WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/IFSC/M/7
8 April 2003
(03-1918)
Integrated Framework Steering Committee
Eighth Session
REPORT ON THE 8TH MEETING OF THE
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK STEERING COMMITTEE (IFSC)
Friday 14 March 2003, WTO, Geneva
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committee (IFSC) held its 8th meeting on 14 March 2003
at the WTO, Geneva.  The adopted agenda is reproduced in Annex 1.
2. The IFSC welcomed Deputy Director General Dr. Rana as new Chairman of the Integrated
Framework Working Group (IFWG), and Mr. Alberto Campeas as Director of the new Development
Division.  Special mention was made of the work  of the outgoing Chairman, Mr. Chiedu Osakwe.
A. REPORT  BY THE IFWG CHAIRMAN ON THE  35TH MEETING OF THE IFWG,
HELD ON 12 AND 13  MARCH 2003
3. The Chairman of the IFWG reported on the main outcome of the 35th session of the IFWG.
By way of introductory remarks in the meeting he had presented his vision of the IF and of the road-
map ahead, to which the IFWG  had given its full support.  In it, he had underscored the fact that the
IF was a process designed to assist LDCs in their policy decision to make trade an engine foreconomic growth.  He had emphasised the need for the IF to remain country driven and for enhanced
coordination among agencies.  He had recognised that trade could not become an engine for economic
growth through policy measures only and that concrete development assistance from development
partners was also necessary.
4. The IFWG had recognized the problem of differing expectations and perceptions concerning
the objectives and scope of the IF among its stakeholders.  It had agreed to seriously address this
issue.  As part of this, a series of outreach activities would be undertaken.  Suggested ideas onincreasing the awareness of the IF included a stakeholders' dialogue or other forms of pre-sensitisation
in-country; and more publicity to promote the objectives, scope and processes of IF through
publications, videos and the IF website.  The IFWG had also discussed the merits of having, at the
very beginning of the process, some kind of written instrument spelling out clearly all steps of the IF
process and the responsibilities falling on the governments of the LDCs and those on the other IFpartners.
5. In discussions on the state of implementation of the IF in the countries to which the IF was
currently extended, the point had been made that as the IF process progresses, the reporting on
implementation would gradually be taken over by the LDCs themselves and that these periodic
reports constituted a fundamental element in any monitoring of progress of the IF in the countries.However, the Bank and the UNDP would continue to  report on overall progress.  The IFWG  had
agreed to reflect on scope and modalities of a mechanism to monitor progress post-DTIS in the
countries, mindful of any additional burden such reporting requirement could have on the LDCs.  The
WTO had been requested to prepare draft guidelines for a standard format for such written reports
which would assist the LDCs to write them.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 2
6. The IFWG heard a report by Ms. Mahlape Qoane, Deputy Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Industry, Trade and Marketing and Mrs. L.A. Hlasoa, Head of the national PRSP Secretariat, Ministry
of Development Planning, Maseru, Lesotho, who had come to Geneva specifically for the IFWG
meeting to report on progress made in the IF process in their country.  A National Conference to
complete and validate the DTIS in Lesotho had been held on 12 February 2003, in Maseru.  Some ofthe points highlighted were the importance of:  (i) linkages between the IF and PRSP processes;
(ii) coordination amongst the donors in country and national stakeholders;  (iii) supply side constrains;
(iv) link between environment and poverty reduction;  and (v) the importance of transfer of skills and
the need to create linkages between foreign direct investment and local investors.
7. The point had been made that the IF process was not limited to trade in a narrow sense, but
that it covered all elements that assisted an LDC to integrate into the global trading system.
Experience so far had shown that elements of LDCs' Action Matrixes of prioritized activities in thetrade sector more than once overlapped with existing donors' Programmes in the country relating to
sectors other than trade in a narrow sense, such as private sector development, infrastructure, water,
investment etc., thus facilitating identification of necessary financial resources for the activities listed
in the Action Matrix.
8. In its efforts to link as much as possible the debates in Geneva to the realities in the field, the
IFWG also had an interesting discussion through video conferencing with Ms. Helena McLeod from
the UK's Department for International Development (DFID), as the IF lead facilitator in Lesotho.
One of the main issues raised was the need to im prove the linkage between the head offices of donors
and their field offices.  It was stressed that in order to achieve concrete actions on the ground, head
offices had to provide the necessary financial and human resources to their offices in the countries.
9. The Minister for Trade and Industry from Ethiopia had requested the members of the IFWG
to consider revising the terms of reference for the Ethiopia DTIS to take into account Ethiopia's recent
application for accession to the WTO and to include concrete technical assistance and capacity
building projects in the DTIS.  In response to this request, the IFWG had agreed that it was not
necessary to revise the TOR of the DTIS in order to achieve an increase in technical assistance forEthiopia's accession process.  Rather, Ethiopia would have to reflect its need for such increased
technical assistance as a priority in the Action Matrix of its DTIS.  The WTO had responded to the
Minister along these lines.  The European Comm ission, Ethiopia's lead facilitator, and UNCTAD
were already planning necessary accession-related technical assistance.
10. The IFWG had discussed the paper prepared by UNCTAD on "Pre-DTIS Activities" aimed at
ensuring country ownership of the concept and process of the IF from the very beginning, before a
DTIS was formally launched.  It had requested UNCTAD to prepare a costed project proposal, basedon its paper and the suggestions made.
11. At its fifth meeting, the IFSC had requested the IFWG to proceed with implementation of the
decision to put at the disposal of participating LDCs necessary resources to facilitate their active
involvement in the IF process from the preparation of the DTIS onwards.  The UNDP, as manager of
the IF Trust Fund had accordingly put forward a project proposal in consultations with the ITC andother IFWG members, which had now been ag reed upon by the IFWG.  The project aims at
strengthening the capacity of LDCs to participate effectively in all steps of the IF process and to
establish solid partnerships with development agencies and donors.
12. A proposal on the use of Window II of the Inte grated Framework Trust Fund (IFTF) had been
presented to the IFWG by the donor community, for in formation at this stage, and consultations were
currently on-going.  A preliminary exchange of views had confirmed the point made earlier
concerning the differing expectations about the objectives and outcome of the IF and the role of
Window II.  Views ranged from disappointment to satisfaction.  Some had made the point that the
amount foreseen was too small to meet the spirit of paragraph 43 of the DDA, while others supportedWT/IFSC/M/7
Page 3
the proposal as it was demand driven, it illustrated Window II's role as a bridging process, it was
small scale, it did not foresee the use of earmarked funds and did not redefine the IF concept.
13. The IFSC took note of the report made by the IFWG Chairman.
B. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND RESULT
14. In reviewing the stages of implementation in the fourteen countries1 to which the IF was
currently extended,  the representative of the World Bank reported on progress made in all countries
where it had carried out IF-related activities under the revamped IF, while UNDP reported on
Djibouti.
15. The ITC reported on progress made in the implementation of follow-up activities to the IF
Round Table Meetings held under the "old IF" scheme in five countries:  Bangladesh, the Gambia,
Haiti, Tanzania and Uganda.
16. A table of the current status of progress in each of the fourteen countries is in Annex 2.
17. Representatives of several LDC and development partners made interventions.  In particular
the following:
The representative from the World Bank was hopeful that by the middle of this year the
remaining DTIS for the countries to which the IF was extended in its current pilot phase
would be completed:  Burundi, Ethiopia, Guinea,  Nepal, Mali.  To date, seven DTIS had been
completed:  Cambodia, Lesotho, Madagascar (to be updated), Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal
and Yemen.  He recalled that implementation of the IF was a learning process, and stressed
the importance of "learning by doing".  He said that this was a critical phase of the IF
initiative, witnessing collaborative efforts to define and put in place mechanisms to
implement the recommendations and capacity building/technical assistance needs yieldingfrom the DTIS.  This effort required:
- The introduction of donor facilitators and refinement of their roles.- Clear sense of the sequence of steps and country responsibilities following the
completion of DTIS.
- Better pre-DTIS sensitisation efforts to strengthen their institutional capacity to
participate in the diagnostic phase.
- Expansion of the IF Trust Fund to finance short-term priority technical assistance
needs.
Following a request from the IFWG, the World Bank would in the next three months prepare a clear
set of indicative guidelines to share with agencies/donors/IF countries, to encourage a more
systematic follow-up process for IF studies.
18. The representative from the UNDP informed that Mr. Patrick Plane (Director of Research,
CERDI) had been selected as Team Leader for the IF Team for Djibouti, and that the mission was
scheduled for April.  Discussions were taking place with regard to the designation of a Facilitator.
                                                     
1Burundi, Cambodia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar,
Mauritania, Nepal, Senegal and Yemen.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 4
19. The representative from Ethiopia reiterated his Minister's request to revise the terms of
reference for Ethiopia's DTIS to include increased technical assistance for its accession to the WTO.
In response, it was recalled that in order to increase accession-related technical assistance, there was
no need to revise the TOR for the DTIS, but rather, Ethiopia would need to reflect such needs as a
priority in the Action Matrix of its DTIS.  The WTO was replying along those lines to the EthiopianMinister of Trade.  The IFSC also welcomed  existing plans from the European Commission,
Ethiopia's lead facilitator, and from UNCTAD (with a contribution from DFID) to provide the
necessary accession-related technical assistance.  The representative from the United Kingdom added
that a Memorandum of Understanding had been signed with UNCTAD in support of technicalassistance related to accession of LDCs, from which Ethiopia would benefit.
20. The representative from Madagascar informed that the national validation workshop would
take place in June, and reiterated the need for institutional support from the Agencies.
21. The representative from Japan requested that Japan be included in the periodic status report
on implementation of the IF as lead-donor for Cambodia.
22. The representative from the United States stated that her country was interested in doing
IF-related work in Mozambique (not currently incl uded as IF pilot country) and meanwhile continued
its IF-related work in Mali, as facilitator, in coordination with the World Bank.  She would consultwith her authorities concerning Ethiopia's request for accession-related technical assistance.
23. The representative from Bangladesh stressed the importance of pre-DTIS activities, as well as
of concrete results on the ground.  He requested more information about the timeframe between the
stages of DTIS – to delivery of concrete technical assistance.
24. The IFSC took note of the statements made, welcomed  the satisfaction expressed in general
with the current progress, and reconfirmed its commitments to the IF Process.
25. Under the agenda item concerning the implementation of the IFSC decision on support for the
IF national arrangements, the representative from ITC gave further details on the project which had
now been agreed upon by the IFWG.  The project, drawn up by UNDP in collaboration with ITC andother members of the IFWG, aims at strengthening the capacity of LDCs to participate effectively inall steps of the IF process and to establish solid partnerships with development agencies and donors.
26. The meeting welcomed the project and took note
 of the statement made.  It urged UNDP to
start implementation as soon as possible.
C. IF TRUST FUND
27. The representative of UNDP presented the financial report on the Integrated Framework Trust
Fund (IFTF) which includes its current financial situation.  The meeting took note of the Financial
Report and of the statements made (Annex 3).
28. Regarding the clarification of the TORs of Wi ndow II, the Chairman of the IWFG said that
the donors had presented a proposal to the IFWG at its 35th session (Annex 4).  This was a
contribution from the donors in collaboration with UNDP in its capacity as Fund Trustee.  The
wording of this paper had been carefully negotiated among the donors and had received their
endorsement.  The World Bank had participated in this process as a donor.  On behalf of the IFWG,he was tabling the proposal in the meeting today fo r the information of all members of the IF Steering
Committee to ensure transparency.  The paper was still in the consultative stages with the members of
the IFWG, particularly the LDCs and the four Agencies which had not been involved in its
preparation.  Donors were ready to meet wi th the WTO LDC Consultative Group for further
discussion on this paper.  He recalled that there were already donor funds in Window II pendingWT/IFSC/M/7
Page 5
agreement.   He suggested that, once agreed,  the paper could be endorsed rapidly by a process of "non
objection" by the IFWG, using electronic means, a nd by the holding of an exceptional IFSC devoted
to this  purpos e.
29. On behalf of the LDCs, the representative of Bangladesh requested more time for discussions
inside the LDC community.
30. The Chairman of the IFSC proposed that info rmal consultations be held between the donor
community and LDCs, and to come back to this issue at its next meeting.
31. The meeting so agreed.
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE IF AND JITAP2
32. The Chairman informed the meeting on the outcome of his informal consultations with the
Chair of JITAPS's Common Trust Fund (CTF) to identify practical ways to build synergies, to achieve
complementary, to exchange information and to occa sionally brief the IFSC.  He recalled that JITAP
was a capacity building programme.  The JITAP included six LDCs to which the IF process currentlyapplied.
3
33. The representative of UNCTAD suggested to use the experience of the JITAP in pre-DTIS
activities, such as the Mechanism of Inter-Institutional committees.
34. The representative of the Netherlands endorsed full complementarities between the JITAP
Programme and the IF process and suggested that the agencies concerned prepare a paper on this
matter.
35. The representative of Mauritania requested an assessment of concrete results for the LDCs,
where both the IF and JITAP were being implemented.
36. The representative of Benin requested a list of the persons in charge of each programme
(focal points), to permit local authorities to contact them (this list has been provided).
37. The representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the need for coordination between the
two programmes should also exist on the donors' side.  It was important to avoid creating any new
heavy structure, and to work closely together.
38. The Chairman proposed that the IFSC have a substantial discussion on this item at a
subsequent date.
39. It was so agreed.
E. IF E VALUATION : PROGRESS REPORT
40. The Chairman of the IFWG recalled that UNDP, through the United Nations Office for
Project Support (UNOPS), was managing the tendering process to select the team of four evaluators.
In accordance with agreed procedures, names of potential contacts had been transmitted to UNOPS on26 February.  Subsequently, UNOPS had sent tender notices to all of them.  At its recent meeting,
UNDP had informed the IFWG that currently, only three bids had been received in response to its
tender notices, which was insufficient for the selection process to progress.  The IFWG had agreed
                                                     
2JITAP I and II: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Tunisia, Tanzania and Uganda;
Botswana, Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Senegal and Zambia.
3Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 6
that additional efforts needed to be undertaken immediately to receive more bids of potential
candidates and had accordingly agreed that  UNOPS would broaden its search and contact various
companies (as opposed to individuals) to submit their bids.  On the basis of the response to  this wider
search, UNOPS would proceed to make a shortlist of eligible companies.  As a next step, and in
accordance with the agreed TORs, the Selection Board, made up of Ambassador Ali as the LDCrepresentative, a donor representative and himself in his role as Chairman of the IFWG would select
from the shortlist the company which presented the best team of four evaluators (WT/IFSC/3/Rev.1).
The IFWG had also agreed that one of the selection criteria would be a working knowledge of both
English and French.  According to the agreed TORs for the evaluation, the Evaluation Team would be
composed of a team of four trade and development experts, including an expert with LDC experience.
The Team would be composed of a lead evaluator, one evaluator representing the private sector, one
evaluator representing the donor community and one evaluator representing the LDC community.The IFWG had recognized that a certain time-slippage had occurred and agreed on the need to
commence the evaluation process as soon as possible in order to have a Report ready for the
Ministerial Conference at Cancun.  The time frame set out in the TORs would be adapted to take into
account this slippage.  The Working Group had also pr ovided guidance to the IF Secretariat for it to
finalise the set of criteria for the selection of the team of evaluators.
41. The IFSC took note of the statement made and urged
 UNDP to proceed as fast as possible.
F. IF WEBSITE
42. The representative from the World Bank made a presentation of the website
(www.integratedframework.org) Annex 5.  The representative of ITC recalled the format and design
of the first Integrated Framework website – not in existence any longer - which had earlier beendeveloped and run by the IF Administrative Unit in  ITC and shared some of the lessons learned in
operating the site.
43. On behalf of the francophone LDCs, the representative of Djibouti urged the World Bank to
operationalize the French version of the web as soon as possible.
44. The IFSC welcomed the presentation of the website and the World Bank's offer to continue to
host and manage the web, under its own separate domain.  It suggested that the World Bank
collaborate with ITC in the further design of the web.
G. THIRD HEADS OF AGENCY MEETING
45. The IMF reiterated its offer to host the third Heads of Agency Meeting and confirmed the
date of 10 July 2003.
46. The meeting welcomed the offer by the IMF.
H. OTHER BUSINESS
47. The IFSC agreed  to hold its next meeting on 16 May 2003.
48. It took note of the IFWG's decision to explor e the possibility of having the next DAC/IFWG
meeting after the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun.
49. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 7
ANNEX 1
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK STEERING COMMITTEE
Agenda for the 8th Session of the IF Steering Committee
Friday,14 March 2003
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committee will hold its Eighth Session on 14 March
2003, at the WTO,  Room E.  The meeting will start at 10:00 sharp.
2. The items proposed for the agenda are as follows:
(a) Adoption of the agenda
(b) 35th meeting of the Integrated Framework Working Group (IFWG): report by the
Chairman of the IFWG;
(c) Implementation process and results:
- General assessment of progress in the 14 countries:1 report by the World
Bank and UNDP
- Implementation of the decision on support for the IF national arrangements: 
report by ITC
- Implementation of the follow-up activities to the IF Round Table Meetings in
Bangladesh, the Gambia, Haiti, Tanzania and Uganda: highlights by ITC.
(d) IF Trust Fund
(i) Financial report by UNDP
(ii) Clarification of the TORs of Window II: report by the Chairman of the IFWG
(e) Relationship between IF and JITAP
(f) IF Evaluation:  progress report by the IFWG Chair and UNDP
(g) IF website: report by the World Bank
(h) Third Heads of Agency meeting: report by the IMF
(i) Other business
- Date next meeting
-3rd IFWG-DAC meeting.
Documents :
• Report of the 34th meeting of the Integrated-Framework Working Group.
• WT/IFSC/3/Rev.1
• WT/IFSC/M/6
_____________________________
1Burundi, Cambodia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar,
Mauritania, Nepal, Senegal, Yemen.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 8ANNEX 2
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK – STATUS OF LDCs
AS OF 7 MARCH 2003
Countries IF Status Pre-mission MissionDelivery
to LDC Workshop Donor Agency/Facilitator
Burundi Work initiated  03/12/2002 10/03/2003 31/05/2003 30/06/2003 France (TBC)
Cambodia IF study completed  01/08/200110/10 /200102/02/2002
Djibouti Preparing activities  14/12/2002 02/2003 08/2003UNDP
Consultations by LDC
Representatives
Eritrea Work Suspended  28/10/2002 TBC TBC TBC
Ethiopia Work initiated  26/08/2002 11/15/ 200230/04/200330/06/2003 Eu ropean Commission
Guinea Work initiated  15/09/2002 15/12/2002 15/03/2003 15/05/2003 World Bank
Lesotho IF study completed  24/11/2001 22/ 03/200202/12/200213/02 /2003 United Kingdom
Madagascar IF study completed  01/07/2003 01/10/2003 TBC World Bank
Malawi IF study completed  28/11/ 2001 27/04/200231/12/ 200230/04/2003 Norway
Mali Work initiated  06/01/2003 24/03/2003 15/05/2003 31/07/03 United States
Mauritania IF study completed  07/2001 16/10/200111/2001;
11/2002European Commission
Nepal Draft under review  26/08/2002 30/09/2002 15/02/2003 15/05/2003 United Kingdom
Senegal IF study completed  28/11/2001 04/02/2002 30/08/2002 16/12/2002 The European Commission
Yemen IF study completed  13/02/2002 15/05/200230/08/2002 TBC Netherlands
Roundtable Countries
Bangladesh Roundtable follow-up  N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gambia Roundtable follow-up  N/A N/A N/A N/A
Haiti Roundtable follow-up  N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tanzania Roundtable follow-up  N/A N/A N/A N/A
Uganda Roundtable follow-up  N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A:  Not applicable;  TBC to be confirmedWT/IFSC/M/7
Page 9
ANNEX 3
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK TRUST FUND
Prepared by UNDP, New York
1. Pledges  (Table 1)
1.1 As of 10 March 2003, total pledges to the IF Trust Fund amount to US$ 11,817,181.
No additional pledges have been made to the IF Trust Fund since the last IFWG
presentation.
1.2 Pledges announced but not yet followed up with a contribution agreement are:
1.2.1 France – 500,000 Euros.
2. Disbursements/remittances  (Table 1)
2.1 Total disbursements amount to US$ 10,782,637.  Included in this figure are most
recent transfers of:
• US$ 300,000 by Switzerland (the use of the contribution for Window I or II to be
determined once the proposed Window II TOR has been finalised).
• US$ 671,141 by Canada for Window II.
• US$ 1,303,209 by Norway for Window I.
• US$ 982, 222 by Sweden for Window I.
• US$ 500,000 by the World Bank for Window I.
• US$ 200,000 by the US for Window I.
2.2 As a result of new disbursements, the un-disbursed pledges have decreased to
US$ 1,034,544.
2.3 Of the reported disbursements for 2003, US$ 2,985,431 has been earmarked for
Window I and US$ 971,141 for Window II.
3. Approvals & Pipeline (Table 2)
3.1 World Bank assessments are underway for the pipeline projects in Benin, Chad, Sao
Tome & Principe, and Togo.  Pre-Technical review for Maldives has been done by
UNDP.  Decision on requests from Angola, Laos, Zambia, Burkina Faso and TheGambia (US$ 300,000 allocation each) has been deferred by the IFWG, pending
conclusion of the IF Evaluation exercise.
3.2 The IFTF funded global project to support National Implementation Arrangements in
12 LDCs (less Cambodia and Mauritania) where the DTIS exercises are underwaywill require an amount of US$ 500,000 from Window I.  Donors have endorsed this
decision.
3.3 Mauritania project in the amount of US$ 195,000 has been approved for
implementation by ITC.
3.4 The project to evaluate the revamped IF has an approved budget of US$ 377,827.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 10
4. Net Position (Table 2)
4.1 Under Window I, with the approval of the IF National Implementation Arrangements
project and the IF Evaluation project (the only pipeline projects currently approved
for Window I funding), the net position for year 2003 will reflect a surplus of
US$ 2,040,727.
4.2 Meanwhile, the approval of Mauritania CB project under Window II puts the net
position at a surplus of US$ 1,469,083.
4.3 These transactions result in an overall net position for the IF Trust Fund of
US$ 3,887,637 (as of report date).
5. Discussion Issues  (IFWG & IFSC Plenary discussion)
5.1 Reappraisal of the IF National Implementation Arrangements project to be executed
by UNDP (agenda item).
5.2 Consideration of World Bank and UNDP Technical Review of requests and the
possible extension of DTIS support to other LDCs (list discussed in 3.1).
5.3 Clarification of the TORs of Window II to release funding for post-DTIS capacity
building support, and the expected role of the IF Trust Fund.  It is our hopeWindow II will receive new funds from donors and not simply transfers earlier made
to Window I commitments.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 11IF PLEDGES & DISBURSEMENTS
Table 1 Date: 10 March 2003
Annual disbursements US$
Donor Pledging Currency Total amount
(foreign
currency)Total pledges
US$Total disbursed
US$2001 2002 2003 Undisb. Pledges
Belgium** Belgium Franc 30,000,000 692,942 692,942 692,942 0
Canada* Canadian Dollars 2,000,000 1,331,405 1,331,405 660,264 671,141 0
Denmark Danish Kroner 2,500,000 281,168 281,168 281,168 0
Finland Finish Markka 1,000,000 154,497 154,497 154,497 0
France Euro 500,000 500,000 0 500,000
Ireland US$ 299,950 299,950 299,950 299,950 0
Italy*** 0 0 0 0
Japan** US$ 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0
Netherlands Netherlands
Guilder874,500 330,000 330,000 330,000 0
Norway Norwegian Kroner 14,000,000 1,815,155 1,815,155 511,946 1,303,209 0
Sweden Swedish Kroner 12,000,000 1,310,780 1,310,780 328,558 982,222 0
Switzerland* US$ 500,000 500,000 500,000 200,000 300,000 0
United Kingdom US$ 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0
United Kingdom British Pound 1,000,000 1,428,572 1,428,572 1,428,572 0
United States US$ 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0
European Com. Euros 200,000 172,712 138,168 138,168 34,544
UNDP US$ 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 0
World Bank US$ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
TOTAL 11,817,181 10,782,637 3,266,383 3,559,682 3,956,572 1,034,544
Distribution of funds
Window 1 9,653,098 8,618,554 3,266,383 2,366,740 2,985,431 1,034,544
Window 2 2,164,083 2,164,083 0 1,192,942 971,141 0
Notes
*CAD 1,000,000 of Canadian pledge is for Window II.
*Once the TOR for Window II has been finalised, Switzerland will decide on the use of their pledge of US$ 300,000 to either Win dow I or II.  However, based
on previous discussions and until then, the amount is being placed under Window II.
**Contributions to Window II.***The Italian pledge was removed from the IFTF and transferred to ITC.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 12
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK:  CASH FLOW
(As of 10 March 2003)
Table 2
2001 2002 2003
Window 1 Window 2 Window 1 Window 2 Window 1 Window 2
Opening
BeginningBalance$0 $0 $2,366,383 $0 ($66,877) $692,942
Remittances $3,266,383 $0 $2,366,740 $1,192,942 $2,985,431 $971,141
Pilot Countries
ApprovalsCambodia $300,000 $500,000
Madagascar $300,000
Mauritania $300,000 $195,000
Sub-total $900,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $195,000
Old IF
CountriesApprovals*Bangladesh $300,000
Gambia $300,000
Haiti $300,000
Tanzania $300,000
Uganda $300,000
Sub-total $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0
Window I
Approvals**Lesotho $300,000
Malawi $300,000
Senegal $300,000
Yemen $300,000
Ethiopia $300,000
Nepal $300,000
Eritrea $300,000
Djibouti $300,000
Burundi $300,000
Mali $300,000
Guinea $300,000
Sub-total $0 $0 $3,300,000 $0 $0 $0
Window I
Pipeline***Benin
Chad
Sao Tome &
Principe
Togo
Maldives
IF Evaluation $377,827
NationalImplementation$500,000
Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $877,827 $0
Total
Expenditures/Approvals$900,000 $0 $4,800,000 $500,000 $877,827 $195,000
Net Balance $2,366,383 $0 ($66,877) $692,942 $2,040,727 $1,469,083
End Balance
(Windows I &II)$2,366,383 $626,065 $3,509,810
*Project documents for the five old IF countries signed in January 2002 with total budget of $1,5 million.
**Regional project document for year 2002 will cover 11 countries at total cost of $3,3 million.***Pipeline projects not yet cleared for inclusion into  the Regional project.  However, once approved, the
pipeline projects will require a total of $1,5 million.  This will put Window I balance at $540,727.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 13
ANNEX 4
DRAFT
Version Dated: 13-03-03 -  17h
The Integrated Framework Trust Fund, Window II – Framework for its
expansion and effective use as a tool for immediate follow-up to the DTIS
I. The need for interim measures
1. The Pilot Scheme for the IF has, as one of its agreed principles, the “mainstreaming” or
“integration” of trade into the development plans of the partnering LDCs. It was, and continues to be,understood that the funding for the identified TRTA/CB would come through regular channels of
donor/government cooperation. During the course of the pilot however, it became apparent that there
can arise, in some cases, a gap between the completion of the DTIS, the integration into either the
PRSP or another recognized development instrument and the resultant Consultative Group or
Roundtable funding process. This gap can be attributed to the fact that LDC governments and donorsrequire time to adjust their programs and funding. Nevertheless, this gap was identified recently by
the IFWG to be one of the most serious challenges to the follow-up to the DTIS and therefore to the
IF, requiring resolution on an urgent and priority ba sis”. Interim measures to deal with pressing needs
over the period between DTIS finalisation, mainstreaming of trade into policy, and donor mobilisation
are therefore proposed for adoption by the IFWG and IFSC such that they can begin to be put in place
as quickly as possible.
2. The problem of follow-up to the DTIS is fully discussed in a separate paper prepared for, and
in consultation with the donors, Agencies and LDCs, by John Croome, entitled “The Integrated
Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least-Developed Countries: Delivering earlyconcrete results – problems and possibilities”, 2 December 2002. As identified in this paper, the
elements that are crucial to effective follow-up include: government commitment to the IF process;
establishment of, and donor/agency support for, a national focal point for coordinating
mainstreaming; identification of priority projects and early focus on a few modest and “quick-win”
projects; donor funding; and continuing review of progress. The report recognized that the mainresponsibility for follow-up on the DTIS lies with the partner LDCs and that DTIS must be followed
by a national process and national activities. In some cases, there is a need for financial assistance in
support of these efforts which should, and generally will, come from bilateral and multilateral
programs. The basis of this proposal is the acknowledgement that there is the need to strengthen the
availability of funds in the short term and in certain cases. Window II of the IFTF, as an integral part
of the multilateral IF structure and process, is the recommended mechanism for this purpose.  The
UNDP is the “trustee” for the IFTF and would continue as such for the enhanced “Window II”.
3. Improvement of the IF process, which should re sult from the evaluation (results by May/June
2003) will have to be complemented by arrangements that allow prompt funding of “quick
deliverable” follow-up projects. At present, such short term measures appear to be insufficient.
Consultative Group meetings and Donor Roundtables (CG/RTs) are not designed to consider short-
run trade-related projects, and in any case often take place well after the DTIS. As experience from
the pilot IF process builds up, and is assessed in the coming evaluation, it is necessary to develop
effective mechanisms for donor coordination and res ponse to the priorities identified in the DTIS.
Meanwhile, however, LDCs have immediate TRTA /CB needs, notably in order to participate
effectively in the current WTO negotiations and to build the institutional capacity required to continuethe mainstreaming process.
4. In these circumstances, both the donors and the IFWG need to reconsider the strict
interpretation that they have applied up to now in the use of Window II of the IF Trust Fund.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 14
5. The present proposal does not envisage any change in the use of IFTF Window I, which
would continue to operate as a "non-earmarked" f und dedicated to DTIS diagnostics and, for use for
the extension of the program of "Strengthening of the National Implementation Arrangements of the
Integrated Framework".  The IFWG and IFSC would also retain their present responsibilities as the IF
decision-making authorities.
II. Recommendations
6. The proposal below would require an extension of the IF as a “pilot” scheme  until the use
of Window II in an enhanced fashion could be evaluated. Such an evaluation would need to take place
no later than the 6th Ministerial.
Use of Window II
7. It is recommended that Window II of the IF  continue to be an "earmarked" fund, and that its
use remain within the confines set by its original mandate. However, both the earmarking and use
of these funds would be extended beyond the stricter limits currently applied .
8. The IFTF was established primarily to assist LDCs “in developing the necessary analytical
and policy framework for mainstreaming trade into national development strategies, and for
developing costed proposals for programmes and projects”.1 The present IFTF mandate also permits
the use of Window I or Window II funds in “lim ited and exceptional cases” for selected TRTA/CB
projects, and there are some precedents for the use of Window II funds in this manner, most notably
in Cambodia. Such projects should, however, “only relate to human capacity building” and should “be
properly integrated with other relevant projects identified within the programme of assistance
elaborated by the IF”. In view of the recognised  importance of institutional capacity building, it is
recommended that the IF Steering Committee adjust the latter condition so that IF funding of projects
relating to institutional capacity building, as well as human capacity building, would be possible.
Infrastructure investments and running costs would continue to be excluded from the scope of
Window II funding.
9. On this basis, it is recommended that, in addition to the purposes for which Window II is at
present used, (namely for targeting to specific regi ons or specific countries – targeting which in not
specifically noted in the IFTF tors and therefore need s also to be added) it should be able to provide
funding for specific projects of TRTA/CB which emerge as priorities from the DTIS Action Matrices
and which qualify for such treatment in the light of the considerations set out below.  The level of
funding for qualified projects is dependent on available funds in Window II and the overall long term
objective of equitable distribution amongst LDCs having completed their (recognized) DTIS Action
Matrices, whether funded by the IF Window I or by bilateral means, and met all criteria . As a
general indication of the level of funding, but without being categoric, two examples of the types of
activities being envisaged are: legislative reform which in one DTIS was costed at less than US
$200,000 or specialized technical assistance in a critical area such as, for example customs valuation,
TBT or SPS which might be estimated at around US$300,000. It is important to stress that these
projects would be quick deliverables . What is NOT ENVISAGED is funding for projects which
would deal with physical constraints such as ports, roads or factories. These larger-scale and longer-
term needs must be funded through the Consultative Group or other Development Mechanisms. The
project would have to be programmed for completi on within three years, at most, of its approval2 and
applications for use of the fund would need to be received within one year after the DTIS Completion
Workshop.
                                                     
1 “Integrated Framework – Proposal for a Pilot Scheme” (WT/LDC/SWG/IF/13, Annex).
2 This requirement would not exclude the funded project from forming part of a larger initiative that
would take longer than three years to complete.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 15
Project choice and funding
10. The next section lists a number of considerations that should guide decisions on use of
Window II funds to help in implementing the Action Matrix of the DTIS.3
11. In more concrete terms, examples of the kind of short-term, quick-win projects envisagedmight be (a) “strengthening” projects that would add skills or management capacity to people
involved locally in the trade mainstreaming proce ss and, in particular, reinforce the effectiveness of
the focal point; (b) support to the process of developing projects from their identification to their
being ready to present to donors; and (c) assistance, for example, in preparation of a legislative
proposal, in solving a customs problem or in bringing  an exportable product into conformity with SPS
requirements of potential foreign markets.
Essential criteria
12. The following five (5) criteria are considered to be essential for project selection and
approval:
a. Demonstrated Commitment by Partner Country and Conducive Environment for
successful delivery of the project :  This would include: clear description of the consultative
mechanisms employed by proponents, detailed inform ation about meetings of Ministries of Trade,
Finance and Planning and others as appropriate, details about the relationship between the IFcommittees and PRSP committees, clear descriptions of actions taken by LDC to implement DTIS
action matrix activities which are within LDC responsibility, plans for in-kind contributions to the
proposed activity(ies),  clear demonstration of outreach to donors on TRTA/CB matters, links with
private sector, civil society as appropriate, sufficient human resources capacity to deliver the project,
etc.
b. Demonstrated Efforts to locate traditional sources of funding, possibilities of leveraging
other funds and no duplication of efforts :  This would include a transparent and complete mapping
of donor (including Mission Administered Funds) and national resources that are available
immediately or that could become available in the near or longer term future for meeting short andlong-term DTIS matrix priorities. It would include an indication of how the funds administered under
the "Strengthening of the National Implementation Arrangements of the Integrated Framework" have
been taken into consideration and used. It woul d identify how limited fund s from Window II would
potentially leverage other more substantial funding.
c. Activities which meet the fund parameters : These are described in paragraphs 8 and 10
above. In addition to such characteristics as short-term, urgent need, quick deliverable, traditional
development project criteria are also applicable. They include: cost effectiveness, coherence,
possibility of effective implementation, sustainability, measurable indicators. Highly desirable are
projects aimed at enabling institutional changes or strengthening human resources that will lead to
rapid mainstreaming of trade into national policy.
d. Coherence with PRSP/Development Plans of Beneficiaries : The project must be consistent
with the basic objectives of the (I)PRSP and/or recognized Development Plan of the LDC and with
integration of trade into these instruments. The pr ocess of working towards the integration into the
PRSP must be demonstrated to have been activated.
                                                     
3 This listing of relevant considerations for project approval would need to be further refined, possibly
with an indication of those considerations (for example, those listed under “Nature of the project”) that shouldbe given most weight.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 16
e. Priority within the Action Matrix of the DTIS : It is recommended that a proposal must be
within the top priorities identified by the Matrix. If a proponent requires additional assistance to
further mainstream trade into the PRSP or Development Plan and/or to develop “fundable” project
documents for their priority projects, then this could be identified as a priority itself within the Matrix
and this can then be funded through this mechanism. The “trade” benefits of the project need to be
clearly identified.
III. Proposed terms for contributions to Window II
Sources of funding
13. Donors, agencies and philanthropic organiza tions, whether from developed or developing
countries, are invited to put monies into Window II.
Earmarking
14. No earmarking, beyond "follow-up to DTIS", is the ideal . If necessary for some donors,
however, additional earmarking for specific beneficiaries, specific regions or specific types ofactivities (provided that these activities are identified specifically within the DTIS and respond
adequately to the considerations listed above) is permitted. No funds can be earmarked to specific
agencies, as the use of these monies must follow  proper tendering procedures (see Management of
Window II funds below).
4
Management of Window II funds and procedures for their use
15. Following validation of the DTIS Action Plan , the LDC beneficiary country may put forward
proposals for projects to be funded by Window II. Often the proponent will be the “IF focal point”.
Such proposals shall be assessed by a Local Project Approval Committee (LPAC), on the basis of theconsiderations set out above. Membership of this Committee may vary from country to country, but it
will be composed of a minimum of: the Mini stry of Finance or Planning, UNDP Resident
Representative or delegate (as trustee for the IFTF), the lead facilitating donor/agency and the World
Bank Resident Representative or delegate (as the responsible Agency for Window I).
16. Approved proposals are then sent to the UNDP HQ. In its capacity as the Integrated
Framework Trust Fund administrator, the UNDP will provide an oversight review of the proposal and
proceed to fund according to the rules and regulations within which it operates. (Reference: UNDP
Proposal, Integrated Framework Trust Fund  – Pro cedures for Window II.) If funds are “earmarked”
by a donor for a particular country or activity, UNDP will comm unicate with the donor(s) to ensure
that any proposed projects, which would make use of their funds, would fit their particular criteria.
UNDP may refer to the IFWG, as and when needed, to seek guidance on such matters as, inter
alia, funding limitations .
17. Inputs required for the project shall be provided in accordance with the principles of
competitiveness (use of internationally recognized  competitive-bidding practices for procurement and
acquisition of services and goods, in accordance with set UNDP principles), transparency in the
selection process, and multilateralism (selection of inputs without regard to country of origin, but also
encouragement of procurement within the LDC concerned). (Reference: UNDP Proposal, IFTF –
Procedures for Window II).
18. UNDP will manage  this process as its contribution to  the IF.  (Referen ce: UNDP Proposal,
IFTF – Procedures for Window II ). UNDP will prov ide regular reporting regarding both Windows I
                                                     
4 Donors would still be able, if they so wish, to make resources available to specific agencies, NGOs
and others outside the IF framework, but with  specific reference to the DTIS Action Matrix.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 17
and II.  In addition to financial reports, results-based narrative reports will be provided. These will be
based upon project by project service standards against which progress can be measured both in
substance and as regards the processes.
Monitoring Review
19. This expanded use of Window II will be subject to review and adjustment in the light of a
second evaluation of the IF Pilot Scheme which would occur no later than the 6th Ministerial.  In the
absence of such adjustment, it will terminate four years after the completion of the last DTIS to be
undertaken under the revised IF.WT/IFSC/M/7
Page 18
ANNEX 5
Listed below are the website address links for the integrated framework:
http://www.integratedframework.org/index.html
http://www.integratedframework.org/about.htmhttp://www.integratedframework.org/mgt.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/implementation.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/diagphase.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/countries/cambodia.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/trustfund.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/partners.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/donors.htmhttp://www.integratedframework.org/doctype.htm
http://www.integratedframework.org/sites.htm
__________