Looking at our neighbours, China's export earning was $762 billion with 28% growth, surpassing Japan's export of $596 billion with only 5% growth. India, the dominant player in South Asian trade, earned $90 billion in 2005 with 19% growth. Besides, all the top countries have dominant shares in world trade of commercial services which was $2,415 billion in 2005, with an annual growth of 11%.

Let us have a look at the performance of the 50 LDCs, including Bangladesh, in the world trade surge. In 2004, LDCs as a group accounted for only 0.6% of world exports, amounting to $61.8 billion with 34% growth. The rough estimate of the LDCs' exports in 2005 shows that the growth decreased to 24%. Yet, as a group, the export growth has been significant.

This, however, masks considerable variance in the performance of individual LDCs in relative and absolute terms. The reality is that only a small number of LDCs have contributed to the expansion. Before identifying the excellent performers, we can classify the LDCs based on their major exportables.

There are three categories of LDCs:

• Five oil exporters -- Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Yemen, Sudan, and Chad.
• Eight exporters of manufactured goods -- Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Madagascar, Nepal, Lesotho, Haiti, and Laos. Most of them are ready-made garments exporters.
• The rest 37, including the new entrants, Benin and Senegal, are exporters of commodities.

In 2004, the oil exporting LDCs accounted for 47% of the total LDCs' exports. They experienced a growth rate of 52%. In contrast, the values for manufacturing exporters and commodity exporters were 19% and 22%, respectively. Eight LDCs from these two groups experienced negative growth rates. Over the last decade fuels have sharply increased their share in LDC merchandise export. In 2003 they accounted for 37% of the total value of all LDC exports. With the rising of oil price, this share is increasing. Clothing, where Bangladesh is in the second category, accounted for 19.9% of the total LDC exports.

In terms of market concentration, the EU and the US absorb the majority of LDC exports. In 1995 their share was almost 60%, but by 2004 this figure had dropped to 52%. However, the dramatic increase in LDC exports to China has resulted in the top three markets accounting for 69% of total exports.

Interestingly, six of the top ten markets are developing countries, and they accounted for 41% of total LDC exports in 2004. In 1995 this figure was 32%. In September, 2005 China declared to provide LDCs non-reciprocal market access. So China's share will be increasing further in the years to come. Besides China, Thailand and Chinese Taipei have also increased imports from LDCs. But India and South Korea have roughly maintained their share.

Although the prospects for improvement are getting brighter the overall trade performances of the LDCs have been quite poor. The diversity of export performance across countries in also significant. Two LDCs accounted for 36% of all LDC exports in 2004. Angola, a fuel exporter, contributed 23% of all LDC exports. And Bangladesh, which is predominantly a clothing exporter, accounted for 13% of LDC exports. To a significant degree the performance of these two countries determines the overall export performance of the LDCs as a group. In contrast, the 13 bottom-ranked LDCs, in terms of export value, account for less than one percent of total LDC exports.

The LDCs' merchandise exports have three distinct characteristics -- a narrow range of products, a lack of diversification of export markets and low technology content. These limitations have been aggravated due to non-compliance of the commitments of their stronger trading partners. Paragraph 42 of Ministerial Declaration of the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference, held in Doha in November 2001 states: "We commit ourselves to the objective of duty-free, quota-free market access for products originating from LDCs."

The paragraph 68(h) of the program of action for LDCs, which was endorsed at the third UN Conference on LDCs, states that: "Improving preferential market access for LDCs by working towards the objective of duty-free and quota-free market access for all LDCs' products. This will apply to the markets of developed countries."

Achieving duty-free and quota-free market access to developed countries for all products originating from LDCs has been an aspiration of the international community for some time. This objective has yet to be reached, despite the increased impetus arising from the Millennium Development Goals.

Instead, the LDCs' plea has been trimmed by the developed countries, like the US and Japan, at the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference held in Hong Kong in December 2005. Annex F of the Ministerial Declaration commits developed WTO members to allowing duty-free and quota-free market access for all products originating from all LDCs by 2008. It also states that members facing difficulty in achieving this objective must meet a target of a minimum 97% of all products, defined at the tariff line level.

Although WTO members are currently assessing the extent to which Annex F can be translated into substantial improvements in market access, it can be forecasted that it will not have any impact on the exports of Bangladesh, as the excluded 3% will cover most of tariff lines of Bangladesh exports, especially in the markets of the US and Japan.

Another concern of the LDCs is the preference erosion arising from reductions in Most-Favoured Nation tariff rates, which is less than one per cent in many developing countries. It reduces the competitiveness of the LDCs' products, and will lower productivity mainly due to dearth in technological know-how and managerial inefficiency.

A surge in Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) that allow the contracting parties to offer mutually duty-free access is also a great concern for LDCs, as more than half of the world trade is now conducted under RTAs. Some developing countries have argued for invigorating the global system of tariff preferences which envisages trade for preferences among developing countries, and reduces the scope for LDCs for preferential trade.

Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) frustrating market access opportunities for LDCs have been rising in the WTO since its inception in 1995, and also in other international forums. It has been acting as an unseen hurdle to obstruct LDCs' products from entering. LDCs do not have the ability to raise the specific issue at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

Core labour standards, environmental standards, sanitary measures, quality standards, etc have been imposed on LDC products. LDCs' agriculture export was the most prominent category in LDC exports up to 1995 as there were not many NTBs.

Since 1998, the share of agriculture has been sliding down and reached 17.4% in 2003. LDCs also face the challenge of developing supply capacity. The pledge of developed and developing countries to provide technical support for capacity building is not working with the spirit it is supposed to.

On the market access issue, according to 2003 data, 27.6% of total LDC exports remain dutiable. Developed countries account for 61% of this total, and accordingly developing countries account for the remaining 39%. Although LDCs have historically been dependent on preferential market access to developed country markets, and enjoyed duty-free access to Australia, Canada, and the EU (99.2%), Japan and the US maintain, respectively, 49.1% and 38.4% of LDCs imports dutiable.

Thirty-seven per cent of exports from Bangladesh to the US is dutiable. On the other hand, 93.3% of LDC exports to China, in 2003, entered duty-free. New measures by China, last year, will increase the total duty-free figure to 95.2%. India (4%) and South Korea (3%) still remain miserly in allowing LDCs duty-free access.

As a result, despite a growing world economy and significant advances in technology, 852 million people, mostly of LDCs, suffer from hunger and malnutrition, 1.1 billion people do not have access to clear drinking water, and every hour 1,200 children die from preventable diseases. Weaker economies are not reaping the potential benefits of globalization.

The poorest 40 percent of the world population, who live on less than $2 a day, account for five percent of global income. In contrast, the richest 10 percent, that is 620 million, account for 50 percent of global income. This shocking polarization of trade and wealth can only be stopped if the developed and developing countries take unilateral initiatives, like China, to provide expeditious mechanism for enhancing market access for LDC exports in their markets.

The writer is a trade analyst.