council for trade in services road freight transport services · council for trade in services road...
TRANSCRIPT
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION
RESTRICTED
S/C/W/324
** October 2010
10-0000
Council for Trade in Services
ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT SERVICES
Background Note by the Secretariat1
This Note has been prepared at the request of Members, with a view to stimulating
discussions on road freight transport services. It updates and expands on the relevant sections of a
previous Note that covered all land transport services (S/C/W/60, dated 28 October 1998). This Note
focuses on developments and issues considered to be most relevant to the GATS, and is not intended
to provide a comprehensive account of the sector.
_______________
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.
S/C/W/324
Page 2
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 4
II. DEFINITION OF THE SECTOR ....................................................................................... 5
III. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................. 7
IV. TRADE IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT SERVICES ............................................ 12
V. REGULATORY ASPECTS ............................................................................................... 15
A. MARKET ACCESS REGULATIONS 16
1. Overview of the market access regulations applicable to domestic transport,
including establishment ...................................................................................................... 16
(a) General trend ......................................................................................................................... 16
(b) Historical trends in developed and emerging countries - OECD Road Freight Regulation
Database ................................................................................................................................ 17
(c) Conditions of establishment and operation - World Bank Services Policy Restrictiveness
Database ................................................................................................................................ 19
2. Overview of the market access regulations applicable to international transport ....... 21
(a) The system of bilateral agreements ....................................................................................... 21
(i) Historical background and scope of the bilateral system...............................................21
(ii) Standard structure of a bilateral agreement..................................................................22
(iii) Operation of bilateral agreements in combination.........................................................26
(iv) Variations relative to the ECMT model agreement.........................................................31
(v) Regimes applicable in the absence of a bilateral agreement..........................................32
(vi) Economic effects of the bilateral system.........................................................................33
(b) Regional agreements partially liberalizing international road transport ............................... 33
(i) European Union..............................................................................................................34
(ii) "Multilateral" quota of the ECMT..................................................................................35
(iii) Andean Community.........................................................................................................37
(iv) Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization............................................................37
(v) ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Inter-State Transport and
Cross-Border Transport Agreement of the Great Mekong Sub-Region.........................37
(vi) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).........................................................38
(vii) Other agreements and cases of preferential treatment...................................................38
(c) Situations in which international road transport is prohibited or severely restricted ............ 38
B. OTHER REGULATIONS............................................................................................................39
1. Regulations at the border ................................................................................................... 39
2. Regulations behind the border .......................................................................................... 41
(a) Environmental regulations .................................................................................................... 42
S/C/W/324
Page 3
(b) Regulation of weights and dimensions ................................................................................. 43
VI. OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS AND MFN EXEMPTIONS ................................. 44
A. SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS........................................................................................................44
B. MFN EXEMPTIONS..................................................................................................................45
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 46
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 50
_______________
S/C/W/324
Page 4
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Similarly to other infrastructural services, such as telecommunications and energy, road
freight transport provides key inputs to a country's production and trade of goods and a number of
services (postal, distribution and logistics services, for instance). The sector plays a fundamental role
in market integration, and directly determines transaction costs for economic agents. Road freight
transport also is a highly cyclical activity. Reflecting changes in the structure and location of
manufacturing industries, and the ensuing need for "just in time" deliveries, changes in Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) imply proportionally larger changes in the demand for road freight transport
services.
2. There is huge variation in the types of services provided in terms of frequency of trips,
complexity, distance travelled and vehicles used. For instance, international road freight trips
between Belgium and the Netherlands are regular, simple (due to the absence of border controls
within the European Union), short-distance and not always reliant on maximum weight articulated
vehicles. By comparison, trips between Europe and Asia tend to be occasional, highly complex
(because of the numerous border crossings), over very long distances, and generally undertaken using
maximum weight, fully laden articulated vehicles that minimise the unit cost of transport.2
3. Road freight transport suppliers compete not only with each other for traffic, but also with
operators of other transport modes.3 This inter-modal competition, particularly in land-based
transport, has strongly influenced the regulatory regime governing the road freight industry, as will be
discussed in Section V.A.
4. Though a services activity, it is useful to recall that road freight transport is also subject to the
rules of the GATT. Article III.1 of the GATT stipulates that "rules, regulations and requirements
affecting … the internal transportation of products … should not be applied … so as to afford
protection to domestic production". Article III.4 establishes a national treatment principle in this
respect, specifying that "[these] provisions shall not prevent the application of differential internal
transportation charges which are based exclusively on the economic operation of the means of
transport and not on the nationality of the products". These stipulations have been interpreted in the
context of several WTO panels.
5. Article V of the GATT also establishes rules concerning transit. Although this Article has
sometimes been invoked during consultations, in particular in connection with pipelines, it had never
been subject to a detailed interpretation by a panel until the recent Colombia - Ports of Entry case.4
Road freight transport lies at the heart of the trade facilitation work currently being undertaken as part
of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). Article V itself is under review in the negotiations, in line
with the mandate contained in Annex D of the General Council's so-called "July package".5 Pursuant
to Annex D, the newly-established Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation is tasked to "clarify and
2 See, for instance, OECD (2010).
3 Compared with maritime shipping, road and rail are currently transporting relatively small quantities
of freight traded internationally, particularly between different continents. Just under one quarter of global trade
(measured in value) takes place between countries sharing a land border, where surface modes are assumed to
be dominant. However, as land-based transport has a relative advantage in terms of cost per transit-time
compared to water and air transport, this is expected to result in increased demand for international movements
via this mode (see also OECD (2010)). 4 See "Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry", Report by the Panel, document
WT/DS366/R, dated 27 April 2009. 5 Document WT/L/579, dated 2 August 2005.
S/C/W/324
Page 5
improve relevant aspects of Article V".6 As a result of this mandate, Members have submitted a
number of legal proposals, which are contained in a draft consolidated negotiating text.7
II. DEFINITION OF THE SECTOR
6. In the Services Sectoral Classification List (document MTN.GNS/W/120, hereinafter W/120),
road freight transport is one of the sub-sectors listed under category 11.F, "Road Transport Services".
The corresponding UN Provisional Central Product Classification (CPC Prov) code is 7123, which is
further subdivided, at the five-digit level, into seven sub-categories (see Table 1 and Annex 1).
Table 1: Summary of the classification of Road Freight Transportation according to W/120
11 TRANSPORT SERVICES
11.F Road Transport Services
11.F.b Freight Transportation (7123)
This comprises the transportation of: frozen or refrigerated goods (71231), bulk liquids or
gases (71232), containerized freight (71233), furniture (71234), mail (71235) and other freight
(71239), as well as freight transportation by man- or animal-drawn vehicles (71236).
Note: Codes in parenthesis refer to the UN Provisional Central Product Classification.
Source: WTO Secretariat
7. Distinctions between the five-digit categories are mostly based on the type of freight being
transported. The only exception concerns sub-category 71236, "freight transportation by man- or
animal-drawn vehicles", which is defined on the basis of the means of transport.
8. CPC Prov 71235 covers "transportation of mail by any land mode of transport other than by
railway". Though there are meant to be no duplications across the various CPC categories, this item
appears to overlap with the way in which postal and courier services are classified under category
CPC Prov 75111, 75112 and 75121. (See also paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Background Note on Postal
Services, in document S/C/W/319, dated 11 August 2010).
9. Since its publication in 1991, the CPC Prov has been revised three times (versions 1.0, 1.1
and 2). In the second revision (CPC Ver.2), a number of changes have been introduced to the road
freight transport category (see Table 2). Notably, the focus on means of transport has been substituted
by references to the nature of the good transported in a number of cases, and the residual category
(CPC Prov 71239, "transportation of other freight") has been broken down and further elaborated (e.g.
transportation of dry bulk, transportation of live animals). This, however, does not substantially alter
the scope of the sector, with the exception of the widening of category 71234 "transportation of
furniture" which becomes "moving services of household and office furniture and other goods".8 The
only other exception is the redefinition of "mail transportation" into "road transport services of letters
and parcels", which has to be explicitly undertaken "on behalf of postal and courier services"
[emphasis added].
6 Paragraph 1 of Annex D, document WT/L/579.
7 The latest version is contained in document TN/TF/W/165/Rev.2, dated 4 May 2010.
8 The CPC Prov did not contain any specific item for removals.
S/C/W/324
Page 6
Table 2: Treatment of freight road transport services in CPC Prov and CPC Ver.2
Provisional CPC CPC Ver. 2
71231 Transportation of frozen or refrigerated goods
Transportation by road of frozen or
refrigerated goods, in specially refrigerated
trucks and cars.
71232 Transportation of bulk liquids or gases
Transportation by road of bulk liquids or
gases in special tank trucks. These vehicles
may also be refrigerated.
71233 Transportation of containerized freight
Transportation by road of individual articles
and packages assembled and shipped in
specially constructed shipping containers
designed for ease of handling in transport.
71234 Transportation of furniture
Transportation of furniture by road over any
distance.
Exclusion: Furniture transportation by
transoceanic shipment is classified in
subclass 72123 (Transportation of
containerized freight).
71235 Mail transportation
Transportation of mail by any land mode of
transport other than railway.
71236 Freight transportation by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles
Transportation of freight by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles.
71239 Transportation of other freight
Transportation by land modes of transport
other than railway, of freight, not elsewhere
classified.
65111 Road transport services of freight by
refrigerator vehicles
Transportation by road of frozen or
refrigerated goods, in specially refrigerated
trucks and cars
65112 Road transport services of freight by tank trucks
or semi-trailers
Transportation by road of petroleum products
(crude oil, natural gas and refined petroleum
products) in special tank trucks. Transportation
by road of other bulk liquids or gases in special
tank trucks.
65113 Road transport services of intermodal
containers
Transportation by road of individual articles
and packages assembled and shipped in
specially constructed shipping containers
designed for ease of handling in transport
65114 Road transport services of freight by man- or
animal-drawn vehicles
Transportation of freight by man- or animal-
drawn vehicles.
65115 Moving services of household and office
furniture and other goods
This subclass includes: household goods and
furniture removal services; office equipment,
machinery and furniture removal services;
ancillary services, such as packing and carrying
and in-house moving.
65116 Road transport services of letters and parcels
Transportation of letters and parcels by any
mode of land transport, other than railway, on
behalf of postal and courier services. This
subclass does not include: messenger services
of bicycle couriers (cf. 68120); courier delivery
services, (cf. 68120); local delivery services
(cf. 68130)
65117 Road transport services of dry bulk
Transportation by road of dry bulk goods such
as cereals, flours, cement, sand, coal, etc.
65118 Road transport services of live animals
Transportation by road of live animals
65119 Other road transport services of freight
Transportation by road of other freight in other
specialized vehicles not elsewhere classified,
such as: transport of concrete and tarred
macadam; transport of cars; transportation by
road of other freight not elsewhere classified, in
non-specialized vehicles. This subclass does
not include armoured car services (cf. 85240)
Note: Items in italics are those for which the definition has remained unchanged from CPC Prov to CPC Ver.2.
Source: WTO Secretariat
S/C/W/324
Page 7
III. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
10. Information on the road freight industry is scattered across various sources, with different
geographical coverage and reliant on different, and often not fully defined, methodologies. As a
result, more often than not, data is not directly comparable internationally.9 Whenever available, this
section will present the information with the widest geographical coverage. More detailed or more
recent data for selected countries or regions will also be shown, with the caveat that this will not
necessarily be directly comparable with the more aggregate information.
11. A very rough calculation10
suggests that road freight transport accounts for over one-third of
total inland freight transport (on rail, road, inland waterways and pipelines, measured in tonne-
kilometres), a slightly lower share than that for rail transport. For the 51 countries that are members
of the International Transport Forum (ITF)11
, for instance, in 2007 the share of road transport stood at
over 36 per cent and that of rail transport at nearly 43 per cent, while pipelines accounted for around
16 per cent and inland waterways for the remaining 5 per cent (measured in tonne-kilometres).
12. This overall pictures, however, hides significant variations. Data collected by the
International Road Federation (IRF) provides what would appear to be the most comprehensive and
comparable information on the modal split of inland freight transport (on road, rail and inland
waterways only) across several countries.12
Accordingly, in 2007 road freight transport accounted for
around 95 per cent of total inland freight transport in Pakistan and Turkey, 88 per cent in Mexico and
76 per cent in the EU-27, but only 35 per cent in the United States, 22 per cent in China, 11 per cent
in Morocco and 3 per cent in Mongolia.13
(See also Annex 2.)
13. The share of road haulage in total road freight transport is attributable to a variety of factors,
such as the relative efficiency of other transport modes, the extension of railway, pipeline or inland
waterway networks, the distances involved and the topographic characteristics of a country. Road
freight transportation often plays a key role in developing countries, particularly those which did not
witness the development of an extensive rail network during the 19th century and at the beginning of
the 20th century (i.e. mostly Latin American and African countries).
14. Between 1990 and 2007, the volume of freight transported by road in the ITF member
countries almost tripled (measured in tonne kilometres), as compared to just a doubling of the volume
of rail freight.14
This reflects to a large extent the increasing complexity of production methods
(several plants involved in the manufacture of a single product) and the generalization of "just-in-
time" production, with the associated demand for door-to-door services, smaller and more frequent
freight deliveries and shorter delivery time windows. Available data shows, for instance, that in the
EU-27 about two-thirds of freight transported nationally, measured in tonnes moved, travelled a
9 For instance, the definition of "inland freight transport" does not consistently include freight
transported by pipelines; figures on "employment in the sector" cover different types of professionals; those for
"fleet size" may or may not include own-account fleets. 10
Based on International Transport Forum (2010) and International Road Federation (2009). 11
The International Transport Forum replaced the European Conference of Ministers of Transport
(ECMT) in 2006. 12
International Road Federation (2009). 13
Calculations based on International Road Federation (2009) data for 2007 (and for 2005 for
Pakistan). Data for the EU-27 is from Eurostat (2010). 14
Calculations based on International Transport Forum (2010). Note that non available data affects the
consistency of totals across years.
S/C/W/324
Page 8
distance of less than 50 kilometres in 2007.15
In China, the share of freight volumes travelling less
than 100 kilometres in 2008 amounted to around 63 per cent.16
15. The road freight industry accounts for between 1 and 5 per cent of GDP and roughly similar,
albeit often smaller, shares of total employment, depending on countries' level of development,
geographical characteristics and transport network infrastructure. Table 3 provides information for
selected countries, compiled from different information sources.
Table 3: Road freight transport
Selected indicators, 2005
Road freight employment as a
percentage of total employmenta
Road freight GDP as a
percentage of total
GDPb
Australia 1.61 3.06 Canada 1.25 1.29
China ... 2.10
EU 27 1.30 2.37
Austria 1.51 3.17 Belgium 1.49 ...
Czech Republic 2.12 4.61 Denmark 1.47 2.68
Finland 1.65 3.02
France 1.37 2.09 Germany 0.79 1.21
Greece 0.30 0.37 Hungary 1.75 4.11
Italy 1.51 2.90
Luxembourg 3.94 3.39 Netherlands 1.42 3.18
Poland 1.38 4.14 Portugal 1.21 2.97
Slovak Republic 0.45 1.24 Slovenia ... 4.86
Spain 2.06 3.79
Sweden 1.56 2.52 United Kingdom
ngdom
1.08 1.88
India ... 4.70
Japan 2.00 2.75
Mexico 2.86 2.86
Norway 1.17 1.78
United States 0.96 0.92
a 2002 for Australia; 2007 for Japan and Mexico; 2008 for Canada and the United States.
b 1999 for Australia; 2006 for Canada; 2007 for China, India, Japan, Mexico and the United States.
Sources: Australia: Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services (2003); Australian Bureau of Statistics
(2000 and 2003); Canada, Mexico, United States: North American Transportation Statistics Database (2009);
China: China Communications Press (2008); India: CYGNUS Business Consulting & Research (2007); Japan:
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Statistical Information (2010); Other countries:
Eurostat (2008, 2009 and 2010).
15
European Commission (2009). International road freight trips naturally tend to involve longer
distances. For example in 2007, slightly less than half of the freight transported internationally for the EU-27,
measured in tonnes moved, involved journeys longer than 500 kilometres. 16
China Ministry of Transport (2008).
S/C/W/324
Page 9
16. In terms of absolute levels of employment, figures from Eurostat (2008) indicate that in the
EU-27 more than 2.7 million people were employed in the road freight transport sector in 2005.17
According to the International Road Transport Union (IRU), in 2008 almost 2.4 million people
worked directly for the trucking industry in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), while the
corresponding figure for North America was 4 million.18
In the United States alone, there were nearly
3 million truck drivers in 2008; about 56 percent of these drive heavy/tractor trailer trucks, 31 percent
drive light/delivery service trucks, and about 13 percent are driver/sales workers.19
Available figures
for China show that, by the end of 2008, there were more than 12 million people directly employed in
the national freight road transport industry.20
17. Figures for the contribution of the sector to GDP and employment tend to underestimate the
total economic weight of the sector, since they do not generally include own-account transport.21
From a GATS perspective, however, this is not a major concern, as transport on own account would
not be covered by commitments on transport services.22
18. In 2006, the share of own-account transport in the EU-27 was around 20 per cent for national
transport and about 5 per cent for international transport.23
Own-account transport generally
represents a larger share in the CIS, mainly because of the slower onset of small private road haulage
enterprises that accompanied the gradual disappearance of the own-account services are traditionally
operated by large industrial conglomerates. It is estimated, for instance, that over 80 per cent of
domestic road freight in Uzbekistan and over 50 per cent in the other Central Asian economies is
carried for own account.24
19. Several factors can explain the generally higher share of own-account transport in the
domestic segment of the market. For one, small and medium-sized companies typically find it easier
to organise domestic distribution trips by themselves, while they generally prefer to outsource the
longer and more administratively complex international freight trips involving border crossings.
Also, companies engaged in hire or reward traffic have a greater incentive to engage in international
traffic and are more effective at ensuring that vehicles perform fewer empty runs.25
20. In the absence of detailed traffic statistics, the relative importance of the different road freight
markets can be roughly gauged from the number of trucks in use. Two major caveats apply, though.
First, available figures include also the fleet used for own-account transport, which, as discussed,
represents a variable proportion of the total fleet in different countries. Second, these numbers reflect
the relative size of the domestic trucking markets in each country, but provide no indication of the
role played by the country's operators on the international scene. The top-20 countries by fleet size
are presented in Table 4, while the complete data set is accessible in Annex 3.
17
The corresponding figure provided by the European Commission (2009) for EU-27 is 2.1 million in
2005. 18
This includes people working as drivers, logistics experts, dispatchers and operations managers. 19
US Department of Transportation (2009). 20
International Road Transport Union (2009). Altogether, 18 million people held relevant certificates
of professional competence in China, including 14 million professional drivers. 21
Freight transport "on own account" is transport operated by companies transporting their own freight
with no financial transaction involved, while transport "for hire or reward" is the carriage for remuneration of
freight on behalf of third parties. 22
Own-account transport services would still be subject to GATS disciplines to the extent that relevant
measures affect trade in other services. 23
European Commission (2009). 24
Asian Development Bank (2006). 25
See Eurostat (2009). According to the IRU, less than 18 per cent of driven kilometres on long
distances are empty runs, compared for a share of around 25 per cent on distances of less than 50 kilometres.
S/C/W/324
Page 10
Table 4: Top-20 countries by number of vans and lorries
Year Vans and Lorries
Australia 2007 2'723'000
Brazil 2007 5'709'063
Canada 2007 7'425'765
China a 2007 10'540'556
EU 27 2007 34'835'709
France 2007 6'270'000
Germany 2007 4'604'905
Italy 2007 4'437'600
Poland 2007 2'520'548
Spain 2007 5'140'586
United Kingdom 2007 3'715'000
India 2006 4'436'000
Indonesia 2007 5'065'482
Japan 2007 34'324'000
Korea, Republic of 2007 4'189'042
Mexico 2007 7'870'417
Russian Federation 2007 4'730'000
Thailand 2006 4'992'150
Turkey 2007 2'619'661
United States 2007 110'497'239
a According to another source, 7.6 million commercial trucks were operating in China in 2008 (International
Road Transport Union, 2009). Source: International Road Federation (2009).
21. The road freight industry is generally divided into two main segments. The first consists of a
large number of small firms providing basic, mainly domestic or quasi-domestic (as in the case of the
EU) transport services. It is characterized by easy entry (because of low start-up capital needs, no
special expertise required apart form basic driving skills), negligible economies of scale and low
degrees of market concentration. Indeed, in most countries the vast majority of hauliers are small and
medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 5 vehicles (see Chart 1).
Chart 1: Distribution of road haulage companies by number of vehicles, 2004
34%
51%
13%
1%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% o
f to
tal
1 vehicle 2-10 vehicles 11-50 vehicles >50 vehicles
Source: International Road Transport Union (2007).
S/C/W/324
Page 11
22. A major part of these transport firms is run by a single owner-driver. Available data
indicates, for example, that out of the 4'959'000 operators engaged in the road freight transport
business in China in 2007, nearly 90 per cent were individual operators.26
According to the European
Commission (2009), in 2004 in almost all EU Member States the share of companies with more than
50 employees was around 1 per cent, while the share of micro-companies with less than 10 employees
was 80 per cent or more. In Australia, owner/drivers and small freight operators represented nearly
two-thirds of the total number of operating businesses at the end of the 1990s, though they only
accounted for less than 12 per cent of the industry's operating income.27
23. Firms in this segment compete mainly on price, with labour costs being a key determinant of
competitiveness.28
In the EU, for instance, in 2005 the EU-15 Member States had average personnel
costs that ranged from EUR 16'000 for Portugal to EUR 43'000 for the Netherlands, while amongst
the 12 most recently acceded Member States Hungary ranked highest (EUR 8'000), and Latvia and
Romania lowest (EUR 2'000).29
Against this backdrop, the emergence of the new EU Member States
as important players in the European road transport market is hardly surprising.30
24. The second segment is made up of a limited number of large, better organised firms that often
provide complex logistics services of which the transport sector is just one segment. Firms in this
segment compete on price, range and quality of the services offered. Since economies of scale and
scope are more important, this segments exhibits higher concentration levels. (For a fuller discussion,
see Background Note on Logistics Services, document S/C/W/317.)
25. OECD markets like Spain, Italy and Poland tend to be more fragmented, with many small
business units. In contrast, concentration levels in the Netherlands, Japan and the United States, while
still low in absolute terms, are relatively more significant , especially since these countries were
quicker than others to switch to integrated logistics.31
At the same time, however, large enterprises
have shown a tendency towards turning their employees into independent operators ("owner-
operators") by lending them the start-up capital necessary to purchase a vehicle. This helps
enterprises reduce social security contributions and related charges and provides more flexibility, due
to lower fixed costs, over the business cycle. Table 5 provides information on the top-15 US trucking
freight carriers by operating revenue.
26. While it is still too early to assess the full impact of the recent economic crisis on the sector, it
is not surprising that, given that its highly cyclical nature and strong link to merchandise trade, the
whole freight transport industry suffered heavily from the abrupt reversal in world output and trade
growth over 2008-2009. According to the IRU, a comparison of the situation between January and
June 2009 with the same period in 2008 shows that domestic revenue and tonne-kilometres output
were down by around 20 per cent, and international road freight by about 30 per cent. Employment
shrunk by approximately 10-15 per cent, coupled with a drastic fall of new Heavy Goods Vehicle
(HGV) registrations of more than 30 per cent for a majority of countries.32
ITF figures for the second
quarter of 2009 reveal a year-on-year decline of over 12 per cent in tonne-kilometre figures for Spain,
26
China Communication Press (2007). 27
Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services (2003). 28
For EU hauliers, wages are historically the most important cost factor, representing between 40 and
59 per cent of the total cost in EU-15. (European Commission, 2009.) 29
Eurostat (2008). 30
In 2006, for instance, Poland was the largest contributor to cross trade, i.e. international road
transport between two different countries performed by a road motor vehicle registered in a third country, with a
share of 19 per cent of the EU total. (European Commission, 2009.) 31
In the OECD, the market share of the top-three firms seldom exceeds 5 per cent of total tonne-
kilometres transported. (OECD, 2001.) 32
Economic Commission for Europe (2009).
S/C/W/324
Page 12
16 per cent for France, 22 per cent for Finland and 23 per cent for Russia. By the end of 2009,
however, short-terms data indicated that recovery in the sector had started.33
Table 5: Top-15 US trucking freight carriers by operating revenue, 2005 and 2008a
(US$ million)
Carrier 2005 2008
YRC Worldwide 8742 8940
Ryder System 5741 6204
Con-way 4116 5037
Penske Truck Leasing 4000 4000
J.B. Hunt Transport 3128 3732
Schneider National 3400 3700
Swift Transportation 3197 3400
CEVA Logistics 972 2810
Sirva 1096 2747
Landstar System 2518 2643
Werner 1972 2116
TransForce 1227 2120
Pacer International 1860 2088
UniGroup 209 2000
Arkansas Best 1860 1833
a Ranking in 2008.
Source: US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010).
IV. TRADE IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT SERVICES
27. Statistical information on trade in road freight transport services is deficient. Data are
focused on "international road freight transport services", i.e. road freight transport between a place of
loading and a place of unloading that are located in two different countries. This mainly corresponds
to a mode 1 notion of trade. No or little attention is paid, for instance, to cabotage or mode 3 trade,
i.e. establishment in a foreign country to carry out domestic road transport operations.34
There are no
data available on the proportion of domestic traffic conducted by foreign-controlled, locally
established operators.
28. Available figures indicate that the majority of cross-border land transport (via road, rail and
pipelines), measured in value, takes place within Europe, Asia and North America.35
The main flows
occur intra-regions, given that two of the three main inter-regional links (Asia-North America, and
Europe-North America) are not possible by land-based routes, and hence maritime transport
dominates. For the third (Asia-Europe), road transport is possible, but very limited at present, with
the majority of goods again being shipped by sea.36
33
International Transport Forum (2010). 34
The United States is the only country that collects Foreign Affiliates Statistics for the category "truck
transportation". Available data can be obtained from: http://www.bea.gov/international/international_
services.htm (see, in particular, sections 9 and 10). 35
OECD (2010). 36
The 'Silk Route' between Europe and Asia is one of the oldest land trade routes in the world. Over
time, however, long-distance freight flows on this route were replaced by maritime transport. With the re-
opening of the border between China and Kazakhstan, land freight transport recommenced, even though
volumes are presently still relatively limited. Road freight transport is estimated to account for less than 1 per
cent of total containerised flows between Europe and Asia. (US Chamber of Commerce (2006).)
S/C/W/324
Page 13
29. Furthermore, as discussed, trucking is essentially short-haul. Indeed, surface modes dominate
merchandise trade between neighbouring countries.37
On the basis of US and Latin American data,
Hummels (2007) estimates that around 90 per cent of trade between countries sharing a land border is
transported by land, with the remaining 10 per cent travelling by air or sea. Fernandez (2008) further
calculates that 90 per cent of the US-Mexican freight is transported by truck. The corresponding
share for US-Canadian freight is 66 per cent.
30. Not surprisingly, most traffic, particularly in large countries, is domestic in nature. In the
United States, for instance, the share of national transport in total road freight transport (measured in
value) was over 95 per cent in 2008.38
In general, trucking is used considerably to feed inter-regional
maritime services, connecting inland flow origins and destinations.39
31. As far as the EU is concerned, international road freight transport takes place mostly between
its Member States. The share of extra-EU road freight transport accounted for only 5 per cent of the
total volume of international road freight transport in 2006. However, the picture is different for EU
Member States that border non-EU countries, for which this share can amount to between one-quarter
and almost one-half of their total international transport performance. This is the case for Bulgaria,
Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Finland, and to a lesser extent Denmark and Lithuania.40
32. In terms of the extra-EU trading partners, Switzerland, Russia and Norway are the most
important ones, as Chart 2 illustrates.
37
Just about one quarter of global trade (in value terms) is between neighbouring countries. (OECD
(2010).) 38
US Department of Transportation (2009). Data do not include imports and exports that pass through
the United States from a foreign origin to a foreign destination. 39
OECD (2010). 40
European Commission (2009). These data are partial, however, as they only reflect EU-registered
operators, but elude road freight transport performed on EU soil by non-EU registered hauliers.
S/C/W/324
Page 14
Chart 2: Extra-EU road freight transport performed by EU-registered hauliers, 2006,
destination of outgoing and origin of incoming freight
Country of unloading Country of loading
Norway
14%
Belarus 2%
Other 4%
Ukraine 7%
Russia 39%
Switzerland
23%
Turkey 6%
FYROM
1%
Croatia 4%
Norway
16%
Belarus 1%
Other 30%
Ukraine 3% Switzerland
22%
Russia 14%
Croatia 3%
FYROM
1%
Turkey 10%
Source: European Commission (2009)
33. Available Balance-of-Payments data on major importers and exporters of freight transport
services is presented in Table 6. There are several shortcomings with these data. They are
attributable mainly to the way in which traded goods are valued in the Balance-of-Payment (free on
board for exports and imports) as, for compiling purposes, transport costs are assumed to be paid by,
and pertain to, the importer beyond the exporting country's border (and also depend on the residency
of the freight operator). Conceptual work to improve measurement of transport trade statistics is
nevertheless ongoing, notably in the context of the drafting of the first revised version of the UN
Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services.41
41
For more information, see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc10/BG-MSITS2010.pdf, and
paragraphs 3.105 to 3.108 in particular.
S/C/W/324
Page 15
Table 6: Major exporters and importers of road freight transport services, 2008
(US$ million and percentage)
Rank Exporters Value Share of
15
Annual
%
change
Rank Importers Value Share of
15
Annual
%
change
1 EU-27 60553 91.6 16 1 EU-27 71546 88.7 12
Extra-EU-27
exports 11837 17.9 39
Extra-EU-27
imports 13783 17.1 22
2 Turkey 1751 2.6 26 2 Iraq a 2160 2.7 0
3 Belarus 590 0.9 33 3 Norway 1856 2.3 12
4 Uruguay 376 0.6 16 4 Ukraine 752 0.9 167
5 Russian Fed. 368 0.6 17 5 Kazakhstan 700 0.9 15
6 Norway 340 0.5 21 6 Uganda 608 0.8 41
7 Kenya 320 0.5 50 7 Russian Fed. 536 0.7 41
8 Serbia, Rep. of 314 0.5 35 8 Botswana 447 0.6 30
9 Croatia 298 0.5 18 9 Croatia 420 0.5 22
10 Argentina 285 0.4 17 10 Uruguay 342 0.4 45
11 Kazakhstan 232 0.4 36 11 El Salvador 337 0.4 37
12 Ukraine 222 0.3 27 12 Argentina 264 0.3 15
13 FYROM 187 0.3 44 13 Turkey 261 0.3 10
14 Brazil 137 0.2 28 14 Brazil 211 0.3 44
15 Bosnia & Herz. 118 0.2 22 15 Guatemala 208 0.3 8
Above 15 66090 100.0 - Above 15 80650 100.0 -
a 2007
Note: Based on information available to the WTO Secretariat. As certain economies do not report this item separately,
they may not appear in the list.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
34. As indicated above, information related to mode 3 trade in road freight transport is virtually
non-existent or very sketchy. In 2006, the IRU carried out a survey on capital mobility in the sector
focused on Central-Eastern and South-Eastern European countries and the CIS. The IRU estimates
that road transport accounts for around 4 per cent of all foreign direct investment undertaken in the
region between 1989 and 2005.42
Additional information, provided by the Danish professional
association to the IRU, indicates that in 2006 around 16 per cent of the foreign lorries driving into
Denmark belonged to Danish road hauliers' foreign subsidiaries, corresponding to around one in every
seven lorries crossing the German/Danish border northbound. These lorries were mostly German or
Eastern-European flagged. Amongst the reasons given by road transport operators for the decision to
"out-flag" were lower taxation, labour (i.e. driver) and other costs and market diversification.
V. REGULATORY ASPECTS
35. The road transport sector is heavily regulated. Regulatory measures cover a broad spectrum
of issues, ranging from market access to security, road safety, the taxation of vehicles, fuel and
infrastructure, social legislation (driving hours and rest periods, wage norms and social insurance
cover), road traffic (prohibitions and restrictions), environmental standards, and technical standards
(in particular, weights and dimensions).
36. Road transport is mainly regulated at the national level. However, in States with a federal
structure, some regulations, including those relating to market access, are generated at the sub-federal
level. This applies, for instance, to the United States, India and Australia.
42
International Road Transport Union (2006).
S/C/W/324
Page 16
37. At the international (mostly regional) level, regulation tends to focus on the harmonization of
the operating conditions, such as weight and dimensions, environmental standards, driving hours and
rest periods, and fiscal harmonization.
38. This section will first discuss the available information concerning market access regulations.
It will then consider, more briefly and mainly in the form of comparative tables, various other
regulations that could have an indirect impact on access to markets.
A. MARKET ACCESS REGULATIONS
39. Two main regimes need to be distinguished:
(a) The internal or domestic transport regime. As mentioned above, internal transport
accounts for the overwhelming majority of global traffic, and has been extensively
liberalized. Applicable regulations with respect to mode 3 differ only marginally, to
account for sectoral specificities, from the general establishment regime contained in
the company law of most WTO Members.
(b) The regime applicable to international traffic. This is, generally, very restrictive. The
dominant mode of regulation is a system of bilateral agreements, fairly comparable
with that found in the air transport sector.
1. Overview of the market access regulations applicable to domestic transport, including
establishment
(a) General trend
40. Since the 1930s, road transport has been subjected to tight quantitative regulation, at least in
North America and in Europe. A system of licences, quotas and tariffs had been originally introduced
to prevent the erosion of the modal split share of rail traffic. By way of partial compensation,
established road transport operators were protected from new entrants, with tariffs fixed at a level that
enabled the least competitive to survive. Thus, until the arrival of the two waves of deregulation in
the 1960s and the 1980s, the profession had operated within a system of mandatory road transport
pricing and freight rate bureaus that benefited from anti-trust exemptions.
41. The quota system failed to achieve its initial objectives. It did not succeed in regulating
capacity or preventing the erosion of rail transport, and it encouraged fraud and the development of
transport on own account. Domestically, these quantitative systems have been progressively
dismantled. In the United States, this took place within the framework of a broadly-based
deregulation movement43
, and in the European Union with the establishment of the Single Market for
road transport.44
In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, liberalization came suddenly and
was followed by a period of re-regulation, or rather regulation, since until then regulation of State-
owned operators had not been required.
42. In recent years, domestic quantitative regulatory and mandatory pricing systems, or indeed
State haulage enterprises, have been gradually liberalised and, as the case may be, privatised in many
43
In particular, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which reduced the rate-setting powers of the Inter-State
Commerce Commission and the anti-trust immunity of the rate bureaus and made licences more flexible. 44
Relevant stages included price deregulation in 1990, abolition of intra-Community quotas, the
progressive liberalization of cabotage (completed on 1 January 1998), definition of qualitative criteria for access
to the profession, harmonization of driving times, weights and dimensions, and a start on the harmonization of
the taxation of vehicles, the use of infrastructure and of fuel.
S/C/W/324
Page 17
countries. Examples can be found in countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland45
,
Mexico46
, Egypt47
, Morocco48
, Jordan49
, Papua New Guinea50
the sub-Saharan African States51
, such
as Rwanda52
, Zambia and others.53
In many instances, the initial impetus came from the World
Bank.54
One of the challenges facing developing country regulators is that of getting hauliers to
switch from the informal to the formal sector for fiscal and road safety reasons and to ensure fair
competition. Policies of this type have reportedly been successfully implemented in Morocco and
Turkey. Access to bank credit for vehicle financing and compulsory insurance are among the policy
tools available for this transition to the formal sector.
43. Effects of this domestic liberalization have included a fall in prices, with the ensuing decline
in the profitability of the sector, the creation of new enterprises (but also bankruptcies), an
acceleration of concentration and specialization, network development, services customisation, job
creation and a relative decline in wages. Annex 4 gives a more detailed description of the estimated
economic effects of the domestic liberalisation process based on recent econometric studies.
44. The impact on safety and working conditions has been the subject of doctrinal controversy in
the specialized literature. There appears to be consensus among economists that liberalization has
been successful in meeting short-term policy objectives, such as lower prices and diversification of
supply, but less so in pursuing medium-term objectives, namely reduced congestion of the road
infrastructure, pollution control and energy conservation.
(b) Historical trends in developed and emerging countries – OECD Road Freight Regulation
Database
45. The liberalization of the domestic road transport market has been particularly well
documented by the OECD Secretariat for OECD countries, but also some other non-OECD members
(Estonia, Israel, Slovenia, Brazil and China). The OECD's road freight regulation database is based
on annual surveys, the first of which goes back to 1975.55
Thus, it can be used to trace, over a period
of 35 years, the evolution of the seven parameters which the OECD has chosen as indicative of the
liberalization of the domestic road transport market, namely, whether: (a)a licence or permit from the
government is needed to establish a road freight business; (b) criteria other than financial fitness and
compliance with the road safety regulations are considered in decisions authorizing the entry of new
operators into the market; (c) the regulator has any power to limit industry capacity;
(d) representatives of trade and commercial interests are involved in specifying or enforcing entry
regulations; (e) not representatives of trade and commercial interests are involved in specifying or
enforcing pricing guidelines or regulations; (f) retail prices of road freight services are regulated by
the government; and (g) the government provides pricing guidelines for road freight companies.
Annex 5 summarizes the results of this survey.
45
See Raballand and Macchi (2008). 46
See Dutz, Hayri, and Ibarra. (2000). 47
See Gray, Fattah and Cullinane (1998). 48
See World Bank (2007). 49
See Togan (2009). 50
See Heggie (1991). 51
See Carbajo (1993). 52
See Mwase (2003). 53
See Raballand, Kunaka and Giersing. (2008). 54
See World Bank (1995). 55
OECD survey of indicators of regulation in energy, transport and communications, available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/29/42480612.xls.
S/C/W/324
Page 18
46. The survey paints a picture of an extensively liberalized sector in terms of market entry and
pricing.56
There are only four countries (Norway, Slovak Republic, Turkey and China) which use
criteria other than financial fitness and compliance with road safety requirements for issuing permits
and whose authorities are empowered to regulate capacity through licences or otherwise. Japan may
need to be added to these countries since the regulator has the ability to limit capacity through
channels other than licences.
47. Professional bodies continue to be involved in the specification and enforcement of market
entry regulations in only nine countries (Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands,
Portugal, Estonia, Slovenia, and China) out of 37, whereas until the mid-1980s this was a classical
regulatory feature. Moreover, there are now only three countries (Hungary, Chile, Slovenia) in which
the same bodies are still involved in the specification or enforcement of pricing regulations, whereas
in the past co-management with the public authorities was the general rule.
48. Retail prices of road freight services are still regulated in only two countries (Turkey and
China) out of the OECD sample, and only four countries (Korea, Greece, Chile, and China) issue
pricing guidelines. It should be noted, however, that the trend towards liberalization is not
unequivocal. On several occasions, States have gone back on the reforms introduced. The most
recent case is the simultaneous re-establishment of capacity-regulating powers in four OECD member
States (Japan, Turkey, France and Norway) in 2005.
49. Unfortunately, these data do not help clarify the issue of whether the conditions of
establishment and operation discriminate against foreign companies and in favour of domestic firms.
It is true that a detailed establishment survey recently carried out by the IRU contains a question
relating to the conditions imposed on foreign investors in the host country.57
Only some of the
companies surveyed replied, in rather non-specific terms, but always indicating that there was no
discrimination. However, this sample is too narrow (it only concerns Eastern European countries) and
the data are too imprecise to serve as a basis for any general conclusions.
50. The GATS commitments on road transport, described in detail in the third part of this
document, contain a significant number of restrictions on establishment and operations, such as
economic needs tests, restrictions on foreign participation, obligations to set up a domestic-law
corporation, permit systems closed to vehicles registered abroad, emergency safeguard measures with
respect to the number of service providers, limitations on the total number of service operations or on
the total quantity of service output, limitations on the use of hired vehicles, fulfilment of
establishment obligations in order to be authorized to participate in certain types of traffic, restrictions
on the types of cargo that can be transported, prior authorization procedures, and obligations to use
locally registered vehicles.
51. However, for various reasons, these commitments cannot be regarded as an approximation of
the applied regime. First of all, the commitments cover only about one-third of the Members of the
WTO. Secondly, it is uncertain whether at the time they were listed the respective entries
corresponded to the regime actually applied, as access can be bound at a more restrictive level than
the status quo. Finally, these conditions were scheduled almost 17 years ago and may have evolved in
56
Thus, even though a permit/licence specific to the sector has to be obtained in all but four of the
countries covered by the survey (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, Poland and Chile), in one-half the countries
concerned this permit is issued at "open windows", once the financial fitness and road safety conditions have
been met. The "open" formulation of question (b) (there is no need to specify the "other" criteria) carries a bias
in favour of restrictiveness. In fact, when the replies to this question are read in conjunction with the replies to
question (c), i.e., whether the regulator has any power of quantitative capacity regulation, it turns out that in
almost all cases capacity is not taken into consideration among these "other" criteria. 57
International Road Transport Union (2006). This is an internal IRU document accessible from the
IRU members' website.
S/C/W/324
Page 19
a more liberal direction, as has been discussed before (see above). Since the WTO's Trade Policy
Reviews do not generally cover road transport, this evolution has not been systematically
documented.
(c) Conditions of establishment and operation – World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness
Database
52. The latest and most comprehensive data on the conditions of establishment and operation of
foreign road transport service providers come from a World Bank survey.58
This survey
systematically collected data on market access (in a broad sense) and on certain aspects of domestic
regulation, such as the procedures for awarding licences. The assessment of these data is still in
progress, but the World Bank has granted the WTO Secretariat access and, thus, enabled the
establishment of a first aggregated typology of the regimes applied.
53. The geographical coverage of the World Bank survey is extremely broad since it
includes 93 WTO Members and 9 non-Members. Together, these account for 86 per cent of the world
fleet of goods vehicles (vans and lorries).59
The analysis of the data will be confined to the 93 WTO
Members included in the World Bank's survey. In terms of level of development these can be broken
down as follows: 64 developing countries, including 14 LDCs, 25 developed countries and 4
members of the CIS.60
In terms of geographical distribution, 24 of these 93 WTO Members are
located in Africa, 22 in Europe, 17 in Asia, 17 in the Caribbean and Central and South America, 6 in
the Middle East, 4 in the CIS, and 3 in North America.61
54. The World Bank questionnaire does not follow precisely the structure of Articles XVI
and XVII of the GATS and, therefore, does not include all types of restrictions that can be found in
the schedules of commitments. Moreover, the questionnaire covers aspects that go beyond the scope
of Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS, in particular as regards licensing procedures. (These aspects
will be analysed in subsequent publications by the World Bank.)
55. The results of an initial analysis of the data of the World Bank survey are reproduced in
Tables 1 to 8 of Annex 6. They are expressed both in terms of number of Members per
continent/region and as percentages of the total fleet of the 93 WTO Members. The first element to
emerge is that the fleet is distributed extremely unevenly across continents/regions: around 50 per
cent in the three countries of North America, 28 per cent in Asia/Pacific excluding the Middle East,
15 per cent in Europe, 4.5 per cent in the Caribbean and Central and South America, 2 per cent in
Africa, 0.8 per cent in the Middle East, and 0.2 per cent in the CIS.
56. The survey distinguishes between four different ways of establishing a commercial presence,
namely: (a) establishment of a new branch; (b) establishment of a new subsidiary; (c) acquisition of
an existing private company; and (d) acquisition of an existing publicly owned company in the event
of privatization. All forms of commercial presence are authorized without any restrictions in 40
Members which, however, account for only 11 per cent of the fleet. It is Africa that turns out to be
proportionately the most liberal region (18 countries out of 24).
58
These data were gathered within the context of an ongoing study, which extends beyond the road
transport sector alone, by Mattoo, Borchert and Gootiiz (2010). The data, which are preliminary and subject to
correction, form part of the World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness Database. This database is under
construction and will become accessible on line in autumn 2010. Further details can be found at:
http://econ.worldbank.org/programs/trade/services and in Mattoo and Gootiiz (2009). 59
These sample representativeness calculations are based on the IRF fleet statistics for 2007 (see also
Annex 3). 60
These categories are those used by the Secretariat for the data provided to the Committee on Trade
and Development, see for example document WT/COMTD/W/172/Rev.1. 61
These geographical categories are those used by the WTO in its statistical publications.
S/C/W/324
Page 20
57. Commercial presence is partially permitted (i.e. in one, two or three of the four possible
forms) in 35 Members representing 72 per cent of the fleet. This high share is attributable to the fact
that the three North American Members, which alone account for nearly half the world fleet, find
themselves in this category along with eight Asia/Pacific countries whose cumulative fleet represents
nearly 18 per cent of the total.
58. Finally, none of the four forms of commercial presence is accepted in 18 Members, which
account for 16 per cent of the fleet, including 14 European Members representing 12 per cent of the
fleet.
59. The holding of a majority stake in a joint venture is authorized in 54 Members out of 93,
accounting for 58 per cent of the fleet. Two-thirds of this fleet are located in a single North American
country, but in terms of numbers of countries, half the regions have fairly liberal regimes (13
countries out of 17 in South America, three out of four in the CIS, 21 out of 24 in Africa).
60. In terms of total authorized foreign participation in a joint venture, 44 Members,
representing 57 per cent of the fleet, authorize 100 per cent participation. Again, one North American
Members accounts for two-thirds of this fleet. Asia and the Caribbean and Central and South
America each represent about 4 per cent. In regional terms, the Caribbean and Central and South
America (12 Members out of 17) and Africa (15 Members out of 24) appear to be the most liberal.
Nine Members, representing 0.2 per cent of the fleet, authorize participation of between 50 and
100 per cent and 33 Members, representing 23 per cent of the fleet, only permit a participation of less
than 50 per cent. Europe contributes one-half of the fleet concerned and Asia one-third.
61. Apart from the case of joint ventures already mentioned, the survey pays attention to the
participation ceilings imposed on foreign service providers in three cases: (a) the establishment of a
subsidiary; (b) the acquisition of existing private companies; (c) and the acquisition of an existing
publicly owned company in the event of privatization. However, the data actually exhibits little
variation between these three cases, and the differences are more pronounced in terms of numbers of
Members than in terms of the volume of the fleet concerned. For instance, a 100 per cent ceiling is
allowed by 59 Members in the case of the establishment of a subsidiary, by 61 for the acquisition of a
private company and by 45 in the case of a privatization, but in all three cases those Members account
for about 75 per cent of the fleet.
62. By region and in terms of Members concerned the results are as follows: The three NAFTA
members do not maintain any restrictions; they are followed by the CIS (3 or 4 Members out of 4,
depending on the case), Africa (16 to 20 Members out of 24), the Caribbean and Central and South
America (9 to 13 Members out of 17) and Asia (9 to 11 Members out of 17). Europe (6 to 8 Members
out of 22) and the Middle East (0 to 1 Member out of 6) are trailing behind. The 50 to 100 per cent
range has been adopted by only a very small number of Members (2 to 5, depending on the case) and
affects only a marginal proportion of the fleet (between 0.2 and 2.6 per cent). Finally, participation
limits of less than 50 per cent concern a little over 20 per cent of the fleet concentrated in about one
third of the Members concerned. The proportion of non-available replies is very low.
63. It is noteworthy that the existence of a quantitative limitation on licences (whether or not
discriminatory) was observed in only one Member, from the African region, and affects only
0.7 per cent of the fleet. The high number of "not applicable" answers (53 Members, representing
33 per cent of the fleet) might be a further indication of the absence of a quantitative limitation on the
number of licences available.
S/C/W/324
Page 21
64. Differences in the treatment of domestic and foreign providers when awarding licences are
also to be found in only a very small number of Members (4, representing 0.2 per cent of the fleet). In
addition, for almost the whole of the sample in terms of the fleet (60 Members representing 97 per
cent of the fleet), replies to this question are "not applicable". In terms of jurisdictions concerned, 29
Members, representing 2.5 per cent of the sample, do not apply such differences in treatment and,
apart from Africa where such instances are proportionally more numerous (in 12 out of 24 Members),
they are fairly evenly distributed among the regions.
65. Nationality conditions for employees (in absolute terms and/or as a percentage of total
employment) are imposed in 39 Members, representing nearly 70 per cent of the fleet. Nearly two-
thirds of this fleet can be ascribed to two North American Members and more than 15 per cent to eight
Asian Members. Geographically, this restriction, especially if cumulated with the partial imposition
of such nationality conditions, is fairly broadly distributed (11 Members out of 17 in the Caribbean
and Central and South America, 7 out of 22 in Europe, 4 out of 4 in the CIS, 9 out of 24 in Africa, 4
out of 6 in the Middle East, and 7 out of 17 in Asia).
66. Nationality or residence conditions (in absolute terms and/or as a percentage) are imposed on
the board of directors by 18 Members, representing 8 per cent of the fleet. Most of this fleet comes
from three Asian Members and one North American Member. No information is available for one
third of the sample in terms of number of Members and two thirds in terms of the fleet (32 Members
representing 67.5 per cent of the fleet), which calls for a certain degree of caution in interpreting these
results. Nevertheless, 43 Members, representing 24.5 per cent of the fleet, do not apply such
restrictions. They are proportionally more numerous in the Caribbean and Central and South
America, Africa and Asia.
67. The general picture emerging from this initial analysis of the data is less liberal than that
depicted by the OECD database, but still much more open than the current level of GATS
commitments (see also section VI.A). This applies fairly evenly to all continents, albeit with
appreciable variations for particular restrictions. However, considering the level of aggregation, these
results should be interpreted with caution. The Secretariat stands ready to provide Members with the
more detailed analyses that the World Bank is preparing to undertake.
2. Overview of the market access regulations applicable to international transport
68. Bilateral traffic-sharing agreements are the predominant mode of organization of international
road transport. There are cases in which international traffic is prohibited and in which cargoes must
be transhipped at or near the frontier onto vehicles belonging to the neighbouring country in order to
continue their journey. Yet access conditions may be rendered more flexible under regional
agreements or governments may decide, as in the case of the European Union, to create a single
market.
(a) The system of bilateral agreements
(i) Historical background and scope of the bilateral system
69. The dominant international regime governing road transport may be compared, mutatis
mutandis, with that applicable to air transport, except for the fact that the former is fully covered by
the GATS whereas air transport is for the most part excluded. The road transport regime is made up
of thousands of bilateral agreements which split the traffic between the two parties to the exclusion of
all others (with the marginal exception of "third country" quotas) and provide a quantitative
framework by annually establishing quotas for the number of authorized journeys. The ITF estimates
S/C/W/324
Page 22
that for the 43 States participating in the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)62
the number of bilateral agreements amounts to about 1,400, that is some 20 agreements per Member
State of the European Union and 30 to 35 agreements for the other States. It is not possible to give a
precise figure for the number of agreements in other geographical areas, such as Latin America, Asia
and Africa for lack of accurate data, but the total for these areas is surely in excess of a thousand
agreements. 63
70. The current regime, which arose immediately after the Second World War, was enshrined, as
far as Europe is concerned, in a declaration of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (CSCE). It stipulates that "the participating States … express their intention to encourage the
development of international inland transport of passengers and goods as well as the possibilities of
adequate participation in such transport on the basis of reciprocal advantage." Interestingly, this
language is quite similar to that traditionally used in the field of aviation.
71. No systematic analysis or mapping is currently available of the bilateral road transport
agreements that could be compared with the database prepared by the WTO Secretariat on air
transport, the Quantitative Air Services Agreements Review (QUASAR).64
However, on the basis of
the model agreement drawn up by the ECMT in 1997 and the agreements collected by the World
Bank in other regions, together with the specialized literature, it is possible to outline the provisions
most frequently encountered.
(ii) Standard structure of a bilateral agreement
72. The ECMT model agreement65
is regarded by the professionals and road transport negotiators
as very broadly representative of the existing road transport agreements, at least in Europe. The
standard structure of road transport agreements will therefore be described on the basis of this model
agreement.66
A later section will indicate the variations relative to this standard agreement so far
identified in the specialized literature.
73. The model agreement comprises three successive levels of obligations applying in different
degrees to certain fractions of the traffic. This complex structure is schematically represented in
Table 7.
62
The ECMT is an organization administratively linked to the OECD but whose geographical
area progressively expanded beyond the OECD to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and
then the Caucasus. The ECMT was replaced in 2006 by the ITF, an international organization with extended
scope and powers. For further details of these organizations visit:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/about/aboutintrofr.html and http://www.internationaltransport
forum.org/europe/indexfr.html 63
The international road transport regime in North America is governed by the rules laid down in the
North American Free Trade Agreement and thus unaffected by bilateral agreements. 64
For further information see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/transport_e/
transport_air_e.htm and document S/C/W/270/Add.1. However, in order to gain a better understanding of the
international road transport regulations, in 2009 the WTO Secretariat, the International Transport Forum, the
World Bank and the IRU made a systematic effort to collect bilateral road agreements and have so far collected
over 600, contained in the LiBRA (List of Bilateral Road Agreements) database. The text of these agreements
can be accessed at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/transport_e/ transport_land_e.htm. 65
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1997). 66
This agreement also contains provisions relating to passenger transport which will not be described
here.
S/C/W/324
Page 23
Table 7: Scope of the various levels of obligations
contained in the ECMT model agreement
Third level of obligations:
- Quotas
Traffic covered All traffic covered by the
second level of obligations
except that listed in the next
column
Traffic exempted from the
third level of obligations - Transport of perishable
goods67
(Art. 7.13.2)
- Removals (Art. 7.13.4)
- Any other category
decided on by the
Contracting Parties (Art.
7.13.3)
Second level of obligations
- Permit requirement
Traffic covered All traffic except that listed in the next column
Traffic exempted from the second level of
obligations
- Transport on own account (Art. 7.10)
- Transport by vehicles whose total permissible
laden weight (TPLW) does not exceed 6 tonnes, or
when the permitted payload does not exceed
3.5 tonnes (Art. 7.1)
- Combined transport providing that the station or
river or sea port of loading or unloading is located
within 150 km of the point of loading or unloading
of the freight (Art. 7.12)
- Transport between neighbouring countries subject
to a depth of 25 km and a maximum journey length
of 100 km as the crow flies (Art. 7.13)
- Transport of livestock (Art. 7.5)
- Occasional transport to or from airports where
services are diverted (Art. 7.2)
- Breakdown transport (Art. 7.3)
- Transport by replacement vehicles (Art. 7.4)
- Transport of spare parts and provisions for ships
and aircraft (Art. 7.6)
- Humanitarian transport (Art. 7.7)
- Transport for fairs and exhibitions (Art. 7.8)
- Transport relating to artistic activities (Art. 7.9)
First level of obligations
- Prohibition of cabotage - except with special authorization - (Arts. 6.2 and 8.5)
- Provisions on taxes and tolls (Art. 9)
- Host country technical standards (Art. 10)
- International conventions (Art. 11)
Traffic covered All, i.e. transport on behalf of third parties (Art. 2.a) and transport on own account (Art. 2.b)
Source: Compiled by WTO Secretariat on the basis of the ECMT model agreement.
67
The following three types of transport have been ordered according to their respective economic
importance.
S/C/W/324
Page 24
74. The criterion for designating a beneficiary of the agreement is based on the place where the
transport company is established and where the vehicle is registered, which is assumed to be always
the same country. The actual driver may be of a different nationality. This beneficiary clause appears
to be more liberal than air transport's "substantial ownership and effective control" criterion.
However, it does happen, as the World Bank survey shows, that national ownership, national
participation or joint venture obligations are specified at national level and superimposed on this
establishment clause for the purposes of the bilateral agreements concerned.
75. As indicated in Table 7, the first level of obligations covers both transport on own account
and transport on behalf of third parties. Even though the model agreement contains a detailed
definition of transport on own account68
, there are also national and regional definitions, which are
sometimes more restrictive. For example, Regulation of the Council of the European Communities
No. 881/92 of 26 March 1992 specifies, in its Annex II, that there is transport on own account only if
the undertaking owns the vehicle, the goods carried are the property of the undertaking, and the
vehicle is driven by its own employees and solely to, from or between its own facilities. In general,
the rules of admission to the occupation of road haulage operator do not apply to transport on own
account but there are sometimes registration requirements at the national level. These definitions and
procedures of an internal nature apply mutatis mutandis to international traffic.
76. The prohibition on cabotage (i.e. traffic between two points in the same country), except with
special authorization, also applies to the whole of the traffic. This fundamental prohibition is even
mentioned twice in the model agreement (Articles 6.2 and 8.5). However, Article 8.5 stipulates that if
the parties were to decide to make an exception to this rule, the Joint Committee would determine the
legislative and administrative provisions in the host country applicable to cabotage.69
Article 8.5 also
states that these legislative and administrative provisions are to be applied without discrimination.
77. According to the tax provisions of the model agreement, vehicles of a Contracting Party
operating on the territory of the other Contracting Party are exempt from payment of all tax related to
the ownership, registration and running of the vehicle as well as special taxes on transport services.
Likewise, the fuel contained in the vehicle at the time it enters the territory of the host country is
exempt from all import duty. At the same time, these vehicles are subject in the host country to the
tolls and duties levied for the use of the road network or bridges, it being understood that these tolls
and charges are levied on resident and non-resident transport operators without discrimination.
78. The last part of this level of obligations concerns technical standards. The model agreement
stipulates that the weights (permissible maximum weight, axle weight) and dimensions of vehicles
may exceed the upper limits in force in the host country only with a special permit applied for in
advance. This provision could have a significant impact on trade if these upper limits differ
substantially from those of the country of origin, as is sometimes the case (see Annex 11). Moreover,
vehicles are required to comply with the provisions of the international conventions of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)70
and the agreements that govern the carriage of
68 "Transport on own account" means transport using vehicles owned by the operator or hired under a
long-term contract or leased; driven by employees of the enterprise or a member of the association; which is
only an ancillary activity in the context of all the other activities of the enterprise or association; either of goods
which are the property of the enterprise or association or have been sold, bought, let out on hire or hired,
produced, extracted, processed or repaired by the undertaking, the purpose of the transport being to carry the
goods to or from the enterprise or to move them for its own requirements; or of employees of the enterprise or
members of a non-profit-making association for whom the transport is part of its social or welfare activities. 69
The body comprising delegates from each Contracting Party that is responsible for implementing the
agreement. 70
UNECE has 56 members: 48 in Europe, 2 in North America (Canada and United States), 5 in
Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and 1 in the Middle East
(Israel). See also: http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/member_States_representatives.htm.
S/C/W/324
Page 25
dangerous goods and the carriage of perishable goods, respectively71
. Finally, the model agreement
requires the equipment used to monitor crew driving and rest times to comply with the provisions of
the UNECE's European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in
International Road Transport (AETR).
79. Next, concerning the second level of obligations, the requirement of a permit, out of the 12
exemptions, only 6 are commercially significant: transport by light vehicle, transport on own account
(which, as indicated before, can sometimes account for more than 50 per cent of total traffic, though
probably a lesser proportion of international traffic), transport of perishable goods, transport of
livestock, transport between neighbouring countries (in certain cases only) and combined transport.
80. Because of this exception in favour of combined transport, a large proportion of international
container traffic falls outside the scope of the permit and quota system. This can be ascribed, on the
one hand, to the economic and political weight of port interests and, on the other, to environmental
policy objectives. By exempting combined transport from road quota permits, it is hoped to
encourage, on part of the journey, recourse to other means of transport and hence partial intermodal
transfer. However, the Secretariat is not aware of statistics reflecting the impact of this exception, nor
of the other exceptions. This lack of information is understandable, given that the main raison d'être
of the permit system is statistical in nature, and that activities not subject to permits cannot by
definition be counted.
81. Geographically, the permits provide for four different possibilities:
(a) Cabotage (in very exceptional cases);
(b) transport between the territories of the two Contracting Parties;
(c) transport between a point in the territory of the other Contracting Party and a point in
the territory of a third State, provided that the journey includes the country of
establishment of the haulier, or what the professionals call triangular or "third
country" traffic; and
(d) transit transport.
82. Finally, the third level of obligations, the quota requirement, forms the core of the bilateral
capacity control system. Article 8.4 of the model agreement stipulates that the Joint Committee
"determines the quota, categories [journey and time] and any further conditions governing permit
use". As this shows, the procedures for negotiating permits and quotas largely overlap, the only
difference being the traffic subject to permits but not quotas (perishable goods, removals). Quotas are
negotiated within the same geographical framework as permits (see above).
83. Quotas are always specified in terms of either the number of individual journeys or the
number of permits valid for a specified period, for example, three months or a year. There are no
traffic restrictions in terms of value. The model agreement provides for the possibility of granting
additional quotas to vehicles that meet stricter environmental or safety requirements, and several
recent agreements have in fact made use of this possibility.
71
These are the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by
Road and the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuff and on the Special Equipment to
be Used for such Carriage.
S/C/W/324
Page 26
84. Bilateral quotas are always fixed at the same level for both parties. Accordingly, it often
happens that, when the two flags are not equally competitive, the quota allocated to the more
competitive flag is exhausted before the end of the year. In these circumstances, the country that has
exhausted its quota tries to obtain an additional quota from its partner. If it is unable to do so or if the
additional quota is exhausted in its turn, the goods can still be carried, either by the less competitive
flag or outside the framework of the bilaterally established road transport quotas. This is possible
either
(a) by other modes of transport, an option which, however, remains marginal on account
of the costs and logistical difficulties (lack of flexibility, number of players involved,
frequent breaking of bulk) it entails; or
(b) by road, by carriers of a third country that has not yet exhausted its bilateral quota
with the country of destination and its transit quotas with potential transit countries.
Again, this implies additional costs and journey times and at least one breaking of
bulk.
85. Except in the case of adjacent countries where only a single agreement is involved, road
traffic rights always result from a combination of several bilateral agreements, on account of the
existence of transit quotas and triangular traffic quotas.
(iii) Operation of bilateral agreements in combination
86. The full utilization of bilateral quotas in the relations between two non-adjacent countries
depends, as indicated before, on the availability of transit quotas in the intervening transit countries.
87. The transit quotas are not necessarily the same for the two countries located at the ends of the
chain. In other words, as Figure 1 illustrates, on the route A-B-C, country A may have a larger transit
quota through country B (in this case 500) than C (in this case 300). In fact, each of the countries at
the ends of the chain negotiates its transit quotas individually with each of the intermediate countries.
S/C/W/324
Page 27
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the operation of transit quotas
Legend: HA = Haulier of country A
HB = Haulier of country B
HC = Haulier of country C
Text in bold indicates the bilateral/transit quota used by the carrier concerned.
Notes: The AC agreement is shown twice to simplify the diagram. It should be noted, however, that in each of the cases
described on either side of the median line of the diagram, it is a different provision of the agreement that
applies.
Also for simplification purposes, the situation of the hauliers of country B has not been described in the diagram.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Agreement A-B
Bilateral quota AB: 100 for HA 100 for HB
Transit quota "all countries
beyond B" for HA: 500
Transit quota "all countries
beyond A" for HB: 500
Agreement A-C
Bilateral quota AC: 100 for HA 100 for HC
Transit quota "all countries
beyond C" for HA: 400
Transit quota "all countries beyond A" for
HC: 400
Agreement A-C
Bilateral quota AC: 100 for HA 100 for HC
Transit quota "all countries
beyond C" for HA: 400
Transit quota "all countries
beyond A" for HC: 400
Agreement B-C
Bilateral quota BC: 100 for HB 100 for HC
Transit quota "all countries
beyond B" for HC: 300
Transit quota "all countries beyond C" for
HB: 300
A
B
C
HA
HC
+
+
Regulatory
Framework
for HA
Regulatory
Framework
for HC
S/C/W/324
Page 28
88. The situation is further complicated by a number of factors:
(a) For a given transit route, the full utilization of the bilateral quota depends
theoretically on the lowest transit quota which, in the end, may be less than the
bilateral quota ("a chain is only as strong as its weakest link").
(b) As transit quotas are global and do not affect the sub-quotas specific to each country
"beyond", it is the consumption of the transit quota over all the routes beyond the
transit country that determines whether or not at any given moment a given bilateral
quota can be fully used.
(c) There could be several possible transit routes, in particular if there are several transit
countries between the country of origin and the country of destination.
(d) Within one and the same bilateral agreement the transit quotas are not necessarily
fixed on the basis of mirror-image reciprocity, as in Figure 1. Other forms of
reciprocity, sometimes involving asymmetric trade or additional criteria other than
reciprocity, may also play a part. 72
These possible criteria are reproduced in Box 1.
Box 1: Allocation criteria for transit quotas
If the number of road transit authorizations is limited, the following factors may be considered to fix annual
quotas:
i. Reciprocity
This may be:
(a) Strict reciprocity (e.g. a quota of 1,000 transit authorizations for each Contracting Party)
(b) Equivalent reciprocity
This may be:
□ Combined with road taxes (e.g. a quota of 1,000 transit authorizations for each Contracting Party
exempted from all road taxes - except user charge or toll. Each authorization delivered beyond the
quota is fully subject to road taxes)
□ Combined with bilateral transport (e.g. a quota of 1,000 transit authorizations for one Contracting
Party and 1,000 bilateral transport authorizations of the other Contracting Party if the first Party is
not a transit country for any reason, e.g. a peripheral country)
□ Combined with transit traffic sharing (e.g. a peripheral Contracting Party (therefore not a transit
country) needs 1,000 transit authorizations, the other Contracting Party offers 500 authorizations
provided that its operators can also have a share of 500 transit transport authorizations)
(c) Formal reciprocity (e.g. delivery of authorizations without quota limitation according to the needs of
each Contracting Party)
ii. Vehicles' technical features ("environmental friendliness")
iii. General environmental impact of road transit transport
iv. State of road network
v. Impact of existing multilateral authorization quotas (e.g. ECMT)
Source: IRU/UNECE
72
Indeed, the new questionnaire on transit that the IRU is preparing to circulate through UNECE
identifies numerous possible criteria for allocating transit quotas. The text of the questionnaire is available at:
http://www.iru.org/index/iforms-app?form_id=127&lng=en&src=e-mail.
S/C/W/324
Page 29
89. The transport operators of the country of origin end up having to "arbitrage", i.e. constantly
choose, not only between transit routes but also countries of destination, depending on the level of
prices, prices which tend to increase dramatically when bilateral or transit quotas run out. Thus,
service "arbitraging" by the transport operators is not motivated exclusively by commercial factors, as
it is, for example, in the vast majority of cases in maritime transport, but by multiple regulatory
constraints. In this respect, the road transport sector appears to be subject to an even more restricted
regulatory regime than air transport.
90. The "arbitraging" process also suffers from a certain inertia, since in addition to the complex
administration of the quotas, there is the need to obtain all a visa for the driver for each of the
countries involved a given journey. In fact, except for a few regional agreements, there is no
simplified visa regime of the kind available, for example, to seafarers.
91. Furthermore, these regulatory constraints may force hauliers to drive longer and more
tortuous journeys than the routes they might otherwise take, entailing significant environmental
implications.
92. "Third country" quotas add a further level of complexity to quota management, but also
represent an additional commercial opportunity for transport operators, namely, "triangular" or "self-
transit" traffic.73
These quotas concern traffic between two parties other than those of the bilateral
agreement in question. The underlying concept may be described in the form of a stylized notation
that successively identifies the nationality of the transport operator in question, the bilateral agreement
concerned and the journey made. Accordingly, the triangular traffic configurations authorized by the
ECMT model agreement can be denoted as follows: HA/AGAB/TBAC and HA/AGAB/TCAB, where H
stands for haulier, AG for agreement and T for trip. These two configurations are illustrated in
Figure 2.
73
Unlike "third party traffic" and "triangular traffic", "self-transit" for transit through the carrier's own
territory is not an officially recognized term. However, it clearly captures the operation involved.
S/C/W/324
Page 30
Figure 2: Triangular traffic configurations authorized by the ECMT model agreement
Case 1: HA/AGAB/TBAC
HA
Case 2: HA/AGAB/TCAB
HA
Legend: HA = Haulier of country A
AG = Relevant agreement
T = Trip concerned
Source: WTO Secretariat.
93. At first glance, the two cases in Figure 2 may appear identical. In the first case, the haulier of
A participates in an operation to export goods from B to C, the latter being a "third country" under the
agreement A-B. In the second case, the haulier of A transports goods into B from C, the latter
representing a "third country" under the agreement A-B.
94. Interestingly, nothing in the ECMT agreement requires the three countries or territories
concerned to be neighbours. In other words, one or more transit countries may be involved, provided,
of course, that the necessary transit quota(s) is (are) available. Moreover, according to operators, the
opportunities or triangular traffic are more numerous when one or more transit countries are
intercalated. Finally, it should be noted that triangular traffic quotas, like transit quotas, are global,
i.e. they do not specify the countries or territories "beyond" self-transit and do not allocate sub-quotas
to the countries or territories concerned.
95. The IRU notes that one of the effects of transit and third country quotas is that "a pair of
countries can decide on trade relations between another pair of countries through controlling their
transit and third country traffic".74
This type of traffic distortion via "stipulations for others" does not
exist in other modes of transport, even in those in which market access is tightly regulated. Thus, in
air transport, transit75
and sixth freedom traffic rights (the approximate equivalent of third country
74
International Road Transport Union (2004). 75
The special case of trans-Siberian transit excluded. (See also document S/C/W/270/Add.2, pages
455-459.)
A
B
C
A
B
C
S/C/W/324
Page 31
traffic) are unrestricted. In maritime transport, transit is unrestricted (right of innocent passage of the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and "cross-trade", i.e. non-bilateral trade, is widely
predominant.
(iv) Variations relative to the ECMT model agreement
96. The ECMT model agreement is subject to numerous individual variations even amongst
ECMT members.76
In addition, according to the IRU, members have made relatively little use of this
relatively recent model agreement (pre-existing agreements were often more restrictive, especially for
transport on own account). On the other hand, the model agreement was very widely used in the
1990s by the States of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia after the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the model agreement was drafted in response to a
request from these countries, then in transition, which were seeking a template for concluding
bilateral agreements which up to then they had not been accustomed to use.
97. Professionals tend to take a favourable view of the ECMT model agreement and especially of
its references to the conventions on the carriage of dangerous goods, carriage of perishable foodstuffs
and conditions of work (AETR) and to the European Union's environmental standards. They see in
these references an embryonic common framework for regulatory harmonization. Also, they consider
that ECMT model agreement may foreshadow a possible multilateralization of the bilateral
agreements. Thus, in its reference work TRANSLex 2004 the IRU considers that "the ECMT model
agreement is already a step beyond a narrowly understood bilateralism, preparing the terrain for and
facilitating a possible future ’multi-lateralization’ of still existing bilateral relations and mirroring the
prevailing general pattern of trade relations and international division of labour in Europe today".
98. There are cases of bilateral agreements where some provisions are more liberal than those of
the ECMT agreement. Thus, the agreements between the United Kingdom and Ukraine, the United
Kingdom and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan
authorize triangular traffic without imposing the obligation to transit through the transport operator's
country of origin. In turn, this allows for pure third country traffic, HA/AGAB/TBC, comparable with
seventh freedom air traffic or cross-trade in maritime transport. Again transit countries may be
intercalated. This type of traffic is described in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Configuration of pure third-country traffic
HA/AGAB/TBC
HA
Legend: HA = Haulier of country A
AG = Relevant agreement
T = Trip concerned
Source: WTO Secretariat
76
For further details see document CEMT/CS/TR(2002)18 of 5 September 2002.
A
B
C
S/C/W/324
Page 32
99. Similarly, there are a few agreements outside of the ECMT area, such as those concluded by
South Africa77
, that authorize cabotage and provide for quotas for that purpose. Judging from the
sample already gathered, the variations are even wider among the non-ECTM agreements, generally
in the direction of greater protection. Thus, certain African countries impose routes and particular
destination points on foreign vehicles (comparable mutatis mutandis to the table of routes in a non-
liberalized air transport agreement) and double permit approval procedures. (In the ECMT model
agreement, permit is the sole responsibility of the issuing authority.) In addition, World Bank field
studies have identified professional practices that tend to reinforce the restrictiveness of the
agreements, in particular, the 'tour de rôle' system, which is very common in the landlocked countries
of West Africa.78
.
(v) Regimes applicable in the absence of a bilateral agreement
100. In the absence of a bilateral agreement, the prevailing regime is that of authorization on a
case-by-case basis. No systematic survey has been conducted outside the European continent. A
document submitted by the IRU to UNECE in 2009, while originally intended as a compilation of the
transit regime of 34 European countries, also throws some light on bilateral regimes in the absence of
bilateral agreements.79
Firstly, the regimes are often the same for traffic from, to, and via a given
country. Secondly, in a significant number of cases, where it has not proved possible to identify a
regime specifically for transit, the IRU has fallen back on the regime from and to the country in
question.80
101. The picture that emerges from the analysis of this compilation is that of an a priori rather
restrictive regime of discretionary authorizations (except, of course, for the relations between Member
States of the European Union and ECMT quotas; see below). These two exceptions do not always
appear explicitly in the description of each country's regime. The compilation also brings out a few
variations, but only four cases appear to be significantly more liberal than the rest: those of Romania
and Slovenia, where an authorization can always be purchased at the border, that of Switzerland,
which, in principle, requires an authorization only for transport operators from 11 countries, and that
of the United Kingdom, which does not require an authorization, only a simple attestation of
professional fitness for road transport (an operator's licence). Other countries studied also waive
authorizations for certain partners, although it is not possible to determine whether this waiver is
linked to the existence of a bilateral agreement. No figures are available for the number of
authorizations granted outside bilateral agreements.81
77
See Raballand, Kunaka and Giersing (2008). 78
The system is described as "an informal practice of a queuing system to allocate freight to
transporters … As a result … a fixed price is set by the institution in charge of allocating freight and transport
quality and productivity are low. While the above practice is seen as 'fair' as it 'spreads' the profitability of the
trucking business among truckers regardless of the quality of the service they deliver, it can be and is bypassed
by those with clout or 'business' astuteness, thus bringing some kind of competition. Bypassing the 'tour de rôle'
translates into long waiting times for loads at the port, from two weeks up to two months for 'regular' companies,
thus jeopardizing their profitability" (Ibid.) 79
See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009). 80
In fact, when the document was examined by the UNECE ad hoc meeting, no member questioned
this approach, thereby acknowledging the de facto validity of the from and to regime for the via regime also.
The inventory even contains details of the triangular traffic regime in some of the countries concerned. 81
The compilation will shortly be supplemented by a more detailed questionnaire dealing with all
transit regimes, whether or not covered by bilateral agreements. The deadline for the receipt of replies from
UNECE Member States is 12 July 2010. Members will be able to obtain the results of the survey from the
Secretariat as soon as they become available. The text of this questionnaire can be found at:
http://www.iru.org/index/iforms-app?form_id=127&lng=en&src=e-mail.
S/C/W/324
Page 33
(vi) Economic effects of the bilateral system
102. Even though the area of application of the bilateral system in Europe has shrunk considerably
as a result of the eastward enlargement of the European Union, it still entails significant economic
costs, e.g. higher transport costs, inability to run a "seamless supply chain", environmental damage,
trade diversion.
103. The bilateral system seems to be out of step with recent trends towards the fragmentation of
production and assembly processes and the proliferation of "just in time" manufacturing, which all
require a high degree of logistical flexibility and an uninterrupted, stable and predictable transport
environment. According to the Association of Turkish Road Hauliers, road transport quotas (bilateral
and transit) cost the Turkish economy as a whole US$6 billion in 2008, with 90 per cent of Turkish
exports being carried by road. The Association asserts that quotas have discouraged some foreign
industrial investment, as investors were not sure of being able to market their products competitively.
Turkey has recently submitted to the Working Party on Road Transport of UNECE a draft convention
to align bilateral agreements on international road transport with the mandatory rules of multilateral
instruments governing international transit.82
104. Other assessments are certainly not more favourable. For instance, the IRU considers that
"while significantly contributing to facilitated trade and tourism in a bilateral set-up in particular in
the immediate post-Second World War time in general and post-communist period for that newly
independent States in particular they [the bilateral agreements] have led to a highly segmented
sub-optimal international market of road transport services. In some countries, an additional major
source of inefficiencies, distortion of competition and even fraud seems to be exacerbated by the
extreme complexity of managing the scarcity of bilateral authorizations at national level … Thus it
may be that in regions with highly integrated economies, bilateral agreements are no longer
structurally appropriate for creating the optimal conditions necessary for a modern international
division of labour and logistics chains or appropriately address the issue of creating a level playing
field for competition in international road transport." 83
105. However, the bilateral system is deeply entrenched. One of the first international acts of the
newly independent European States that emerged from the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was
to negotiate such agreements. In practice, the operators seem ready to put up with the administrative
burden of the system so long as they are protected by quotas from third-party competition (other than
the marginal effects of triangular traffic quotas). The numerous MFN exemptions relating to road
transport listed by WTO Members from all regions and levels of development is further evidence of
the scope and resilience of the system (see section VI.B).
106. The only exceptions are a few regional agreements that fully or partially liberalize
international road transport or, conversely, a few cases in which international road transport is
prohibited de jure or de facto and in which transhipment of the load onto vehicles registered in the
neighbouring country is compulsory.
(b) Regional agreements partially liberalizing international road transport
107. There are very few regional agreements, possibly no more than seven, relaxing or abolishing
the bilateral system of road quotas.
82
See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010). 83
International Road Transport Union (2004) pp. 448-449.
S/C/W/324
Page 34
(i) European Union
108. Given the existence of a single road transport market since the early 1990s, the European
Union is a borderline case that could be dealt with in the context of either international or domestic
traffic.84
Yet the OECD-ETCR survey reveals significant variations in the domestic regimes of its
Member States.85
Nevertheless, the conditions of admission to the occupation of road transport
operator were fully harmonized in 199686
, and the same is true for a substantial proportion of the
regulations on road safety, working and employment conditions and even sectoral taxation.87
109. With regard to access to the market for the carriage of goods, the restrictions on intra-EU
international road traffic were first replaced by a large Community quota with rapidly evolving rules
and then totally abolished on 1 January 1993 by Council Regulation No. 1841/88 of 21 June 1988.
110. For its part, cabotage was progressively opened up by Regulation No. 3118/93 of
25 October 1993 by means of a quota that has grown rapidly after 1994, before all restrictions were
abolished as from 30 June 1998. However, the Regulation only permitted operations conducted on a
"temporary basis" by non-resident transport operators, without precisely defining the notion of
"temporariness". The application of the Regulation and the interpretation of the notion of the
"temporariness" gave rise to difficulties, especially after the enlargement of the European Union to the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, whose flags were particularly competitive and attracted the
establishment of Western European enterprises. In fact, some notionally temporary operations thus
became quasi-permanent. At the end of a long and difficult debate, this situation was changed by
Regulation No. 1072/2009 of 21 October 2009.88
The Regulation clarifies that the notion of
"temporary" consists of the provision of a maximum of three cabotage operations following the
unloading at the end of an international journey. According to the European Commission89
, cabotage
transport accounts for only 3 per cent of road transport within the European Union as compared with
15 per cent for third-party traffic and 82 per cent for bilateral traffic.
111. This debate on EU cabotage is one facet of a broader out-flagging/in-flagging question which
is quite similar, mutatis mutandis, to the situation encountered in maritime transport. Even before the
eastward enlargement of the European Union, certain Western European road transport enterprises
had established themselves in such Central and Eastern European countries as Bulgaria, or indeed in
countries beyond the current frontiers of the European Union. The German company Willy Betz, for
example, bought up the Bulgarian State enterprise SOMAT, which at the time had a fleet of 4,000
vehicles and was considered to be the crown jewel of road transport in the Comecon. These fleets
were used for traffic operations in Western Europe by exploiting ECMT quotas, bilateral quotas,
opportunities for triangular traffic and cabotage quotas.
112. In the European Union, external road transport policy remains almost exclusively the
responsibility of the Member States. The European Commission has negotiated only a few limited
agreements with third countries (several of which subsequently joined the Union) on the basis of
ad hoc mandates. These include, firstly, the agreement between the European Union and Switzerland,
which was signed on 21 June 1999 and entered into force on 1 June 2002.
84
However, this single market is less developed than in maritime and air transport, since cabotage has
not been entirely liberalized. 85
For the details of this survey see Annex 5. 86
Council Directive No. 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996, recently revised and replaced by Regulation
No. 1071/2009 of 21 October 2009 and Regulation No. 1072/2009 of 21 October 2009, both of which will enter
into force on 4 December 2011. 87
For further details of these regulations see: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/
road_transport/index_en.htm. 88
The cabotage provisions (Articles 8 and 9) of this Regulation entered into force on 14 May 2010. 89
See European Commission (2009), pages 3 and 16-21.
S/C/W/324
Page 35
113. This agreement provides a good illustration of the link that can exist between technical and
fiscal regulations, on the one hand, and market access issues, on the other. Thus, its core provision is
the commitment made by Switzerland to raise erga omnes - and not only for the sole benefit of the
European Union - the maximum permissible weight of vehicles from 28 to 40 tonnes in exchange for
the recognition by the European Union of the legality of a tax on heavy vehicles that is non-
discriminatory, a function of distance and intended to encourage the transfer of traffic (particularly
transit traffic) to the railways and to finance the cross-Switzerland rail infrastructure. The agreement
also liberalizes road transport between the European Union and Switzerland and opens up the market
for transport between EU Member States ("grand cabotage") to Swiss carriers. At the same time,
cabotage in the strict sense of the word (i.e. road transport within Switzerland or within a Member
State of the European Union) was not liberalized. Finally, the agreement provides for the mutual
recognition of the licences needed to gain admission to the occupation, a general harmonization of
technical standards, and coordination of transport policies, in particular where combined rail-road
transport is concerned.
114. Secondly, on the basis of a proposal made in March 2008 and a Council mandate of
October 2009, in February 2010 the Commission entered into negotiations with countries in the
Western Balkans (Albania, FYROM, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and
Kosovo) with a view to establishing a common road transport market. In parallel with the progressive
adoption of the Community acquis, the respective road transport markets are to be progressively
opened up by means of a quota additional to those of the bilateral agreements between the Balkan
partners and the Member States of the European Union, agreements which are to remain in force.
(ii) "Multilateral" quota of the ECMT
115. The multilateral quota of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport was created
in 1973. ECMT licences make it possible to carry load from any ECMT State to any other
ECMT State via any ECMT State.90
There are two types of licences, namely, annual (also known as
"green licences") and short-term ("yellow") licences. Annual licences can be converted into
short-term licences at the rate of 1 for 12, within a ceiling of 20 per cent of annual licences.
116. The mechanism for allocating and increasing the quota is rather complicated and resembles,
mutatis mutandis, that governing trade in textiles during the period of transition from the Multifibre
Agreement to full liberalization. These evolutionary to promote efficiency and the inclusion in
national fleets of vehicles that comply with the latest environmental and safety standards. Given its
particular importance, also as a template for others, this mechanism is described below (Box 2) in
some detail.
90
More precisely, the text of the ECMT User Guide on the quota stipulates that "ECMT licences are
multilateral licences for the international carriage of goods by road for hire or reward by transport undertakings
established in an ECMT member country, on the basis of a quota system, the transport operations being
performed: between ECMT member countries and in transit through the territory of one or several ECMT
member country(ies) by vehicles registered in an ECMT member country".
S/C/W/324
Page 36
117. The geographical area of application of the quota has evolved considerably since its
introduction. Initially, it also applied between Member States of the European Union, but was then
replaced by an (intra)-"Community" quota which, in turn, gave way to the full liberalization of the
bilateral road transport relations between EU Member States in 1993. Since then, the ECMT quota
has no longer been used in the EU other than for relations between Members and non-Members of the
European Union and as well as for relations among the latter countries. The eastward enlargement of
the European Union further reduced the geographical coverage of the quota system. This is one of the
Box 2: Allocation mechanism of the ECMT quota
The Ministers of Transport of the ECMT member countries first jointly fix the total number of basic
licences to be issued for the following year (or sometimes several years). Then, a certain number of
"basic" (annual and monthly) licences is allocated to each member country in accordance with ten
weighted criteria (freight volume, contribution to the ECMT budget, GDP, population, country area,
current use of ECMT licences, use of TIR carnets (see below paragraph 135), the country's overall trade
and its trade with ECMT countries). These weighted criteria are used to establish country rankings in
terms of licences required. The member countries then indicate how they want to allocate these basic
licences by vehicle environmental category (currently Euro III, Euro IV and Euro V). Annex 7 shows the
basic licences negotiated in November/December 2009 for the year 2010.
At a second stage, these quotas are multiplied by a coefficient that varies with the environmental category
(for example, in 2010, the coefficient was 4 for Euro III lorries, but 6 for Euro IV and Euro V lorries).
These coefficients vary over the years and form the subject of intense negotiations. The number of
licences multiplied by the coefficient is then increased by a bonus expressed as a percentage (for example,
40 per cent). The table below summarizes the trend in these quotas and bonuses over the last four years.
Clearly, lorries that comply with older environmental standards see their coefficients decrease until they
simply cease to be eligible for the quota.
Coefficients and bonuses applicable to basic ECMT licences (2007-2010)
2007 2008 2009 2010
Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus Coefficient/Bonus
Euro I 1 0
Euro II 2 1 0
Euro III 6 20% 6 10% 4 40% 6 40%
Euro IV 6 40% 6 40% 6 40% 6 40%
Euro V - - - - 6 40% 6 40%
Source: International Transport Forum (2010).
The detailed results of applying these coefficients and bonuses to basic licences for the year 2010 are
reproduced in Annex 8.
Four ECMT member countries (Austria, Italy, Greece, Hungary) restrict the number of licences that can be
used on their territory by imposing additional conditions. Each allocated and numbered licence is
distributed in the form of a paper document to the eligible carrier.
The criteria for adjusting the coefficients and bonuses formed the subject of negotiations in 2006 and were
fixed on a multi-annual basis for the period 2007 to 2010. For 2010 they were revised in the course of a
marathon round of negotiations conducted in November-December 2009 which froze the 2009 coefficients
and bonuses and carried them over to 2010. The financial and economic crisis had depressed freight
volumes.
S/C/W/324
Page 37
reasons why a substantial proportion of the quotas (nearly 40 per cent) remains unused. In fact, the
northernmost and westernmost Members of the European Union (Portugal, United Kingdom and
Sweden), though entitled to a relatively large ECMT quota under the allocation criteria, have very
little opportunity to use it, being situated thousands of kilometres from the first third country, as
international road relations generally tend to be short-haul.
118. The size of the multilateral quota relative to the total traffic remains rather marginal. A study
commissioned by the ECMT estimates it at between 0.5 and 7 per cent of the traffic of each Member
country concerned, with significant variations.91
Unlike the defunct Community quota, the
multilateral quota was never designed as a means of eventually abolishing all bilateral agreements.
Several attempts to reform the system in favour of the States with the most competitive flags failed,
reportedly owing to the reluctance of some larger EU Members with less competitive fleets. Russia
recently adopted a similar position.
(iii) Andean Community
119. Decision No. 399 of 17 January 1997, codifies previous decisions that liberalize bilateral road
transport between Andean Community members (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), including
transit.92
It establishes the principles of free provision of services, right of establishment, national
treatment, MFN and of mutual recognition of two five-year occupational licences (fitness certificate
and service provider's licence).
(iv) Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization
120. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC), founded in 1992, is composed
of 12 States.93
In 2002, its members signed a memorandum on the facilitation of the transport of
goods by road, which entered into force in July 2006.94
In 2009, seven of its members95
set up a pilot
BSEC multilateral permit project, whose architecture closely resembles that of the ECMT multilateral
quota.96
The permits cover bilateral, transit and triangular traffic between the members concerned.
For 2010, 1,400 permits are to be allocated within this framework.
(v) ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Inter-State Transport and Cross-Border
Transport Agreement of the Great Mekong Sub-Region
121. In December 2009, the members of ASEAN signed the ASEAN Framework Agreement on
the Facilitation of Inter-State Transport (AFAFIST).97
In addition to numerous facilitation provisions,
the Agreement provides for the establishment of a quota of 500 vehicles per country for international
traffic between members. The quota figure could be revised in the future. According to the
ASEAN Secretariat, the quota system, including its size, is closely modelled on the quota established
by the Cross-Border Transport Agreement of the Great Mekong Sub-Region (CBTA-GMS) concluded
91
See CEMT (2001). 92
The full text of the decision is available at: http://intranet.comunidadandina.org/IDocumentos/
c_Newdocs.asp?GruDoc=07. 93
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine and,
since 2005, Serbia. 94
The text of this memorandum is available at: http://www.bsec-organization.org/documents/Legal
Documents/agreementmous/mous/Download/MoUTranspGoods.pdf. 95
Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Moldavia, Romania, Serbia and Turkey. 96
For further details of this permit see: http://www.bsec-urta.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=
IncludePage&file=index&pagename=user_guide.htm. 97
The text of the agreement is available at: http://www.asean.org/documents/Inter-State per cent
20Transport per cent 20Agreement.pdf.
S/C/W/324
Page 38
in November 1999 between Laos, Vietnam and Thailand.98
China, Cambodia and Myanmar have
since acceded.99
(vi) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
122. In 1982, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act imposed a moratorium - initially for two years - on
any new authorization to operate in the United States for foreign road transport (including freight)
operators. In the case of Canada, this moratorium was almost immediately lifted, in September 1982,
by a presidential memorandum on the grounds that from that the US road transport industry would in
future be able to operate fully in Canada. The moratorium was constantly renewed with respect to
Mexico. Under the US list of reservations for existing non-conforming measures (Annex 1 of the
NAFTA) submitted under NAFTA, Mexican road transport companies were to obtain the right to
provide cross-border road transport services to the federated border States three years after the
signature of the agreement, i.e. from 18 December 1995, and to the entire territory of the United
States six years later, i.e. from 1 January 2000. These clauses also provide for the expiration of a
moratorium on investment in enterprises supplying international road transport services between
points situated in the United States in December 1995. However, the moratorium was maintained by
the United States on the grounds that compliance with its road safety regulations could not be
guaranteed.
123. After several consultation stages, the Mexican Government requested the constitution of a
NAFTA arbitral panel, which gave its ruling in February 2001.100
The panel unanimously considered
that the United States had violated its obligations under the NAFTA (Annex 1 and Articles 1202 and
1203) by imposing an a priori blanket prohibition on cross-border services and investment. The panel
recognized that road safety was a legitimate regulatory objective which, under certain conditions,
could justify inspection and control procedures different from those applied to US and Canadian
carriers, provided that they were applied in good faith and were in conformity with all the provisions
of the NAFTA.
124. On this basis, in 2007, the United States authorities set up a renewable three-year pilot
programme for the experimental admission of 100 Mexican transport companies with a total fleet of
1,000 units. In March 2009, Congress withdrew the funds allocated to this programme. Making use
of the retaliation provisions of the NAFTA, Mexican authorities announced the imposition of
retaliatory custom duties against US products amounting to US$2.4 billion. At the time of writing,
discussions between the two parties with a view to settling this dispute were still in progress.
(vii) Other agreements and cases of preferential treatment
125. In several instances, the MFN exemptions filed by Members, which are more fully described
in section VI.B, refer to preferential treatment with regard to access to cargoes. However, the
references to the legislation or agreements concerned are not precise enough for these provisions to be
identified and analysed in detail.
(c) Situations in which international road transport is prohibited or severely restricted
126. There is some evidence of cases where international road traffic is completely prohibited or
severely restricted. For example, according to a "transport interchange matrix" drawn up in 2008 by
98
See: http://www.affalog.net/pdf-files/tfwg-sep-09/tfwg09final per cent 20report.pdf. 99
The relevant protocol to this agreement is available at: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others
/GMS-Agreement/Protocol-3.pdf; see in particular Article 5. 100
The text of the decision is available at: http://registry.nafta-sec-alena.org/cmdocuments/8f70c18a
-7f02-4126-96f6-182a11c90517.pdf.
S/C/W/324
Page 39
the Asian Institute of Transport Development (AITD), vehicles between India and Bangladesh are
authorized to penetrate only between one and three kilometres into the neighbouring country,
depending on the border post, before having to tranship their load. Pending a settlement of the
NAFTA dispute between Mexico and the United States, the situation is similar on the Mexican-US
border where, however, the compulsory transhipment zone is 20 miles wide.
127. IRU101
and World Bank102
data point to a number of borders where, for various reasons,
international road transport is either prohibited, impossible or subject to severe restrictions (see
Table 8). The information needs to be interpreted with care. These situations may have a de jure or
de facto origin, they are sometimes part of a context that extends beyond road transport alone, they
may temporary or permanent. The information in Table 8 is probably non-exhaustive. It is without
prejudice to the legal situation at the border in question; it simply notes the existence of operational
difficulties, as does, for instance, the IRU's ‘border waiting times observatory’ (see below).
Table 8: List of borders at which international traffic is limited or non-existent
State of traffic Absence of traffic Traffic with compulsory
transhipment
Transit traffic
prohibited
Borders concerned Israel - Lebanon
India - Pakistan
Algeria - Morocco
Armenia - Azerbaijan
China- Kyrgyz Republic
China – Afghanistan
Afghanistan - Pakistan (for
Afghan vehicles only)
Afghanistan - Iran
Afghanistan - Uzbekistan
Afghanistan - Tajikistan
Afghanistan - Turkmenistan
China - Pakistan
China - Kazakhstan
Benin - Nigeria (for Benin
vehicles only)
Angola - Namibia (for Namibian
vehicles only)
Algeria - Tunisia
Algeria - Mauritania
Algeria - Mali
Algeria - Niger
Source: TIR section of the IRU and World Bank
B. OTHER REGULATIONS
128. A distinction should be made between regulations that apply at the border and regulations that
apply behind the border, where the distinction between domestic and international traffic has no real
meaning.
1. Regulations at the border
129. From the operators' perspective, the main obstacle to the international transportation of goods
by road is not so much the application of bilateral and transit quotas as problems related to border
crossing. According to the IRU and the World Bank, these problems are particularly acute in certain
geographical areas such as West Africa or the eastern borders of the European Union.103
There is a
substantial amount of information from the World Bank, the various United Nations Regional
Economic Commissions, the regional Development Banks and UNCTAD concerning, for example,
the costs and delays generated by these problems. For its part, the IRU has set up a ‘border waiting
times observatory’. Efforts to alleviate or eliminate these problems are being made in connection
101
The TIR section of the IRU administers the issuance of TIR carnets and therefore maintains a
constantly updated list of borders, the crossing of which is temporarily or permanently prohibited or restricted. 102
Data gathered in connection with the World Bank work on transit corridors. 103
See, for instance, ILO (2006); Arvis, Raballand and Marteau (2007).
S/C/W/324
Page 40
with numerous bilateral and multilateral technical assistance projects, which often include regulatory
reforms.
130. The road transport industry is following with keen interest the trade facilitation negotiations
being conducted by the WTO within the framework of the DDA, in particular where transit issues are
concerned.
131. Operators also stress the leading role already being played by the UNECE's harmonization
and facilitation conventions, the scope of which extends far beyond the European continent. Out of
57 conventions, at least five are of major importance.
132. The European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) of
15 November 1975 defines a uniform legal framework for the construction and development of a
coherent international road network in all member countries and territories of UNECE, in particular
for main arteries (so-called "E-road" network).104
It defines such main arteries and the construction
parameters to which they must conform. The agreement, which is regularly updated, underwent a
major revision with the integration of the road network of the countries of the Caucasus and Central
Asia. It has served as a model for several similar initiatives in Asia (by ASEAN and by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific) and in the Middle East (by the United
Nations Commission for Western Asia). On July 2010 it had 37 Contracting Parties.105
133. The European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in
International Road Transport (AETR) of 1 July 1970 establishes uniform working conditions for the
drivers of vehicles used in international road transport in accordance with relevant provisions of the
International Labour Organization.106
These concern driving and rest periods, rules on the
composition of crews and uniform conditions applicable to drivers. The AETR is regularly aligned
with the corresponding European Union Directives. The latest development in this respect is a
"gentleman's agreement" that postponed the introduction of the digital tachograph intended to monitor
compliance with the driving and rest times throughout the vehicle fleet, initially planned for 30 June
2010, to 31 December 2010. The AETR Convention had 49 Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010.107
134. The Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of
TIR Carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 allows for international transports of goods via
as many transit countries as may be necessary without intermediate customs inspection.108
The
affixing of seals and an international guarantee chain to ensure the payment of duties and taxes owed
and to prevent fraud complete the system. The IRU is responsible for issuing TIR carnets and
administering the guarantee. The application of the TIR Convention now extends beyond Europe to
the Middle East (Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Syria, Iran), North Africa (Algeria,
Morocco, Tunisia), West Africa (Liberia), Asia (Indonesia, Mongolia, Republic of Korea), North
America (United States) and Latin America (Chile, Uruguay). The TIR Convention had 68
104
For the full text see: http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/ ECE-TRANS-SC1-384f.pdf. The
Agreement’s consolidated version, which is currently in force, dates from 2006, 105
For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see: http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/
agreem_cp.html#2. 106
The consolidated version of the AETR currently in force dates from 2006. For the full text of this
Agreement see: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2006/sc1/ ECE-TRANS-SC1-2006-02f.pdf. 107
For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see: http://www.unece.org/trans/
conventn/agreem_cp.html#21. 108
For the full text of this Agreement see: http://www.unece.org/tir/handbook/french/newtirhand/
TIR-6Rev9_Fr.pdf.
S/C/W/324
Page 41
Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010, including 15 Contracting Parties outside the area covered by the
UNECE. 109
135. The Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions for Periodical Technical
Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and the Reciprocal Recognition of Such Inspections of 13 November
1997 defines the legal framework and procedures for the adoption of uniform rules for technical
inspections and the mutual recognition of the resulting certificates. 110
This Agreement had 12
Contracting Parties on 1 July 2010. 111
136. Finally, the aim of the International Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Controls of
Goods of 21 October 1982 is to reduce the formalities and the number and duration of all types of
controls (medico-sanitary, veterinary, phytosanitary, etc.) relating to compliance with technical
standards or quality control.112
This Convention applies to imports, exports and goods in transit.
On July 2010 it had 54 Contracting Parties, including 8 Contracting Parties from outside the area
covered by the UNECE. 113
137. Numerous other specialised and general regional organizations have developed conventions
and other instruments intended to promote harmonization of the conditions of competition in the
international road transport industry and the facilitation of trade in the sector.114
2. Regulations behind the border
138. Many regulations governing domestic traffic apply also to "visiting" foreign trucks through
the principle of territoriality. A foreign-registered vehicle is subject to the whole of its host country’s
legislation in terms of weights and dimensions, rules of the road, payment of tolls, etc. The main
exceptions to this principle of territoriality are the taxation of the transport company (in the absence of
a double taxation agreement), the taxation of the vehicle in relation to its registration, and the driver's
wage and social insurance contributions, which remain those of vehicle's country of origin.
139. National regimes tend to be fairly similar in content, at least between countries at the same
level of development. Nevertheless, there are exceptions. A case in point are Switzerland and the EU
prior to their bilateral agreement with regard to maximum permissible weights (24 and 40 tons,
respectively).
140. International and regional conventions often seek to establish the lowest common
denominator of the national regimes within their sphere of application. Such conventions may have
been developed by international organizations with very broad geographical coverage (typically, the
above-mentioned UNECE conventions) or by regional organizations with specific or general
mandates (for example, ASEAN).
109
For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see: http://www.unece.org/trans/
conventn/agreem_cp.html#42. 110
For the full text of this Agreement see: http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/conf4f.pdf. 111
For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see: http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/
agreem_cp.html#19. 112
For the full text of this Agreement see: http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/harmonf.pdf. 113
For a complete list of the Contracting Parties see: http://www.unece.org/trans/
conventn/agreem_cp.html#51. The latter eight countries are Cuba, Jordan, Mongolia, Laos, Tunisia, Liberia,
South Africa and Lesotho. 114
For a complete overview of these activities, see the IRU (2004), pages 12-20 for Europe, 21-38 for
Africa, 40-70 for Asia and the Pacific, 71-81 for the Middle East and 82-102 for Latin America. This work also
contains the Internet addresses to obtain updated information.
S/C/W/324
Page 42
141. A general description of the regulatory regime for road transport lies beyond the scope of this
document. Moreover, it would be an impossible task due to lack of relevant data, particularly with
respect to taxation and social policy.115
Thus, only two types of technical rules which could have an
indirect impact on market access, namely, environmental standards and weights and dimensions, will
be considered.
(a) Environmental regulations
142. Unlike in maritime and air transport, there is no universal standard for emissions in the road
freight transport sector. Yet, there are national and regional standards with emission thresholds that
are regularly lowered. Thus, between the EU 'Euro 0' standard of 1990 and the 'Euro VI' standard,
which will enter into force in 2013, the maximum permissible emissions for vehicles have been
reduced by 88 per cent for carbon monoxide (CO), 95 per cent for hydrocarbons (HC), 97 per cent for
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 98 per cent for particulate matter (PM).116
Annex 9 shows the
thresholds and their evolution for the major national and regional standards.
143. This multiplicity of standards is attributable not only to the regional, or at most continental,
nature of road freight transport, but also to the physical and fiscal characteristics of each market.
Thus, in the United States, the preference is for vehicles with powerful engines delivering high torque
and, hence, displaying a particular emission profile, whereas in Europe, mainly for fiscal reasons, the
range of vehicles is more varied in terms of engine capacity. Vehicles produced and used in emerging
countries are often geared to more difficult road conditions, requiring mechanical characteristics that
may generate proportionally more emissions. However, probably because of the relatively small
number of manufacturers of heavy vehicles, there are ultimately only very few competing emission
standards: three altogether, of which two are often accepted simultaneously. Annex 10 illustrates the
geographical coverage.
144. Also, the time lag between the introduction of stricter emission standards in developed
countries and their adoption in developing countries tends to be short (Table 9).
Table 9: Entry into force of 'Euro' standards in selected countries
Euro 0 Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V Euro VI
European Union 1990 1992 1995 2000 2005 2007 2013
China - 2000 2003 2005 2008 2012 -
India - 2000 2003 2005 2010 - -
Russia - 1999 2006 2008 2010 2014 -
Brazil - 1996 2000 2006 2011 2014 -
Source: IRU/UNECE (document ECE/TRANS/WP25/GRPE/2010/14 of 20 April 2010)
145. Environmental emission standards relate only to polluting emissions and for the time being do
not concern carbon dioxide (CO2).
115
The IRU Information Centre (http://www.iru.org/index/en_services_infocentre) collects a large
amount of regulatory information concerning road transport. However, it is designed to provide professionals
with specific operational information and, as its authors themselves acknowledge, is far from being exhaustive,
particularly in terms of geographical coverage. 116
Source: European Commission (2008).
S/C/W/324
Page 43
146. According to the data of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
transport sector as a whole (including the transport of persons by sea, air, bus and private car and
freight transport) accounts for 23 per cent of CO2 emissions.
117 Freight transport by road accounts for
25 per cent of the transport sector's energy consumption (16 per cent for heavy lorries, 9 per cent
medium-sized lorries), a figure directly proportional to the emission of carbon dioxide. 118
147. The volume of carbon dioxide emitted by the sector is clearly destined to increase in the
coming decades. However, there is no consensus amongst forecasters. Historically, the demand for
road transport runs more or less parallel to growth in GDP, but its energy intensity (energy
consumption per tonne-km) is expected to decrease by about one-third by 2030 thanks to technical
progress (notion of "environmental decoupling"). Nevertheless, this progress will probably not
suffice to stabilise the overall volume of emissions at its present level but will merely help to slow
down its growth.
148. Road transport operators are now in favour of the regulation of CO2 emission standards
because a reduction in these emissions would lead ipso facto to a reduction in the consumption of
fuel, which is one of their main running costs.119
In 2009, the IRU undertook to reduce its members'
carbon dioxide emissions measured in tonne-km and in passenger-km by 30 per cent until 2030
relative to the base year 2007.120
Technical innovations should contribute 10 per cent to this effort,
the training of drivers in economical driving another 10 per cent, and innovative logistical concepts,
such as Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and "optimized" (i.e. increased) weights and dimensions
the remaining 10 per cent. The suggestion that weights and dimensions be increased has been met
opposed by environmental groups because of the additional damage that heavier lorries could inflict
on road networks and the infrastructure in general.
149. The greenhouse gas emissions generated by road transport (a notion which encompasses both
polluting and carbon dioxide emissions) are included in the reduction targets of the Kyoto
Convention. So far, however, the sector is not subject to emission trading rights programmes.
Notwithstanding, at least in the northern hemisphere, there has been a proliferation of environmental
taxes levied on Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic, also with the aim of internalising external costs,
including those associated with congestion and the deterioration of road networks and infrastructure in
general.
(b) Regulation of weights and dimensions
150. Standards governing weights and dimensions tend to differ significantly. This is the case
even between countries that are neighbours and/or at comparable levels of development. Thus, the
maximum permissible weight for a ‘road train’ varies from 16.5 to 74 tonnes, the maximum
permissible height from 4 to 4.6 metres (except for four countries in which there is no limit), the
maximum width from 2.5 to 2.65 metres, and the maximum length from 14.4 to 25.25 metres (see
117
IPCC, Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" 2007,
Cambridge University Press: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4/working-
group-iii-fourth-assessment-report. (See also International Transport Forum, 2008, "Forum highlights, transport
and energy, the challenge of climate change".) 118
These figures are however disputed by road transport professionals. 119
On the other hand, the latest toxic emissions standards led to a slight increase in fuel consumption
per ton-kilometre. 120
See: http://www.iru.org/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=en_Resolutions_General per cent
20transport per cent 20policy/09_30-30.E.pdf.
S/C/W/324
Page 44
Annex 11).121
Such differences can have major consequences for actual market access which, in some
cases, may go so far as to eliminate or seriously restrict competition from neighbouring countries.
The World Bank's freight corridor studies contain several pertinent examples.122
The ensuing
(protective) effects may be one of the reasons why, despite the relatively small number of
HGV manufacturers, sector representatives, at least at national level, do not seem to be calling for
harmonization.
151. The debate over weights and dimensions seems to have shifted, at least in developed
countries, towards the domestic front. It pits the providers and users of road transport, who favour
heavier and longer rigs which are more economically efficient and proportionally less polluting, in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions, against environmentalists who are concerned about road
congestion and its infrastructural implications (construction and maintenance).
VI. OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS AND MFN EXEMPTIONS
A. SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS123
152. Commitments in road freight transport services have been undertaken by 44 Members.124
Of
those, 17 are recently acceded Members (Annex 12).
153. At the sub-sectoral level, the lowest number of commitments has been inscribed for "mail
transportation" (probably because of the overlap with the classification of transport of mail in the
postal and courier service CPC categories)125
, followed by the category "freight transportation by
man- or animal-drawn vehicles", the residual category "transportation of other freight" and
"transportation of bulk liquids and gases". The comparatively low number of commitments on the
latter services may be due to the fact that, in the oil sector, monopolies on oil production and refining
are frequently associated with monopolies on transport.
154. Symmetrically, the most economically significant segments of the sector, in terms of freight
rates, such as transportation of frozen and refrigerated goods, containerized goods and furniture, have
attracted relatively numerous commitments. Twenty-five Members have bound the entire road freight
transport sector.
155. One of the most notable limitation in the sector is of a cross-cutting nature and concerns the
exclusion of cabotage from the scope of commitments. Eleven Members have inscribed such
restrictions in the sector column of their commitments, thereby conditioning access in all modes of
supply. Two Members have excluded cabotage services only for a particular mode of supply
(mode 1, market access in one case, and mode 3, both market access and national treatment in the
other).126
121
These data, covering 77 countries and territories, were obtained from the IRU Information Centre.
They indicate the maximum dimensions for the "road train", i.e. the largest and heaviest rig permitted in a given
country or territory. However, actual regulations tend to be far more complex, specifying, for example, the
dimensions for each type of rig and the maximum permissible axle loads. 122
Arvis, Raballand and Marteau (2007). 123
EU-12 has been counted as one Member. 124
One of the 44 Members has scheduled commitments on "Passenger and freight transportation" but
included as corresponding CPC categories only CPC 7121 and 7122 (i.e. scheduled and non-scheduled
passenger services), rather than also CPC 7123 (Freight transportation). 125
On the difficulties of classification raised by the transport of mail see also Section II. 126
Another Member has excluded cabotage both from the sectoral scope of its road freight
commitments and repeated this exclusion again under its mode 3 commitments for the sector.
S/C/W/324
Page 45
156. As far as market access is concerned, commitments in modes 1 and 2 have been either fully
bound or fully unbound.127
The most liberal commitments have been undertaken with respect to
mode 2, where "none" has been inscribed by four-fifths of Members. Mode 1 commitments are at the
other end of the spectrum, having been left unbound in 31 out of 44 schedules.128
Mode 4
commitments exhibit the typical "unbound except as indicated in the horizontal commitments"
inscription in all but one case, where access has been fully bound.
157. Mode 3 has drawn the most varied pattern of commitments. Access conditions have been
fully bound by 27 Members and left unbound by one. The limitations inscribed in other schedules
concern economic needs tests, incorporation requirements, foreign equity limitations, joint-venture
requirements, restrictions on cabotage, requirements that vehicles be nationally flagged, that the board
of directors be composed of a majority of nationals, citizenship requirements for drivers, authorization
requirements, emergency safeguards on the number of services suppliers, of services operations and
of services output, and limitations on the use of leased vehicles.
158. As far as national treatment is concerned, mode 1 is unbound in all but two cases, mode 2 is
bound in all but one and mode 4 is always unbound except for what is contained in the horizontal
mode 4 section. As concerns mode 3, 36 Members have inscribed 'none'. The remaining eight
Members scheduled restrictions on the provision of cabotage services, prior approval requirements,
requirements on established entities to use vehicles with national registration and a foreign equity
limitation.
B. MFN EXEMPTIONS
159. Fifty-eight MFN exemptions covering road freight transport services have been listed by 46
Members, slightly less than half of which are developed countries. Twenty-two Members out of the
46 with exemptions have also undertaken commitments in the sector.
160. The vast majority of exemptions (40 measures) have been listed to preserve preferences,
mostly related to cargo-sharing arrangements, arising from bilateral arrangements. In one-third of
cases, they cover both present and any future bilateral agreement that may be concluded, although
sometimes the latter entries are accompanied by a detailed list of beneficiaries. An additional seven
measures cover instances of plurilateral/regional preferences, and a further four refer to reciprocity-
based preferential treatment. In seven cases, Members have felt it necessary to list exemptions for
preferential fiscal treatment on VAT, vehicle tax and income tax.
161. Nearly all exemptions have been listed for an indefinite or non-specified duration. Three are
supposed to last until the underlying preferential agreement remains in force, one is limited to a ten-
year duration and a further one is supposed to be reviewed after 12 years.
162. The characteristics and high incidence of Article II exemptions deserve attention. Not only
do the underlying measures appear to have been conceived to last for an unlimited period, but the
exemptions also remove a significant portion of mode 1 trade from the application of an open, MFN-
based regime. Nevertheless, exemptions for preferences amongst regional partners are unlikely to
generate significant trade-diversion. Furthermore, most MFN exemptions only cover modes 1 and 2
and tend to leave mode 3 (and mode 4) unaffected.
127
In only one instance has a specific limitation been attached the commitments in these two modes,
and specifically in the case of mode 1. 128
In six instances, 'unbound' has been attributed to lack of technical feasibility.
S/C/W/324
Page 46
REFERENCES
Arvis, J.F, Raballand, G and J.F Marteau (2007), "The cost of being landlocked : logistics costs and
supply chain reliability", World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4258, June, available at:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2007/06/15/
000016406_20070615150019/Rendered/PDF/wps4258.pdf
Asian Development Bank (2006), "Central Asia: Increasing Gains form Trade through Regional
Cooperation in Trade Policy, Transport, and Customs Transit", Manila.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000), "Australian Economic Indicators", March, available at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/764c28fce2eb5
0b8ca256f9600770a1f!OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003), "Labor Force", January, available at:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/7ED76ABA18B8D025CA256CCB00823C3
4/$File/62020_jan%202003.pdf;
Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services (2003), "An Overview of the Australian
Road Freight Transport Industry", Working Paper no. 60
Carbajo, J. (2003), "Regulatory reform in transport, some recent experiences", World Bank (1993),
Washington, D.C.
China Communications Press (2007), "Report on China Road Transportation Development, 2006".
China Communications Press (2008), "Development of Modern Communications and
Transportation".
China Ministry of Transport (2008), "Special Investigation on National Road and Waterway
Transport".
Cygnus Business Consulting & Research (2007), "Indian Logistics Industry Surface Transport", May.
Dutz, M., Hayri, A., and P. Ibarra (2000), "Regulatory reform, competition and innovation: a case
study of the Mexican road freight industry", Policy Research Working Paper No. 2318, World Bank,
Washington, D.C., available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/
WDSP/IB/2000/05/25/000094946_00050505302442/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
Economic Commission for Europe (2009), "IRU Contribution to the SC1 Discussion of Item 3/b",
Inland Transport Committee, Working Party on Road Transport, One-hundred-and-fourth Session,
Informal Document No. 7, 19-21 October, Geneva.
Eurostat (2008), "Competitiveness in EU Road Freight Transport, 2006", Statistics in Focus, No. 97,
Luxembourg.
Eurostat (2009), "Panorama of Transport", accessed on 14 May, available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DA-09-001/EN/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF
Eurostat (2010), "Transport Database", accessed on 17 May, available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/data/database
S/C/W/324
Page 47
European Commission (2009), "Road Freight Transport Vademecum", Directorate General Energy
and Transport, Directorate E – Inland Transport, Unit E.1 – Land Transport Policy, March, Brussels,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/doc/2009_road_freight_vademecum.pdf
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1997), "Framework for Bilateral Agreements in
Road Transport - Recommendation", Document CEMT/CM(97)21 - CM(97)21/ADD1, available at:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/europe/acquis/road1997e.pdf#search="model agreement".
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2001), "Review of the Impact of the Multilateral
Quota", document CEMT/CM(2001)10, available at: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/
europe/ecmt/cm/pdf/CM200110e.pdf
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2004), "Removal of Obstacles at Border Crossings –
Policy Note and Recommendations", document CEMT/CM(2004)7, available at:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/Border2009/CM200407e.pdf
Fernandez, Linda (2008), "Transportation Services, Air Quality and Trade", Report for the
Environment and Trade Programme, Commission on Environmental Co-operation, Montreal.
Gray, R., Fattah, N.A. and S. Cullinane (1998), "Road freight privatization in Egypt: Is big
beautiful?", Journal of Transport Geography, No. 6.
Heggie, H.G. (1991), "Designing major policy reform, lessons from the transport sector", World Bank
Discussion Paper No. 115.
Hummels, David (2007), "Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of
Globalization", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3).
International Labour Organisation (2006), "Labour and social issues arising from problems of cross-
border mobility of international drivers in the road transport sector – Report for discussion at the
Tripartite Meeting on Labour and Social Issues arising from Problems of Cross-border Mobility of
International Drivers in the Road Transport Sector", Geneva.
International Road Federation (2009), "World Road Statistics, 2002-2007", Geneva.
International Road Transport Union (2004), "TRANSLex – IRU Handbook on Road Transport
Facilitation, Legislation and Practices", Geneva.
International Road Transport Union (2006), "Out-flagging - In-flagging", Working Paper
CTM/G7167/PKR, June, Geneva.
International Road Transport Union (2007), "Role and Position of Road Transport Operators and
Forwarders in the Logistics Chain", Working Paper CTM/G7691/PKR, February, Geneva.
International Road Transport Union (2009), "Road Transport in the People's Republic of China",
December, Geneva.
International Transport Forum (2009), "Trends in the Transport Sector, 1970-2007", OECD
Publishing, Paris.
International Transport Forum (2010), "Trends in the Transport Sector, 1970-2008", OECD
Publishing, Paris.
S/C/W/324
Page 48
Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2010), "Statistical Information",
available at: http://www.mlit.go.jp/statistics/details/jidosha_list.html
Mattoo, A., Borchert, I. and B. Gootiiz (2010) "Global patterns of service trade barriers - New
empirical evidence", World Bank, roneo.
Mattoo, A. and B. Gootiiz (2009), "Services in Doha: What's on the Table?", Journal of World Trade
No. 43(5).
Mwase, N. (2003), "The liberalization, de-regulation and privatization of the transport sector in
sub-Saharan Africa: experiences, challenges and opportunities", Journal of African Economies,
No. 12, available at: http://jae.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/ii153
North American Transportation Statistics Database (2009), "Gross Domestic Product by Industry",
available at: http://aplicaciones1.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?i=3&id=33
North American Transportation Statistics Database (2009), "Employment in Transportation and
Related Industries", available at: http://aplicaciones1.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?i=3&id=34
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), "Regulatory Reform in Road
Freight", OECD Economic Studies, No. 32, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), "Globalisation, Transport and the
Environment", Paris.
Raballand, G., Kunaka, C. and B. Giersing (2008), "The impact of regional liberalization and
harmonization in road transport services: a focus on Zambia and lessons for landlocked countries".
World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 4482, World Bank, Washington, D.C., available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086861
Raballand, G. and P. Macchi (2008), "Transport prices and costs: the need to revisit donors' policies
in transport in Africa", World Bank, Washington, D.C., available at:
http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/papers/0809conf/Raballand.pdf
Togan, S. (2009), "Liberalization of transport services in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco", Economic
Research Forum Policy Research Paper No. 31, ERF, Cairo, available at:
http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=NEW_publication_details_reports&publication_id=1117.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2004), "Economic Report on Africa 2004 –
Unlocking Africa's Trade Potential", Addis Ababa.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009), "Quantitative restrictions imposed on
international road transport of goods – Submission by the IRU", ECE/TRANS/SC.1/2009/5, 29 July,
available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2009/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-2009-05e.pdf
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010), "Quantitative Restrictions imposed on
international road transport of goods – Submission by the Government of the Republic of Turkey",
ECE/TRANS/SC.1/2010/5, 16 July, available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2010/sc1/ECE-
TRANS-SC.1-2010-5e.pdf
United Nations Statistical Commission (2010), "Manual on Statistics of International Trade in
Services 2010, Draft, Unedited Version", Geneva, Luxembourg, New York, Paris, Washington, D.C,
available at:
S/C/W/324
Page 49
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradeserv/TFSITS/MSITS/MSITS2010%20%20for%20the%20SC%202010
%20at%202.22.2010.pdf
US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2007), "National Transportation Statistics 2007", available at:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010), "Freight Transportation: Global Highlights", available
at: http://www.bts.gov/publications/freight_transportation/html
US Chamber of Commerce (2006), "Land Transport Options between Europe and Asia: Commercial
Feasibility Study".
US Department of Transportation (2009), "Freight Facts and Figures 2009", Federal Highway
Administration, Office of the Freight Management Operations, available at:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/09factsfigures
World Bank (1995), "Sustainable transport priorities for policy sector reform", Washington, D.C.
World Bank (2007), "Reforming transport: maximizing synergy between public and private sectors",
Background Paper for Evaluation of World Bank Assistance to the Transport Sector 1995-2005,
Washington, D.C., available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTOED/
EXTTRANSPORTATION/0,,contentMDK:21285911~menuPK:5006024~pagePK:64829573~piPK:6
4829550~theSitePK:4434733,00.html
S/C/W/324
Page 50
ANNEX 1
MTN.GNS/W/120 and CPC provisional
Definition of road freight transport services
11. TRANSPORT SERVICES
F. Road Transport Services
b. Freight transportation
(CPC 7123)
71231 Transportation of frozen or refrigerated goods
Transportation by road of frozen or refrigerated goods, in specially refrigerated trucks and
cars.
71232 Transportation of bulk liquids or gases
Transportation by road of bulk liquids or gases in special tank trucks. These vehicles may also
be refrigerated.
71233 Transportation of containerized freight
Transportation by road of individual articles and packages assembled and shipped in specially
constructed shipping containers designed for ease of handling in transport.
71234 Transportation of furniture
Transportation of furniture by road over any distance.
Exclusion: Furniture transportation by transoceanic shipment is classified in subclass 72123
(Transportation of containerized freight).
71235 Mail transportation
Transportation of mail by any land mode of transport other than railway.
71236 Freight transportation by man- or animal-drawn vehicles
Transportation of freight by man- or animal-drawn vehicles.
71239 Transportation of other freight
Transportation by land modes of transport other than railway, of freight, not elsewhere
classified.
S/C/W/324
Page 51
ANNEX 2
Modal split of inland freight surface transport,
million tonne-kilometres
Country Year Road Total
Road freight as a
percentage of
total inland
freight
Albania 2001 2200.00
Angola 2001 4708.60 7996.80 58.88%
Armenia 2007 430.10 1100.00 39.10%
Australia 2007 182500.00 507100.00 35.99%
Austria 2007 18.60 42.60 43.66%
Azerbaijan 2006 8222.00 19281.00 42.64%
Belarus 2007 19200.00 67292.00 28.53%
Belgium 2006 51572.00 69117.00 74.62%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003 300.00
Bulgaria 2004 9015.00 87529.00 10.30%
Cambodia 1999 3.21 3.48 92.24%
Canada 2007 0.00 311000.00 0.00%
China 2007 1135470.00 5075050.00 22.37%
Colombia 2005 38199.00 49689.00 76.88%
Costa Rica 2007 1.06 14.89 7.12%
Croatia 2007 10502.00 14382.00 73.02%
Cyprus 2007 1183.80 1183.80 100.00%
Czech Republic 2002 45100.00
Denmark 2005 11058.00 11066.00 99.93%
Ecuador 2007 1193.14 1193.14 100.00%
Estonia 2005 7641.00 18280.00 41.80%
Finland 2007 26900.00 40400.00 66.58%
France 2007 323000.00 373500.00 86.48%
Georgia 2006 586.10 7979.30 7.35%
Germany 2007 466200.00 645532.00 72.22%
Greece 2000 18360.00 18786.00 97.73%
Hungary 2005 9090.00 36338.00 25.02%
Iceland 2003 800.00
Ireland 2003 15900.00 33948.00 46.84%
Italy 2001 186510.00 209527.00 89.01%
Japan 2004 327632.00 568941.00 57.59%
Kazakhstan 2007 61444.00 262577.00 23.40%
Kenya 2000 21.50 27.46 78.32%
Korea 2006 12545.00 23807.00 52.69%
Kyrgyz Republic 2007 902.50 1756.20 51.39%
S/C/W/324
Page 52
Country Year Road Total
Road freight as a
percentage of
total inland
freight
Latvia 2006 12545.00 23807.00 52.69%
Lithuania 2007 20278.00 34661.00 58.50%
Luxembourg 2003 9493.00 10070.70 94.26%
FYROM 2007 5938.00 6717.00 88.40%
Mexico 2007 222391.00 252408.00 88.11%
Moldova 2003 1577.00 4596.40 34.31%
Mongolia 2003 242.40 7495.70 3.23%
Morocco 2007 697.00 6532.00 10.67%
Namibia 2001 555.00 2314.20 23.98%
Netherlands 2000 45700.00 90790.00 50.34%
Norway 2007 16313.00 35031.00 46.57%
Pakistan 2005 129249.00 135080.00 95.68%
Poland 2007 159527.00 215118.00 74.16%
Portugal 2007 46406.00 48992.00 94.72%
Puerto Rico 2001 9.70
Romania 2005 51531.00 73260.00 70.34%
Russian Federation 2007 206000.00 2382000.00 8.65%
Saudi Arabia 2005 108.35 108.35 100.00%
Serbia 2004 452.00 3877.00 11.66%
Slovak Republic 2006 22114.00 33038.00 66.94%
Slovenia 2007 13737.00 17340.00 79.22%
South Africa 2000 434.00 613.00 70.80%
Spain 2003 132868.00 145279.00 91.46%
Sweden 2007 42300.00 104200.00 40.60%
Switzerland 2007 16900.00 29318.00 57.64%
Chinese Taipei 2006 31218.00
Tunisia 2002 16611.00 18862.00 88.07%
Turkey 2007 181330.00 191084.00 94.90%
Ukraine 2007 31052.90 136232.60 22.79%
United Kingdom 2007 173077.00 196083.00 88.27%
United States 2006 1885576.00 5414969.00 34.82%
Uzbekistan 2000 1200.00
Source: International Road Federation (2009)
S/C/W/324
Page 53
ANNEX 3
Vans and lorries in use, by country, 2007
Country
Vans and
lorries
Country
Vans and
lorries
United States 110,497,239 Syrian Arab Republic 528,330
EU-27 34,835,709 Dominican Republic 525,391
Japan 34,324,000 Morocco 525,334
China 10,540,556 Sweden 515,335
Mexico 7,870,417 Norway 513,021
Canada 7,425,765 Denmark 508,774
France 6,270,000 Romania* 493,821
Brazil 5,709,063 Peru 480,876
Spain 5,140,586 Bolivia 468,763
Indonesia 5,065,482 New Zealand 465,803
Thailand** 4,992,150 Ireland 426,113
Russian Federation 4,730,000 Ukraine 406,441
Germany 4,604,905 Finland 390,806
Italy 4,437,600 Belarus 377,715
India** 4,436,000 Austria 372,645
Korea, Rep. of 4,189,042 Tanzania 369,887
United Kingdom 3,715,000 Israel 362,164
Australia 2,723,000 Kazakhstan 359,194
Turkey 2,619,661 Switzerland 324,153
Poland 2,520,548 Ecuador 323,480
South Africa 2,125,784 Tunisia 300,508
Philippines 1,875,296 El Salvador 283,787
Greece 1,255,945 Bulgaria 262,868
Algeria** 1,166,231 Paraguay 248,086
Saudi Arabia* 1,127,900 Slovak Republic 244,769
Colombia 1,064,513 Jordan 230,822
Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. 1,051,443 Kenya 210,891
Chinese Taipei 1,028,078 Pakistan 187,054
Netherlands 995,733 Zimbabwe 186,790
Chile 849,282 Nicaragua 179,872
Malaysia** 836,579 Iran 179,726
Hungary 829,817 Croatia 176,703
Sri Lanka 718,338 Panama 174,482
Egypt** 711,686 Bangladesh 168,649
Belgium 696,732 Honduras 165,203
Kuwait 573,212 Serbia 162,942
Czech Republic 555,223 Ghana 158,379
S/C/W/324
Page 54
Country
Vans and
lorries
Country
Vans and
lorries
Netherlands Antilles 155,769 Benin 35,656
Afghanistan*** 153,637 Chad** 35,424
Singapore 150,979 Cambodia* 33,578
Ethiopia 148,997 Burundi 32,717
Costa Rica 139,588 Luxembourg 32,520
Latvia 129,614 Iceland 31,095
Portugal** 118,965 Guyana*** 28,122
Cyprus 117,498 Mali 26,759
Namibia*** 117,410 FYROM 26,558
Oman 113,341 Suriname 25,745
Hong Kong, China 110,746 Malta 23,606
Lao PDR 108,984 Brunei Darussalam 16,744
Botswana 98,570 Rwanda*** 15,860
Moldova 94,828 Niger* 15,716
Uruguay** 83,958 Barbados 15,151
Slovenia 81,518 Lithuania 14,488
Estonia 80,280 Sierra Leone 14,054
Uganda 79,273 St Vincent & Grenadines*** 12,897
Albania 69,929 Papua New Guinea 11,333
Tajikistan 58,964 Azerbaijan** 9,916
Cameroon* 56,207 Guinea-Bissau*** 9,323
Burkina Faso 55,655 Seychelles 5,803
Myanmar*** 52,255 Bhutan 5,355
Bahrain*** 51,702 Macao, China 4,637
Georgia 51,500 Samoa* 4,596
Senegal 50,507 Maldives 2,867
Fiji 48,005 Liberia 2,772
Nepal 43,211 Gambia 2,601
Swaziland 41,778 Togo 2,219
Mauritius 40,947 Comoros 1,790
United Arab Emirates 39,424 Anguilla** 92
Mongolia 37,257 Central African Republic 58
Congo, Dem. Rep. 36,000
Notes: * 2005 data
** 2006 data
*** 2008 data
Source: International Road Federation (2009).
S/C/W/324
Page 55
ANNEX 4
Estimated effects of liberalizing the domestic road transport market
Author Country or
territory/period
Explanatory variable Performance
variable
Effects found
Ying, 1990 61 firms in the
United States
1975-84
Deregulation Technological
progress
Increases
Cost Declines
Productivity Increases
Ying and Keeler,
1991
56 firms in the
United States
1975-83
Liberalization of entry
and prices
Prices Decline by 25% to
35%
Winston, 1993 United States Liberalization of entry
and prices
Consumer welfare Gain of 16 billion of
1990 US$
Hoj et al, 1995 Australia Liberalization of entry
and prices (1950s and
1960s)
Prices Decline
Quality Improves
Canada Liberalization of entry
and prices
Prices Decline
Quality Improves
France Liberalization of entry
and prices (1979 and
1989)
Prices Decline
New Zealand Liberalization of entry,
services and prices
(1983)
Quality Improves
Norway Liberalization of entry,
services and prices
(1987)
Entry Positive
Sweden Liberalization of entry
(1964)
Entry Positive
United Kingdom Liberalization of entry,
services and prices
(1983)
Quality Improves
Yamauchi, 1995 Japan Liberalization Consumer welfare Gains of between
2.5 billion and
8.2 billion of US$
Burnewicz, 1996 Poland Privatization and
liberalization
Traffic Increases
Productivity Increases
Efficiency Increases
McKinnon, 1996 United Kingdom
(1987-1990)
Deregulation Prices Decline by 25%
United States
(1970-1978)
Decline by 12 to 25%
New Zealand
(1984-1987)
Decline by 25%
France
(1987-1990)
Decline by15%
Molnar, 1996 Hungary Privatization and
liberalization
Traffic Increases
Productivity Increases
Efficiency Increases
S/C/W/324
Page 56
Author Country or
territory/period
Explanatory variable Performance
variable
Effects found
Opletal-Ryba,
1996
Czech Republic Privatization and
liberalization
Traffic Increases
Productivity Increases
Efficiency Increases
Haffner and van
Bergeijk, 1997
Netherlands Liberalization of
cabotage, driving
periods
Prices Decline by 1%
Rose, 1997 United States Labour rent sharing and
regulation
Rent sharing Declines
Winston, 1998 United States Deregulation less than
truckload trucking
Prices Decline
Efficiency Increases
Quality Increases
Deregulation truckload
trucking
Prices Decline
Efficiency Increases
Quality Increases
OECD, 1999a United States Liberalization of entry
and prices
Prices Decline by 75% (TL)
and 35% (LTL)
Mexico
(1989-1997)
Deregulation Efficiency Increases
United States Deregulation Quality Improves
Employment Increases by 16%
OECD, 1999b Mexico Liberalization of entry
and prices
Prices Decline by 37%
Quality Improves
Employment Increases by 5%
Efficiency Increases
OECD, 1999c Japan Liberalization of entry
and prices
Entry Increases
Profit Increases
Prices Decline
Quality Improves
Productivity Increases
Profillidis, 2004 United Kingdom Liberalization Efficiency Increases
Prices Decline
Australia Liberalization Prices Decline
Raballand,
Kuraka and
Giersing, 2008
Zambia Regional liberalization Prices Decline
Quality Improves
Source: OECD, updated by the WTO Secretariat.
S
/C/W
/32
4
P
age 5
7
ANNEX 5
OECD Road Freight Regulation Database – Summary of results
Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market
In order to establish a
national road freight
business (other than for
transporting dangerous
goods or goods for
which sanitary
assurances are required)
do operators need to
obtain a license (other
than a driving license) or
permit from the
government?
Are criteria other
than technical and
financial fitness
and compliance
with public safety
requirements
considered in
decisions on entry
of new operators?
Does the
regulator,
through licenses
or otherwise,
have any power
to limit industry
capacity?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and
commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing entry
regulations?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing pricing
guidelines or
regulations?
Are retail prices of
road freight services
in any way
regulated by the
government?
Does the government
provide pricing
guidelines to road
freight companies?
Australia No No No No No No No
Austria Yes Yes No (since 1987) No (since 1990) No (since 2005) No (since 1990)
Yes (1975-1980) -
N/A 1981-1989
No
Belgium Yes No (since 2005) No (since 1987) Yes No (since 1991) No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
Canada Yes No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No (since 1998) No
Czech Republic Yes Yes No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 1991) No (since 1991)
Denmark Yes No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989)
Finland Yes No (since 1991) No (since 1991) No (since 1985) No (since 1992) No (since 1986) No (since 1986)
France Yes Yes Yes (since 2005) Yes No (since 1989) No (since 1989) No (since 1989)
Germany Yes Yes No (since 1999) No (since 2005) No (since 1983) No (since 1998)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1990-1997
No (since 1998)
Yes (1997-1990) -
N/A 1991-1997
Greece Yes No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005) Yes Yes
Hungary Yes No (since 1998) –
N/A 1991-1998
No (since 2005) Yes Yes No (since 1998)
Yes (1957-1990) -
N/A 1991-1997
No (since 1998)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-1997
Iceland Yes Yes No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
Yes No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
Ireland Yes Yes (1975-1987
and since 2007)
No (1998-2006)
No (since 1998) No (since 1986) No (since 1988) No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
Italy Yes Yes No (since 2001) Yes No (since 2005) No (since 2005) No (since 2005)
Japan Yes No (since 2001) Yes (1975-1996
and 2005-2007)
No (1998-2003)
No (since 1990) No (since 1990) No (since 2003) No (since 1990)
Korea Yes Yes No (since 2001) No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1999
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
Yes
S/C
/
W/3
2
4
Pag
e
58
Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market
In order to establish a
national road freight
business (other than for
transporting dangerous
goods or goods for
which sanitary
assurances are required)
do operators need to
obtain a license (other
than a driving license) or
permit from the
government?
Are criteria other
than technical and
financial fitness
and compliance
with public safety
requirements
considered in
decisions on entry
of new operators?
Does the
regulator,
through licenses
or otherwise,
have any power
to limit industry
capacity?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and
commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing entry
regulations?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing pricing
guidelines or
regulations?
Are retail prices of
road freight services
in any way
regulated by the
government?
Does the government
provide pricing
guidelines to road
freight companies?
Luxembourg Yes (since 1998) - (N/A
up to 1998)
No (since 1998) -
(N/A up to 1998)
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1999
No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 2000
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
Mexico Yes No (since 2001) No (since 1998) -
N/A up to 1998
No (since 2000) -
N/A up to 1998
No (since 2001) No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1997
Netherlands Yes Yes (1957-1991
and 2005-2007)
No (1992-2004)
No (since 1992) Yes No (since 1992) No (since 1992) No (since 1992)
New Zealand No (since 1995) No (since 1993) No (since 1993) No (since 1989) No (since 1983) No (since 1983) No (since 1983)
Norway Yes Yes Yes (1975-1986
and 2005-2007)
No (1987-2004)
No (since 1987) No (since 1987) No (since 1984) No (since 1984)
Poland No (since 2005) Yes No (since 2001) No (since 2005) No (since 1998) -
Yes (1975-1990)
N/A 1991-1997
No (since 1998)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-1997
No (since 1998)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-1997
Portugal Yes No (since 1996) No (since 1996) Yes No (since 1986) No (since 1987) No (since 1987)
Slovak Republic Yes Yes Yes No (since 2003)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-2002
No (since 2003)
Yes(1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-2002
No (since 2003)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-2003
No (since 2003)
Yes (1975-1990) -
N/A 1991-2004
Spain Yes No (since 2000) No (since 2000) No (since 2005) No (since 2002) No (since 1998)
Yes (1975-1987) -
N/A 1987-1998
No (since 2002)
Sweden Yes Yes No (since 1987) No No No No
Switzerland Yes (since 2001) No No No No No No
Turkey Yes (since 2003) Yes Yes (since 2005) Yes (since 2001)
No (1998-2000) -
N/A 1975-1998
No (since 1998) -
N/A 1975-1998
Yes (since 2005) -
N/A up to 2005
Yes (since 2005)
No (1998-2004) -
N/A 1975-2003
United Kingdom Yes No No No No No No
United States Yes No (since 1995) No (since 1995) No (since 1980) No (since 1984) No (since 1980) No (since 1995)
Chile (data available only for 2007) No - Yes No Yes No Yes
Estonia (data available only for 2007) Yes Yes No Yes No No No
Israel (data available only for 2007) Yes No No No No No No
S
/C/W
/32
4
P
age 5
9
Country Questions asked in the OECD survey on the assessment of the liberalization of the domestic road transport market
In order to establish a
national road freight
business (other than for
transporting dangerous
goods or goods for
which sanitary
assurances are required)
do operators need to
obtain a license (other
than a driving license) or
permit from the
government?
Are criteria other
than technical and
financial fitness
and compliance
with public safety
requirements
considered in
decisions on entry
of new operators?
Does the
regulator,
through licenses
or otherwise,
have any power
to limit industry
capacity?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and
commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing entry
regulations?
Are professional
bodies or
representatives of
trade and commercial
interests involved in
specifying or
enforcing pricing
guidelines or
regulations?
Are retail prices of
road freight services
in any way
regulated by the
government?
Does the government
provide pricing
guidelines to road
freight companies?
Russia - - - - - - -
Slovenia (data available only for 2007) Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
Brazil (data available only for 2007) Yes No No No No No No
China (data available only for 2007) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Notes: - "No" indicates the existence of a liberalized market. The date indicates the time of liberalization.
- An isolated "Yes" or "No" indicates that the reply has not changed since the survey began for the country in question (1975 in most cases).
- Where a reply has varied with time or was not available, the corresponding periods are indicated in the table.
- N/A indicates the non-availability of the answer.
Source: OECD Survey of Indicators of Regulation in Energy, Transport and Communications. See: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/29/42480612.xls (data on road freight are available only in
English)
S/C
/
W/3
2
4
Pag
e
60
ANNEX 6
Aggregated results of the World Bank survey of road transport regimes in 93 WTO Members
Table 1: Authorization of commercial presence in the form of the establishment of a branch or subsidiary or the acquisition of a domestic private or public entity
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth
of Independent
States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 0 0.00% 8 1.54% 4 1.39% 2 0.02% 18 1.61% 1 0.00% 7 6.55% 40 11.12%
Partially 3 49.84% 9 3.00% 4 1.33% 2 0.16% 6 0.42% 3 0.29% 8 17.67% 35 72.72%
No 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.54% 2 3.76% 18 16.16%
n/a 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
S
/C/W
/32
4
P
age 6
1
Table 2: Maximum foreign ownership allowed for the following forms of commercial presence: establishment of a subsidiary, acquisition of a domestic private entity, acquisition of a
domestic public entity
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
100% establ.
subsidiary
2 46.73% 13 2.02% 8 2.73% 4 0.18% 20 1.65% 1 0.02% 11 21.27% 59 74.49%
100% existing private
entity
2 46.73% 15 4.41% 8 2.73% 4 0.18% 21 1.79% 0 0.00% 11 21.17% 61 77.01%
100% existing public
entity
2 46.73% 9 3.54% 6 1.66% 3 0.18% 16 1.70% 0 0.00% 9 21.09% 45 74.90%
From 50 to 100%
establ. subsidiary
0 0.00% 2 2.39% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.19% 1 0.04% 0 0.00% 5 2.62%
From 50 to 100%
existing private entity
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.04% 1 0.00% 2 0.04%
From 50 to 100%
existing public entity
0 0.00% 1 0.19% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 0.20%
Less than 50% establ.
subsidiary
1 3.12% 2 0.14% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 2 0.19% 4 0.77% 6 6.82% 29 22.89%
Less than 50%
existing private entity
1 6.26% 2 3.01% 14 81.29% 0 0.00% 3 11.46% 5 94.46% 5 24.36% 30 22.95%
Less than 50%
existing public entity
1 3.12% 2 0.14% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 3 0.23% 5 0.79% 5 6.82% 30 22.95%
n/a establ. subsidiary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
n/a existing private
entity
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
n/a existing public
entity
0 0.00% 1 0.07% 1 1.04% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.07% 3 1.17%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
S/C
/
W/3
2
4
Pag
e
62
Table 3: Authorization of a controlling stake in a joint venture
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 1 43.78% 13 4.25% 8 2.73% 3 0.16% 21 1.91% 1 0.04% 7 4.65% 54 57.53%
Partially 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
No 1 3.12% 3 0.22% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 3 0.11% 5 0.79% 6 6.82% 32 22.91%
n/a 1 2.94% 1 0.07% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 16.52% 7 19.56%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
Table 4: Maximum authorized participation for a group of foreign entities in a joint venture
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 1 43.78% 12 4.22% 8 2.73% 2 0.16% 15 1.75% 0 0.00% 6 4.58% 44 57.22%
Partially 0 0.00% 1 0.03% 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 5 0.04% 1 0.04% 1 0.07% 9 0.19%
No 1 3.12% 3 0.22% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 4 0.23% 5 0.79% 6 6.82% 33 23.03%
n/a 1 2.94% 1 0.07% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 16.52% 7 19.56%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
S
/C/W
/32
4
P
age 6
3
Table 5: Limit on number of licences available
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.07% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.07%
Partially 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
No 2 46.73% 6 0.65% 8 2.73% 3 0.02% 10 0.19% 4 0.29% 6 16.61% 39 67.21%
n/a 1 3.12% 11 3.90% 14 11.86% 1 0.16% 13 1.76% 2 0.54% 11 11.38% 53 32.72%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
Table 6: Difference in licensing criteria for foreign and domestic applicants
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 0 0.00% 2 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 0.19%
Partially 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
No 0 0.00% 4 0.55% 4 1.37% 3 0.02% 12 0.17% 4 0.29% 2 0.08% 29 2.48%
n/a 3 49.84% 11 3.90% 18 13.22% 1 0.16% 10 1.76% 2 0.54% 15 27.90% 60 97.33%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
S/C
/
W/3
2
4
Pag
e
64
Table 7: Nationality requirements for employees
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 2 46.73% 11 4.02% 4 1.39% 1 0.00% 9 0.70% 4 0.29% 8 16.62% 39 69.74%
Partially 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 1.34% 3 0.18% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 1.52%
No 0 0.00% 5 0.19% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 0.28% 0 0.00% 3 6.90% 21 7.36%
n/a 1 3.12% 1 0.34% 15 11.86% 0 0.00% 2 1.05% 2 0.54% 6 4.47% 27 21.38%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
Table 8: Nationality or residency requirements for board of directors
North America Caribbean and
Central and
South America
Europe Commonwealth of
Independent States
Africa Middle East Asia Total
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
C/T %
fl. surv.
Yes 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.36% 0 0.00% 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 4 0.50%
Partially 1 2.94% 3 0.17% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 0.25% 2 0.25% 3 3.80% 14 7.41%
No 0 0.00% 12 1.77% 6 2.37% 4 0.18% 14 0.56% 1 0.00% 6 19.69% 43 24.57%
n/a 2 46.90% 2 2.60% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 4 1.10% 3 0.58% 7 4.48% 32 67.52%
Total number of
countries/territ.
3 17 22 4 24 6 17 93
Total HGV (%) 49.84% 4.54% 14.59% 0.18% 2.03% 0.83% 27.99% 100%
Total number of HGV
(millions)
125,793 11,464 36,815 457,941 5,110 2,096 70,635 252,374
Notes: - "C/T": Countries or Territories
- "per cent fl. surv".: percentage of the HGV fleet of the 93 WTO Members covered by the survey.
- n/a: not applicable
Source: WTO Secretariat on the basis of the World Bank's Services Policy Restrictiveness Database.
S/C/W/324
Page 65
ANNEX 7
Breakdown of ECMT basic licences for 2010,
by vehicle environmental category
Participants Base
2010
EURO III safe lorries EURO IV safe lorries EURO V safe lorries
Licences Total
EURO III
Licences Total
EURO IV
Licences Total
EURO
V Annual Short
term
Annual Short
term
Annual Short
term
Albania 128 80 20 100 15 5 20 5 3 8
Armenia 120 30 30 5 5 5 5
Austria 16 16 16
Azerbaijan 120 80 10 90 30 30
Belarus 183 44 44 139 139
Belgium 171 60 60 51 51 60 60
Bosnia
Herzegovina
120 73 73 47 47
Bulgaria 157 76 15 91 50 16 66
Croatia 157 91 91 66 66
Czech Republic 141 124 17 141
Denmark 132 76 76 38 38 18 18
Estonia 128 77 1 78 49 1 50
Finland 149 25 25 25 25 20 20
France 252 130 130 82 82 40 40
FYROM 128 63 1 64 63 1 64
Georgia 120 80 10 90 6 7 13 10 7 17
Germany 286 264 10 274 12 12
Greece 149 110 110 25 25 14 14
Hungary 141 79 21 100 41 41
Ireland 132 10 10 6 6 5 5
Italy 67 67 67
Latvia 128 21 21 97 10 107
Liechtenstein 30 2 2 1 1 1 1
Lithuania 128 60 3 63 65 65
Luxembourg 55 18 1 19 12 12 24 24
Malta 30 20 20 8 8 2 2
Moldova 128 128 128
Montenegro 30 13 13 17
Netherlands 208 40 40 80 80 88 88
Norway 132 30 30 50 50 52 52
Poland 153 51 51 102 102
Portugal 132 50 1 51 15 15 66 66
Romania 208 156 156 52 52
Russian
Federation
299 239 10 249 45 5 50
Serbia 132 60 60 72 72
Slovak Republic 128 85 85 43 43
Slovenia 128 102 102 26 26
Spain 149 74 74 75 75
Sweden 153 73 73 50 50 30 30
Switzerland 135 35 35 50 50 50 50
Turkey 250 200 200 50 50
Ukraine 208 125 125 83 83
United Kingdom 149 33 33 33 33 33 33
Total 6090 3105 141 3246 1948 523 10 533
Number of
countries
43 40 16 - 41 9 - 19 2 -
Source: International Transport Forum (2010)
S/C/W/324
Page 66
ANNEX 8
Application of coefficients and bonuses
to ECMT basic licences for the year 2010
Participants EURO III safe lorries EURO IV safe lorries EURO V safe lorries Total licences
Licences (x4) Bonus
40%
Licences (x6) Bonus
40%
Licences (x6) Bonus
40% Annual Short-
term
Annual Short
-term
Annual Short
-term
Annual Short-
term
Albania 480 960 160 138 360 48 49 216 19 667 1536
Armenia 168 48 42 12 42 12 252
Austria 96 96
Azerbaijan 464 480 144 252 72 716 480
Belarus 246 70 1168 334 1414
Belgium 336 96 428 122 504 144 1268
Bosnia
Herzegovina
409 117 395 113 804
Bulgaria 426 1008 146 420 1613 158 846 2621
Croatia 510 146 554 158 1064
Czech Rep. 722 816 226 722 816
Denmark 426 122 319 91 151 43 896
Estonia 433 48 125 414 72 120 847 120
Finland 140 40 210 60 168 48 518
France 728 208 689 197 336 96 1753
FYROM 354 48 102 532 72 154 886 120
Georgia 464 480 144 67 504 31 101 504 41 632 1488
Germany 1494 480 438 101 29 1595 480
Greece 110 25 14 149
Hungary 476 1008 160 344 98 820 1008
Ireland 56 16 50 14 42 12 148
Italy 375 107 375
Latvia 1411 34 815 1008 257 815 2419
Liechtenstein 11 3 8 2 8 2 27
Lithuania 341 144 101 546 156 887 144
Luxembourg 102 48 30 101 29 202 58 405 48
Malta 80 48 12 140
Moldova 1075 307 1075
Montenegro 73 21 143 41 216
Netherlands 224 64 672 192 739 211 1635
Norway 168 48 420 120 437 125 1025
Poland 286 82 857 245 1143
Portugal 282 48 82 126 36 554 158 962 48
Romania 874 250 437 125 1311
Russian Fed. 1338 672 398 378 504 120 1716 1176
Serbia 336 96 605 173 941
Slovak Republic 476 136 361 103 837
Slovenia 571 163 218 62 789
Spain 414 118 630 180 1044
Sweden 409 117 420 120 252 72 1081
Switzerland 196 56 420 120 420 120 1036
Turkey 1120 320 420 120 1540
Ukraine 700 200 697 199 1397
United
Kingdom
185 53 277 79 277 79 739
Total 17003 7651 15918 4133 4308 720 37229 12504
Number of
countries
40 14 41 7 18 2
Source: International Transport Forum (2010).
S
/C/W
/324
P
age 6
7
ANNEX 9
Summary table of emission standards for Heavy Goods Vehicle
(expressed in grams/kilowatt-hour)
Source: Daimler Chrysler/IRU
United States
Europe
South America
Japan
Korea
China ??
Chinese Taipei
Developing
countries
2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 201
0
2003 2004 2005 2006
NOx: No limits or relaxed standards
PM: No limits or relaxed standards ??
NOx: 6.7 g/kWh (5.0)
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.1) ??
NOx: 8.0 g/kWh (6.0)
PM: 0.36 g/kWh (0.27)
NOx: 7.0 g/kWh (5.2)
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.11)
NOx: 6.0 g/kWh (4.5)
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.27) ??
NOx: 4.5 g/kWh (3.4)
PM: 0.25 g/kWh (0.19)
NOx: 3.38 g/kWh (2.5) PM: 0.18 g/kWh (0.13)
NOx: 1.7 g/kWh (1.3) PM: 0.05 g/kWh (0.4)
??
NOx: 7.0 g/kWh (5.2)
PM: 0.15 g/kWh (0.11)
NOx: 5.0 g/kWh (3.7)
PM: 0.10 g/kWh (0.07)
NOx: 3.5 g/kWh (2.6)
PM: 0.02 g/kWh (0.015) ??
NOx: 5.0 g/kWh (3.7)
PM: 0.10 g/kWh (0.07)
NOx: 3.5 g/kWh (2.6)
PM: 0.02/0.03 g/kWh (0.015/0.022)
NOx: 2.0 g/kWh (1.5) PM: 0.02/0.03 g/kWh (0.015/0.022)
Similar to
US 2010?
NOx: 5.4 g/kWh (4.0)
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.10)
NOx+HC: 3.35 g/kWh (2.5)
PM: 0.13 g/kWh (0.10)
NOx: 1.48 g/kWh (1.1) PM: 0.013 g/kWh (0.01)
NOx: 0.27 g/kWh (0.2)
PM: 0.013 g/kWh (0.01)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004
S/C
/
W/3
2
4
Pag
e
68
ANNEX 10
Areas of application of various emission standards for Heavy Goods Vehicles
Source: IRU/UNECE
European standards and countries or territories applying them
American standards and countries or territories applying them
Countries or territories accepting both European and American standards
Japanese standards
No standard
S/C/W/324
Page 69
ANNEX 11
Maximum permissible weights and dimensions
Maximum
permissible
weight for
road trains
(tonnes)
Maximum
permissible
height (metres)
Maximum
permissible
width (metres)
Maximum
permissible
length for a
road train
(metres)
Maximum
permissible
dimensions
(m³ = h x l x L)
Afghanistan 36.0 4.00 2.50 24.00 240.00
Albania 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.35 190.84
Algeria 35.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Argentina 45.0 - 2.50 20.50 -
Armenia 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00
Austria 38.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Azerbaijan 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00
Belarus 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00
Belgium 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Bosnia-Herzegovina 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Brazil 74.0 4.00 2.60 19.80 205.92
Bulgaria 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Cameroon 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Central African
Republic
50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Chad 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Chile 45.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00
China 16.5 4.00 2.50 16.50 165.00
Congo 50.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Croatia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Cyprus 31.0 4.00 2.60 18.35 190.84
Czech Rep. 48.0 4.00 2.60 22.00 228.80
Denmark 48.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Egypt 48.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00
Estonia 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
European Union 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Finland 60.0 4.00 2.60 25.25 262.60
France 40.0 no restriction 2.60 20.35 -
FYROM 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Georgia 44.0 4.00 2.60 24.00 249.60
Germany 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Greece 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Hungary 44.0 4.00 2.60 24.00 249.60
Iran 40.0 4.50 2.50 18.00 202.50
Iraq 54.0 4.10 2.60 20.00 213.20
Ireland 40.0 4.25 2.60 18.35 202.77
Israel 59.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Italy 44.0 4.30 2.60 21.00 234.78
Japan 36.0 4.10 2.50 18.00 184.50
Jordan 60.0 4.20 2.60 18.35 200.38
Kazakhstan 44.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00
Kuwait 45.0 4.50 2.60 20.00 234.00
Kyrgyz Republic 30.0 4.00 2.55 - -
Latvia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Lithuania 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
S/C/W/324
Page 70
Maximum
permissible
weight for
road trains
(tonnes)
Maximum
permissible
height (metres)
Maximum
permissible
width (metres)
Maximum
permissible
length for a
road train
(metres)
Maximum
permissible
dimensions
(m³ = h x l x L)
Luxembourg 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Malta 40.0 4.50 2.60 18.75 219.38
Mexico 45.5 4.20 2.50 22.00 231.00
Moldova 40.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00
Morocco 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.00 187.20
Netherlands 50.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
New Zealand 44.0 4.25 2.50 20.00 212.50
Norway 50.0 no restriction 2.60 19.00 -
Poland 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Portugal 44.0 4.60 2.60 18.75 224.25
Rep. of Korea 35.0 3.50 2.50 16.70 146.13
Romania 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Russia 38.0 4.00 2.60 20.00 208.00
Saudi Arabia 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Serbia 40.0 4.00 2.50 18.00 180.00
Slovak Rep. 40.0 4.00 2.60 22.00 228.80
Slovenia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Spain 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Sweden 60.0 no restriction 2.60 24.00 -
Switzerland 44.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Tunisia 40.0 4.00 2.60 18.75 195.00
Turkey 40.0 4.00 2.60 22.00 228.80
Turkmenistan 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00
Ukraine 38.0 4.00 2.65 22.00 233.20
United Kingdom 44.0 no restriction 2.60 18.75 -
United States 36.3 - 2.59 14.40 -
Uruguay 36.0 4.00 2.50 20.00 200.00
Uzbekistan 40.0 4.00 2.50 24.00 240.00
Note: China: Maximum weight for tractor, maximum length for tractor and trailer.
Source: IRU Information Centre, Authorizations, Goods Transport, http://www.iru.org/Indiax/infocentre-find-form
(http://www.iru.org/index/infocentre-find-form) APEC Electronic Individual Action Plan (e-IAP),
http://www.apec-iap.org/
S/C/W/324
Page 71
ANNEX 12
Commitments in road freight transport services (11.F.b)
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
fro
zen
or
refr
iger
ate
d g
oo
ds
CP
C 7
12
31
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
bu
lk
liq
uid
s a
nd
ga
ses
CP
C 7
12
32
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
con
tain
eriz
ed
fre
igh
t
CP
C 7
12
33
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
furn
itu
re
CP
C 7
12
34
Ma
il t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
CP
C 7
12
35
Fre
igh
t tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n b
y
ma
n-
or
an
ima
l- d
raw
n
veh
icle
CP
C 7
12
36
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
oth
er
freig
ht
CP
C 7
12
39
To
tal
Albania X X X X X X X 7
Armenia X X X X X X X 7
Aruba X X X 3
Australia X X X X 4
Brazil X X X 3
Cambodia X X X X X X X 7
Canada X X X X 4
Cape Verde X X X X X X X 7
China X X X X X X X 7
Cote d'Ivoire X X X X X X X 7
Croatia X X X X X X X 7
Ecuador X X X X X X X 7
Estonia X X X X X X X 7
EU-12 X X X X X X X 7
Finland X X X X X X X 7
FYROM X X X X X X X 7
Gambia X X X X X X X 7
Georgia X X X X X X X 7
Guinea X X X X X X X 7
Guyana X X X X X X X 7
Iceland X X X X X X X 7
Japan X X X X X X X 7
Kenya X X X X X X X 7
Korea X 1
Kyrgyz Republic X X X X X X X 7
Latvia X X X X X X X 7
Lesotho X X X X X X X 7
Lithuania X X X X X X X 7
Moldova X X X X X X X 7
Morocco X X X X X X X 7
S/C/W/324
Page 72
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
fro
zen
or
refr
iger
ate
d g
oo
ds
CP
C 7
12
31
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
bu
lk
liq
uid
s a
nd
ga
ses
CP
C 7
12
32
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
con
tain
eriz
ed
fre
igh
t
CP
C 7
12
33
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
furn
itu
re
CP
C 7
12
34
Ma
il t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
CP
C 7
12
35
Fre
igh
t tr
an
spo
rta
tio
n b
y
ma
n-
or
an
ima
l- d
raw
n
veh
icle
CP
C 7
12
36
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
of
oth
er
freig
ht
CP
C 7
12
39
To
tal
Netherlands Antilles X X X 3
New Zealand X X X X X X 6
Niger X X X X X X X 7
Norway X X X X X X X 7
Philippines X X X X X X X 7
Romania X X X X X X X 7
South Africa X X X X X X X 7
Sweden X X X X X X X 7
Chinese Taipei X X X X X X X 7
Thailand X X X 3
Turkey X X X X X X X 7
Ukraine X X X X X X X 7
USA X X X X X X X 7
Vietnam X X X X X X X 7
Total * 43 39 42 42 36 37 39 278
* Counting EU-12 as one.
__________