Background

Eco-labelling is a form of sustainability measurementthat is intended to make it easy for consumers totake environmental concerns into account whenpurchasing products. It is frequently stated that thelabel is valued by consumers as a ‘seal of approval’given to goods and services whose productionprocesses have been assessed to be less harmful to the environment than functionally orcompetitively similar products. The concerns ofdeveloping country exporters, that eco-labellingschemes could be a disguised form of protectionisttrade policy used to support domestic industries inthe countries that implement them, couldemanate from the fact that there is no universallyaccepted standard for the over 400 recorded eco-labelling programmes implemented in 197countries in 25 different industry sectors. The useof voluntary eco-labelling by large retailers indeveloped countries, with the support of theirrespective governments which regard theseschemes as complementary to their own nationalenvironmental policies, is increasing. The potentialfor trade disputes arises when eco-labelling criteriainclude production-related criteria that reflectdeveloped country production preferences andtechnologies, which are difficult for developing

countries to adopt and therefore impact upondeveloping countries’ export interests.

This issue of Commonwealth Trade Hot Topicshighlights some of the challenges and alsoopportunities faced by exporters from small statesand least developed countries (LDCs) heavilydependent on export markets where the use ofvoluntary eco-labelling schemes is continuing togrow, particularly in the agri-foods sector.

It is observed that many of the eco-labellingschemes are voluntarily implemented by large,brand-sensitive retailers seeking, among otherthings, to project a positive image to their consumerbase in an increasingly business competitiveenvironment, or provide a means to differentiatetheir products from those of competitors. As theseschemes can be designed and implemented by anygovernment body, private company, or civil societyorganisation that has the financial and technicalresources to do so, the standard requirements andcertification process for obtaining eco-labels tend tobe based on domestic environmental priorities andthe technologies used in the importing country,which may favour domestic over foreign productionprocesses. The influence on voluntary schemesshould not be underestimated as even the present

Eco-labelling: Challenges and Opportunitiesfor Small States and LDCsMichanne Haynes*

* The author is Research Officer, Economic Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat. Any limitations and views expressed here are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Issu

e95

|20

12

mandatory ISO 9000 standard was previously avoluntary programme. These private bodies, whichestablish their own environmental standards andcriteria for labelling, have no direct legal obligationto consider the export interests of other countries,and few incentives to do so.

The 2010 report of the World Trade Organization’s(WTO) Committee on Trade and the Environmentnoted that WTO members are showing a significantinterest in eco-labelling measures adoptedincluding their relationship to: the competitivenessimplications of these schemes for domesticindustry; the cost and market access impact of theseschemes for developing countries, particularly smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially inthe context of multiple, overlapping schemes andstandards; the potential non-neutrality of carbonfootprint methodologies; the lack of a uniformmethodology for measuring standards; the risk ofdiscrimination on the basis of non-product relatedprocesses and production methods (NPR-PPMs); andthe relevance of WTO trade rules, including theAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereafterreferred to as TBT) to this discussion.

Given the increased global awareness of thefiniteness of the natural resources, one explanationput forward for the popularity of eco-labellingschemes is that they are one of the least-coercive,market-based mechanisms to improve the globalconservation of natural resources. In support of this,there have been recent efforts to improve awarenessand use of eco-labelling schemes in emergingmarkets and large developing countries withfinancial and technical assistance frommultinational organisations and more developedcountries being made available for this purpose. Theadoption of eco-labelling by competing exportersfrom emerging markets and large developingcountries could increase their competitiveadvantage over exporters from small states and LDCsat a time when preferential access to EuropeanUnion and North American markets for small statesand LDCs exports has been eroding in recent years.The efforts of poor, small and vulnerable economiesto diversify their exports towards lucrative emergingand large developing country markets areconsequentially challenged, if eco-labelling in thesemarkets create an entry barrier.

Challenges to market access

For exporters from small states and LDCs wishing toadopt an eco-labelling standard to gain bettermarket access, there will be a number of significant

challenges. First, the schemes themselves are costlyto implement. A number of research studies haveemphasised that the financial and human resourcesrequired to collect and assess the production andoutput data required to do the life-cycle analysismethodology that is commonly used to developstandards, can have the potential to discriminateagainst small producers. The application ofmultiple private schemes in an export market couldtherefore place a prohibitive compliance burden onexporters, particularly SMEs in small states andLDCs, forcing them to choose to adopt a singlestandard, the most appropriate choice requiringknowledge of the demand trends of the customersin the market.

Second, as there is no internationally agreedmethodology for calculating the environmentalimpact of a product, the variables used in a life-cycle analysis model are at the discretion of thestandards body whose subjectivity on this issue maynot provide adequate or accurate labelling.Furthermore, there is also the issue ofappropriateness of standards based on thismethodology within the context of productionsystems in small states and LDCs given that they aredesigned considering the domestic production andenvironmental realities in countries whose socio-economic structures differ significantly from that ofpoor and vulnerable economies.

An increasing number of developing countriestherefore perceive eco-labelling schemes asconstituting unfair trade discrimination and it hasbeen suggested that these measures are a politicallyexpedient substitute for more trade-restrictiveinstruments such as border taxes or import bansthat have become more difficult to implement.

Relevance of WTO law

Government instruments, such as environmentaltaxes, cap and trade emission schemes,countervailing duties and specific industryregulations that are used to support nationalsustainability goals, have been investigated by theinternational trading regime’s dispute settlementsystem for their potential to violate the system’snon-discriminatory rules. The GATT panels in the1980s and 1990s as well as a WTO panel in the1990s have sought to clarify the balance to beachieved with the implementation of suchdomestic environmental measures, allowableunder GATT Article XX, with their potential to affectmarket access.1 However, it is not clear whetherthese rules can apply to voluntary eco-labellingIs

sue

95|

2012

|Pa

ge2

schemes because they are implemented at thediscretion of private entities, and consumers havethe option to purchase eco-labelled as well as non-labelled products thus making it difficult to proveovert market discrimination.

There are further legal requirements governingstandards setting and labelling established in theTBT Agreement. The TBT Agreement differentiatesbetween technical regulations (mandatorymeasures) and standards (voluntary measures) withthe provisions concerning the preparation,adoption and application of standards, containedin Article 4 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Code ofGood Practice’) for the Preparation, Adoption andApplication of Standards. While the TBT mainlyapplies to government policies, TBT Article 4requires that WTO members take ‘reasonablemeasures’ to ensure that non-governmentalstandardising bodies operating within theirterritories are complying with the TBT Code of GoodPractice. Therefore, Article 4 does indicate thatmember governments do have a responsibility inproviding some level of oversight of the design andimplementation of private eco-labelling schemes.This is further elaborated in Article 8 which requiresthat WTO members take ‘reasonable measures’ asmay be available to them, to ensure that non-governmental bodies within their territories whichconduct conformity assessment procedures complywith the provisions of the TBT. Furthermore,member governments are required to not takemeasures which have the effect of, directly orindirectly, requiring or encouraging such bodies toact in a manner inconsistent with the provisions ofthe TBT. While the TBT’s Code of Good Practice cantherefore apply to non-state criteria-setting bodies,the Code is not mandatory, and nothing in the Codeof Good Practice requires that non-state actorsprovide deferential treatment to developingcountry members. In addition, there is an issue ofwhether the non-state actors such as private firmsare standardising bodies within the context of theTBT, and further work is being done within the WTOto clarify this issue.

Despite the potential for private eco-labellinginitiatives to create market access barriers andviolate the measures under the TBT Agreement,there has been reluctance on the part of countrieswhose trade has been affected to challenge theseschemes. One argument put forward is that bychallenging these standards and labelling schemesthat are based on criteria that are NPR-PPM, suchchallenges may in turn legitimise the use of NPR-

PPM criteria within the WTO. By identifying aspecific group of NPR-PPM measures as being eitherdiscriminatory or trade restrictive, there is thereforeimplicit acknowledgement that not all NPR-PPMsare WTO inconsistent per se (Gandhi, 2006).

Opportunities for economic growth anddevelopment

Although eco-labelling standards challenge marketaccess for exports from poor and vulnerableeconomies, there is evidence that eco-labelling canalso be an avenue for gaining access to nichemarkets in which a premium price is paid for‘green’ products. For some producers, eco-labellingcan present an opportunity to add value to existingproducts, expand reach in existing markets, ormaintain market share in a competitiveenvironment through product differentiation andtherefore provide these exporters with potential toenhance their export earnings. In some instanceshowever, research has indicated that marketintelligence with regard to the relative demands ofbuyers and relative costs of the schemes is asimportant as achieving a given eco-labellingstandard in order to obtain higher product prices.Elsewhere, it also noted that it would be prematureto assume that achieving higher prices wouldincrease producer profitability, because yields mayhave to be decreased to ensure that certificationstandards are met. Even when premium prices arenot achieved, there is also evidence to suggest thatchanging the production process to meet thedemands of the new standard could lead to higheryields and better quality products, as the improvedbusiness organisational structures sometimesrequired bring better access to credit and insurancefor producers.

There is consensus, however, that the economicvalue of adopting an eco-labelling standard seemsto lie in the security of market access that resultsfrom achieving such a standard, rather than animmediate price and profit increase. This securitycomes not only from providing a distinct,differentiated product in a competitive market,but also the added security of improving the

Issu

e95

|20

12|

Page

3

1 GATT Article XX(b) permits members to implement measuresthat are necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life, andArticle XX(g) permits members to implement measures that relateto the exhaustion of natural resources as long as the measures aremade effective with restrictions on domestic production orconsumption. Such measures must also satisfy the chapeau, whichproscribes measures that are applied in a manner that results in‘arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination’. See General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) arts. XX(b), (g) available athttp://www.wto.org/english/doc_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm.

viability of continued economic activity throughbetter management of resources. Given thestructural challenges that small states and LDCsface in diversifying out of their traditional exportsectors, sustainably managing current economicactivity is a priority.

Options for Commonwealth small states and LDCs

• Seek greater involvement in the design ofmethodology behind labelling schemes

It matters whether the environmental criteria-setting body is a state or non-state actor, andwhether they are located in a developed ordeveloping country. Not surprisingly, developingcountry criteria setting bodies would take intoconsideration the production culture andeconomic interests of their constituents. Ifinternational standards of eco-labelling are to bedeveloped in a fair and transparent manner, basedon robust science and measurementmethodologies, and that such standards be appliedequitably across products, producers andcountries, then developing countries need to havea greater involvement in the design of thesestandards. One study notes that the methodologybehind the only public standard published to date,the PAS 2050:2008, imparts a bias against labour-intensive production systems that are typical ofdeveloping countries because it does not includeproduction of capital goods in its definition ofproduct life-cycles, resulting in an artificialshrinkage of the footprint of goods produced bycapital-intensive methods. Horticulture farmers inAfrica have been commended for their hard workto not only meet international standards but toalso fight to have the use of carbon labelling byretailers in Europe, and to receive recognition forthe environmentally friendly farming methodsused by African farmers and acknowledgement ofthe positive contribution of horticulture toimproving the livelihoods of rural populations.

For policy-makers in developing countries, afurther solution would be to take a more proactiveapproach and introduce standards and labellingschemes themselves, pre-emptively meetingfuture regulations from developed countries. TheIndian carpet industry found the certificationprocess, validating that their goods were notproduced from child labour, in order to beaccepted by the European consumers, to be anexpensive one. Hence the Indian Governmentinterceded and launched a labelling scheme that

exporters could afford and importers would accept(Nanda and Ratna, 2010).

• Advance the DDA Work Programme on LabellingSchemes

The multilateral trading agenda has recognisedthe importance that labelling schemes are playingin global trade flows. While Paragraphs 31 and 32of the Doha Declaration Work Programme focuseson trade and the environment, Paragraph 32specifically instructs the WTO’s members ‘to giveparticular attention to the effects ofenvironmental measures on developing and leastdeveloped countries and to instances where theelimination or reduction of trade restrictions ordistortions would benefit trade, the environment,and development’. There is need for far-reachingdiscussions on how the WTO should address themarket restrictions faced on account of voluntaryenvironmental standards, including eco-labellingschemes, that may not be bound by the rules inthe TBT.

Conclusion

Producing goods and services by recognisedenvironmentally sustainable practices could earnproducers a premium price in export marketswhere consumers are willing to pay this premium.Growth in consumer demand in large emergingmarkets in the global South has not yet shown anaccompanying strong demand for eco-labelledproducts, but this could change given the recentefforts being made which were mentioned earlier.Branding opportunities offered by eco-labellingschemes can therefore assist with marketpenetration in an increasingly competitivemarketplace, but multiple schemes do createproblems for exporters of limited resources frompoor, small and vulnerable economies.

A possible solution to having multiple labellingschemes which confuse both consumers andproducers is to have a single national governmentscheme. Such a scheme would also have to takeinto consideration the impact of eco-labelling onmarket access for products originating from othercountries, as outlined in the WTO’s TBT Agreement.Another argument put forth, particularly byenvironmentalists, for having a national,compulsory scheme is that carbon labelling is notan effective tool of climate change mitigationpolicy, if not widely implemented.

The effects of carbon labels on agri-foodproducers from poor and vulnerable economiesIs

sue

95|

2012

|Pa

ge4

Issu

e95

|20

12|

Page

5

strongly depend on label and measurement designand are therefore difficult to predict. What is aprobable certainty is that if eco-labelling isperceived as an efficient tool to satisfy a consumerdemand for more environmentally friendlyproducts, then the design of labels will reflect the interests and technological biases of thedesigners. This may not favour the exportinginterests of small states and LDCs. As such, eco-labelling, even though for the most part currentlyvoluntary and privately implemented, can becoercive for many poor, small and vulnerablecountries which face significant challenges inreducing their dependence on a few exportcommodities, but whose exports are concentratedin specific markets where eco-labelling schemesare prevalent, such as the EU.

For many developing countries to effectivelyparticipate in the design of eco-labelling standards,it would probably be more cost-efficient to do so asregional criteria-setting entities, such as the AfricanOrganization for Standardization (ARSO). Because oftheir regional scope, these criteria-setting bodiesand organs advance the interests of geographicregions rather than specific countries. Theseregional bodies would require financial andtechnical assistance to design schemes that supporttheir own environmental objectives given their ownregional development strategies.

There are a number of important consequentialissues that are linked to standards and certificationschemes that exporters from poor and vulnerablecountries should seriously consider before joiningor designing such schemes. First, there should besystems of checks to ensure that the processes inthe scheme do contribute to the sustainableecological management of the resources that arebeing utilised. Second, for the certification schemeto be attractive to producers, it should createopportunities for commercial success and providebetter business opportunities than would beavailable in the absence of the scheme. This can bethrough better and more stable market access, byproviding a premium price for the product, and/orimproving productivity yields because of bettermanagement practices and business modelsintroduced by the scheme. Finally, the certificationscheme should contribute towards economicdevelopment of the communities which aredependent upon and are situated near the naturalresource; this could include investment in creatingdiverse economic activities and reducing thedependence on the natural resource.

References

ANEC (2012). ‘Environmental Assessment GoesAstray: A Critique of Environmental FootprintsMethodology and Its Ingredients’. A report by theEuropean Association for the Coordination ofConsumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)available athttp://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-ENV-2012-G-008final%20%283%29.pdf viewed 9 July 2012.

Gandhi, S. (2006). Disciplining VoluntaryEnvironmental Standards at the WTO: An IndianLegal Viewpoint. Indian Council for Research onInternational Economic Relations, Working PaperNo: 181.

Nanda, N and R Ratna (2010). Carbon Standards andCarbon Labelling: An Emerging Trade Concern.ARTNet Policy Brief No: 29.

Steering Committee of the State-of-KnowledgeAssessment of Standards and Certification (2012).Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations ofCertification. Washington, DC: RESOLVE, Inc.

WTO (2003). Report of the 5th Session of the WTOMinisterial Conference Cancun: Paragraphs 32 and33 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. WTOCommittee on Trade and the EnvironmentWT/CTE/8. 11 July 2003.

Issu

e95

|20

12|

Page

6

International Trade & Regional Co-operationSection at the Commonwealth Secretariat

This Trade Hot Topic is brought out by the International Trade and Regional Co-operation (ITRC) Section of

the Economic Affairs Division (EAD) of the Commonwealth Secretariat, which is the main intergovernmental

agency of the Commonwealth – an association of 54 independent states, comprising large and small,

developed and developing, landlocked and island economies – facilitating consultation and co-operation

among member governments and countries in the common interest of their peoples and in the promotion

of international consensus-building.

ITRC is entrusted with the responsibilities of undertaking policy-oriented research and analysis on trade and

development issues and providing informed inputs into the related discourses involving Commonwealth

members. The ITRC approach is to scan the trade and development landscape for areas where orthodox

approaches are ineffective or where there are public policy failures or gaps, and to seek heterodox approaches

to address those. Its work plan is flexible to enable quick response to emerging issues in the international

trading environment that impact particularly on two highly vulnerable Commonwealth constituencies – least

developed countries (LDCs) and small states.

Scope of ITRC Work

ITRC undertakes activities principally in three broadareas:

• It supports Commonwealth developing membersin their negotiation of multilateral and regionaltrade agreements that promote developmentfriendly outcomes, notably their economicgrowth through expanded trade.

• It conducts policy research and consultationsincrease understanding of the changing of theinternational trading environment and of policyoptions for successful adaptation.

• It contributes to the processes involving themultilateral and bilateral trade regimes thatadvance the more beneficial participation ofCommonwealth developing country members,particularly small states and LDCs.

ITRC Recent Activities

ITRC’s most recent activities focus on assisting memberstates in the WTO Doha Round and the EconomicPartnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations involvingthe African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) theEuropean Union (EU), undertaking analytical researchon a range of trade policy and development issues,and supporting workshops/dialogues for facilitatingconsensus-building on issues of Commonwealthmembers’ interest, exchange of ideas, anddisseminating results from informed analysis.

Selected Recent Meetings/Workshopssupported by ITRC

29-31 October 2012: Commonwealth InvestmentGuide and Promotion of the New Negotiator'sHandbook for Developing Countries held in Port ofSpain, Trinidad & Tobago

11-13 September 2012: South Asia Economic Summit(SAES V) held in Islamabad, Pakistan

7-8 September 2012: Istanbul Programme of Actionfor LDCs (2011-2020): LDC IV Monitor Expert GroupMeeting held in Dhaka, Bangladesh

3-4 September 2012: Strengthening Competitivenessof South Asia through Regional Supply Chains –consultation workshop on leather and Leatherproducts, held in Chennai, India

29-August 2012: A Commonwealth Roundtable withProf. Joseph Stiglitz on ‘Aid for Trade: Perspectives onProgress and Emerging Issues’ held in MarlboroughHouse, London

9-13 July 2012: A Briefing Session on CommonwealthSecretariat’s Work Programme on International Trade,24th WTO Geneva Week, held in Geneva, Switzerland

9-10 July 2012: Workshop on Trade Policy forCommonwealth Parliamentarians (African Region)held in Mahe, Seychelles

11-12 June 2012: Roundtable on Trade PolicyNegotiations and the Implementation Agenda held inBridgetown, Barbados

28-May 2012: Consultation workshop on ‘PotentialSupply Chains in Agriculture in South Asia’ held inDhaka, Bangladesh

24-25 May 2012: International Trade & Current GlobalChallenges for ACP held in Geneva, Switzerland

10-May 2012: Commonwealth Secretariat-FairtradeWorkshop on Promoting Supply Chains through FairTrade, held in Marlborough House, London

Issu

e95

|20

12|

Page

7

Commonwealth Secretariat. (2011). Potential SupplyChains in the Textiles and Clothing Sector in SouthAsia: An Exploratory Study, London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Macrory, P. and Stephenson, S. (2011). Making Trade inServices Supportive of Development in CommonwealthSmall and Low-income Countries, Economic Paper No.93, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Trepte, P. et al. (2011). Trade effects of Rules onProcurement for Commonwealth ACP Members,Economic Paper No. 92, London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Collier, P. (2011). Catching Up: What LDCs Can Do, andHow Others Can Help, London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Calì, M., Razzaque, M. A. and Te Velde, D. W. (2011).Effectiveness of Aid for Trade in Small and VulnerableEconomies, Economic Paper No. 91, London:Commonwealth Secretariat.

Calì, M with Kennan, J (2010). The Global FinancialCrisis and Trade Prospects in Small States, EconomicPaper, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Milner, C., Morrissey, O. and Zgovu, E. (2010). PolicyResponses to Trade Preference Erosion: Options forDeveloping Countries. London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Jones, E., Deere-Birkbeck, C. and Woods, N. (2009).Maneuvering at the Margins: Constraints Faced bySmall States in International Trade Negotiations.London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Razzaque, M. A. (ed) (2009). Trade, Migration andLabour Mobility. London: Cameron May.

Srinivasan, T N (2009). LDCs, Landlocked DevelopingCountries and Small States in the Global EconomicSystem. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Stevens, C et al. (2009). The CARIFORUM and PacificACP Economic Partnership Agreements: ChallengesAhead?, Economic Paper No. 87,London:Commonwealth Secretariat.

Winters, L A et al. (2009). An EU-India Free TradeAgreement: Reflections on the Implications forExcluded Countries. London: CommonwealthSecretariat.

Calì, Massimiliano and te Velde, Dirk Willem (2008).‘Towards a Quantitative Assessment of Aid for Trade’.Economic Paper, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Grynberg, Roman and Newton, Samantha (eds) (2008).Commodity Prices and Development. OxfordUniversityPress.

Milner, Chris (2008). Trading on Commonwealth Ties: AReview of the Structure of Commonwealth Trade andthe Scope for Developing Linkages and Trade in theCommonwealth. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Turner, L (2008). ‘Quantifying Aid for Trade: A CaseStudy of Tanzania’. Economic Paper, London:Commonwealth Secretariat.

Qalo, Veniana (ed) (2008). Bilateralism andDevelopment: Emerging Trade Patterns, London:Cameron May.

Grynberg, Roman and Bilal, Sanoussi (eds) (2007).Navigating New Waters: A Reader on ACP-EU TradeNegotiations, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Razzaque, Mohammad A and Laurent, Edwin (eds)(2007). Global Rice and Agricultural TradeLiberalisation: Poverty and Welfare Implications forSouth Asia, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

• Aid for trade in small states and Sub-Saharan Africa

• Trade and climate change issues for LDCs

• Rise of emerging developing countries andimplications for Sub-Saharan Africa and smallvulnerable economies (SVEs)

• Commonwealth Investment Framework Agreement

• Trade effects of Government Procurements ondeveloping countries

• Development issues under EPAs

• Development aspects of trade-related issues andtrade in services

• Regional trading arrangements in South Asia andtheir implications

• Trade in services issues for small states and low-income countries

• Fiscal implications of Pacific trading arrangements

• Issues in the context of the Fourth UN Conferenceon LDCs

• The development impact of the Doha Round onleast developed countries (LDCs)

• The impact on small vulnerable economies (SVEs) ofthe Doha negotiations on agriculture, non-agricultural market access (NAMA), trade in servicesand development issues

• Non-tariff barriers in South Asia and Sub-SaharanAfrica

• Textiles and clothing trade after the end of theMulti-fibre Arrangements

• Global value chains and the impact on growth indeveloping countries

• LDCs and SVEs in South-South trade

Selected Ongoing Policy Research Projects

Selected ITRC Publications

Issu

e95

|20

12|

Page

8

Subjects of the Previous TenIssues of the CommonwealthTrade Hot Topics Series

Issue 94: EU Proposal to End Preferences of 18African and Pacific States: An Assessment

Issue 93:Trade Solutions in a Global GreenEconomy: Small and VulnerableEconomies and the Rio+20 Conference

Issue 92:The Eighth Ministerial Conference of theWTO: A Forward Looking Agenda forDevelopment

Issue 91: EU Proposal to End Preferences of 18African and Pacific States: An Assessment

Issue 90:To Have or Not to Have a Round: WTO at Crossroads

Issue 89:Export Diversification and ClimateChange: Overcoming the EmergingConstraints

Issue 88:Road to Single Market and Economy:Issues to Consider

Issue 87:Supporting the Development of Trade inServices in Small States and Low-incomeCountries

Issue 86:Assessing the Effectiveness of Aid forTrade

Issue 85:Delivering on Development: A New Ten-Year Programme of Action for LDCs

ISSN: 2071-8527 (print) ISSN: 2071-9914 (online)

Series editor: Dr Mohammad A Razzaque

Produced by the Economic Affairs Division of theCommonwealth Secretariat

For further information or to contribute to the Series,please email m.razzaque@commonwealth.int

tradehot topics