main developed markets.


In column 2, the estimated coefficient on SPS
and TBTs is negative and significant (p < 0.01).
This suggests that tropical and diversification
products imports of main developed markets are
reduced by SPS and TBT measures.


In the third column we investigate potential
differences in the influence of SPS and TBTs on
trade between exporting countries. We therefore
interact SPS and TBTs with four dummy variables
respectively set to 1 if exporting countries are ACP,
LA8 or other Latin American or Asian countries.
Results on these interaction variables show strong
differences between exporting countries. Only
imports from ACP and LA8 countries are affected
significantly by SPS and TBT measures. Estimated
coefficients for other Latin American and Asian
countries are not significant. Furthermore, ACP
countries are much more affected than LA8
countries (–0.66 vs. –0.36). We observe here the
dual effect of SPS and TBTs: they can increase
trade by reducing informational asymmetries
between consumers and producers, but they can
also reduce trade.




93ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Table 5.1. Trade effects of SPS and TBT Measures – General overview


DePenDenT vAriABLe Ln (iMPorTS)


MoDeL (1) (2) (3)


SPeCiFiCAtion Fe


iMPorterS MAin DeveLoPeD CounTrieS


exPorterS CounTrieS exPorTinG TroPiCAL AnD DiverSifiCATion ProDuCTS


Ln distance
–0.61*** –0.62*** –0.65***
(0.09) (0.09) (0.09)


Common border
1.96*** 1.95*** 1.83***
(0.18) (0.18) (0.19)


Common language
–0.03 –0.03 –0.04
(0.11) (0.11) (0.11)


Colonial links
0.20 0.20 0.14
(0.15) (0.15) (0.14)


Bilateral tariff
–0.02 –0.01 –0.01
(0.06) (0.06) (0.06)


= 1 if at least 1 SPS or
TBT at the HS6 level


–0.30***


(0.09)


= 1 if at least 1 SPS or TBT
at the HS6 level × ACP


–0.66***


(0.14)


= 1 if at least 1 SPS or TBT
at the HS6 level × LA8


–0.36**


(0.15)


= 1 if at least 1 SPS or TBT
at the HS6 level × other
Latin American country


0.02


(0.19)


= 1 if at least 1 SPS or TBT
at the HS6 level × Asia


–0.11


(0.12)


Number of observations


18507 18507 18507


0.718 0.719 0.719


FE, fixed effects.
Standard errors (importing country–exporting country clustered) in parentheses, with ***, ** and * respectively denoting
significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels. Specifications include importer and sector-specific exporter fixed effects.


We also study the impact of SPS and TBTs on
trade flows by sector. To estimate the sector
trade effect, we interacted the SPS and TBT
variable with sector dummies. Table 5.2 shows
the results. The first column includes all the
exporting countries. Columns 2–5 focus on
different sub-samples of exporters (ACP, LA8 and
other Latin American and Asian countries). Due
to the small number of observations, we do not
report results for HS 23 (Residues and waste from
the food industries; Prepared animal fodder).
Tropical and diversification products belonging
to HS 33 (Essential oils and resinoids; Perfumery,


cosmetic or toilet preparations) are not affected
by SPS and TBTs. This sector is therefore not
included in our results.


Results suggest strong variations between sectors
and sub-samples of exporters. Column 1 shows
that the trade effect is not significant for 10
sectors:


HS 07 – Edible vegetables and certain roots •
and tubers
HS 09 – Coffee, tea, mate and spices•
HS 10 – Cereals•




94 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


HS 11 – Milling products, malt, starches, •
inulin, wheat gluten
HS 13 – Lac, gums, resins, vegetable saps •
and extracts
HS 14 – Vegetable plaiting materials, •
vegetable products
HS 17 – Sugars and sugar confectionery•
HS 21 – Miscellaneous edible preparations•
HS 22 – Beverages, spirits and vinegar•
HS 24 – Tobacco and manufactured tobacco •
substitutes


The effect is negative and significant for six
sectors:


HS 06 – Live trees, plants, bulbs, roots, cut •
flowers
HS 08 – Edible fruit, nuts, peel of citrus •
fruit, melons
HS 12 – Oil seed, oleaginous fruits, grain, •
seed, fruit
HS 15 – Animal, vegetable fats and oils, •
cleavage products
HS 18 – Cocoa and cocoa preparations•
HS 20 – Vegetable, fruit, nut, food •
preparations


If we focus on coefficient estimates for each
sub-sample of exporters, we see that, for


some sectors and exporters, the trade effect
of SPS and TBT seems to be positive (HS 10
– Cereals, for LA8 or other Latin American
exporters; HS 14 – Vegetable plaiting materials,
vegetable products, for LA8 countries; and
HS 24 – Tobacco and manufactured tobacco
substitutes, for Asian countries).


Furthermore, ACP countries are the sub-sample
of exporters for which the most sectors are
influenced negatively and significantly by SPS
and TBTs (HS 08 – Edible fruit, nuts, peel of
citrus fruit, melons, HS 10 – Cereals, HS 12 –
Oil seed, oleaginous fruits, grain, seed, fruit,
HS 18 – Cocoa and cocoa preparations, HS 20
– Vegetable, fruit, nut, food preparations and
HS 21 – Miscellaneous edible preparations).


Finally, our results show differences in terms
of affected sectors between exporters.
For example, if we focus on HS 07 (Edible
vegetables and certain roots and tubers) and
HS 15 (Animal, vegetable fats and oils, cleavage
products), only Asian countries’ exports are
affected by SPS and TBTs. Similarly, for sectors
HS 11 (Milling products, malt, starches, inulin,
wheat gluten) and HS 13 (Lac, gums, resins,
vegetable saps and extracts), only other Latin
American countries’ exports are affected.


Table 5.2. Trade effects of SPS and TBT Measures – Sector Analysis


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


exPorter ALL exPorterS ACP LA8


otHer
LATin


AMeriCAn
CountrieS


ASiAn
CountrieS


HS 06 Live trees, plants,
bulbs, roots, cut flowers –0.56** –0.39 –0.68* 0.34 –0.80*


HS 07 Edible vegetables and
certain roots and tubers –0.15 0.06 0.50 0.52 –0.75***


HS 08 Edible fruit, nuts,
peel of citrus fruit, melons –0.49*** –0.79** –0.31 –0.35 –0.25


HS 09 Coffee, tea,
mate and spices –0.09 –0.08 –0.18 –0.13 0.04


HS 10 Cereals 0.16 –1.86** 3.30*** 5.11*** 0.15


HS 11 Milling products, malt,
starches, inulin, wheat gluten –0.02 –0.28 –0.02 –0.79*** 0.26


HS 12 Oil seed, oleaginous
fruits, grain, seed, fruit –0.32* –0.67** –0.20 –0.37 –0.01




95ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


exPorter ALL exPorterS ACP LA8


otHer
LATin


AMeriCAn
CountrieS


ASiAn
CountrieS


HS 13 Lac, gums, resins,
vegetable saps and extracts –0.52 –1.50 –0.39 –1.39** 0.52


HS 14 Vegetable plaiting
materials, vegetable products –0.43 –0.65 1.42*** – –0.55


HS 15 Animal, vegetable fats
and oils, cleavage products –0.48** –0.13 –0.53 –0.17 –0.56*


HS 17 Sugars and sugar
confectionery –0.44 –0.49 1.31 –0.33 –0.35


HS 18 Cocoa and cocoa
preparations –0.55* –1.91** 0.11 0.32 –0.27


HS 20 Vegetable, fruit,
nut, food preparations –0.24* –0.72** –0.27 –0.19 –0.09


HS 21 Miscellaneous
edible preparations –0.04 –0.73* –0.14 0.19 0.19


HS 22 Beverages,
spirits and vinegar 0.12 0.27 –1.86* –0.14 0.73


HS 24 Tobacco and
manufactured tobacco


substitutes
0.14 –0.17 –0.31 –0.46 0.65**


Number of observations 18 507 5275 3031 2988 7213
R² 0.719 0.735 0.736 0.737 0.705


FE, fixed effects.
Standard errors (importing country-exporting country clustered) in parentheses, with ***, ** and * respectively denoting
significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels. Specifications include importer and sector-specific exporter fixed effects.


Our results suggest that special attention should
be paid to some sectors and groups of exporters
in the next WTO negotiations.


First, ACP countries should be supported in their
efforts to comply with SPS and TBT requirements.
Provisions on technical assistance and special
and differential treatment included in the SPS
and TBT agreements should be maintained and
reinforced in order to help them to implement
and take advantage of the agreements. In


particular, support should be provided in the
cocoa sector, which is the most affected sector
by SPS and TBTs. Latin American countries should
also be supported, although their situation is less
worrying.


However, differences in terms of affected sectors
between exporters will probably represent a
difficulty for the negotiations. Both groups of
countries will not have the same interests in
each sector.




96 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


6. CONCLUSION


Almost all surveyed producers and exporters
report that they have to deal with SPS and TBT
measures.28 They also highlight the increasing
number of requirements, and especially
private sector requirements. It appears that
the constant change in tolerance levels of
agrochemical residues in the product, as well as
permitted agrochemicals, represent significant
obstacles. Furthermore, it seems that the ability
to cope with SPS and TBTs varies with the size
of the business, and a market segmentation is
increasingly appearing between small and large
producers. In general, for small businesses it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to comply with
the most stringent SPS and TBT requirements
from developed markets, while for big businesses
the difficulty is less marked. This finding is
expected in all industries with all shocks or
extra business costs. Essentially, the transaction
costs of assimilating and implementing new
information and technologies are spread too
thickly on smaller businesses. Yet in agribusiness,
and particularly with respect to a development
agenda in developing countries, this calls for
policy on building institutions that can mimic
larger business – such as cooperatives, marketing
organizations and so on.


Compliance with SPS and TBT measures implies
higher costs, in either production or export, and
often induces a shift in the mode of production
but does not cause a product shift. However,
it should be acknowledged that farmers and
exporters that have stopped or changed their
production are not included in our surveys.


The higher production or export cost does not
mean that the businesses lost export markets.
It can also represent an opportunity to access
more profitable markets and to improve business


competitiveness. Interviewed producers and
exporters recognize that practices and inputs
demanded by certifiers raise product durability
and create better working conditions, increasing
also productivity and company discipline. Finally,
despite recent trade liberalization, tariffs remain
a significant export barrier.


On the other hand, statistical and econometric
analyses suggest that the purposes of SPS and
TBT notifications vary across importing countries.
Main developed countries included in our sample
(the EU, Canada, the US, Japan, Australia and
Switzerland) do not (i) use the same SPS and TBT
measures, (ii) adduce the same motives or (iii)
notify the same products. These differences can
reinforce the difficulty of exporting countries to
comply with SPS and TBT requirements.


At the micro-level, case studies show that
small businesses face the most difficulties in
complying with SPS and TBT measures and
private requirements. At the macro-level, the
statistical and econometric analyses suggest
that less developed countries are the most
affected by such measures. Special attention
should be paid to small producers and exporters
in future. Furthermore, provisions on technical
assistance and special and differential treatment
included in the SPS and TBT agreements should
be maintained and reinforced in order to help
them to implement and take advantage of the
agreements. Latin American countries should
also be supported, although their situation is less
worrying.


The rise of private standards as de facto
precursors to conducting business means that
this is only one part of the story.




97ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


7. RECOmmENdATIONS


7.1 Reinforcement of Existing Programmes


7.1.1 Technical Assistance Programmes


Results of case studies and the empirical analysis
suggest that assistance should be provided to
farmers and exporters of developing countries
in order to help them conform with SPS and
TBT requirements adopted by main developed
markets. Such assistance is currently provided
by international organizations such as WTO, 29
UNCTAD, FAO and the World Bank or by country
members of these organizations through
technical assistance programmes.


As mentioned by Cerrex (2003), until
recently, most of the assistance was aimed
at developing and improving infrastructure
projects (transport, banking sector reform and
public sector reform). However, today, more
assistance goes directly to the private business
sector. Furthermore, as noted by Cerrex (2003),
the improvement of infrastructures also helps
indirectly the private business sector to meet
SPS and TBT requirements.


Assistance programmes could be global or
sector-specific. We briefly described two
examples:


Standards and Trade Development Facility
(STDF)


This programme, launched in 2002 by FAO,
the World Organization for Animal Health, the
World Bank, the Codex Alimentarius, WHO
and WTO, aims to enhance the capacity of
developing countries and LDCs to participate in
negotiations and implement SPS measures.


The STDF programme acts as both a
coordinating and a financing mechanism.
Regarding coordination, the STDF ensures the
sharing of information on SPS-related technical
cooperation activities and the dissemination of
good practice in relation to both the provision
and receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation.
Two main forms of grant financing are provided:


(i) project preparation grants, which aim to
bridge the gap between the identification of
needs and their articulation into sustainable
projects; and (ii) grants for projects addressing
underlying issues of SPS capacity building in
developing countries or on a regional basis.


Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP)


This programme aims to help private businesses
from the fresh fruit and vegetable export sector
of ACP countries to meet the European food
safety (pesticides residues) and traceability
requirements and to consolidate the position of
small producers in the ACP horticultural export
sector.


The programme was set up by the EU in
2001, following a request from ACP countries,
and based on a five-year funding contract of
€28 807 000. Its implementation is managed
by Comité de Liaison Europe-Afrique-Caraïbes-
Pacifique (COLEACP).


The PIP currently includes 111 companies in 23
ACP countries. This programme covers a variety
of crops (including pineapple, green beans,
mango, avocado, okra, cherry tomato, melon,
passion fruit, papaya, lychee, yam and chilli
peppers). About 80 percent of ACP companies’
exports of fruit and vegetables are covered
by this programme. Almost all ACP companies
that benefit from this programme now have a
product traceability system.30


Existing technical assistance programmes suffer
from three main weaknesses: (i) insufficient
amount of assistance, (ii) fragmentary assistance
and (iii) insufficient integration into national
activities.


To improve these programmes, five suggestions
have been made recently in a joint ITC/
Commonwealth Secretariat study: 31




98 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


The amount of assistance should be •
increased.
The assistance provided by different •
donators and/or different programmes
should be better coordinated.
The assistance should be better targeted •
towards difficulties faced by developing
countries.
The specificities of developing countries •
should be considered: existing capacities


of developed countries should not be
replicated but new capacities should be
created.
The specific needs of each developing •
country should be considered.


One can also add that assistance should be
adapted to the size of businesses (small vs. big
farmers or exporters).


7.1.2 wTO negotiations and Aid for Trade


Aid for Trade is a WTO programme created by the
Sixth Ministerial Conference. Its aim is to help
developing countries to build the supply-side
capacity and infrastructure they need in order
to take advantage of trade liberalization and
increase their participation in the world trading
system. Box 7.1 describes the European SPS trade
related assistance.


OECD data show trade-related official
development assistance (ODA) commitments
running at about USD25–30 billion a year in the
past few years (around 30 percent of total ODA).
In 2005, the distribution of available trade-
related technical assistance was as follows: 32


Trade policy and regulation (USD0.9 •
billion): this amount was used to build local
capacities to development of national trade
policies, participate in trade negotiations
and implement trade agreements.
Building productive capacity (USD9.5 billion): •
this includes trade development spending
of about USD2 billion a year. This assistance
helps enterprises to trade and to create a
favourable business environment.
Economic infrastructure spending (USD12.1 •
billion): this assistance helps countries build
the physical means – transport and storage,
communications and energy – to produce
and move goods and export them.
Assistance for trade-related structural •
adjustment (about USD3–6 billion): this
assistance helps to compensate transition
costs from liberalization (preference
erosions, loss of fiscal revenue or declining
terms of trade).


Aid for Trade could help developing countries
to meet SPS and TBT standards. Two examples
focusing on tropical and diversification products
are cited on the WTO website.33


Cut flowers from Kenya


Growth in this sector increased, partly as a result
of investments in Aid for Trade, such as:


new cold storage and transportation •
facilities;
improved cargo facilities at Nairobi’s •
airport;
more efficient air transportation and •
increased frequency of flights;
technology transfers.•


Mangoes from Mali


Mali’s exports of Mangoes increased following
investments in Aid for Trade:


innovative business partnerships formed;•
improved testing facilities and met •
international standards;
increased cold storage facilities (reducing •
post-harvest loss);
new transport corridor (reducing shipping •
time from 25 days to 12 days) built.


Suggestions for future agricultural negotiations


This and previous chapters suggest that future
agricultural negotiations should:




99ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


support ACP and Latin American countries, •
and in particular LDCs, in their efforts to
comply with SPS and TBT requirements;
pay special attention to specific sectors that •
are very important for these countries (e.g.
cocoa, live trees and cut flowers, edible
fruits and nuts; see Table 5.2);
reinforce the existing technical assistance •
programmes and the Aid for Trade
programme. These programmes could help
developing countries to implement and take
advantage of the SPS and TBT measures;


focus on private sector requirements. The •
development of private standards is recent
but very rapid. Developing countries and
LDCs claim that private standards are not
transparent and created without input
from exporters. They also state that some
standards are restrictive on market access,
acting as NTBs. As mentioned previously,
the SPS agreement is not explicit on the
relationship between private standards
schemes and the SPS Agreement. The SPS
committee should therefore clarify whether
the SPS Agreement also applies to private
sector standards.


Box 7.1. european SPS trade-related Assistance


Source: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/agri_fish/sps/trta_en.htm


This helps in implementing the EU’s commitment to Aid for Trade, strengthening the Integrated
Framework and increasing the EU’s contribution to trade-related capacity-building and
complementing activities of other EU Directorates-General. The objective is to enable the
developing country to reach the required level of food safety in order to be able to export their
products to the EU, providing jobs and economic value and raising the food standards in the
developing country.


This budget is divided into three sections:


to assist experts from developing countries to attend meetings of the three organizations •
officially recognized in the SPS Agreement for standard-setting, i.e. the Office International
des Epizooties, the International Plant Protection Convention and Codex Alimentarius in
the fields of animal health, plant health and food safety and quality respectively;
to send technical experts from Member States to developing countries to provide on-the-•
spot advice on action needed to satisfy EU import sanitary requirements;
to bring staff from developing countries to training facilities within the EU for centralized •
training on specific SPS topics.


The budget for 2006 is more than €2 300 000, of which €600 000 is reserved for the Office
International des Epizooties, the International Plant Protection Convention and the Codex.


In 2006, special training in the area of residues, aflatoxins and EU SPS legislation was organized
for technical experts and administrators of developing countries in Europe, with the following
objectives:


to explain the EU legislation for export to the EU of products of animal or plant origin;•
to advise on administrative issues, for example how to set up a residue-monitoring plan;•
to help overcome any technical difficulties (e.g. laboratory techniques, analytical methods) •
that they may have experienced in the past when trying to export these products to the EU.




100 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


7.2 Additional Policy Responses


As well as the reinforcement of the existing
technical assistance and Aid for Trade


programmes, additional policy responses could
be suggested from our study.


7.2.1 SPS and TBT Measures should be Justifiable from a “risk” Basis


Countries producing tropical and diversification
products encounter difficulties in applying SPS and
TBT measures. However, the main impediments
faced by these countries, and in particular by ACP
countries, are not only the costs induced by the
implementation of standards but also that these
standards may not be justifiable from a risk basis
or may be disproportionate. Consequently, their
implementation requires measures far outside
what is provided for.


In addition to the offer of a special and
differential treatment and aid, WTO should
therefore make sure that SPS and TBT measures
are not implemented disproportionately to the
level of risk and should control that conditions
set by importing countries are not beyond SPS
and TBT agreements.


7.2.2 The relationship of Private Standards Schemes with SPS and TBT Agreements should be
Improved


Private standards are becoming so important
and widespread that one can question whether
today they do not influence more trade than
do public standards. Private standards are
voluntary. However, they are required for
doing business, thus making them de facto
mandatory.


Producers and exporters of tropical and
diversification products point out that one
of the main obstacles in applying these
requirements is the constant change in their
definition. Furthermore, producers and
exporters often argue that such requirements
are not transparent as they are not notified
to the WTO and not science-based. Private
standards also often conflict with those set by
governments and international organizations.


These observations lead to some questions and
suggest possible policy actions:


Are private standards seen by firms as a •
way to fill in a void left by the slow process
of public sector standards setting and
implementation? Should the development of
private standards therefore be encouraged?
What about if private standards encroach •
on aspects that are the preserve of public
sector (such as consumer safety)?
Could that be actionable in some way at •
WTO (possible subventions by states to
use private standards to do what the state
should be doing)?


In the coming years, the transparency of private
standards would need to be improved, as would
the relationship of private standards schemes
with the SPS and TBT agreements.


7.2.3 Benefits of upgrading Standards should be Put Forward


SPS and TBT measures, as well as private
requirements, can afford market access or deny it.


As highlighted in our study, compliance with
such requirements implies higher costs,
either in production or in export. However,


interviewed producers and exporters pointed
out that standards helped them to improve their
competitiveness. They recognized that practices
and inputs demanded by certifiers created safer
working conditions and also increased productivity
and company discipline. For Kenyan producers of




101ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


flowers, standards induced a shift in their mode
of production (such as water and pesticide usage)
but did not cause a product shift.


Public and private requirements could also be
trade-enhancing by providing access to new and
more profitable markets.


These potential positive effects explain partly
why producers in exporting countries try to fulfil
standards, despite the cost associated with.
Business is a balance between risks, costs and
benefits. Our study also suggests that national
governments and international organizations
should encourage farmers and exporters to
implement public and private standards.


7.2.4 Size Matters should be Included in Policy responses


The ability to cope with public and private
requirements varies with the size of the business.
It seems that large businesses may be able to
cope, while medium-sized and small businesses
find it more difficult, if not impossible, to comply
with the most stringent measures from developed
markets. A market segmentation is increasingly
appearing between small and large producers.


One solution for small producers and exporters
could be to act in cooperatives. Another aspect
in coping with these standards is the growing
importance of export contracts (between farmers


and exporters) to establish long-term business
relationships that ensure quality controls.


Our study also highlights a divide between
most advanced developing countries and less
developed countries. ACP countries are also
the sub-sample of exporters for which the most
sectors are influenced negatively and significantly
by standards. This result suggests that special
attention should be paid to ACP countries in the
next WTO negotiations. These countries should
be supported in their efforts to comply with SPS
and TBT requirements.


7.2.5 what role for unions and governments?


Governments and unions of exporting countries
should help their small producers and exporters
in implementing public and private standards
notified by importing countries.


However, as suggested by our study, if the role
played by either government or union is too large,
then it could obscure the market requirements


of international buyers from the producers, who
have little direct knowledge of market trends
other than price.


This result highlights the role of transparency
in international trade and of public and
private standards in conveying market-related
information.




102 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


APPENDix 1: ECuADoR: ExPoRTER FiRMS (CooPERATivES,
ASSOCIATIONS) – SURvEy ON SPS ANd TBTS34


Name of firm (association, cooperative):


Address:


1. Years in export business:


2. Types and names of agricultural products exported:


Raw commodities (e.g. bananas, plantains, pineapples):


Processed agricultural goods:


Other:


3. Major destinations of your exports:


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


4. What types of transportation do you usually use?


(a) Vessel


(b) Air


(c) Other


5. Average annual export sales: USD


6. Percentage of main export product on average annual export sales:


7. Have you faced any of the following technical measures, customs rules, standards and
procedures? Tick all that apply:


1 Technical measures


(a) Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements


(b) Labelling regulations


(c) Quarantines


(d) Certification and testing requirements


2 Customs rules and procedures


(a) Excessive documentation required


(b) Slow customs clearance




103ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


(c) Complex regulations


(d) Arbitrary enforcement of rules


(e) Lack of harmonization


3 Labour requirements


4 Environmental rules and requirements


5 Competition-related restrictions on market access


6 Quantitative restrictions


7 Procedures and administration (general)


8 Public procurement practices


9 Investment restrictions or requirements


10 Transport regulations or costs


11 Restrictions of services


12 Local marketing regulations


13 Other(s) (please specify) ___________________


8. Which of the items in Question 7 have been the most frequently faced in the past five years?


(a)


(b)


(c)


9. Which of the items in Question 7 are the most difficult to comply with?


(a)


(b)


(c)


10. Are you confronted with private sector standards (from export markets)? Which ones?


11. The general trend in these technical measures, customs rules, standards and procedures is


(a) Increasing


(b) Decreasing


(c) About the same


12. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’s ability to
satisfy SPS requirements when exporting ________________ (please indicate which agricultural
product) to the EU:


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.




104 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


13. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’s ability
to satisfy SPS requirements when exporting ___________________ (please indicate which
agricultural product) to the US:


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


14. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’s ability to
satisfy SPS requirements when exporting ________________ (please indicate which agricultural
product) to other important markets (please specify which country __________________):


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


15. How have you dealt with the technical measures, customs rules, standards and procedures?


16. Degree of competition with other exporting firms is


(a) Increasing


(b) Decreasing


(c) About the same


17. Do these standards increase your costs?


18. Do these standards increase the time needed to export the product?


19. How do you prove that you respect the standards?


20. Do these standards affect the choice of the country you export to?


21. If you export more than one agricultural product, for what products is the situation the most
difficult?


22. Do you consider the standards as a trade barrier? Or, on the contrary, when your firm complies
with them, does it increase your exports?


23. Did you lose export markets because of these standards? Which ones?


24. Potential markets/regions for your exports in the near future:




105ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


25. Major difficulties in establishing new markets:


26. What type of assistance have you received from your local or central government?


27. What types of assistance have you received from private firms (e.g. consulting firms)?


28. Are these standards the main limitations for your exports? Or, do tariff barriers constitute
more important problems than the standards?


Comments




106 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


APPENdIX 2: ECUAdOR: FARmERS – SURvEy ON SPS ANd TBTS35


Name of producer:


Address:


1. Years in farm business:


2. Types and names of agricultural produce (e.g. bananas, plantains, pineapples):


3. To whom do you sell your produce?


(a) Distributor


(b) Export company


(c) Direct export


(d) Other (whom?)


4. If you export your produce yourself, what are the major destinations of your exports?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


5. Average annual production sales: USD


6. Is your production required to comply with any of the following technical measures, customs
rules, standards and procedures? Tick all that apply:


1 Technical measures


(a) Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements


(b) Labelling regulations


(c) Quarantines


(d) Certification and testing requirements


2 Customs rules and procedures


(a) Excessive documentation required


(b) Slow customs clearance


(c) Complex regulations


(d) Arbitrary enforcement of rules


(e) Lack of harmonization


3 Labour requirements


4 Environmental rules and requirements


5 Competition-related restrictions on market access


6 Quantitative restrictions


7 Procedures and administration (general)


8 Public procurement practices




107ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


9 Investment restrictions or requirements


10 Transport regulations or costs


11 Restrictions of services


12 Local marketing regulations


13 Others (please specify) ____________________


7. Which of the items in Question 6 have been the most frequently faced in the past five years?


(a)


(b)


(c)


8. Which of the items in Question 6 are the most difficult to comply with?


(a)


(b)


(c)


9. Does your production (exports) face private sector standards (from export markets)? Which
ones?


10. Do the standards you identified in Question 7 conflict with private sector standards? Which
ones?


11. The general trend in these technical measures, customs rules, standards and procedures is


(a) Increasing


(b) Decreasing


(c) About the same


12. How have you dealt with the technical measures, customs rules, standards and procedures?


13. What are the difficulties you face so that your produce complies with standards imposed by
the importing countries?


14. Does this affect you costs of production? How?


15. Does this affect your choice of products? How?


16. Does this affect your mode of production? How?


17. Did you lose export markets because of these standards? Which ones?


18. Do you consider the standards as a trade barrier? Or, on the contrary, when your business
complies with them, does it increase your production?




108 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


19. Are these standards the main limitations for your production (exports), or do tariff barriers
constitute more important problems than the standards?


20. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’s ability
to satisfy SPS requirements when exporting _____________ (please indicate which agricultural
product) to the EU:


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


21. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’s ability to
satisfy SPS requirements when exporting ________________ (please indicate which agricultural
product) to the US:


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


22. Indicate the importance of each of the following aspects in terms of your business’ ability to
satisfy SPS requirements when exporting _______________ (please indicate which agricultural
product) to other important markets (please specify which country _______________):


(a) Insufficient access to scientific/technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5


(b) Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing
methods 1 2 3 4 5


(c) Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture 1 2 3 4 5


(d) Poor access to information on SPS requirements 1 2 3 4 5


(e) Period of time permitted for compliance is relatively short 1 2 3 4 5


1 = very insignificant; 2 = insignificant; 3 = no impact; 4 = significant; 5 = very significant.


23. What type of assistance have you received from your local or central government?


Comments




109ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


APPENDix 3: CoSTA RiCA: QuESTioNNAiRE FoR PRoDuCERS,
dISTRIBUTORS ANd EXPORTERS


Name of company:


Address:


1. Which difficulties have you faced in complying with standards in terms of SPS and TBTs imposed
by importer countries?


2. Regarding such TBT or SPS measures:


(a) Are they public or private?


(b) What are the differences of perception between public and private standards?


(c) Are you affected by the choices of the products you cultivate?


(d) Are you affected by the way of production?


(e) Are they the main limitation for your exports, or are the tariffs and taxes imposed to exports by
certain countries the worst barrier?


3. Have you lost export markets because of this type of measure? Which ones?


4. How have you overcome these measures?


5. How do you prove that you comply with TBT or SPS measures?


6. Regarding implemented measures to overcome or comply with SPS or TBT:


(a) Does the time of the production process increase before exporting?


(b) Does the choice of the country to which you wish to export affect the results?


(c) For which products is the situation most difficult?


(d) Do you consider these standards as trade barriers, or do your exports increase when you comply?


7. Do you know other producers or distributors that have faced SPS or TBT in developed
countries?




110 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


APPENdIX 4: ETHIOPIA: COFFEE COOPERATIvES ANd EXPORTERS –
SURvEy ON SPS ANd TBTS


Name of cooperative or company:


Address:


1. How many quintals of coffee you buy from farmers/collectors/suppliers?


2. Do you impose specific standards for buying coffee?


3. If yes, what are the standards you imposed?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


4. Among all the standards, which are considered to be very important?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


5. How do you prove that sellers respect the standards?


6. To which countries do you export coffee?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


7. Do your buyers have specific standards for buying your product (coffee)?


8. If yes, what are the standards imposed by your buyers?


(a)


(b)




111ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


(c)


(d)


9. Do these standards and technical regulations preclude you from exporting coffee to the EU/
Japan/US/Canada?


10. Which standards are relatively easy to obey?


11. Which standards are relatively difficult to attain?


12. How do your buyers prove that you respect the standards?


13. Did you have to adapt your products and/or manufacturing practices to meet the technical
regulation and standard requirements, such as:


(a) Design


(b) Certification


(c) Testing


(d) Labelling and packaging


14. Did you experience any other obstacles impacting your export activities? Please provide
details.


15. What third-party conformity assessment service organization did you use? Why?


16. What additional costs did you incur in complying with the technical regulation or standards
requirements in the target markets? Please provide financial details, both initial and ongoing
data, and also in relation to the total production costs:


(a) Design


(b) Certification


(c) Testing


(d) Labelling and packaging


(e) Production


17. What is the extent of any duplication to meet both domestic and foreign technical requirements?
Please provide details, including cost data.


18. Do the export market technical requirements have any beneficial impact on sales at home?
Please provide details.




112 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


19. If the local technical requirements are different from those of the export markets, please
indicate the financial implications of compliance for your enterprise.


20. Please provide information regarding the standards used as the basis for the technical
regulations in the export markets. Are they international standards, e.g. ISO, IEC, Codex, or are
they national/regional standards? Please provide details.


21. Are the international standards different from the standards used in the local market? If so,
please provide details.


22. Due to the costs involved to meet the standards, do you change your mode of production?


23. Do these problems cause a product shift?


24. If you answer to Question 23 is yes, to which product(s)?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


25. Do you lose (any) market due to a failure to meet standards?


26. If your answer to Question 25 is yes, how many kilograms do you lose?


27. Do you take any orientation and/or training about quality standards?


28. Which organization provided the orientation/training?


(a) Government


(b) NGO


(c) Cooperative


(d) Other (please specify) ____________


29. What is your perception about the quality standards and technical regulations?


(a) Very bad


(b) Bad


(c) Fair


(d) Good


(e) Very good




113ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


30. List the major efforts you made, and estimated costs incurred, to meet the standards set by
your purchaser.


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


31. What price do you obtain for the coffee you sell without those mentioned standards?


32. What price do you obtain for the coffee you sell by meeting those mentioned standards?


33. Estimated cost of production?




114 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


APPENdIX 5: KENyA: CUT-FLOwER PROdUCERS ANd EXPORTERS –
SURvEy ON SPS ANd TBTS


Name of company:


Address:


1. Do you buy flowers from other producers?


2. If yes, how many tons of flowers do you buy from farmers/collectors/suppliers?


3. Do you impose specific standards when buying these flowers?


4. If yes, what are the standards you imposed?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


5. Among all the standards, which are considered to be very important?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


6. How do you prove that sellers respect the standards?


7. To which countries do you export flowers?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


8. Do your buyers impose specific standards when buying your product (cut flowers)?




115ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


9. If yes, what are the standards imposed by your buyers?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


10. Do these standards and technical regulations preclude you from exporting cut flowers to the
EU/Japan/US/Canada?


11. Which standards are relatively easy to obey?


12. Which standards are relatively difficult to attain?


13. How do your buyers prove that you respect the standards?


14. Did you have to adapt your products and/or manufacturing practices to meet the technical
regulation and standard requirements, such as:


(a) Design


(b) Certification


(c) Testing


(d) Labelling and packaging


15. Did you experience any other obstacles impacting your export activities? Please provide
details.


16. What third-party conformity assessment service organization did you use? Why?


17. What additional costs did you incur in complying with the technical regulation or standards
requirements in the target markets? Please provide financial details, both initial and ongoing
data, and also in relation to the total production costs.


(a) Design


(b) Certification


(c) Testing


(d) Labelling and packaging


(e) Production


18. What is the extent of any duplication to meet both domestic and foreign technical requirements?
Please provide details, including cost data.




116 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


19. Do the export market technical requirements have any beneficial impact on sales at home?
Please provide details.


20. If the local technical requirements are different from those of the export markets, please
indicate the financial implications of compliance for your enterprise.


21. Please provide information regarding the standards used as the basis for the technical
regulations in the export markets. Are they international standards, e.g. ISO, IEC, Codex, or are
they national/regional standards? Please provide details.


22. Are the international standards in Question 21 different from the standards used in the local
market? If so, please provide details.


23. Due to the costs involved in meeting the standards, do you change your mode of production?


24. Do these problems cause a product shift?


25. If yes, to which product(s)?


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)


26. Do you lose (any) market due to a fail in meeting standards?


27. If yes, how many tons do you lose?


28. What is your perception about the quality standards and technical regulations?


(a) Very bad


(b) Bad


(c) Fair


(d) Good


(e) Very good


29. List the major efforts you made, and the estimated costs incurred, to meet the standard set
by your purchaser.


(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)




117ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


ENdNOTES


1 Diversification products refer to “products of particular importance to the diver sification of
production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops” (preamble in the Agreement on Agriculture
and Paragraph 43 of the Agreed Framework).


2 See document WT/L/59.


3 They included (i) tropical beverages (cocoa, coffee and tea); (ii) spices, flowers and plants; (iii)
some oilseeds, vegetable oils and oilcakes (e.g. palm and coconut oil); (iv) tropical roots, rice and
tobacco; (v) tropical fruits and nuts (e.g. plantains, pineapples and peanuts); (vi) tropical wood
and rubber; and (vii) jute and hard fibres.


4 Due to the unavailability of data, Timor-Leste is excluded from the study.


5 South Africa has a specific free trade agreement with the EU but has signed the 2005 agreement.
Somalia and Cuba are not part of the Agreement. See Council Decision 8851/05 ACP 63 OC 269,
Brussels, 7 June 2005.


6 www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_agreement_cbt_e/c1s5p1_e.htm


7 www.standardsfacility.org/


8 www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds237_e.htm


9 www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/meetings/wto1/Summary%20of%20SPS%20Committee%20
Discussion%20on%20Private%20Standards.pdf


10 www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2188&lang=1


11 The price for producers also varies depending on whether a banana producer sells in the spot
market, by contract or directly to their own export companies.


12 The criterion adopted to sample the companies was to try to cover companies that represented
as much as possible (>50 percent) of exports of bananas and pineapples in Ecuador. This goal
was reached by interviewing all but one of the big banana export companies (which happen to
also be pineapple exporters). For medium-sized and small producers we interviewed just a very
small sample, aiming mainly at presenting anecdotal evidence of the situation faced by these
medium-sized and small producers regarding SPS and technical standards. Knowing that we had
very few interviews with small and medium-sized farmers, we combined the interviews with
data from the last agricultural census (year 2000) regarding cultural practices (irrigation, use
of fertilizers, SPS practices). Census data present a picture that shows most (if not all) big and
medium-sized banana and pineapple producers having cultural practices such as irrigation, use
of fertilizers and use of SPS measures, in contrast with small producers, which mostly lack these
cultural practices.


13 In this section, SPS and TBT requirements include public and private sector requirements.


14 CORPEI has a special programme called “Programa Fitosanitario para el Agro para la Mitigacion de
Barreras Tecnicas de Acceso al Mercado de EE.UU. (PROFIAGRO). Its main goal is to help farmers
and exporters to mitigate technical barriers to trade.




118 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


15 Interview with Mr Alexander Arana, Manager of the group ACON.


16 Kebele is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia.


17 www.learningafrica.org.uk/trade_activities.htm


18 About 20 percent of total flower production in Kenya is small-scale and increasing.


19 However, this preferential treatment is due to expire by 2008, after which Kenya, as a non-LDC,
will be subject to the generalized system of preferences, which specifies a 5 percent tariff.


20 One company, which produces at least 30 percent of total Kenyan exports, is not part of KFC. KFC
membership is the most significant in the flower sector (about 37 members). FPEAK has about 20
members. At least 60 percent of all flower volume is in the two associations.


21 www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2188&lang=1


22 http://r0.unctad.org/trains_new/tcm_link.shtm


23 As mentioned in Section 4.1, WTO Members have to notify only changes to their SPS and TBT
regimes. Measures that have been in place without change do not need to be notified and are not
captured in our study.


24 www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/baci.htm


25 Results of regressions at the four-digit level are available upon request from the authors.


26 www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/distances.htm


27 www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/macmap.htm


28 Only Ethiopia’s coffee farmers and exporters have little knowledge about SPS and TBT measures.


29 For example, WTO provides information on the TBT-related technical assistance activities of the
Committee on TBT, the WTO Secretariat and Observer Organizations, as well as information on the
assistance activities of Country Members (www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_tech_e.htm).


30 www.coleacp.org/


31 www.tradeforum.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/460/Technical_Assistance_for_SPS_Measures:_
Protect_


32 www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/a4t_factsheet_e.htm


33 www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/what_why_how_e.ppt#13


34 This questionnaire is based on the questionnaire found in Mattson et al. (2004) and questions
suggested by the ICTSD.


35 This questionnaire is based on the questionnaire found in Mattson et al. (2004) and questions
suggested by the ICTSD.




119ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


REFERENCES


Association of Banana Exporters of Ecuador (2007). Bananotas. Guayaquil. Ecuador.


Association of Banana Exporters of Ecuador (undated). “Qué es el EUREPGAP”. www.aebe.com.ec/
data/files/DocumentosPDF/MarcoLegal/Eurepgap.pdf


Beghin, J. C. and Bureau, J.-C. (2001). “Quantitative Policy Analysis of Sanitary, Phytosanitary and
Technical Barriers to Trade”. Economie Internationale 87: 107–130.


Bernardo, T., Aguilar, C., Flores, L., Lamb, J., Karpati, J. and J. Velez (2003). “Benchmarking of SPS
Management Capacity in Five Central American Countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Nicaragua)”. Michigan State University, Abt Associates, Inc. and Development
Alternatives, Inc. USAID/RAISE/SPS Program.


Central Bank of Ecuador (2004). “El Banano en Ecuador: Estructura de mercados y formación de
precios”. Apuntes de Economía 42: 6.


Cerrex Ltd. (2003). “Study of the Consequences of the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Measures on ACP Countries”. CTA. Wagenigen. The Netherlands.


CNA (2000). III National Agricultural Census 2000. National Statistics and Census Institute. Quito.
Ecuador.


CNP (2005). “Frutas Frescas”. Consejo Nacional de la Producción, Servicio de Información de Mercados.
San José. Costa Rica. www.cnp.go.cr/index.php


Collinson, C. (2001). “The Business Costs of Ethical Supply Chain Management: Kenyan Flower Industry
Case Study”. NRET – Natural Resources and Ethical Trade Programme, NRI Report No. 2607.
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich. Chatham. United Kingdom.


Common Fund for Commodities (2004). Manual for the Preparation and Management of Projects to be
Financed by the Common Fund for Commodities. 5th edition, 2nd revision. Common Fund for
Commodities. Amsterdam. The Netherlands.


Contreras, R. (2004). “Pineapple Marketing and the Export Potential for Ecuadorian Fresh Pineapple to
the United States Market.” Pineapple News 11: 26–30.


Corbana (2005). Informe de estadísticas de exportación Bananera 2005. Sección de Estadísticas de la
Corporación Bananera Nacional. Corporación Bananera Nacional. San José. Costa Rica.


Deardorff, A. V. and Stern, R. M. (1997). “Measurement of Non-Tariff Barriers”. OECD Economics
Department Working Paper No. 179. OECD. Paris. France.


Deardorff, A. V. and Stern, R. M. (1998). Measurement of Nontariff Barriers. Ann Arbor, MI. University
of Michigan Press.


Disdier, A.-C., Fontagné, L. and Mimouni, M. (2008). “The Impact of Regulations on Agricultural Trade:
Evidence from the SPS and TBT Agreements.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
forthcoming.




120 Disdier, Fekadu, Murillo, Wong — Trade Effects of SPS and TBT Measures on Tropical
and Diversification Products


Ecuador Exporta (2007). A magazine of the CORPEI (Ecuadorian Corporation of Export and Investment
Promotion). Guayaquil. Ecuador.


Fulponi, L. (2006). “Private Voluntary Standards in the Food System: The Perspective of Major Food
Retailers in OECD Countries”. Food Policy 31: 1–13.


Gaulier, G., Zignago, S., Sondjo, D., Sissoko, A. and Paillacar, R. (2007). “BACI: A World Database of
International Trade Analysis at the Product level. 1989–2005 Version”. CEPII working paper.
CEPII. Paris. France. www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/baci/baciwp.pdf


George Bush School for Government and Public Service (2003). “CAFTA: Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Evaluation.” A Project for the United States Department of Agriculture. Texas A&M University.
College Station, Texas. The United States.


Henson, S. J. and Northen, J. (1998). “Economic Determinants of Food Safety Controls in the Supply
Retailer Own-Branded Products in the UK”. Agribusiness 14:113–126.


Hornberger, K., Ndiritu, N., Ponce-Brito, L., Tashu, M. and Watt T. (2007). “Kenya’s Cut-Flower Cluster”.
Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School. Boston, MA. The United
States.


Kee, H. L., Nicita, A. and Olarreaga, M. (2006). “Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices”. Policy
research working paper no. 3840. World Bank. Washington, DC.


Kilcher, L., Schäfer, M., Richter, T., Van den Berg, P., Milz, J., Foppen, R., Theunissen, A., Bergleiter,
S., Stern, M., Staubi, F. and Scholer, M. (2002). “Organic Coffee, Cocoa and Tea: Market
Certification and Production for Producers and International Trading Companies”. International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Tholey-Theley. Bonn. Germany.


Leamer, E. E. (1990). “Latin America as a Target of Trade Barriers Erected by the Major Developed
Countries in 1983”. Journal of Development Economics 322: 337–368.


Mattson, J., Koo, W. and Taylor, R. (2004). “Non-Tariff Trade Barriers in Agriculture”. Agribusiness and
Applied Economics Report no. 531. Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies. North
Dakota State University. Fargo, North Dakota. The United States.


Ministry of Agriculture (2004). Statistics on Banana in Ecuador. Quito. Ecuador.


Minot, N. and Ngigi, M. (2004). “Are Horticultural Exports a Replicable Success Story? Evidence from
Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire”. International Food Policy Research Institute EPTD discussion paper
no. 120. Washington, DC. The United States.


Omosa, M., Morris, M., Martin, A., Mwarania, B. and Nelson, V. (2005). “Assessing the Social Impact of
Codes of Practice in the Kenyan Cut Flower Industry”. www.nri.org/NRET/impactproject.htm


Perry, S. (2008). “Tropical and Diversification Products: Strategic Options for Developing Countries”.
ICTSD Project on Tropical Products, issue paper no.11. International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development. Geneva. Switzerland. www.agtradepolicy.org/output/resource/
Tropical_and_Diversification_Products_Perry08.pdf




121ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development


Rauch, J. E. (1999). “Networks Versus Markets in International Trade”. Journal of International
Economics 48: 7–35.


Serrano, J. A. (2007). “La Actividad Bananera en Ecuador, 1996-2006.” Presentation at the Third World
Banana Congress. Guayaquil. Ecuador.


USITC (2002). “USITC Nontariff Measures Database: Overview and Preliminary Findings”. International
Economic Review 3558. U.S. International Trade Commission. Washington, DC. The United
States.


WTO (2007). “Private Standards and the SPS Agreement”. G/SPS/GEN/746. WTO. Geneva.
Switzerland.


Zuñiga, M. (2007). “Ayer, Hoy y Mañana: ¿Hacia dónde se dirige la industria bananera global?”
Presentation at the Third World Banana Congress. Guayaquil. Ecuador.




SELECTED ICTSD ISSUE PAPERS
Trade and Environment
Goods and Services and Sustainable Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies for WTO Negotiations.
Policy Discussion Paper, 2007.
Technology Transfer Issues in Environmental Goods and Services: An Illustrative Analysis of Sectors Relevant to Air-pollution and Renewable Energy.
Issue Paper No. 6 by Lynn Mytelka, 2007.
Building Supply Capacity for Environmental Services in Asia: The Role of Domestic and Trade Policies.
Issue Paper No. 5 by Aparna Sawhney, 2007.
An Overview of Key Markets, Tariffs and Non-tariff Measures on Asian Exports of Selected Environmental Goods.
Issue Paper No. 4 by Rokiah Alavi, 2007.
Trade in Environmental Services: Assessing the Implications for Developing Countries in the GATS.
Issue Paper No. 3 by Colin Kirkpatrick, 2006.
Options for Liberalising Trade in Environmental Goods in the Doha Round.
Issue Paper No. 2 by Robert Howse and Petrus von Bork, 2006.
Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of International Trade
Compliance and Remedies against Non-Compliance under the WTO System: Towards A More Balanced Regime for All Members.
Issue Paper No. 3 by Virachai Plasai, 2007.
Access to Justice in the WTO: The Case for a Small Claims Procedure, A Preliminary Analysis.
Issue Paper No. 2 by Håkan Nordström and Gregory Shaffer, 2007.


Appeal Without Remand: A Design Flaw in the WTO Dispute Settlement System.
Issue Paper No. 1 by Joost Pauwelyn, 2007.
Trade in Services and Sustainable Development
Maritime Transport and Related Logistics Services in Egypt, by Ahmed F. Ghoneim, and Omneia A. Helmy.
Issue Paper No 8, December 2007.
Opportunities and Risks of Liberalising Trade in Services in Pakistan, By Abid A. Burki.
Issue Paper No 7, December 2007.
Regulatory Principles for Environmental Services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services, by Massimo Geloso Grosso.
Issue Paper No 6, December 2007.
Opportunities and Risks of Liberalising Trade in Services in Mozambique, by Alberto Teodoro Bila, Eduardo Mondlane, Hélder Chambal and Viriato Tamele.
Issue Paper No 5, December 2007.
Opportunities and Risks of Liberalizing Trade in Services in Tanzania, by Daima Associates Limited, National Consultant.
Issue Paper No.4, December 2007.
Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development
Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Exploration of Some Issues of Relevance to Developing Countries.
Issue Paper No. 21 by Carlos Correa, 2007.
Intellectual Property Provisions in European Union Trade Agreements: Implications for Developing Countries.
Issue Paper No. 20 by Maximiliano Santa Cruz S., 2007.


Maintaining Policy Space for Development: A Case Study on IP Technical Assistance in FTAs.
Issue Paper No. 19 by Pedro Roffe and David Vivas with Gina Vea, 2007.


New Trends in Technology Transfer: Implications for National and International Policy.
Issue Paper No. 18 by John H. Barton, 2007.
Fisheries, International Trade and Sustainable Development
Fisheries, International Trade and Sustainable Development.
Policy Discussion Paper, by ICTSD, 2006.
Aquaculture: Issues and Opportunities for Sustainable Production and Trade.
Issue Paper No. 5 by Frank Asche and Fahmida Khatun, 2006.
Market Access and Trade Liberalisation in Fisheries.
Issue Paper No. 4 by Mahfuz Ahmed, 2006.
Trade and Marketplace Measures to Promote Sustainable Fishing Practices.
Issue Paper No. 3 by Cathy Roheim and Jon G. Sutinen, 2006.
Fisheries Access Agreements: Trade and Development Issues.
Issue Paper No. 2 by Stephen Mbithi Mwikya, 2006.
Trade and Sustainable Energy
Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Energy Technologies in Developing Countries:An Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic, Biofuel and Wind Technologies.
Issue Paper No. 2 by John H. Barton, 2007.
Climate, Equity, and Global Trade.
Selected Issue Briefs No. 2, 2007.
The WTO and Energy: WTO Rules and Agreements of Relevance to the Energy Sector.
Issue Paper No. 1 by Julia Selivanova, 2007.
Linking Trade, Climate and Sustainable Energy.
Selected Issue Briefs, 2006.
These and other ICTSD resources are available at http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/series.htm.




ICTSD’s Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development aims to promote
food security, equity and environmental sustainability in agricultural trade. Publications
include:


Tropical and Diversification Products Strategic Options for Developing Countries.s
By Santiago Perry. Issue Paper No. 11.March 2008.


Implications of Proposed Modalities for the Special Safeguard Mechanism: A Simulation Exercise.s
Issue Paper No. 10 by Raul Montemayor, 2007.


Trade and Sustainable Land Management in Drylands.s
Selected Issue Brief, 2007.


A Comparison of the Barriers Faced by Latin American and ACP Countries’ Exports of Tropical s
Products.
Issue Paper No. 9 by Jean-Christophe Bureau, Anne-Celia Disdier and Priscila Ramos, 2007.


South-South Trade in Special Products.s
Issue Paper No. 8 by Christopher Stevens, Jane Kennan and Mareike Meyn, 2007.


The ACP Experience of Preference Erosion in the Banana and Sugar Sectors: Possible Policy Responses s
to Assist in Adjusting to Trade Changes.
Issue Paper No. 7 by Paul Goodison, 2007.


Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism: Strategic Options for Developing s
Countries.
Issue Paper No. 6 by ICTSD, 2005.


Lessons from the Experience with Special Products and Safeguard Mechanisms in Bilateral Trade s
Agreements.
Issue Paper No. 5 by Carlos Pomareda, forthcoming.


Methodology for the Identification of Special Products (SP) and Products for Eligibility Under s
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) by Developing Countries.
Issue Paper No. 4 by Luisa Bernal, 2005.


Special Products: Options for Negotiating Modalities.s
Issue Paper No. 3 by Anwarul Hoda, 2005.


Tariff Reduction, Special Products and Special Safeguards: An Analysis of the Agricultural Tariff s
Structures of G-33 Countries.
Issue Paper No. 2 by Mario Jales, 2005.


The New SSM: A Price Floor Mechanism for Developing Countries.s


Issue Paper No. 1 by Alberto Valdés and William Foster, 2005.


For further information visit: www.agtradepolicy.org


About ICTSD
Founded in 1996, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
(ICTSD) is an independent non-profit and non-governmental organization based in
Geneva. By empowering stakeholders in trade policy through information, networking,
dialogue, well-targeted research and capacity building, the centre aims to influence the
international trade system such that it advances the goal of sustainable development.


-
w


w
w


.n
at


ur
ap


ri
nt


.n
et




www.ictsd.org




Login