RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
27 April 2000
(00-1702)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
NOTE ON THE MEETINGS OF 3 FEBRUARY AND 21 MARCH 2000
Chair:  Ambassador Benedikt Jónsson (Iceland)
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the proposed agenda contained in document
WTO/AIR/1228/Rev.1.
2. The Chairman said that before going to Item B on the Agenda he wished to make a couple of
remarks, both as Chairman of the Sub-Committee, but also as Ambassador of Iceland.  The meeting of
the Sub-Committee was well timed, immediately following the informal meeting of the General
Council the previous day.  He therefore wished to recall and supported the call by theDirector-General for rapid progress in respect of the market access and capacity building package in
favour of the LDCs.  The Director-General had stated that he aimed to report back before the Easter
break on brining about agreement on a set of measures.  He had also said that these proposals were
never to be seen as a trade-off or leverage to gain agreement for a new round of negotiations.  The
Chairman said that he fully agreed with those words of the Director-General and hoped that theMembers of the WTO and of the Sub-Committee could achieve the market access and capacity
building package for LDCs rapidly.
B. FOLLOW-UP TO THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
(i) Oral report by the Secretariat on the Meeting of the Inter-Agency Working Group,
26 January 2000
3. The Chairman recalled that the Sub-Committee was committed to regular consideration of the
question of follow-up to the High-Level Meeting on LDCs and particularly of progress in the
Integrated Framework.  There were two sub-items on the Agenda relating to the Integrated
Framework.  The first was a report by the Secretariat on the previous week's meeting of the
Inter-Agency Working Group and the second was the Sub-Committee discussion on its possible
contribution to the review of the Integrated Framework by the six core Agencies.  He would give thefloor to Mr. Osakwe of the WTO Secretariat who would give the Sub-Committee an update on the
recently held meeting of the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) which he had chaired.
Mr. Osakwe had circulated copies of the agreed report of the Inter-Agency Working Group, which
were available in the room
1.  A letter from Mr. Dénis Bélisle, Executive Director of the International
Trade Centre, concerning the Integrated Framework had been made available to the Sub-Committeeby Mr. Bélisle and was available in the room.
                                                     
1 Subsequently issued as document WT/COMTD/LDC/8.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 2
4. Mr. Osakwe, highlighting the main issues in the report of the IAWG, said that the Group met
on 26 January 2000.  One of the primary items on the agenda was to undertake a preliminary
assessment of two round-tables that had recently taken place: one for the Gambia on
23 November 1999 and one for Bangladesh on 26 January 2000.  That brought the total number ofround-tables held to five.  The assessment of the six core Agencies was that the discipline imposed by
the Integrated Framework process was a good one.  The preparatory process for the holding of
round-tables was useful and, at least in the case of the Gambia and Bangladesh had been carried out in
a satisfactory manner.  The quality of the document ation prepared was high.  All stakeholders had
been involved to a large extent in both cases.  The level of domestic coordination amongst the various
Government ministries and departments involved had been good although there was scope for
improvement.  The degree of inter-agency coordination had also been good and had improveddramatically as a result of the learning experience of the six core Agencies.  There still remained a
"but" in the assessment by the Agencies, and that was that the outcome remained frustrating for the
LDCs as there had been no new pledges, no additional resources and no new money.  That was the
conclusion by the six core Agencies with respect to the two most recently held round-tables.
5. Mr. Osakwe went on to say that the six core Agencies had tried to identify systemic elements
from the two field reports of the two round-tables.  One such element was a cost-consideration.  LDCs
themselves had also said that they had  made a cost-benefit analysis of the holding of a trade-sector
round-table, taking account of the costs they were accumulating in preparing for the round-table.  The
problem was that the costs, at least in the short-term, exceeded the benefits.  LDCs spent a lot of
money from their meagre resources and expected some dividends at the round-table or shortlythereafter, but nothing had materialized thus far.  From a cost-perspective, one might say that the
LDCs had been rendered poorer by the process.  A second issue identified by the Inter-Agency
Working Group was the management of expectations.  The six core Agencies had been unanimous in
that there was a need to manage the expectations and possibly refine the objectives of the Integrated
Framework
2 as the different stakeholders had divergent and not always reconciliatory objectives with
the Integrated Framework.  Some saw the Integrated Framework as a technical assistance programme,
other as an effort towards trade-related capacity building and for some it was support for their national
industrial strategies.  There was therefore a need to manage expectations.  Another issue identified by
the Agencies was the need for an interactive relationship between the LDCs and the Agencies in the
setting of project priorities.  The Agencies had also emphasized the fact that the relationship between
the scheduling of round-tables and new resources being made available did not always take place in a
lock-step fashion.  There could be a lag.  It was not always clear if new resources could be expected atthe round-table, if they would be made available shortly thereafter and if that was something
predictable.  The six Agencies considered it important that the results of their analysis should be
funnelled into the review exercise.
6. Mr. Osakwe continued by saying that the seco nd item that the six Agencies had considered
was a status report by the World Bank regarding the ongoing review exercise.  In paragraph 14 of theprevious report by the six Agencies
3, the Agencies had agreed to a series of specific steps to be
followed in conducting the review.  One was that th e World Bank would write the initial draft of the
evaluation on behalf of the all the six core Agencies.  The World Bank had informed the other
Agencies that there would be a delay with respect to when the draft report would be ready.  The
six Agencies had initially expected to complete the review process by April 2000.  However, theynow expected the first draft by the World Bank by May 2000.  This had been noted by representatives
of all Agencies who had considered that such slippages do occur.  Nevertheless six Agencies had to
take into account the keen interest and the urgency the LDCs attached to the review.  He reminded
Members of the Sub-Committee that the elements and the criteria on the basis of which the review
                                                     
2As contained in document WT/LDC/HL/1 Rev.1.
3Contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/6.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 3
would be conducted were contained in paragraph 13 of the last report.4  At the Inter-Agency Meeting
a briefing had been requested from the WTO Secretariat regarding what the WTO would do following
the Seattle Ministerial Conference, the essence of the WTO Secretariat's own evaluation, and what
approach the Secretariat was pursuing.  The WTO Secretariat had provided the other Agencies withthat briefing.  In addition, the six Agencies had considered a proposal from the Administrative Unit
for a first regional round-table for the Pacific to include Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu
and Vanuatu.  The Agencies agreed in principle that having a regional round-table would bring value
added taking into account such factors as the size of the countries involved, their population, the fact
that these were dispersed island nations, and the consequent efforts needed to reap some advantages
of scale.  However, the Agencies had restrained themselves from initiating any process until a request
actually came from the five countries involved and a recommendation to that effect from theSouth Pacific Forum (the Forum Secretariat).  The issue would be considered at the next meeting of
the Inter-Agency Working Group in March 2000.
5
7. The Chairman said that that the report had highlighted the developments and problems of the
Integrated Framework process.  It seemed to him th at the experience of all five round-tables held so
far pointed in the same direction.  The LDCs concerned spent a lot of effort and money in preparingfor the round-tables.  The LDCs built up coordina tion within their Governments and between their
Governments and the private sectors.  The Agencies also improved their coordination and cooperation
in the process.  At pre-round-table meetings, expressions of good-will and interest from donors were
heard.  However, when it came to the bit, there had so far been few concrete results from the
round-table process, at least in terms of pledges.  There might be many reasons for that, some relatedto institutional processes in the LDCs concerned, others related to the preparedness of donors or
Agencies to make commitments at the round-tables and still others, at least in some cases, related to
the way in which major Agencies had so far mainstreamed trade-related issues.  However, he said that
he could well appreciate the frustration that some LDCs Governments, which had engaged themselves
at the highest level in drawing up coherent programmes and project proposals felt when round-tablesbrought little results.  Expressions of such frustration had been heard in the Sub-Committee and at the
Seattle Ministerial Meeting.  The Sub-Committee was not only committed to consider the progress of
the Integrated Framework, but should also be firmly committed to support concrete results of the
round-table process.
8. The representative of Madagascar said that after the failure of the Seattle Ministerial Meeting,
he hoped that the work in the Sub-Committee would lead to concrete and positive results for the
LDCs.  The Secretariat's report regarding the most recent meeting of the IAWG contained importantinformation regarding the implementation and follow-up of the Integrated Framework, especially
concerning the organization of round-tables.  At  the High-Level Meeting for LDCs in 1997, his
delegation had presented a needs-assessment of its trade-related technical assistance needs and the
six core Agencies had already presented their Integrated Responses to those needs.  His Government
was currently preparing for the holding of a trade-sector round-table and the Ministry of Trade hadalready held a pre round-table meeting in Antananarivo with the donors in order to present their
preparations for the organization of a round-table.  However, only the UNDP had responded to the
invitation and had shown interest in cooperating w ith the Ministry of Trade to organize such a
round-table, which had led to a certain disappointment at the level of the Authorities in Antananarivo.
His authorities had called on the Administrative Unit in September 1999 to request assistance in theorganization of the round-table.  The Ministry of Trade was currently preparing a draft document with
the help of an international expert recommended by the ITC who assisted his Government in
preparatory process for the holding of a round-table meeting.  His Government had found it necessary
to engage a national expert with good knowledge of the realities of Madagascar to assist the
                                                     
4Document WT/COMTD/LDC/6.
5 A Round Table is currently in preparation.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 4
international expert.  A preparatory meeting would be held in Antananarivo on 25 February 2000 with
the agreement of the Government for the official start of the round-table process followed by another
meeting towards the end of February to set up a st eering committee.  The preparations were thus well
under way and the holding of the round-table was scheduled for November 2000.  He had justreceived the ITC document of 11 January 2000 according to which the round-table in Antananarivo
had been postponed to December 2000 and his delegation wished to have some more information
regarding that.  His delegation had feared that the coordination between the Government, the private
sector, six core Agencies might not function proper ly, but he hoped it should.  He wished to inform
the Sub-Committee that the documentation for the Trade Policy Review of Madagascar was being
prepared.  In that context, his delegation wished  that the WTO Secretariat enhanced its technical
cooperation to his Government for the preparation of that documentation.
9. The Chairman said that note had been taken of his comments and that he would enquire into
why the round-table for Madagascar had been put off to a later date.  (See also paragraph 24 below.)
10. The representative of Zambia said that at the heart of the Integrated Framework was the
ownership principle.  That should be the driving force of the activities under the Integrated
Framework.  Its credibility was also dependent on that principle.  His delegation's understanding ofownership included that LDCs would have a say in the process, particularly concerning the review.
On 29 November 1999 in Seattle, LDC Ministers issued a declaration in which they called for an
independent review of the Integrated Framework.
6  That would be the best approach in light of the
experiences gained from the Integrated Framework so far.  An independent review was important and
would reinforce the principle of ownership.  Th e Inter-Agency report of 26 January 2000, a month or
two after the Seattle Ministerial Meeting, did not reflect the concerns of the 48 LDC Ministers as
stated in the earlier mentioned declaration.  He as ked what the review would review if it did not take
the LDC Ministers' concerns into account.  His de legation wished to know how those concerns would
be addressed.  Paragraph 6 of the Integrated Framework document7 which dealt with the review did
not tie Members in any way.  It did not say that LD Cs would be left out of the decision regarding the
review, nor did it say that the Agencies would deci de on the modalities of the review.  LDC Ministers
preferred the review to be undertaken by a team selected with the involvement of the LDCs.  There
was no other way of honouring the ownership principle than by making LDCs part of the review.  He
asked how the ownership principle would be honoured if the LDCs were excluded.  His delegation
had a second comment regarding the financing and the round-tables that had taken place so far.  The
main draw-back of these round-tables was financin g.  He asked the donor partners how they thought
financing could be made to work in the Integrated Framework.
11. The representative of the United States said that although her delegation had just received the
report of the Inter-Agency meeting, she had taken note of it.  She asked if there had been any reaction
from the six core Agencies to the suggested improvements identified in the paper of 25 January 2000.8
Several items in that paper reflected comments and suggestions made by Members in the course of themeetings of the Sub-Committee held last year on improvements to the Integrated Framework.  Someof these were addressed in the report, but a few were not.  Paragraph 18 related to who should be
made the lead-Agency to coordinate the overall process.  Her delegation had noted that while there
might be an agency in the LDC which could help prepare a round-table there was a concern about
having a central agency proceed with an overview of progress in the Integrated Framework for a
particular country.  If the six Agencies participating would sit together and listen to the LDCs readtheir needs-assessments, look at some of the projects mentioned and ask questions about them without
any follow-through, it would reduce the impact of th e Integrated Framework to a simple round-table
                                                     
6Issued as WTO document WT/L/343.
7As contained in WT/LDC/HL/1/Rev.1
8Document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 5
discussion.  The other key items identified from the Sub-Committee meetings of 1999 were
follow-through and implementation.  If money was being spent on the organization of round-tables
and the round-tables yielded no results her immediate reaction to the Inter-Agency meeting of the
previous week was to ask what the six core Agencies were going to do about it.  She asked what theAgencies had said about steps to be taken immediately as opposed to steps to keep evaluating the
Integrated Framework.
12. The representative of the United States said that she had listened with interest to the
comments made by the representative of Zambia.  It was clear that the issue of the process being
demand-driven had to be prominent in the discussion.  The pre round-table meetings she had attended
in 1999 had been interesting and impressive with respect to the preparation made by the recipient
countries and the work they had done with the Agencies which were helping them.  She had beenimpressed with the interest and the energy the recipien t countries put into it.  It was clear that there
was not a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the recipient countries.  Her delegation had made
suggestions in the form of a proposal for the Seattle Ministerial Conference together with
five developing countries (Zambia, Lesotho, Senegal, Bangladesh and Nigeria) and had received some
further endorsement from the Membership of the Ge neral Council in the preparatory process to take
on some of the those guidelines.  Even that proposal was merely a beginning and her delegation
expected that there would be a lot of work going into that as it was the focus of the Sub-Committee.
While her delegation had recommended extending the Integrated Framework to other developing
countries that might take advantage of the coordinated process for technical cooperation, it wished to
see measured, steady improvement in the Integrated Framework for the LDCs as those were thecountries for which it had been designed.  Her first question was thus if there was any reaction to
issue of how to coordinate a lead-agency.  The second issue she looked at was the mobilization of
funds as in paragraph 23 of document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18.  She asked what the reaction of the
six core Agencies had been to the assertion that no new pledges or projects resulted from the
round-tables.  In paragraph 18 it was suggested that the UNDP and the World Bank be thelead-agencies.  She asked how those Agencies felt about that.  Another question was how to deal with
the mobilization of funds.  Since 1999, her government had been working on its bilateral donor
element.  She would have further comments about that when the report itself was to be discussed.  She
had some questions about the report and she woul d also mention what her delegation would need as
feed-back to help them get into the bilateral don or element.  Her delegation was working on pledges
into the Integrated Framework.  However, her delegation did not wish to start pulling out funds and
then throwing them into a pot that was not coordinated and was being spent on round-tables that didnot yield results.  One of the other objectives her delegation was looking at was that, when it
examined the needs assessments prepared by the recipient countries, these countries should be able to
get an immediate reaction from her delegation to some of the projects proposed and there should be
some sort of relationship established at the round-table so that the recipient country would feel
confident that the donors were working with them a nd would steadily help provide assistance to carry
out some of the projects.  However, one of the comments she had with respect to document
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 was the lead-time that her delegation needed to get their own bilateral donor
agencies mobilized.
13. The Chairman said that document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 was a separate item on the
Agenda to which the Sub-Committee would come back during the meeting.
14. The representative of Burundi thanked UNCTAD for the report on the activities undertaken
under the Integrated Framework in Burundi.  However, only a few activities in favour of Burundi had
been undertaken and there seemed to be a considerable delay in meeting the needs of her country,
with the effect that its economics and financial systems had suffered.  As far as capacity building was
concerned, officials from Burundi had benefitted from a couple of regional seminars.  However, therewas a need for long-term seminars which would be more efficient.  The national institutions alreadyWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 6
established had to be further strengthened by the creation of adequate legislation in selected areas.
Out of the six core Agencies which had undertaken to cooperate to ensure the realization of projects
for Burundi, only the WTO had carried out certain activities, for example by providing computer
equipment.  There were still great needs in that area.  Her delegation therefore reiterated hergovernment's request to the six core Agencies which had agreed to assist her government with
technical cooperation under the Integrated Framework.  Her delegation was surprised to learn about
the postponement of the round-tables while LD Cs should prepare themselves for the third U.N.
Conference on LDCs which was to take place in th e first half of the year 2001.  Her delegation was
satisfied with the post of Coordinator that the Director-General had created to assist LDCs in the
preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference.   Taking into account the importance of future
negotiations, it would be desirable for the Director-General to maintain that post.
15. The representative of Bangladesh commented on paragraph 5 of the report, of the
Inter-Agency Meeting, in relation to the round-table for Bangladesh held on 21 January 2000.  He had
been in Dhaka at that time and he wished to share some of his personal experience of that round-table.
His government had been aware of the experience from the round-tables of Haiti, the Gambia and
Uganda.  Considering that those round-tables had not met all expectations, his government had beensomewhat more careful in preparing for its round-table in terms of what they expected to get out of it.
As a result, although his government had prepared detailed papers, and put lots of labour into
preparing for the round-table his government also kn ew that it was unlikely that pledges would be
made at the round-table meeting.  As a result, the participants at the Bangladesh round-table devoted
attention to discussions and brain-storming sessions and presentations of the multi-year programmeprepared for the round-table.  His delegation agreed to most of what was stated in paragraph 5(a)
to (h) of the report.  However, in sub-paragraph (b), the Inter-Agency Working Group noted that the
private sector had been involved in the Dhaka round-table as were the other stakeholders.  It was also
stated that there was scope for a further expansion of the spectrum of stakeholders.  He could ensure
that in Bangladesh, the private sector was more than a partner, and in fact was leading theGovernment in some areas.  His Government therefore considered that the private sector had been
fully taken on board in the preparations for the round-table.  He asked Members if they had any
specific recommendations regarding measures which his Government could take with regard to
further participation by the private sector and other stakeholders.  It was true, and stated in bold in the
report, that no actual pledges were made.  In some quarters of his country; in the press and in some
ministries not directly involved in the process, pledges had been expected; since no pledges were
made, there had been some disappointment.  Nevert heless, his Government knew that it was a long
process and that it would take more time before  maybe, somewhere down the road, the results would
be seen.  In sub-paragraph (e), the Inter-Agency Working Group stated that there was scope for
improvement at the level of domestic coordination.  His Government had done the best it could and
put a functioning coordination mechanism into place which had done good work.  However, his
delegation was open to further suggestions.  If the Inter-Agency Working Group could provide someguidelines on the improvements it wished to see, his Government would be willing to make
improvements.  The last part of the report correctly mentioned that no written report had yet been
circulated by the Government of Bangladesh.  Many Ministries had been involved, there had been
extensive participation from almost every sector of the Government and it had been a broadly
attended round-table meeting in general.  The Ministry of Commerce, which was the lead Ministry,had therefore found it necessary to consult its partners in the other ministries with various drafts
before the final recording of the meeting was made.  He hoped that by mid-February the final version,
reflecting his Government's position with regard to  the round-table meeting, would be available.  He
wished to reinforce what had been said by the representative of Zambia.
16. The representative of Bangladesh stated that, at the Seattle Ministerial Meeting, perhaps the
only meeting which had brought some results was the meeting of LDC Ministers held just before the
beginning of the WTO Ministerial Meeting.  LDC Ministers had been able to discuss in depth andWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 7
adopt a declaration which had been formally submitted to the Director-General.  In line with that
declaration, and in line with what was said in the declaration, his delegation found that an independent
assessment of the status of the Integrated Framework had become necessary.  His delegation
recommended that such an independent assessment was made, in parallel with the process and withoutstopping the process in any way.  He reco mmended that UNCTAD, which was one of the
intergovernmental organizations involved, could be entrusted with the job of such an independent
assessment.  UNCTAD had the mandate, the capacity and, he hoped, the will to undertake such a task.
That was his delegation's specific recommendation to the Sub-Committee.  He thanked the Chairman
for his initial remarks in which he had underlined and paraphrased the statements by the
Director-General with regard to the needs of the LDCs in the new millennium and his delegation
agreed with what had been said.  His delegation requested the Chairman and through the Chairman,the Sub-Committee, to see to it that in the year 2000, the needs of the LDCs with regard to the
minimum requirements of market access and capacity building were considered with the necessary
urgency in order for some ground to be covered.
17. The representative of Bangladesh went on to say that he wished to share his personal
experience of the Dhaka round-table.  It should not to be confused with the official view of hisGovernment.  He had worked in Geneva for three years, from the beginning of the Integrated
Framework and the High-Level Meeting for LDCs.  In attending the round-table in Dhaka he felt that
there was a difference in perception among the different players involved in the process.  The
Geneva-based representatives of the donor community fed their Governments with information which
was in turn fed to the Dhaka-based representatives of the donor agencies.  Nevertheless there seemedto be a mis-conception at the level of the representatives of the donor agencies in Dhaka.  If his
understanding was correct, the Singapore Ministerial Declaration had appealed for a separate,
immediate and fast-track programme for the LDCs which was to be trade-related and which was to
urgently address the marginalization of the LDCs which had arisen out of the introduction of the new
rules-based WTO trading system.  It recognized that the LDCs had not benefitted from the system.What he had felt was that it was a political, moral and legal statement intended to put in place a
separate package of immediate assistance to tackle marginalization.  What the officials in Dhaka felt
was quite different.  They considered it to be part of the usual bilateral or multilateral country
programmes in which they had been participating.  He feared a situation in which that misconception
was allowed to remain.  In such a case, the special fast-track position that the Integrated Framework
should have would be lost and it would become part  of the annual routine of country-programmes that
every bilateral donor had more or less been foll owing with every recipien t country in their own
respective system of aid-giving.  Unless that confusion was removed, the spirit of the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration and the aim of the minister s would be negated and LDCs would be left with
another package of assistance which was nothing but part of the usual procedure that every donor
country had been pursuing for a long time with every recipient in the field.  That misconception had to
be removed, immediately, strongly and fully for the spirit of the Integrated Framework to remainintact and its aims remain undiluted.
18. The representative of Canada said that, with  respect to the report from the Inter-Agency
meeting, it was encouraging that the LDCs had been well prepared, that all stakeholders had been
involved and that the degree of coordination had improved.  Her delegation agreed with the
Secretariat's assessment that there was scope for improvement.  The Integrated Framework had had amixed record of success and the outcomes of the round-table meetings remained frustrating for the
LDCs.  Nevertheless, it was important to underline a few other aspects of what the Integrated
Framework brought.  Several countries were currently in the phase of project identification and
consultations with donors.  The process of identification had produced greater clarity in LDCs' own
policies and some had noted that they had changed aspects of trade policy as a result of the process.In the meantime, her delegation realized that more could be done by donors to identify projects and
programmes into their own work programmes.  In terms of improvement of the IntegratedWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 8
Framework, her delegation welcomed the report of the 19th Meeting of the Inter-Agency Working
Group.  Her delegation would follow closely the work done on the ongoing review and its results.
The issue of funding had to be addressed.  She announced that her Government had recently
contributed Can$700,000 to the ITC through the "Agence Internationale de la Francophonie" insupport of the preparation of Integrated Framew ork round-tables in French-speaking LDCs.  Her
delegation hoped that that contribution would facilitate the efforts of certain French-speaking LDCs in
the Integrated Framework.
19. The representative of Tanzania re-emphasised the point her delegation had made at the last
Sub-Committee meeting before the Seattle Ministerial Meeting.  Tanzania had then suggested that an
independent team undertake the review of the Inte grated Framework.  Representatives of the LDCs
should be included in that team.  From the Seattle documentation she had understood that the LDCs'Ministers of Trade had met on 29 November 1999 an d in paragraph 24 of their declaration they
insisted that an independent review should take place.  As nothing to that effect seemed to have been
done her delegation wished to get clarification about how the review was going to be carried out.  Her
second point related to the full and effective implementation of the Integrated Framework.  The
Integrated Framework was one of the key elements which would help the LDCs integrate into themultilateral trading system.  Her delegation therefore insisted that the bilateral donors and the
Agencies come up with technical support for the LDCs for the Integrated Framework to progress.
20. The representative of the European Communities said that the introduction made by the
Chairman was timely and well phrased.  His dele gation had taken note of the added momentum that
the discussion on LDC market access and technical assistance had taken on after the SeattleMinisterial Conference.  His delegation was fully committed to ensure that there would be concrete
results on the table within a reasonable period of time.  The EC was willing to support the
Director-General and all delegations in working on that.  There was a link to the work being done in
the Sub-Committee.  The year 2000 was a year of evaluations, as both the Integrated Framework and
technical assistance in itself would be evaluated.  That was an important contribution towards doingsomething concrete as knowledge about what was being done was necessary for improvements.
Secondly, there was a time factor involved.  Calls for an independent review had been put forward by
the representatives of some LDCs, but he would not take a position on that.  However, he said that his
delegation was of the view that what was being done in the Sub-Committee was the only thing that
would be ready within a decent time frame for its results to be used.  It was an internal review which
had begun with document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 and there were several valuable points in the
report from the meeting of the Inter-Agency Working Group.  He would not take a position onwhether an independent review was needed at a late r stage, but he wished to point out that all were
able and, he thought, called upon to contribute our views at the current stage.  Many had already
begun to contribute experiences and they should be made use of.  The current calls for an independent
review could jeopardize the chances of having a substantive discussion.  The current priority should
be to make full use of the evidence available and try to factor this into concrete action.
21. The observer from Ethiopia said that his delegation fully shared the views, frustrations and
concerns expressed by the LDC representatives w ho had spoken before him.  His Government had
finalized the documentation for its round-table which had already been distributed to the six core
Agencies.  These preparations had been made at hi gh cost.  The national round-table for Ethiopia had
initially been scheduled to take place in December 1998.  It had since been rescheduled several timesand had not yet taken place.  The reason came mainly from problems related to one particular agency
which his Government had selected to be the lead Agency for its round-table in Addis Ababa.   The
experiences from the reports and from the Sub-Committee discussions had not given any incentives
for the LDCs in the pipeline to organize their na tional round-table meetings.  That further complicated
the implementation and the usefulness of the Integrated Framework.  It would be sad if the IntegratedFramework failed to produce the expected outcome.  That would be disastrous for the LDCs and itWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 9
would question, not only the Integrated Framework, but  also the values and utilities of international
initiatives for the benefit of the LDCs.  It was disappointing to notice the lack of progress, pointing to
the fact that the Integrated Framework was on the verge of collapse.  Rescuing it from such dangerous
trends would require concrete and bold action both from the six core Agencies, from the donors andfrom the recipient countries themselves.  Three factors had been mentioned by the Chairman as being
responsible for the dismal performance of the Integrated Framework.  The first factor was the problem
of mainstreaming the technical assistance activities of the six core Agencies, the second was lack of
willingness, perhaps lack of generosity, on the part of donors and the third was institutional problems.
He asked what problems at the national level, apar t from too little progress in terms of coordination
and too little seriousness towards the implementation of the Integrated Framework, the Agencies
envisaged as institutional problems that weakened the implementation of the Integrated Framework.He agreed with the first two points which were also recapitulations of the various reports the
Sub-Committee had been receiving.
22. The Chairman said that he thought that the questions raised needed further elaboration.  For it
to be clear what he had said he wished to repeat the three points which had been referred to.  He had
said that there might be several reasons for the lack of concrete results.  Some of them related to the
institutional process in the LDCs concerned, others related to the preparedness of donors or Agencies
to make commitments and still others, at least in some cases, related to the way in which major
Agencies had so far mainstreamed trade-related issues.
23. The representative of Japan said that the LDCs that had spoken had been frank about the
problems involved in the Integrated Framework.  Her delegation would be equally frank in addressing
the core problem of the Integrated Framework, which was the question of funding.  This question had
been somewhat blurred in the document;  it was possible that the Secretariat did not wish to agitate
the donor countries.  Paragraph 9 of document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 addressed the core problem
of the Integrated Framework and there was clearly a difference of perception between donor countries
and the recipient countries which had been well elaborated by the representative of Bangladesh.  Itwas painful for donor countries to see the disappointment of the LDCs after the round-tables had
taken place.  LDCs had prepared all documentation required, had involved all parties at the national
level, and had spent money on the preparation a nd organization of round-tables.  However, her
delegation was of the view that the Integrated Fr amework did not have as an objective to raise new
funding from the donor countries.  Her delegation rather viewed the purpose as coordination of the
international organizations involved in trade and development issues.  There was thus a problem of
perception between the donor countries and the recipient countries.  She suggested the Secretariat tourgently address that issue.  The origin of the Integrated Framework had to be considered and the
objectives possibly had to be re-identified or redefined.  In addition, as a result of a re-examination of
the objectives it might be necessary to restru cture the way the Integrated Framework was being
carried out.  Her delegation felt that the Integrated Framework could not be continued if the real core
problem of diverging perceptions of the objectives  of the Integrated Framework were not addressed.
24. The representative of Haiti said that he would be brief as most of the delegations which had
spoken before him had expressed the same concerns that his delegation had expressed earlier and that
his Minister had raised at the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  His delegation noted that even within
the Inter-Agency Working Group there seemed to be concern about what to do with the experiences
of the Integrated Framework and how to tackle the review.  His delegation noted that in paragraph 8
of the report of the meeting of the Inter-Agency Working Group,9 there was an attempt to find a
solution to that problem.  It was even suggested th at the round-tables scheduled or envisaged for the
first half of the year 2000 could be suspended until the completion of the on-going mandated review.
In addition, in paragraph 9, it seemed that the World Bank had already taken the initiative to
                                                     
9 Subsequently issued as document WT/COMTD/LDC/8.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 10
constitute an Advisory Committee comprising experienced evaluators, independent of the
World Bank, to manage the review.  However, his delegation felt uncomfortable as there appeared to
be diverging views even within the Sub-Committee.  One of the development partners of the LDCs
had expressed reservations regarding the evaluation, an evaluation which was of great importance tothe LDCs.  Even if the LDCs which had already prepared their round-tables wished them to
materialize immediately, his delegation was of the view that the necessary importance had to be
attached to the evaluation in order for improvements to be made and to avoid the Sub-Committee
having to listen to grievances at every meeting.  His delegation thanked the Government of Canada,
through the representative of Canada, for the positive gesture of contributing to the funds of the
"Agence pour la Francophonie" for assistance to the LDCs.  It was the type of concrete example that
his delegation wished to see more of within the WTO so that the Integrated Framework, which hadbeen launched to reduce the marginalization of the LDCs, could become effective.  Grand talk could
not continue without concrete action.  His delegation shared the concern expressed by the
representative of Bangladesh, Zambia and others.  Even if, in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18, the
Sub-Committee attempted to contribute to the review-process, he found that the conclusion to be
drawn from it was clear:  it was no longer possible to only stick to what had been defined, the realitywhich demanded action had to be taken into account.  In that context, he re-emphasised his
delegation's support for a review out of which the follow-up could be carried out in an efficient
manner.  The Integrated Framework had been launc hed already in October 1997 and almost nothing
had been achieved since.  Even if some work had been done, it had not been the work that was
demanded.  An evaluation was necessary and his delegation supported it.
25. The representative of Guinea said that at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee, her
delegation had had held high hopes regarding the organization of its round-table.  The round-table for
Guinea had initially been scheduled for September 1999.  However, it had been postponed to the first
quarter of 2000, according to the information given by the Secretariat at the last meeting of the
Sub-Committee.  She now noticed in the table of fu ture round-tables, that the round-table for Guinea
was to take place in May 2000 with the assistance of the World Bank and the UNDP.  She underlined
that it was evident that problems existed for the realization of the round-table for Guinea, both at the
national level and at the level of its partners.  At the national level, there were problems in the
preparation of the documentation to be presented to partners.  She asked the Secretariat to insist on
paragraph 9 of the report from the Inter-Agency meeting.  It was necessary to carry out an evaluation
of the round-tables already held.  It was not enoug h only to organize round-tables, one also had to
look at the results of those round-tables.  The declaration made by LDC Ministers in Seattle had to betaken into account.  The LDC Ministers had stressed market access for LDC exports and capacity
building.  Her delegation thanked the Government of Canada for its contribution for the organization
of trade-related round-tables in French-speaking LDCs.
26. The representative of the International Trade Centre said that as the representative of the ITC
had indicated at the meeting of the Sub-Committee in November 1999, he was pleased to inform the
Sub-Committee that the ITC had signed, on 10 January 2000, an agreement with the "Agence
Intergouvernemental de la Francophonie" aimed at assisting francophone LDCs to participate actively
in the Integrated Framework initiative.  Th e Agency was thereby contributing approximately
US$800,000 for assistance to those countries.  The Canadian contribution mentioned by the
representative of Canada was part of that amount.  A first group of six countries: Chad, Djibouti,Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania and Togo were benefitting from the technical support provided
under that programme in coordination with the six core Agencies of the Integrated Framework to
arrange for trade-related round-tables scheduled between the spring and the end of 2000.  Activities
funded under the ongoing project consisted of assist ance for the organization of Integrated Framework
launch-workshops, preparation of round-table documentation, including the multi-year programme oftechnical assistance, the holding of preparatory consultations with donors and logistical support for
the round-tables.  A second group of Francophone countries to be assisted by that project wasWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 11
presently being identified through consultations with the governments concerned.  Regarding the
round-table for Madagascar, he wished to clarify that the round-table was scheduled for
November 2000 and that the assistance to be provided included the services of an international and a
national consultant.
27. The Chairman said that he believed that the discussion had been useful and had given useful
ideas for further thought among Members and for the Sub-Committee's input to the review of the
Integrated Framework.
28. The representative of Lesotho said that sub-paragraph 8(e) of document
WT/COMTD/LDC/18 mentioned the creation of a post of coordinator for LDCs in the WTO
Secretariat.  As he was not aware of any announcement of such a post, he sought clarification from
the Secretariat on whether that post had been created.
29. The representative of United States said that she had asked two questions with respect to the
report of Mr. Osakwe and she hoped she would get answers to them before the Sub-Committee
proceeded to the next item on the Agenda.
30. The Chairman said that he was going to propose that the Inter-Agency Working Group keep
the Sub-Committee regularly informed of the progress of the review and of their discussions.  He
would later propose a date for the next meeting of the Sub-Committee which would take account of
the schedule of meetings of the Inter-Agency Working Group.
31. The representative of Zambia said that his delegation also had asked a question regarding an
independent review of the Integrated Framework.  His delegation felt that that was at the heart of
future work of the Integrated Framework and he therefore wished an answer from the Secretariat.
32. Mr. Osakwe said that approximately thirteen speakers had taken the floor on this issue,
ten questions had been posed and three observations had been made.  Members had been frank.  He
was not going to give any smart and evasive "Secretariat answers".  He was going to be equally frank
with Members and he would make an attempt to answer all questions specifically.  The principal
difficulty with the Integrated Framework process as it was currently functioning was with regard tonew resources and mobilization of funds. Another difficulty was that all stakeholders had to realize
what actually was provided for in the Integrated Framework document.
10   That was the text that
Ministers had agreed to.  Paragraph 5(j) of th at document contained an obligation imposed on the
six Agencies with regard to financing: "Each of the six agencies shall finance from its existing
resources - or, as necessary, shall seek additional fi nance with the active support of the least-developed
country concerned – for those trade-related technical assistance activities in the country programmes for
which it is responsible."  In other words, what the Agencies had been asked to do in the rules-basedsystem, was to conduct the Integrated Framework process within existing resources.  What the
Agencies had been told was that no new money would be made available on the basis of the legal duty
in the first sentence of that paragraph.  There was a second paragraph on financing which imposed no
legal duty or obligation.  It simply stated that: "Where resources additional to those currently available
for trade-related technical assistance activities are requ ired, they may be mobilised through bilateral and
multilateral channels, including from both traditional and non-traditional sources."  The word "shall"
was no longer used.  That was the first problem, the problem of funding.  All the Agencies were
bound to work within existing resources.  The In tegrated Framework document then said that if
additional resources were needed, they could be provided by going through traditional or other
channels.  That was how it had been worded.  Members then had to decide what should be done
                                                     
10Document WT/LDC/HL/1/Rev.1.
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 12
concretely.  A second difficulty which was characteristic to the WTO Secretariat was that when the
Integrated Framework process was launched, there was not a single extra penny made available.  It
had been difficult and had involved a lot of work to mobilize the necessary resources.  The other
Agencies had faced the same challenge.  The ownership principle had been raised by Zambia,Tanzania, Bangladesh and Haiti together with the paragraph of the Ministerial Declaration by the
Trade Ministers of LDCs which called for an independent evaluation to be undertaken.  That brought
him back to the rules-based system.  Paragraph 6 of the Integrated Framework document, which had
been adopted by Ministers, mandated the review.  It stated that the "operation of the Integrated
Framework will be reviewed by the six Agencies involved after two years in the light of experience",
taking into account the views of individual LDC Memb ers".  That general rule governed the review.
Paragraph 14 of the report of the Inter-Agency Meeting of 16-17 November 1999,
11 circulated at the
last Sub-Committee meeting, detailed the steps agreed by all six Agencies in unanimity within the
constraints of paragraph 6 of the Integrated Framework document.  Step one was for the World Bank
to provide an initial draft.  Secondly, that draft review would be sent from the World Bank to the
representatives of the six Agencies in the Inter-Agency Working Group for them to look at it.  The
members of the Inter-Agency Working Group would th en take the draft review to their respective
Agencies for an internal review, "top-down", in the six Agencies and the heads of the six Agencies
would later meet.  After the heads of all six core Agencies had met and agreed to the report it would
be put before the General Council.   In drafting its initial review for the Agencies, the World Bank
was, according to paragraph 14 of the report from the Inter-Agency Meeting of
16-17 November 1999, obliged to consult with the LDCs, with donors, and with all the Agencies.
33. Mr. Osakwe continued by saying that the repr esentative of the United States had asked what
immediate steps had to be taken by the six Agencies to correct some of the problems identified in the
paper WT/COMTD/LDC/18.  The six Agencies had not officially seen that document.  The decision
at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee had been that the views of Members would first be compiled
by the Secretariat.  That compilation would then be put before the Sub-Committee which was whatshould be done at the next sub-item on the Agenda of the ongoing meeting and the Members of the
Sub-Committee would then decide whether to send it to the Agencies or not.  Another question from
the representative of the United States related to how the six core Agencies coordinated.  Essentially
they contacted each other by telephone, e-mail, fax or by mail depending on the matter.  There were
sometimes problems when for example a representative of one of the Agencies might need a clearance
from his or her superior, who in turn needed clearance from the divisional chief etc.  There were some
bureaucratic obstacles and he thought he knew what  was suggested in the question and he agreed with
its motivation and assumptions.  The related question was what the six Agencies had done to address
some of the anomalies encountered.  The six Agencies had considered the suspension of the
round-tables scheduled for the near future until the completion of the on-going mandated review.  The
Agencies had weighed that proposal on its merits and demerits and had unanimously concluded that it
was better to allow the evaluation and the holding of round-tables to continue in parallel so that, in thereview process, lessons could be drawn from inco ming reports from round-tables held.  The decisive
point in the debate about whether to suspend the holding of round-tables or not had been the concern
that if the round-tables were suspended and then reviewed and then post-reviewed there would be a
greater disaster.  The six Agencies had decided to let the two processes continue in parallel, but
Members who were driving the process would also be able to see how the processes progressed and
determine what needed to be done.  He related that to the anxiety raised by the representative of
Bangladesh regarding the clash of the fast-track expectations with the pro-forma procedure for the
round-tables.  It was a Member-driven process, the Secretariat had to see what recommendations
Members made and if additional resources were made available.  It had to be remembered that even
the Integrated Framework operated under a mandate with certain rules.  Other Agencies than theWTO were involved in the Integrated Framework.  The Integrated Framework depended not only on
                                                     
11Document WT/COMTD/LDC/6.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 13
Members of the Sub-Committee, or the WTO Secretariat, but also on the governing bodies of the
other core Agencies and the Members of those Agencies.  The representative of Haiti had mentioned
the issue of divergences of views among Members.  That was true and in the Integrated Framework,
the only thing that could be achieved was what was possible on the basis of consensus.  If theIntegrated Framework was to be changed, all its stakeholders had to reach a consensus on how to
change it.
34. Mr. Osakwe went on to say that three cases of re-scheduling of round-tables had been cited
along with the frustration arising from it: Burundi, Ethiopia and Madagascar.  In the case of
Madagascar it was about a one-month slippage.  It was regrettable, but there were practical difficulties
which had to be resolved.  The Integrated Framework was a multilateral process which interacted with
domestic realities which was the case in Burundi and Ethiopia.  The Agencies were trying theirhardest to deal with that situation.  Regarding the proposal by the representative of Zambia and others
to request that an independent evaluation be undertaken and the proposal by the representative of
Bangladesh that UNCTAD could do it, it was an issue for Members to decide upon.  The six core
Agencies operated under the mandate of the existing Integrated Framework.  It should also be noted
that UNCTAD was one of the six core Agencies and was bound by the same constraints as the otherAgencies.  In addition, UNCTAD was already involved, together with the other five Agencies, in the
ongoing review.
35. The representative of Zambia said that paragraph 6 of the Integrated Framework document
did not tie Members, neither did it give modalities about the review.  The Integrated Framework had
been envisaged for the benefit of the LDCs.  When LDCs asked to participate in the review, they only
asked for the minimum.  He said that, as a delegate, he represented his Minister.  In the LDC
Ministerial Declaration from Seattle, his Minister had told him to remind the Agencies that the review
should be independent.  He did not see anything wrong in includin g the LDCs in the decision to carry
out a review.  The concerns of LDC Ministers could not be ignored, they had to be taken into account.
36. The representative of Japan said that her delegation was interested in knowing how the
resources used within the Integrated Framework had been mobilized, especially the resources used by
the six core Agencies.  She had attended almost all pre round-table meetings taking place in Geneva
and whenever her delegation had been asked to finance projects under the Integrated Framework she
had been curious about how the international orga nizations involved in the Integrated Framework
financed their activities.  She would be interested in having those details at any future meeting.  In
document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18, one point missing was that as a donor country her delegation
believed that the follow-up to the round-table meetings was crucial.  Her Government would beinterested in follow-up on a bilateral basis with the recipient countries.  The post round-table phase
could not be ignored, especially considering the problems of financing.  She confirmed that her
delegation was interested in the Integrated Framework and had already contributed to some projects.
However, the problem of diverging perceptions had to be overcome before the Integrated Framework
was taken any further.  That was not to suggest that the Integrated Framework be suspended but thecore problems had to be resolved.
37. The representative of Lesotho said that every time it was discussed how the Integrated
Framework could be improved, in the Sub-Committee and in other fora, the crucial question of
coordination within the WTO Secretariat had been raised.  Central to improving the Integrated
Framework was the issue of having, not only the financial resources, but also the human resourcesnecessary.  He had asked a question earlier which had not yet been answered, but as the Deputy
Director-General was present he might be able to  clarify if anything had been done.  The report
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 mentioned the creation of a post of least-developed country coordinator in
the WTO Secretariat and his delegation had not heard of any such post.  The only thing he knew was
that there had been a temporary arrangement in the run-up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  ItWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 14
had been clearly stated that that arrangement would expire by the Seattle Ministerial Conference as it
was meant to help prepare for that Conference.  It did not have anything to do with the future
continuation of the Integrated Framework.  He asked how the question of getting funding should be
tackled if not even the manpower to coordinate that  funding and ensure that the Integrated Framework
functioned was available.
38. The Deputy Director-General said that it was encouraging that Members cared about aspects
of the staff situation which the Secretariat faced.  It was true that if there was not sufficient staff for
the tasks to be carried out, the perfomance of the available staff would be affected as well.  With
respect to the post of coordinator for the LDCs, the management was looking into how the question
could be rapidly resolved.  Before coming to the meeting of the Sub-Committee he had met the
Director-General and they had discussed issues related to the LDCs.  He promised that by the nextmeeting of the Sub-Committee, the question raised by  the representative of Lesotho would have been
resolved and the Secretariat would inform Members accordingly.  It was an issue that the
Director-General cared about.  The management understood that in order for the coordination to
function somebody had to be responsible for it.
39. The representative of Zambia said that he wished to know what he should tell his minister
regarding the issue of an independent review.
40. The Sub-Committee took note of the statements made.
(ii) Sub-Committee Contribution to the Review by the six Agencies
41. The Chairman said that as delegations would recall, at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee
the Secretariat was requested to compile both concerns that had been raised and improvements that
had been suggested.  The idea was that such a compilation could serve as a draft for a possible
Sub-Committee contribution to the review of the Integrated Framework conducted by the six core
Agencies.  In response to that request, the Secretariat had issued document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18
entitled "Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Assistance to Least-Developed Countries:  The
Process to Date, Concerns and Suggested Improvemen ts".  In that document the Secretariat had made
an attempt to make an accessible compilation of delegations' views.  The document did not seek to
reproduce the exact language used by delegations or capture all the nuances in their statements, but
rather to compile and organize the ideas that the statements reflected.  The Secretariat had also taken
the liberty of excluding proposals made regarding issues that had already been dealt with.  The
purpose was to produce a useful draft document for delegations' input into the mandated review of the
Integrated Framework.  The note was divided into three sections:  the process to date; concerns and
problems raised; and suggested improvements.  He suggested that general remarks be made first andthat the Sub-Committee then proceed with comments section by section.  Finally, after all detailed
comments had been expressed by delegations he would ask the Sub-Committee whether the
document, or a revision of it, could go to the six core Agencies as consideration for their review.
42. The representative of the United States said that the report was a good one.  It reflected a lot
of the concerns raised by Members.  However, her delegation did have specific comments on which
clarification was needed.
43. The Chairman said that the first section related to "the process to date".  That section
contained information about and comments on how the process functioned until now and what
changes had been made along the way.
44. The representative of the European Communities said that paragraph 7 mentioned that
16 round-tables had been scheduled for the year 2000.  That seemed to correspond to the list at theWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 15
back of the ITC document.  He said that it seemed as though part of the expectations that could not be
fulfilled came from that sort of planning.  His delegation did not believe that it would be possible to
hold 16 round-tables during the course of the year given the past experience.  His delegations
suggested that, in official documents, a more careful approach should be taken when qualifying thenumber of round-tables to be held.
45. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had noted the comment in
paragraph 3 relating to the fact that several technical cooperation activities had been undertaken in the
LDCs by the core Agencies even without the holding of a round-table.  Her delegation submitted that
the round-tables were important to coordinate the assistance given by the six Agencies, but wished
more information regarding the technical assistance provided.  When her delegation had mentioned
this issue at the informal meeting of the Sub-Committee in July 1999, it had been referred to thewebsite of the Integrated Framework.
12  After having printed several needs-assessments she had still
felt depressed.  She had heard from the Secretariat that even the United States Agency for
International Development in one case may have responded to a project in a needs assessment.  The
United States was still working on internal coordination for the relevant parts of the Administration to
be aware of what the United States was doing to help the round-table process and the IntegratedFramework.  If there was a way to compile and id entify such information in a document, it would be
useful as it would provide delegations with a parameter for exactly what was being done.  It was
positive that several technical cooperation projects were being provided without having a round-table.
Her delegation was aware of the fact that lots had been happening before the round-tables, but it
would be good to have that information compiled so  that a comprehensive approach could be taken by
the recipient countries.  It could serve as a checklist for them regarding what projects were being
provided for them to get a better sense of progress.
46. The Chairman said that the second section related to the "concerns and problems raised" by
delegations.
47. The representative of Japan said that her earlier statement (paragraph 23) referred to the
document that the Committee was considering.  Her earlier comments should therefore be taken into
account, especially as paragraph 9 was concerned.
48. The representative of the United States said that, with respect to paragraph 9, her delegation
had appreciated the fact that the Secretariat had begun to hold informal pre round-table meetings with
bilateral donors.  She had earlier mentioned the proposal by her delegation and five other developing
countries in the Seattle process and one of the suggestions made in that proposal was a better
integration of bilateral donors in the round-table process.  In making that proposal her delegation hadbegun to mobilize internally to help better identify where it could be useful.  Her delegation would
need some more lead-time on round-tables.  That related to the concern raised by the representative of
the European Communities regarding the number of round-tables to be held and to plan better for
them.  She had had a couple of interesting experiences last year.  For the round-table in Haiti for
example, she had wished to ensure that that there would be a bilateral donor from the United States atthe table in Port-au-Prince.  Although the representative of Haiti in Geneva had provided her
expeditiously with all the information she needed, it  had been difficult for her to get it transmitted to
the right people in Port-au-Prince.  Finally, some representatives of the United States had essentially
walked across from where they were to get to the round-table, but she questioned how useful they
could have been if they had not taken the time to examine the documents.  That type of problem couldbe remedied if some more lead-time was provided fo r.  She realized that that would be to put yet
another burden on an already burdensome situation.  It  went back to the overall problem of reviewing
the Integrated Framework to see how participation could be made more efficient.  Phone-calls from
                                                     
12 http://www.ldcs.orgWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 16
her a couple of weeks before the round-table did unfortunately not provide enough time for the
technicians who know how to provide developm ent assistance and know how to examine the
particular technical issues raised in the need-assessments.
49. The representative of the European Communities said, with respect to paragraph 9, that
improvements should be concentrated on the aspects mentioned there.  Some improvements were
mentioned in paragraphs 20 and 21 which related to the preparation for and the follow-up to
round-tables.  There might also be scope for mentioning how to deal with the problem of diverging
perceptions in the improvements section.  Some preparatory clarification work might be necessary to
avoid some of the problems relating to diverging perceptions.  The emphasis should be on better
preparing and following up those issues.  Even if delegations legally did not have to provide funds it
would be good if all involved took the situation se riously and looked for ways and means to actually
meet some of the expectations.  Regarding paragraph 11, it was an understatement to say that there
had been various coordination difficulties within the Integrated Framework, they had been quite
serious.  He remembered one meeting at which one of the six core Agencies had proposed some
projects which the other Agencies had not even heard of.  His delegation would therefore not object to
reinforcing that paragraph.  Although the Integrated Framework process currently was on a good path,his delegation had had serious concerns at one st age.  Section D on "mainstreaming" was important.
It was presented as part of the problem in the current version of the document.  His delegation wished
to see it as part of the solution as well.   When money and mainstreaming were discussed, the other
Agencies had relatively much more money than the WTO.
50. The representative of Australia said that her delegation commended the progress that had
been made to date to enhance cooperation and coordination among the six core Agencies.  The highest
priority for her delegation was to ensure that appropriate action was agreed to which would further
enhance the capacity of the Integrated Framework to deliver substantial benefits to LDCs.  To that end
her delegation had several comments under the section of the document on "Suggested
Improvements".  Her delegation sought more detail on the "coordinator programme"/"developmentpartner" programme mentioned in paragraph 17.  Her delegation supported that idea in principle as it
could help address one of the key problems experi enced to date, i.e. weak institutional capacity in
LDCs, which made it difficult for them to get the Integrated Framework process moving.  At the same
time, the Integrated Framework process should re main demand-driven and the pace of the process
should ultimately be determined by the LDCs concerned.  Her delegation would raise the possibility
that the centrally recognized co-ordinator mentio ned in that paragraph might also appropriately be
involved in round-table follow-up since paragraph 15 of the document referred to lack of follow-up asan area of concern.  Her delegation supported what  was said in paragraph 18 regarding UNDP and the
World Bank as lead agencies given that UNDP and the World Bank had greater in-country
representation than any of the other agencies.  However, it would be important to ensure that the lead
agency fully coordinated with the centrally recognized coordinator mentioned in paragraph 17 where
they were not one and the same.  Unnecessary overlap, duplication and hence confusion had to beavoided, particularly in the lead up to the round-table.  With respect to paragraph 19 regarding
national consultants her delegation questioned whether enhanced opportunities for national
consultants would potentially deplete the public sector of skilled staff.  It might be more effective in
the long term to ensure enhanced capacity within the public sector.  Furthermore, she asked what, if
any, requirements would be imposed on consultants to ensure that local capacity building occurred.With respect to paragraph 25, regarding the extens ion of the Integrated Framework to non LDCs, her
delegation believed that it was more appropriate to wait until the Integrated Framework was
functioning more effectively before consideration was given to its possible extension.  Finally,
regarding paragraph 26 on the involvement of non-Integrated Framework partners, her delegation
agreed on the importance of involving other agencies and bilateral donors but all stakeholders had toavoid to be over ambitious in that regard as it might simply accentuate coordination problems.
However, where parties had something significant to add they should be in a position to participate.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 17
51. The representative of Japan said that with respect to paragraphs 20 and 24, her delegation
wished to emphasize the importance of donors being more involved in the Integrated Framework.
This was particularly important in the pre round-table phase.  Donors had only been informed, in the
form of the documentation for the round-table, a few weeks before the round-table meetings.  Donorswere then asked to contribute to the projects mentioned in the documents.  That created difficulties
inside the donor Governments in terms of examinin g the documents and consulting with the recipient
countries and preparing the money or finding time to mobilize money.  It was written in paragraph 20
but her delegation wished to see more emphasis of bilateral donors being informed well in advance.
In relation to paragraph 24, her delegation was of the view that donors could be more involved in the
preparation of a round-table or through consultations before the round-table in the course of coming
up with development projects.  It was important th at the donors were aware of what the recipient
countries were requesting.  In that context and as paragraph 18 suggested, the lead Agencies in the
field, the UNDP and the World Bank, might contribute to the integration of bilateral donors in the
preparation.  If those agencies could inform local representatives of the bilateral donors it would
facilitate the integration of bilateral donors into the Integrated Framework.  Concerning paragraph 25,
her delegation shared the view expressed by the representative of Australia.  It was not againstinvolving other developing countries in the Integr ated Framework in the future, but this was still
premature as the problems faced at this point had to be resolved first.  The same argument was valid
for paragraph 26 which suggested that other agencies could be involved in the Integrated Framework.
The issue of coordination and any other problems in the Integrated Framework had to be resolved
before considering the involvement of other international organizations.
52. The representative of the United States noted that most of the suggestions had been made by
her delegation in the document she had mentioned a few times before.  The issue of human resources
to coordinate the needs of the LDCs within the Secretariat, which had also been mentioned by the
representative of Lesotho, was important.  Her delegation looked forward to hearing from the Deputy
Director-General at the next meeting on any deve lopment that would come out of his consultations
with the Director-General on that matter.  In addition, her delegation was interested in hearing the
reaction of the six Agencies to the various suggestions, in particular the point she had raised before
concerning coordination and lead-agency.  The point raised by the representative of Australia
regarding paragraph 17 had also been in a proposal from her delegation where a "development
partner" had been suggested after listening to the statements of several LDCs.  She remembered
particular a statement by the representative of Burundi in which she had said that while her
government was faced with serious internal concerns and strife it still had to search in confusion forwho the general coordinator was in order to begin the process.  Something more than an in-country
co-ordinator was needed.  It should be an in-country co-ordinator who was there to guide and work
with the recipient country after the recipient countr y had identified its needs.  Assistance should be
given to get the process going and it had been specifically said in her delegation's proposal that
coordinator/development partners would be engaged in  follow-up.  That would be an integral factor of
interest to her delegation.  The question in paragraph 18 of the document dealt more with the
coordination of the six Agencies among themselves.  This idea had come from many of the Members,
not only from her delegation.  However, her delegation was interested in knowing how the
six Agencies viewed ways of improving internal coordination.  Her delegation had found in asking
questions that the different Agencies involved woul d say that the another was responsible for that and
it was responsible for this.  Some light should be shed on how that was going to be remedied.  With
respect to the section on suggestions, she added that the Sub-Committee had heard from the
representative of Zambia and a few other delegations about the declaration of the least-developed
country Ministers and her delegation was to examine that declaration and see where there could be
some parallelism between that declaration and proposals made.  From what she had heard it seemedsimilar to the introduction of her own delegation's proposal.  At the last informal meeting of the
General Council there had also been a mention from the floor of the Director-General taking up some
sort of review of that nature.  She said she wished  to highlight her delegation's interest in exploringWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 18
the idea.  The representative of the European Communities had said that the process of evaluation had
been initiated and that everything done could only fa cilitate whatever decision would eventually result
from the request made from Zambia concerning the Ministers' declaration.
53. The representative of Zambia supported what the United States had said on coordination and
on the need to link the declaration of LDC Minister s on the review with the proposal by the delegation
of the United States, Zambia and other African co-sponsoring countries.  He wished to draw attention
to paragraph 16 of document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18.  He did not know of any LDCs which did not
have an interest in financial resources as the paragraph indicated.  The last line stated that for some
LDCs, it might be the case that neither the financial resources nor the interest for a trade-related
round-table exist.  The latter part of the ongoing meeting had been spend on complaints regarding
finances and its impact on the round-tables.  The kind of statement contained in paragraph 16 couldgive a negative signal to donors.  With respect to paragraph 28 on the review of the Integrated
Framework of the same document, his delegation wished to add "ownership" to that paragraph.  As
had been stated earlier, ownership was an issue of importance to his delegation.
54. The representative of Bangladesh said that his delegation supported what had been said by the
representatives of Australia and Japan with regard to expansion of the Integrated Framework into new
areas as mentioned in paragraph 25.  It should currently be limited to the LDCs as it would lose its
focus should it be opened up to other countries as well.  The Integrated Framework should remain
confined to its original aim of assisting the LDCs in trade-related activities.
55. The representative of the European Communities said that a major effort could be made with
respect to paragraph 20.  His delegation supported what had been said by the representative of Japan.
It was difficult within the given time-frames to in terest people in the projects and to get something
useful done by the time the round-tables were held.  That was linked to the useful idea stated in
paragraph 21.  The follow-up mentioned in paragraph 24 was important.  However, it had to be
emphasized that the round-tables were not one-off events and, even if there was no money coming
forward at that precise date, that did not mean that all good ideas were lost and that, being a bit morepersistent, LDCs would not be able to find somebody to finance the projects.  It was possible that
there should be a better mechanism to ensure that what was put on the table at the round-table meeting
were kept on the table and carried forward in various bilateral discussions.  With regard to
paragraph 25 he was not sure if anybody had suggested that the Integrated Framework should be
extended to other developing countries.  It certainly was not his delegation.  His delegation had
submitted a contribution in the pre-Seattle Ministerial process which it said that some of the principles
of the Integrated Framework should be extended to  the broader questions of how technical assistance
should be delivered.  His delegation adhered to the view that, for the time being, it was enough to
tackle 48 LDCs.  His delegation was not of the view that that proposal had to appear on the list.
56. The representative of the United States said that her delegation, together with some others,
had made the proposal to extend the Integrated Framework to other developing countries on the
condition that there would be an evaluation of the existing programme and that benefits were assessedfor LDCs first.  If it required that the paragraph be  reworded, and perhaps it should be to make it clear
that the intention was to recognize that the Integrated Framework is a good idea and that after the
Integrated Framework has been improved and after so me measured results have been seen for LDCs it
could be extended to other developing countries interested in technical cooperation and capacity
building.  It was not a requirement that it had to be extended immediately.  It had to be examined
when and how it should be extended.  Her delegation wished to see the notion that it could be
extended to other countries reflected in the paper, but it had to be emphasized that improvements for
LDCs had to be seen first.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 19
57. The representative of UNCTAD took the floor to respond to the question posed by the
representative of the United States to the six Agencies with respect to paragraph 18 of document
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18.  UNCTAD was an Agency which had no field offices in the LDCs.  It
therefore supported the proposal that the UNDP and the World Bank assume the role of lead-agenciesin assisting LDCs prepare for their round-tables with the close involvement of the other Agencies.  In
the preparations for the Third UN Conference on LDCs for which UNCTAD was the focal point, both
the UNDP and the World Bank had been identified by the General Assembly as lead-agencies for
country-level preparations.
58. The Deputy Director-General said that he could confirm what had been said by the
representative of UNCTAD with respect to field representation.  The concept of round-tables was a
concept which had been invented by the UNDP.  The UNDP was, in most developing countries, theUnited Nations Agency representing the entire United Nations system.  When it came to organizing a
round-table with the assistance of the United Nations, it was the local UNDP office which would
assist in coordinating the effort.  The World Bank also had its role to play, but that was in another
forum of resource mobilization.  Most of the bilateral donors were represented in LDC capitals.  If an
LDC decided to organize a round-table with the as sistance of the United Nations Agencies, the donor
countries which were interested in participating and contributing to the financing of the sectors to be
treated at the round-table could receive the necessary information directly from the Government or the
supporting agencies.  In the field, preparations were carried out in close collaboration between the
LDC Government, the Agencies and representatives of the donor community in order for positive
responses to be made at the round-table to the documents prepared.  All stakeholders of theround-table process were thus closely involved in the preparation of the round-table.  The six core
Agencies unfortunately did not have all the competence required to fulfill the needs of the LDCs.  If
the priorities of the LDCs were to be respected, other United Nations Agencies, which had other
specific competence than the six Agencies, had to be  associated to the process.  With respect to a
possible extension of the Integrated Framework to other developing countries, he said that it would beeasy to accept, after a review of the benefits the Integrated Framework brought to the LDCs, to
progressively extend it to other developing countries.  To limit the Integrated Framework to only
cover the LDCs would penalize all developing countr ies.  However, an evaluation to identify all that
had not functioned was needed before taking such a decision in order to make the Integrated
Framework as efficient as possible.  With respect to the cooperation between the different
stakeholders of the Integrated Framework, he said that all Agencies and donors had their specificities
and all LDCs had their priorities.  The priorities  of each LDC Government would determine which
Agency would assume the leadership for the organi zation of its round-table.  The LDCs were all in
the same situation of poverty, but they did not all have problems, nor the same potential to develop
out of the LDC status.  Each LDC was different fr om the others but the Integrated Framework aimed
at helping the economic and social development of all LDCs.
59. The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat be asked to revise document
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/18 to take care of delegatio ns' concerns and incorporate the new ideas
expressed.  He would then transmit the document, on behalf of the Sub-Committee to the
six Agencies.  It was so agreed.
C. ASSISTANCE TO LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES FACING DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTING
WTO A GREEMENTS
60. The Chairman recalled that, at the Sub-Committee meeting on 28 September 1999 there had
been an Agenda Item on "Future Work" under which it had been proposed that the Secretariat should
consider document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/10 entitled "Implementation of WTO Agreements:  SurveyWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 20
of the Difficulties Faced by Least-Developed Countries and the Current Response" and the
discussions held on it and come up with suggest ions as to how LDCs could be assisted in
implementing WTO Agreements.  It had been suggested that a paper be produced in early 2000 for
consideration in the spring.  In response to that request, the Secretariat had recently issued documentWT/COMTD/LDC/W/19 entitled "Implementation of WTO Agreements:  Possible Assistance to
Least-Developed Countries".  In part, that docume nt explained the current assistance to help LDCs
implement WTO Agreements, and in that respect updated the previous document.  However, as was
requested, the Secretariat had made an attempt to go one step further and discuss possible additional
assistance to LDCs facing problems implementing WTO Agreements.  The Chairman was confident
that the document would trigger delegations' thoughts on how LDCs could be assisted in
implementing WTO Agreements.  He suggested that the Sub-Committee should hold an initialdiscussion on document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/19.  Howe ver, as the work ideally should lead to
something more than only a discussion in the Sub-Committee he also sought delegations' views on
how to take the issue of implementation by LDCs forw ard.  In that regard he wished to share his own
preliminary thoughts.  He had two ideas that delegations might wish to consider.
61. His first idea was that the work undertaken in the Sub-Committee could contribute to any
work on implementation to be undertaken by the Committee on Trade and Development.  The two
documents prepared for the Sub-Committee, i.e. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/10 on "Implementation of
WTO Agreements:  Survey of the Difficulties Faced by Least-Developed Countries and the Current
Response" and document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/19 on possible assistance to LDCs to implement
WTO Agreements, could be proposed as background documents for work on implementation in theCTD and reference could be made to Sub-Committee discussions on implementation.  In general, it
could be proposed that work on implementation in the CTD had as one component the difficulties
experienced by LDCs in implementing WTO Agreements.
62. The second idea was for the Sub-Committee to consider constructively ways of assisting
LDCs that faced difficulties in implementing WTO Agreements.  At a second stage – perhaps at thefollowing meeting of the Sub-Committee – delegations might look at recommendations for assistance
to LDCs that could go forward to the CTD, either to  be sent on to the General Council or as inputs to
the discussions in the CTD on WTO technical cooperation.  The two proposals:  to provide input to
work on implementation in the CTD and to forwar d recommendations, either to the General Council
through the CTD or to the CTD discussions on WTO technical cooperation, were not mutually
exclusive.  It would be possible to do both if Members so wished.  He sought Members' views on
document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/19 and on how to take  the work on implementation forward in the
Sub-Committee.
63. The representative of Bangladesh said that his delegation supported the idea expressed by the
Chairman that the work of the Sub-Committee should be an input into  the work of the CTD.
Bangladesh was willing to be positive about the operation of the Integrated Framework and, along
with other LDCs, to do its part to ensure that the Integrated Framework would lead to concrete
activities.  He said that Bangladesh had prepared extensive documentation covering multi-year
projects, and that this had been disseminated to the six core Agencies and donors.  Projects selected
were mainly in the sphere of trade-related capacity building, and emanated from ideas which the
six core Agencies had put forward to officials in Dhaka.  For the next two years, therefore, the focus
of Bangladesh in the WTO would be in the area of capacity-building.  He urged development partnersto initiate visible, concrete, and practical action in this area.
64. The representative of the European Communities said that her delegation had read with great
interest the ideas and proposals contained in the Secretariat document.  These merited further
discussion.  She cited the example of paragraph 27 which refered to the training of officials by means
of internships, and encouraged Members to cons ider the example of the Dutch government whichWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 21
provided a trust fund for the training of interns.  She said that the Integrated Framework had generated
some benefits, and that that it should be built-upon and improved, and noted that the Secretariat
document contained ideas and proposals that could be followed.  She also pointed to the benefits of
coordination with other organisations, notably in terms of the exchange of information, and, citing theexample of the WIPO/WTO Joint Initiative on Technical Cooperation, requested that the Secretariat
provide a progress report on coordination initiatives.  She said that the European Communities were
eager to improve the ability of LDCs to participate in the work of the WTO, and recalled that the EC
had contributed towards the establishment of an ACP Secretariat office in Geneva.  She concluded
that the main message of the document was that the delivery of technical assistance and
capacity-building measures needed to address concrete problems, and that it was necessary to identify
step-by-step the various implementation difficulties faced by individual countries across the differentWTO agreements, as this would contribute towards a focused use of available resources.
65. The representative of Japan said that Japan was aware of the various difficulties faced by
LDCs in implementing WTO agreements owing to th eir institutional, technical or human constraints.
Adequate technical assistance for developing countries, in particular LDCs, would facilitate the
implementation of WTO agreements and would help them to enjoy the benefits of the multilateral
trading system under the WTO.  In this regard, Japan had been providing technical assistance to
developing countries in general for the purposes of implementing WTO agreements, and she cited as
an example the contribution in 1999 of Sfr.109, 000 towards the funding of a seminar on developing
countries.  The Prime Minister of Japan had announced at UNCTAD X that Japan would support the
training of 2,500 officials from developing countries ov er the next five years to build capacity for the
implementation of WTO agreements.  Japan had also recently submitted to the WTO Secretariat for
circulation to all Members a paper on technical assistance for capacity-building related to the WTO.
The paper contained proposals for improving the efficiency of technical assistance provided to
developing countries, either by bilateral donors or through international organisations.  The paper
discussed the assessment of current technical assistance, whether provided on a bilateral ormultilateral basis; the establishment of a strategy for a future capacity building mechanism; better
utilisation of bilateral assistance; coordination am ongst donors; utilisation of a regional framework;
and the possibility of providing assistance to developing countries in formulating a national
programme for the implementation of WTO agreements, including legislation and
institution-building.  The paper also suggested organising a workshop to identify the needs of
developing countries and to enhance donor coordination.  The delegation of Japan hoped to discuss
the paper at a later date in an appropriate forum in the WTO.
66. Regarding the proposals made by the Chairman  on how to carry forward under the present
agenda item The representative of Japan said that she would need to await further instructions from
her capital, but that her preliminary commen t was that recommendations from the Sub-Committee
could be submitted to the General Council through the CTD.
67. The representative of Australia said the paper showed the range of technical assistance
activities undertaken by the WTO in favour of LDCs.  Australia endorsed the proposal that a coherent
approach to assistance should begin with a thorough analysis of problems faced at the level of each
LDC, and welcomed suggestions for a process to prepare such an approach.  Australia sought further
advice on the review of the Integrated Framework, and in particular if there had been further
developments in developing terms of reference for this review.  Australia was open to the provision oftechnical assistance via NGOs, as suggested in paragraph 29 of the Secretariat document, though this
should be given only if it were determined that NGOs had the appropriate expertise.  Australia were
also interested in a debate on the proposals outlined in paragraph 32 regarding the simplification of
WTO agreements, especially given their relevance to a broader discussion of developing country
concerns regarding the implementation of existing agreements.  Finally, Australia had noted thenumerous references made in the document to the difficulties faced by the WTO secretariat in meetingWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 22
the high demand for technical assistance, and appreciated any advice on measures taken to increase
the level of budgetary resources devoted to the provision of technical assistance.
68. The representative of Haiti said the Secretariat document accurately reflected the reality on
the ground in regard to the delivery of technical assist ance.  He said that Haiti had not yet been able to
take advantage of the whole range of WTO technical assistance, notably in the areas of Customs
Valuation and in the preparation of the Trade Policy Review which Haiti expected to undertake in
connection with the Secretariat later in 2000.  His delegation supported the European Communities in
the opening of an ACP Secretariat office, and thanked Japan for the technical assistance it had
pledged at Bangkok to strengthen the integration of  developing countries into the multilateral trading
system.  Regarding the point made by Australia that technical assistance should be based on a detailed
analysis of the individual needs of LDCs, the representative recalled that Haiti had completed itsNeeds Assessment by 1998, which had led to the organisation of the Round Table.  While the Needs
Assessment needed to be updated, the main issue wa s how to strengthen the response to those needs,
and this was a necessary focus of the work of the Sub-Committee.  His delegation supported the
review of the Integrated Framework, and hope d the review would give new impetus to its
implementation, given the concerns expressed that very few LDCs had held Round Table meetingsand the fact that some others had delayed the holding of their round-table meetings in the light of the
experience of those LDCs which had held such meetings.  The government of Haiti had taken things
firmly in hand to move forward with the implementation of the Integrated Framework;  what was now
required was donor support. Finally, he noted that the Secretariat Document had raised the issue of
debt relief.  While this did not fall under the mandate of the Sub-Committee, he requested that underthe coherence mandate, the WTO put the case for debt relief to the IMF and the World Bank, in view
of the link – albeit indirect – between debt and trade.
69.  The representative of Norway welcomed the Secretariat document.  Implementation and the
need for assistance were two key issues which the WT O urgently needed to address in the wake of the
Seattle Ministerial Conference.  The wide range of implementation difficulties listed in the documentand the LDCs' insignificant share of global trade indicat ed that better efforts were needed to integrate
the LDCs into the world economy and the multilateral trading system.  While some of the difficulties
listed in paragraph 3 of the document were clearly linked to the implementation of specific WTO
provisions, others were of a more general, developmental nature.  What the difficulties had in
common was the need for action at the domestic level in LDCs.  This was however one side of the
coin: action was also required by the international community.  Improved market access was an
essential ingredient, but so was improved trade-re lated technical assistance.  A compilation of all
WTO obligations, and the extent to which each LDC was in a position to meet its obligations within
existing time-frames, was essential.  For those LDCs where gaps were identified between obligations
and implementation, the compilation needed to be supplemented with an outline of the assistance
needed to fulfill WTO obligations.  For such an enterprise to be meaningful, sufficient access to
financial resources was a prerequisite.  The best and most predictable way of securing regular andstable access to financial resources for technical assistance activities was to make such activities part
of the regular budget of the WTO.  She recalled in this context the proposal submitted by Norway and
others prior to Seattle.  The inclusion of technical assistance in the regular budget would not preclude
voluntary contributions, but would reduce the heavy reliance on ad hoc financing.  She added that
technical assistance in the framework of the regu lar budget should be focused on the implementation
of WTO agreements and Ministerial Decisions, while technical assistance in the context of the
Integrated Framework was of a general, more capa city-building, nature.  Her delegation agreed that
technical assistance should be demand driven, and that LDCs should own the process.  These were
both features of the Integrated Framework.  Fee dback from both the Secretariat and those LDCs in
which Round Tables had been held under the Integr ated Framework made it clear that the lack of
adequate funding was a fundamental problem slow ing down the process.  The WTO could not and
should not be the only organisation providing trade-related technical assistance.  In addition toWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 23
improved cooperation with other core Agencies of the Integrated Framework, Norway also supported
cooperation in matter of technical assistance with organisations such as WIPO, the World Customs
Organisation, and International Standardisation Organisations refered to in the SPS Agreement.  In
response to the questions asked in paragraph 21, Norway was of the view that the WTO Secretariatshould do more of the same, and that any re-prioritisation should be based on the needs of the LDCs.
A more active participation of other bilateral and multilateral partners needed to be encouraged, in
particular through the Integrated Framework.  Norway expected that the mandated review of the
Integrated Framework would result in concrete su ggestions for improvements, and looked forward to
the LDCs' own assessment of the present situati on and their recommendations regarding the further
efforts and improvements that were needed in the future.  Regarding the proposals made by the
Chairman on how to take work under this rubric forward, her delegation was of the view that the
Sub-Committee should provide an input into the discussions of the CTD on implementation and
assistance.
70. The representative of Canada said that the Secretariat document provided a good review of
the state of WTO technical assistance, and raised as many questions as it addressed.  Canada's concern
was that the paper be given due attention, alongside the reports of the Integrated Framework ReviewTask Force and other papers related to trade-related technical assistance.  Her delegation suggested
that the paper be tabled as a discussion paper at the expected one or two day meeting on trade-related
technical assistance, at which the Integrated Framework Review Task Force report on the Integrated
Framework should be tabled.  Canada had no specific instructions on the issues raised in the paper, in
part because the parameters for reviewing the topic of  trade-related technical assistance were stillunder discussion.  Canada maintained its position that technical assistance activities should be part of
the assessed contributions of the WTO.  Canada were also of the view that the agencies involved in
the Integrated Framework should incorporate re quests made by LDCs in their existing work
programmes as far as was possible, though the need for further funding and a thorough evaluation of
the Integrated Framework was acknowledged.  Canada also supported the ideas expressed by theChairman on possible work to be done by the Sub-Committee on technical assistance in assisting
LDCs in implementing WTO agreements.
71. The representative of the United States said the Secretariat document described the technical
activities conducted by the secretariat in implementing WTO agreements, including seminars, trade
policy training courses, reference centres and so forth.  The report suggested that a reinforced and
integrated approach to Secretariat activities would be invaluable.  The United States were interested in
knowing how the Secretariat was organised internally with respect to technical assistance, with a viewto yielding improved and more efficient technical assistance.  The United States were also interested
in Secretariat progress in developing a plan to evaluate technical assistance activities.  It was
understood that many Secretariat divisions participated in technical assistance activities, and that total
Secretariat resources devoted to these activities, including staff time in line divisions, amounted to
Sfr20 million annually, not including the WTO contribution to the ITC.  The United States weretherefore interested in knowin g how activities were coordinated, sequenced and followed up, what
relationships existed between trade policy courses and other activities, and how the Secretariat
managed its input into the Integrated Framework.  Specifically regarding trade policy courses, the
United States wished to know if modules for training trainers were included in such courses and, in
general, what follow-up existed to these courses.  Finally, the representative of the United States said
he would refer the two proposals made by the Chairman to his capital.
72. The representative of New Zealand said the Secretariat document contained a number of
excellent ideas which deserved further consideration, noting particularly, in part 3, the proposals for
prioritising technical assistance and providing foll ow-up.  The idea of enhancing the participation of
LDCs in WTO work was also an integral part of assistance to LDCs in implementing WTOagreements.  Her delegation believed that the two proposals made by the Chairman could helpfully beWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 24
pursued together, and that it was useful to link  Sub-Committee work on implementation firmly with
work in other WTO bodies, in particular the Committee on Trade and Development.  A number of the
issues raised in the paper, such as those in paragraph 32, were being discussed in the broader context
of the debate on implementation.  New Zealand were of the view that both internal coherence withinthe WTO and coherence between the WTO and other multilateral institutions were important.  Her
delegation had noted the questions raised by Australia and the United States, and looked forward to
hearing the Secretariat's response to these questions.  Her delegation looked forward to receiving a
copy of the Japanese paper on technical assistance, as well as to further discussions on improving the
delivery of technical assistance.
73. The representative of Switzerland said that the Secretariat document contained many points
which could be discussed in further detail.  Paragraph 12 pointed to the need for strengthened
coordination between various courses and missions, which was a proposal worthy of support.
Strengthened coherence was also needed with other actors – both multilateral organisations and
bilateral donors – in the field of trade-related technical assistance.  Paragraph 19 reflected a very
concrete problem, namely the difficulties experienced by LDCs in maintaining in operation modern
data processing facilities.  The lack of funding for technical support in this area needed to be treatedas a priority concern.  He assumed that the question of continued technical support was taken into
account when data processing facilities were set up, and emphasised that Switzerland attached great
importance to the dissemination of information through the Internet so as to enable LDCs to be kept
up-to-date regarding their rights and obligations.  Switzerland also strongly supported and insisted on
the approach described in paragraph 20 of the Secretariat document, namely that a thorough analysisof implementation difficulties at the level of each LDC was required before concrete action could be
taken.  Switzerland agreed with Paragraph 22, where the negative impact of the failure to achieve a
more stable budgetary basis for WTO technical assistance was noted.  Switzerland would continue to
support any solution that would bring a positive conclusion to this issue, along the lines of the
proposal refered to by the representative of Norway, which was cosponsored by Switzerland.  Hisdelegation had studied closely the proposals in paragraph 32 which dealt with the simplification of the
implementation of the WTO Agreements, and were of the view that some of these proposals needed
further assessment.  Switzerland supported the argument made in paragraph 35 that issues connected
with debt relief could be taken up with the IMF and the World Bank under the coherence mandate.
Regarding the proposals made by the Chairman on taking forward work under this rubric, his
delegation shared the view that these were not mutually exclusive.  Proposals from the
Sub-Committee should be refered to the Committee on Trade and Development, in order to ensure acommon approach throughout the organisation, on issues of implementation and special and
differential treatment that were also due to be handled in the CTD.  Once the outcome of discussions
in the CTD was clear, it would be possible to work out more in depth the specifics relating to LDCs.
74. The representative of Uganda, referring to paragraph 37 on enhancing the participation of
LDCs in the work of the WTO, said that one practic al starting-point lay in the scheduling of meetings
in a manner such as to avoid timetable clashes between meetings of interest to LDCs.  His delegation
took note of recommendations to reassess the allocatio n of resources to technical assistance, and that
funding from bi-lateral aid and donors could also be  useful.  His delegation noted that the question of
coherence had been raised, and said that the Integrated Framework presented a test case of whether
the WTO and other organisations were serious about coherence.  He said that the IntegratedFramework had been useful in bringing to the attention of agencies the importance of  trade-related
technical assistance.  There was still a need for agencies to integrate at the country level the various
technical assistance and development projects.  The government of Uganda had organised its Round
Table in the margins of the World Bank Consultativ e Group meeting, in order to ensure that the
World Bank and other multilateral lending agencies incorporated trade-related technical assistanceinto country Policy Framework Papers.  However, experience to date  had not revealed any great
impact at the operational level.  In the context of the Round Table meeting, the government of UgandaWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 25
had prepared a paper which identified projects that needed to be funded, and in some cases donor
support at both the bi-lateral and multilateral level had been found.  Still on the subject of coherence,
the representative of Uganda said that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism was useful in bringing the
importance of trade-related technical assistance to th e attention of different ministries in Uganda.  He
said the next step was to establish a follow-up mechanism to address the gaps which had been
identified, adding that the Sub-Committee had an important role to play in this respect.
75. The representative of Uganda said that Reference Centres, mentioned in paragraph 19, had
been of great value in enhancing access to docume nts, and said that the problem of maintaining
operational data processing systems needed to be addressed.  He said the government of Uganda
welcomed the review of the Integrated Framewor k mentioned in paragraph 24, and added that LDC
governments looked forward to being involved in th e review process.  With regard to paragraph 29,
Uganda were of the view that NGOs were able to play a very useful role in providing assistance, and
in some cases in making a critical appraisal of both gaps in capacity and problems related to the
implementation of WTO agreements.  He said the WTO should work closely with NGOs, adding that
NGOs had a useful input to make which was unaffecte d by the particular interests of organisations
and governments.  He took note of the point made in paragraph 30 relating to the retention of trainedofficials, and added that this problem reflected the fact that remuneration for government officials
often could not compete with that offered by the private sector.  Specifically regarding the
implementation of WTO agreements, he recalled that his delegation had submitted a number of
proposals in the preparatory process for Seattle, and said that many notification requirements could be
simplified without any major cost.
76. The representative of Guinea said that the Integrated Framework was central to WTO
technical assistance activities in favour of LDCs.  In the context of the Round Table preparatory
process, the government of Guinea had submitted its Needs Assessment in 1997, and had received the
Integrated Response of the six core Agencies, as recorded in WT/COMTD/IF/2.  A report on Foreign
Direct Investment had been prepared in 1998.  Th e delegation of Guinea had also presented to the
informal Round Table held in February 1999 a document which set out a multi-year programme for
trade-related technical assistance.  Following the informal meeting, the government of Guinea decided
to organise a Round Table on the private sector in Guinea, which would include one principal  chapter
related to trade.  The Round Table was to take place in the context of the Framework Programme for
Private Sector Development developed in conjunction with the UNDP and the UNIDO.  The
government contact person had met with representatives of the six core Agencies and various
consultations had been held with the private sector  in preparation for the Round table meeting.  A
seminar was to be held in April to obtain feedback from the private sector and from donors on the
draft documentation prepared for the Round Table.  A further informal Round Table would be held in
June 2000 in Geneva.
77. The Director of the Technical Cooperation Division noted that a number of questions had
been raised in connection with technical assistance activities.  He recalled that the Technical
Cooperation Division was responsible not only for LDCs, but developing countries in general,
including countries negotiating their accession to the WTO, and on occasion for developed countries.
In view of the universal belief that technical assistance needed to be demand oriented rather than
supply-oriented, it was important to ensure that th e resources were available to meet the demands of
individual countries.  But as this was this not the case, the delivery of technical assistance had become"ad hoc oriented".  The regular budget for technical assistance was Sfr.741,000, which in 1999 was
supplemented by donor contributions to raise the total funds available for technical assistance to
Sfr.7.5 million.  Currently, budgeted resources for the year 2000 had been virtually exhausted, though
some more extra-budgetary contributions were expected.  When requests for natural technical
assistance could not be met, the alternative of a regional seminar was sometimes suggested.  Thecorrect approach was to have regional seminars for c ountries with little familiarity with the WTO, andWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 26
to progress to national seminars, and finally workshops and technical missions as awareness of
specific needs increased.  The lack of a regular budget meant that such sequenced planning was
impossible.  With a few countries, which could af ford to pay for the technical assistance provided,
three year programmes had been established, which set out a structured sequence of programmes.  IfWTO technical assistance was to be focused, practical and result-oriented, such a structured format of
assistance was necessary for all countries, and this was not possible given existing resources.  The
WTO resources for technical assistance did not match those of UNCTAD or WIPO.  The WTO did
however draw on the expertise of other organisations.  For instance, assistance for the implementation
of the  Customs Valuation Agreement drew on the expertise of the World Customs Organisation, and
there was also close collaboration with UNCTAD with regard to ASYCUDA (Automated  System for
Customs Data).  Close collaboration with other institutions was required because the implementationof the Customs Valuation Agreement required more than simply an explanation of the functioning of
the agreement.  With regard to TRIPS, close collaboration was undertaken with WIPO.
78. The Director of the Technical Cooperation Division said that his Division would be tabling
two documents to the Committee on Trade and Deve lopment.  The first would be a review of
technical assistance activities for 1999, and the second a document on the evaluation of technicalassistance activities using the guidelines set by the CTD in 1999.  A consultant had been hired, thanks
to funds provided by the United Kingdom, to develop guidelines for the qualitative evaluation of
technical assistance.  Both these documents would provide the occasion for developing countries to
express their assessment of the impact of technical assistance received, for donors to be informed
regarding the utilisation of funds provided, and for the Technical Cooperation Division and otherWTO Divisions to provide an input to members on their assessment of technical assistance activities.
It was also important that, as recommended by  the CTD in 1999, a day of reflection on WTO
technical cooperation be held, preferably after the two reports were tabled.   The aim of the documents
was to further  improve the efficiency of technical assistance provided by the WTO, though it needed
to be borne in mind that present inefficiencies were largely due to the lack of adequate financingwhich hampered the appropriate planning and structuring of activities.  The number of missions
undertaken by the WTO Secretariat had risen from 79 in 1995 to 380 in 1999, more than 50 per cent
of which were carried out by divisions other than the Technical Cooperation Division.  Demand
increased as the number of members increased, and as more countries entered accession negotiations.
79. Mr. Osakwe informed members that the review of the Integrated Framework was one of the
top priorities of the Director General, who had b een consulting with individual LDCs on an individual
basis.  He had specifically consulted the five countries which had held Round Tables to date, in orderto identify problems and concerns stemming from their national experience of Round Tables.  The
Director-General had also met bi-laterally with heads of other core Agencies.  Regarding the elements
of the Integrated Framework, the representatives of the six Agencies had identified an illustrative list
of elements that could be part of the review process (see WT/COMTD/LDC/6, paragraph 13).  These
elements were:  (i) identifying perceptions of the objectives of the IF and views of involved parties;(ii) evaluation of the IF with regard in particular to:  (a) process of the IF; (b) output;
(c) implementation of integrated responses; (d) pledges, indications of assistance, new money;
(iii) impact of the IF:  relevance and role of trade in overall development strategy of LDCs;
(vi) review of trade-related assistance: institution-building, building human and enterprise capacity
and infrastructure; (v) policy considerations: main streaming, enlargement of the IF, the trade and
macro-economic policy environment; (vi) the administration of the IF; and, (vii) recommendations for
the future.  Regarding the steps in the review proc ess, the six core Agencies had agreed that the
World Bank would draft the initial review, which would be ready by mid-May.  A meeting of the
Inter-Agency Working Group was to be held on 1 and 2 June, and the draft would then be reviewed
internally by each core Agency.  Following this, a meeting of the heads of the six core Agencies wasto be held, tentatively in early July to review the draft.  The last step would be to circulate the report
to the relevant bodies in each institution.  The World Bank team responsible for the draft review wasWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 27
expected to visit Geneva from 17 to 21 April to consult with LDCs, donors and all relevant
stakeholders.  Regarding the management by the secretariat of inputs into the review process, the
document WT/COMTD/W/18 had formed the basis of discussion in the Sub-Committee.  On the basis
of input by members, the document had been re-issued as WT/COMTD/LDC/7, and communicated to
the Inter-Agency Working Group and the Heads of the six core Agencies.  Regarding the handling of
the review process by the WTO as an agency, the Director General was considering ideas set out by
different areas of the Secretariat, notably the Trade and Finance Division, the Technical Cooperation
Division, the Development Division, and the Coordi nator for Least Developed Countries.  The
Director General's decisions regarding institutional coherence would be reported to the
Sub-Committee.  Regarding the question of LDC involvement in the review process, the Director
General had held numerous consultations with LDCs, and the Secretariat would be compiling adocument on this matter to be communicated to the World Bank.  Members were encouraged to
communicate their views on the review process to the secretariat on a bilateral basis, and indeed
several members – such as France, Japan and Canada -  had already done so.
80. The Chairman thanked members for the extensive discussion, noting that a number of useful
comments and suggestions had been made, and that questions had also been raised to which the
Sub-Committee would need to return at a later date.  It was definitely worthwhile to continue the
Sub-Committee's treatment of the issue of implementation at the  next meeting.  He suggested that the
Sub-Committee take note of statements made and that the discussion be continued at the next
meeting, at which a decision would be taken rega rding the forwarding of recommendation to the CTD
and/or the General Council.
81. It was so agreed.
D. COMPILATION OF EXISTING MARKET ACCESS INFORMATION
82. The Chairman recalled that as an input into the Sub-Committee's previous work on market
access, the Secretariat had been asked to compile existing information on the market access barriers
facing LDC exports.  The Secretariat issued document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/16 in response to that
request.  However, as the previous session mainly wa s called to discuss the Integrated Framework, the
discussion of it was postponed to the present meeting.  Document WT/COMTD/W/16 was also found
very extensive and detailed, and Members were of the view that it could be usefully complemented by
a shorter summary document.  In response, the Secretariat produced WT/COMTD/LDC/W/17,
entitled "Market Access for LDCs WTO Members: Summary of information".  The Chairman called
on the Secretariat to explain what type of information the note contains.
83. The Director, Development Division, introducing document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/17, said it
provided summary information, based on the data presented in the document
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/16, on market access conditions as measured by tariff rates which applied to
products of export interest to least-developed countries.  Information was given for each LDC on an
individual basis, first for the 23 markets as a whole, and was then disaggregated between developedcountries and developing countries or transition economies.  Data was also classified by sector
groupings, as follows:  (i) agriculture; (ii) fisheries; (iii) fuels; minerals; mining and forestry;
(iv) manufactures.  Simple average applied tariff rates were presented, excluding and including
preferences.  Preferential rates that were used in the calculation were those extended in the context of
schemes applicable to all LDCs, such as the GSP and GSTP.  Hence, preferential treatment extendedunder purely regional or bilateral arrangements were not taken into account.  Where several different
rates of duty occurred at the six digit level, a simple average of these was used in the calculation of
the overall average.  The averages were calculated on the basis of those products identified and listedWT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 28
for each LDC in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/16.  These products accounted for 90 to 95 per cent
of the value of total exports from each LDC.
84. The data revealed several broad trends, which were discussed in the document.  One feature
of note was that when all LDC exports to developed markets were considered, the highest averagetariff rates were to be found in the area of manufactures, reflecting high tariffs in textiles and clothing,
which was where the bulk of LDC manufactures exports was concentrated.  The document also
discussed several issues of methodology, in particular that of sample selection bias.  Sample selection
bias arose because the applied data presented refered to actual exports of LDCs.  It was possible that
LDCs would have exported more had duties in partner countries been lower.  Furthermore, estimates
of zero or near-zero duty access in some markets may have been due to the fact that certain products
benefited from zero-duty MFN applied rates or duty free preferential treatment, and that theseproducts were the ones actually exported.  The problem of sample selection bias implied that the
question of tariff escalation may not have come out entirely clearly in the data presented.
85. As noted in the final paragraph of the document, a full examination of market access barriers
faced by LDCs required a discussion of their potential as well as current trade.  This lay outside the
scope of the present exercise.  Any discussion of potential trade required an identification of productsthat could be traded by LDCs, but which at present were not, owing to market access restrictions.  It
was also necessary to pay close attention to suppl y-side capacity constraints in LDCs which impeded
trade, even in the absence of market access barriers.
86. The representative of the European Communitie s said that it was interesting to note the
differences in tariff levels between developed and developing markets, and that the data presented
confirmed earlier findings.  The higher tariffs in developing markets on the exports of least developed
countries suggested that more importance be attached to regional integration between developing and
least developed countries in order to enhance the export opportunities of least developed countries.  It
was also of interest to note the relatively high level of tariff on manufactures, though if duty-free
treatment to the textiles sector provided by the European Communities under the Lomé Convention,and extended to LDCs under the GSP, had been reflected, the average tariff rates recorded would have
been lower.  The difference in average tariff levels resulting from the inclusion or not of GSP rates in
the calculation pointed to the continued value of  the GSP.
87. The representative of Japan said Japan had made efforts to improve market access for
products for the products of LDCs.  The Secretariat Document had showed clearly that average tariff
levels were higher in the markets of developing countries than in those of developed countries.  In this
regard, it was highly desirable that more advanced developing countries make efforts, along withdeveloped countries, to improve conditions of access for the exports of least developed countries.
88. The representative of Chile said the two Secretariat documents gave a good overview of
conditions of access faced by LDCs in their main markets.  The data provided a snapshot of trade as it
was in 1997.  In this respect, he clarified  that applied rates in Chile were now 9 per cent, rather than
the 11 per cent indicated in  WT/COMTD/LDC/W/ 16, and that by 2003 applied rates would fall to
6 per cent.  He said that his delegation would have to look further at the air cargo and dispatch tax that
had been recorded the "Other duties and charges" column, and observed that most trade was carried
out by maritime, rather than airborne, means.  Referring to WT/COMTD/W/17, he said that his
delegation attached great importance to information provided by the Secretariat, and added that the
comparisons between developing and developed markets reflected the comparative possibilities opento developing countries to grant access.  He said Chile was part of the GSTP and did extend
preferential tariff treatment to other developing countries.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 29
89. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th e information showed that alongside issues of
capacity-building and technical assistance, market access was central to the integration of
least-developed countries into the world trading system.  A number of comments had been made
regarding the value of regional trading agreements  for enhancing development and growth prospects,
and it was recognised  that this was one point to be made in favour of regional trade agreements,
though it was important to bear in mind that such agreements  had their limitations in the long run,
and that therefore they ought to be considered as just one of the options available in the context of the
WTO.
90. The representative of Korea endorsed the views expressed by Hong Kong, China regarding
regional trade agreements, and responded to the concerns expressed by Japan that developing
countries needed to do more to enhance market access possibilities available to LDCs by recalling thatKorea had participated very actively in the preparation of a legal basis for the provision of preferential
tariff treatment by developing countries in favour of  LDCs.  In this context, he was pleased to draw to
the attention of the Sub-Committee the preferential tariff measures adopted by the government of
Korea, which had been circulated as Document WT/COMTD/N/12.  He added that Korea would have
wished to do more in favour of LDCs, but that the difficult economic and political circumstancesendured by Korea in the recent past had placed limitations on the measures which could be taken.  His
government nevertheless saw these measures as an important part of efforts to promote Korean trade
with LDCs, and would seek possibilities to expand the scope of measures taken in the near future.
91. The representative of Switzerland said any initiative to enhance market access for LDCs,
which had the support of Switzerland, needed to include developing countries in order to be
meaningful.  He said the data provided in the tw o Secretariat documents showed that the formulation
of a market access initiative which would read "essentially all products" would still be an
improvement relative to the existing situation.
92. The representative of Uganda said the Secretariat documents indicated those areas where
there could be improvements in market access.  The European Union was the largest export market
for Uganda, and hence his delegation hoped that a waiver could be secured for the new trading
arrangements agreed between the EU and ACP countries.   He noted that tariffs were lowest in primary
commodities, but that high tariffs and quotas affected other areas of export interest, such as cut
flowers and horticulture.  Hence, duty and quota free market access would enhance the market access
prospects for LDCs.  His delegation took the point made about the importance of regional integration
and recalled that Uganda participated in a number of  different agreements of this nature.
93. The Chairman said that Members seemed to attach importance to the issue of market access
for LDC exports and he suggested that the Sub-Committee continue its work on this topic.  A logical
continuation was to begin to consider products of po tential export interest to  LDCs.  In dealing with
potential trade it was important to decide on what basis such an analysis would be carried out.  Two
ways were open:  one was to ask the LDCs themselves to identify products of potential export interest
to them.  A similar process with questionnaires asking Members to identify five agricultural productsof export interest was undertaken in the context of the Agricultural Information Exchange (AIE)
process prior to Seattle.  The other way of dealing with products of potential export interest to LDCs
was to establish certain criteria, such as all processed forms of products LDCs already export for
example.  The Chairman said he could send a letter to all LDC Members asking them to assist the
work of the Sub-Committee by defining products that they consider of potential export interest.  TheSecretariat could consider how it would go about identifying products of potential export interest to
LDCs and conduct a study on the subject, and, report back at our next meeting.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 30
94. The Director, Development Division said that the present situation of the
European Communities zero-duty initiative was captured in Document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/16.  He
requested that members verify the data provided, especially with regard to those recorded in the
columns "Other Duties and Charges" and "Non-Tariff Measures", with a view to correcting errors andupdating the information recorded in the tables.
95. The representative of the European Communities said that proposals for taking work forward
would require further thought in capitals.
96. The Chairman said that work under this item could continue, and that the topic of market
access would be addressed at the next meeting.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Preferential tariff treatment in favour of LDCs – notification by Korea
97. The Chairman brought to the attention of the Sub-Committee the fact that the government of
Korea had issued a notification to the Committee on Trade and Development regarding preferential
tariff treatment for least-developed countries, and recalled that the representative of Korea had made
some introductory remarks about the waiver under the previous agenda item.  The legal basis for thispreferential treatment was provided by the General Council Decision of 15 June 1999 recorded in
document WT/L/304 in favour of a waiver allowing developing countries to provide preferential tariff
treatment to least-developed countries.  The notification from Korea was to be found in document
WT/COMTD/N/12, copies of which were available in the room.  The Chairman congratulated the
government of Korea for its timely initiative.
(ii) Report by Mauritania on preparations for its Round Table meeting
98. The Chairman said that the second item under "Other Business" was a request by the
government of Mauritania to present a report on a meeting that had been held in preparation for the
Round Table scheduled for later in 2000.  The report was available in the room in French, as well as
on the IF web-site.  The document would be translated into English and Spanish and distributed.
99. The representative of Mauritania presented a report of a meeting entitled "Les Assises du
Commerce Exterieur" held in Nouakchott in late January and early February.  This meeting was the
occasion for holding a wide-ranging consultation with different partners and actors with a view to
preparing a diagnosis of the present state of external trade in Mauritania, and to sensitise all
participants to the rules governin g international trade and their impact on the national economy.  The
overall objective of the meeting was to prepare an outline trade strategy, and to update requirements
in terms of support services for trade with a view to adapting the legal and administrative framework
in a manner which would increase competitiveness and the export supply response.  The Mauritanian
authorities were making intensive efforts to finalise  the strategy, and identify concrete ways in which
it could be implemented.  Once the relevant documentation had been prepared, it would be presented
to development partners in preparation for the Round Table, the date of which would be finalised in
the light of responses to the documentation by development partners.  It was the wish of theMauritanian government to hold the Round Table in June, but the response of development partners to
the documentation provided would determine whether or not this would happen.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/19
Page 31
(iii) Date of the next meeting
100. The Chairman suggested that the Sub-Committ ee wait until after the Inter-Agency Working
Group had held its next meeting, at which it was to consider, amongst other things, the draft report
prepared in the context of the mandated review of the Integrated Framework.  The Inter-AgencyWorking Group meeting had originally scheduled for 21 and 22 March, but had been postponed until
early June.  He suggested that the next session of the Sub-Committee be convened on Friday, 23 June,
in order to provide the Sub-Committee with the opportunity to be briefed on the deliberations of the
Inter-Agency Working Group and the status of the draft report.  Furthermore, as a meeting of the
heads of the six core Agencies is tentatively pla nned for early July, holding the next session of the
Sub-Committee on 23 June presented the Sub-Committee with the opportunity to provide some input,
based on the draft review, to the heads of the six core Agencies.
101. It was so agreed.
102. There being no other business, the  meeting was adjourned.
__________