RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
22 October 1999
(99-4594)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
Seventeenth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1999
Chair:  Ambassador Benedikt Jónsson (Iceland)
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the proposed agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/1160.
B. FOLLOW-UP TO THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
(i) Report by the chairman on the informal consultations regarding the Integrated
Framework held on 28 July 1999
(ii) Oral progress report by the Secretariat on the implementation of the Integrated
Framework
2. The Chairman said that, as suggested by the Airgram, the discussion on the Follow-up to the
High-Level Meeting would concentrate on the Integrated Framework (IF).  He would begin by
reporting on the informal consultations on the IF which had been held on 28 July 1999.
Mr. Chiedu Osakwe, the newly appointed Co-ordinator for the WTO's work with least-developed
countries in the run-up to Seattle, would subsequently provide an oral progress report on the
implementation of the IF.  The Chairman's repor t on the informal brainstorming meeting on the
Integrated Framework, held on 28 July 1998, is attached as Annex I.
3. The Chairman understood that, since the informal brainstorming meeting, there had been
some definite progress in the implementation of the Integrated Framework, both in terms of its
"mainstreaming" into the activities of some of th e core agencies involved and in terms of movement
towards the holding of round-table meetings for a number of LDCs.  He therefore invited the newly
appointed Co-ordinator for the WTO's work with least-developed countries, to give an oral progressreport on the implementation of the IF.  (Annex II contains the progress report by the Secretariat).
4. The representative of Bangladesh, welcoming Mr. Osakwe as Co-ordinator for LDCs, offered
some comments with regard to the issues raised  in his report on implementation, coordination, donor
interests and monitoring.  Implementation and progress were not as substantive as they should have
been.  The IF was something his government was pursuing regardless of its feelings for it.  It wassomething LDCs were doing because the internatio nal community was committed to it.  That should
not be forgotten in the deliberations in the S ub-Committee.  The IF was something that had been
agreed by Ministers attending the WTO Ministerial meetings in Singapore and Geneva.  It had grown
out of a feeling of responsibility that the multilateral trading system was not equally fair and filled
with opportunities for all Members.  His delegation realized that there were difficulties ofcoordination and coherence in the international effort.  At the same time, his delegation realized thatWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 2
there was strength in the international commun ity, and given the goodwill of the international
community that he hoped was guaranteed, there was no reason why there should not be faster an more
substantive progress.  Coordination, especially in Geneva and Washington, had not been as strong as
it should have been.  His delegation had been trying to get the six core Agencies to say, in one paper,
what they intend to do and how they intend to do it.  Unfortunately, such a paper was still notavailable.  The LDCs had their ow n known weaknesses of coordination in their capitals.  However, as
had been stated, his government had not had any coordination difficulties.  All ministries involved in
the IF had been brought into a new Steering Committee.  The Ministry of Trade and Commerce had
been clear and forthright in its leading role and ha d coordinated the work in the capital.  As a result,
his Government was in constant contact with the donor community in Dhaka and was receiving
queries as to the progress at the Geneva end.  Despite the work done by the WTO Secretariat and the
Administrative Unit, he had not yet been able to feed his Minister with enough progress at the Genevaend.  There was still a need for the six Agencies to show some actual field coordination.
5. The representative of Bangladesh continued by saying that the question of monitoring was
important.  At the current stage, the Sub-Committee was monitoring progress of coordination,
however, the progress of the work itself had to be monitored at a later stage.  His Government had
already held its coordination and had proposed the date of 25 November for the holding of theroundtable meeting in Dhaka.  The document containing the multi-year programme which would be
presented to donors in Geneva, in their capitals and in Dhaka was almost ready and should be out by
the first week of November.  Advance copies would be distributed.  His government had asked the
Administrative Unit to confirm acceptance of the date of 25 November for the roundtable, as it was
just before the Seattle Ministerial Meeting.  His Minister chaired the Steering Committee and hadasked him to enquire whether it would be possible to hold the meeting at that date.  The press, the
legislature and other ministries that his ministry had been motivating to participate in the exercise
were asking when the meeting would take place and what its outcome would be.  It was therefore
necessary that the meeting was held as soon as possible.
6. The representative of Bangladesh went on to say that technical assistance was the most
important aspect of the IF, as it was the only one that incurred immediate benefits to the LDCs.  Two
recent developments in the WTO had therefore to be brought to the notice of the Sub-Committee.  A
proposal by the delegation of the United States on technical assistance had been tabled in the General
Council.  His delegation supported that proposal.  The U.S. proposal had for the first time pointed to
the need to deal with supply-side and infrastructure weaknesses and suggested that the international
community look into that aspect of trade-related technical assistance.  Infrastructure improvements
required large injections of funds for assistance, but nevertheless he was grateful to the delegation ofthe United States for having brought up that impor tant aspect.  Another important aspect of the
proposal of the United States was the suggestion that  there should be an ongoing reporting mechanism
by the Chairman to the General Council and that a Deputy Director General, or some other officer,
should be named specifically by the Director-General so that the General Council regularly, or at
every session IF possible, be informed about progress in the IF.  His delegation supported thatproposal.  Another element related to the establishment of a research centre in the WTO which would
be looking after the research needs of the LDCs.  His delegation hoped that that idea could be further
strengthened and that some structured training in the WTO could be organized under that proposal.
One aspect of the U.S. proposal which his delegation opposed was the suggestion to include
philanthropic and private sector organizations and donors in the IF.  The work of the private sectorand NGOs was important and encouraged by his Government.  However, there might be difficulties of
coherence and coordination between the six core Agencies and the private sector and NGOs as the six
core Agencies might not be able to deal with the fast pace and small scale interventions smaller
agencies would undertake.  Therefore, for reasons of sustainability, his delegation had suggested to
the delegation of the United States not to include philanthropic organizations, NGOs and privatesector donor bodies in the new IF.  Another proposal which had been submitted by a group of eight
countries including Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands , Denmark, his own country and others on the
question of technical assistance.  His delegation had previously said that the financing of technicalWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 3
assistance had to be moved from the present unpredictable ad-hoc arrangement to a more stable one
for more funds to be sought and used on a specific, known and predictable programme of action.
Technical assistance should become a mainstream budget line within the WTO budget.
7. The representative of Haiti said that from the information in the draft documents circulated by
the Secretariat he had learned about the advantages his country could draw from additional market
access.  He therefore encouraged his country's trading partners to help the new Director-General in his
desire to push forward the proposal by the former Director-General Renato Ruggiero for Members to
agree on zero tariff treatment for all products originating in the LDCs.
8. The representative of Haiti continued by saying  that his country was one of those which had
benefitted most from the Integrated Framework and the efforts made by the WTO Secretariat, the
Administrative Unit and the other five core Agencies, to ensure a follow-up to the 1997 High-Level
Meeting on LDCs.  The difficulties in realizing the benefits of the IF had been mentioned and hisdelegation appreciated the efforts made by the Administrative Unit, UNDP, ITC, UNCTAD and the
WTO to get the IF under way.  The Geneva Ministerial Conference had given the mandate to
accelerate the follow-up of the results of the High-Level Meeting.  It had been difficult but he was
under the impression that there was some progress, especially when considering what happened in his
own country.  After the organization of the three or four roundtables that were in the pipeline it mightbe easier for the other LDCs to arrive at a speedy finalization of the preparatory process and to hold
their national roundtable meetings.  He reminded delegations that his government was just about to
organize a roundtable meeting and that an informal donor consultation would be held the following
Friday at which his government would present its preparations for the roundtable.  He counted on the
presence of his government's development partners  for his government to share with them the
experience of Haiti and hear their views on how to improve on the documentation.  The
documentation was at an advanced stage with a second version already prepared.  The national
Steering Committee had worked with two consultants financed by UNCTAD and UNDP to prepare
the document.
9. The representative of Haiti went on to convey his congratulations through the Chairman to the
new Director-General for his expressed intention to bring the issue of technical assistance before the
Seattle Ministerial Conference.  In that way, the Director-General seemed to take up a proposal made
by the delegation of Norway to the effect that WTO technical cooperation should be financed through
the regular WTO budget.  He reiterated his delegation's support for the Norwegian proposal, in its
entirety.  First, technical cooperation should be financed through the regular budget, and second,
something which was important to his delegation, all Members, without exception, should contribute
to that fund.  It would be abnormal IF the LDCs, wh ich were the first to benefit, could not contribute,
in spite of their limited resources.  That seemed to be a point of contention.  However, it was desirable
for an agreement to be reached on contributions by all, but according to the capacity of each.  A
concern which he had raised in the Budget Committee was to enable the LDCs to take the greatest
possible advantage of the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  His delegation had suggested that the
development partners of the LDCs facilitated the participation of the LDCs at Seattle.  The experiencewith the LDC meeting in Sun City, where each LDC delegation consisted of an official from the
capital as well as the Europe-based official dealing with WTO issues was positive.  The LDC trade
officials in Sun City had prepared a document which had been transmitted to the General Council by
Ambassador Chowdhury of Bangladesh and that docum ent would be discussed in Seattle.  It would be
a pity IF the officials who had prepared that document and who had began to grasp the negotiatingmechanisms for the integration of the LDCs into the multilateral system would be absent in Seattle at
the time when the debate would pick up.  His delegation therefore launched an appeal to delegations
wishing to contribute to a solid integration of the LDCs into the multilateral system to feed the trust
fund that had been set up by the Budget Committee to collect funding for the participation of LDCs at
the Seattle Ministerial Meeting.  He said he thought all of his LDC colleagues shared this appeal evenIF they could not be present at the current meeting.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 4
10. The representative of India said that his delegation supported the objective of the
Sub-Committee which was the full integration of the LDCs into the multilateral system.  His
delegation appreciated the problems LDCs faced.  For instance, while 29 LDCs were WTO Members,
not all of them were represented in Geneva.  He therefore posed the question of whether there was a
mechanism for feed-back from non-Geneva-based delegations to learn about how they saw theIntegrated Framework and other WTO programmes for LDCs.  He congratulated the delegations of
Bangladesh and Haiti which were very active.  They had naturally and admirably taken on a lead-role
for LDCs in the WTO.  However, it was important to get feed-back from non Geneva-based
delegations as well for their opinions to be taken into account.  A number of measures had been
alluded to including market access, technical as sistance and supply-side constraints.  He did not
believe that market access was the entire answer to the problems faced by LDCs.  Access was often
not the problem, the problem lay in utilising the access already granted.  Technical assistance andcapacity building were the key issues which Members should address IF they were to provide a
meaningful package for the LDCs at Seattle or beyond.
11. The representative of Lesotho said that while his delegation welcomed the appointment of a
Coordinator for LDCs, the move did not go far enoug h in addressing the problems of the LDCs.  It
was a temporary arrangement supposed to last only up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.However, the problems of the LDCs went beyond the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  IF there was
going to be any meaningful effort made in addr essing LDC issues in the WTO, a more permanent
arrangement had to be put in place.  That should not only include the appointment of a Coordinator,
but also a corresponding enhancement in the human resources available for LDC issues.  IF anything
should be done for the LDCs, it should be done in a systematic way with a number of mutuallysupportive assistance measures being made available simultaneously.  While his delegation agreed
that there was a need to enhance the availability of  financial resources for the implementation of the
Integrated Framework, a corresponding enhancemen t in the human resources available for it was
equally important.  IF nobody was there to ensure that the money available was put to good use it did
not matter what amount of financial resources was available.  Arranging roundtable meetings was notdifficult.  His government had done so before on other issues like poverty alleviation with the UNDP
and other agencies.  The most crucial part was the follow-up to the results of the roundtable meeting.
Until a mechanism was put in place to assist or encourage LDCs to ensure follow-up on all the
commitments and pledges made at roundtables, most of their problems would not be addressed by a
roundtable meeting.  The LDCs' development partners had to be engaged, not only in the period
leading up to the roundtable, but after as well.  Market access was an important issue which had to be
addressed.  Nevertheless, it was no solution in itself.  The LDC problem in most cases was not lackingaccess but lacking goods to sell.  There had to be assistance for LDCs to diversify their product base.
There was no LDC with stockpiles of products stuck in storage because it had run out of anywhere to
sell them.  The situation was rather that the LDCs only produced one or two types of products for
export.  They therefore had to diversify their product base.  Then only could they compete effectively
and make use of existing market access opportunities and call for improvements in market access.Efforts should be directed towards diversifying the range of products LDCs produced.
12. The representative of the United States welcomed the recent designation by the
Director-General of a special advisor to coordinate activities concerning the IF.  Her delegation hoped
that the coordination effort also included other issues of importance to developing countries such as
capacity building.  Because the focus of the meetin g appeared to be on the latest activities of the
Sub-Committee to improve the IF, some of the items discussed, such as the use of certain terms,
seemed similar to suggestions her delegation had made in its proposal submitted about two months
earlier.  Her delegation had entered into consultations with other delegations to make revisions that
would further accommodate some of the ideas and reactions to the original proposal.  Her delegation
aimed at tabling a revision during that week, including some elements which had been highlighted bythe delegation of Bangladesh.  Her delegation was appreciative of the endorsement by the delegation
of Bangladesh.  Her delegation had included some enhanced language on budget which she hoped
would put her government in a position to be responsive to the question of a comprehensive,WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 5
sustainable, long-term approach to the funding of technical assistance requirements in the WTO.  The
other element was that in addition to the improvements to the IF and after seeing success stories for
the LDCs, the IF should be considered for extension to other countries, as the idea was a good one.
After much discussion since its creation about its concept and in some cases about its functioning in
reality, the idea of coherence among institutions, whether it be to provide technical assistance or otherefforts to build capacity and the notion expressed in the EC paper on coherence, it had proved that a
coherent, integrated approach to capacity building in the WTO was imperative.  From discussions in
the General Council it was clear that trade-related issues could not be discussed in isolation without
bringing in some coordinated efforts with the other institutions, whether they be the Bretton Woods
institutions or other institutions active in promoting the very elements found in WTO to be necessary
for LDCs and other developing countries integration into the world trading system.  The work of the
Sub-Committee had to be elevated and a regular reporting procedure to the General Council on LDCissues had to be found in order to be clear that the Membership was serious about follow-up and
results.
13. The representative of the European Communities said that he hoped that what he heard during
the meeting was not just pre-Seattle Ministerial C onference excitement, but that some of the thoughts
would translate into long-term improvements.  Some improvements concerning mainstreaming couldbe detected from the reports given on the IF.  Ideas raised had to be followed up and his delegation
hoped to see that some of the good intentions expressed on more engagement and better coordination
would actually translate into a more effective system.  Recent concrete experiences in that respect
were informal donor meetings held in Geneva.  One with the delegation of the Gambia had been held
and another one with the delegation of Haiti was scheduled.  While his delegation supported the ideaof having that type of meeting in Geneva, his delegation had the impression that the meeting on the
Gambia to some extent was an opportunity missed.  It had resembled a pledging meeting and not a
cooperative, coherent, integrated meeting where the Agencies explained to potential donors where the
value added of an integrated approach lay, which the priorities were and where the synergies from
pursuing the proposed projects lay.  Some of that work had possibly been done at an earlier stage.However, IF bilateral donors were invited with a view to be convinced of the usefulness of the
projects being introduced into the roundtables, and IF additional funding was sought, his delegation
wished to see the focus of the meeting on integr ation.  He said that his comment was not only
addressed to the WTO, but also to the other five Agencies who, in part, had been present at the
meeting and who had not taken the floor to explain their vision about where their specific value-added
and expertise would come in to make each project holistic and better coordinated.  His delegation
looked forward to the meeting on Haiti and hoped that it would turn out differently.  He said that hisdelegation, like that of the United States, had submitted a proposal to the General Council.  One
important aspect of his delegation's proposal which related to the ongoing discussion in the
Sub-Committee was the idea to extend the IF to a broader circle of developing countries.  His
delegation believed that that was a necessary and useful initiative because the principles of the IF
were right.  That was also the main result of th e informal discussion of the Sub-Committee in July
1999.  Nobody questioned the principles of the IF, but it was unfortunately difficult to implement
them in the real world.  His delegation's proposal stated that the fundamental principles could be
extended to other developing countries in usin g the experience and knowledge gained through the
operation of the IF.  What was meant by that was that delegations had to have an idea of how the IF
was working.  That was where the review mentioned in paragraph 6 of the IF came in.  There was acase to be made for the six Agencies to seriously start reviewing what they had done.  Much material
had come out of the informal meeting in July.  Delegations had voiced specific queries they had with
respect to implementation.  His delegation was interested in how the six Agencies, especially the
WTO Secretariat and the Administrative Unit, intended to approach the review and what timeframe
they considered.  The IF did not give a timeframe for the completion of a review but stated "within
two years".  Several dates could be read into that, such as October 1999 for example.  He asked when
the review would take place, how the six Agencies intended to go about it and where the results would
be fed in.  Under paragraph 9 of the Geneva Mini sterial Declaration, there was a point for Seattle on
the follow-up to the High-Level Meeting.  That was a short time-frame and he did not wish to beWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 6
unrealistic.  Nevertheless, the point about a review should not be forgotten, it was one of the points
which were of long-term interest for improving the IF.
14. The representative of Burundi said that her delegation welcomed the decision by the
Director-General to designate a Coordinator for LDCs and hoped that the Coordinator would
collaborate closely with his colleagues from UNCTAD and WIPO.  However, her delegation wouldbe more satisfied IF a division for LDCs would be created in the WTO Secretariat.  Regarding
technical assistance, her delegation supported the proposal made by the delegation of Norway which,
to a certain extent, coincided with the African position.  She supported the intervention made by the
delegation of Lesotho regarding product diversification in the export sector, which implied technology
transfer to the LDCs.
15. The representative of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) said that a meeting of African
trade-ministers had taken place the previous week in Algiers within the framework of the OAU.  One
of the issues discussed extensively by the Ministers had been the IF and in the statements issued at the
end of the discussions there was a reference to the need for a new impetus to be given to the IF.  The
reference to the need for a new impetus to the IF encompassed both the Chairman's report and the
report by Mr. Osakwe.  There seemed to be a general unhappiness with the pace of implementation of
the IF but a recognition of the validity of its underlying principles.  In the light of the known problemsof coherence, uncertainty about financing and the fl ow of information there was perhaps a need for a
major rethinking of where the IF was going.  He was encouraged by the interventions he had heard,
including the proposal by the delegation of the United States, and there seemed to be some emerging
elements which could help a rethinking and drive the process forward.  It was clear that the issues of
coherence, financing and the flow of information were  some of the elements that had to be considered
more closely in response to what the African Ministers, 33 of which represented LDCs, had referred
to as a need for a new impetus.
16. The representative of Lesotho said that he had a point regarding a possible expansion of the
IF to other developing countries.  His delegation believed that the IF was a sound approach.
However, there had been problems with its implemen tation and one should first look at what had gone
wrong and how those problems could be tackled.  When something did not work, it would not be
fixed by making it bigger.  His delegation believed that before an expansion of the IF to other
developing countries could be considered, it should first be ensured that it was well functioning and
beneficial to the LDCs.  An expansion of the IF should therefore be considered carefully and the IF
should be made to function well in its present form.  Only thereafter could other alternatives be
considered.  The delegation of the United States had proposed the creation of a resource centre to
assist LDCs in the WTO.  As much as his delegation believed that there was scope for improvementin the coordination of LDC activities in the WTO, his delegation believed that the proliferation of new
bodies might lead to an increased demand on the already scarce resources made available for LDC
initiatives.  The setting up of a resource centre would lead to a creation of a secretariat to run the
resource centre which could possibly put more strain on the available budget.  At present, his
delegation could therefore not support the creation of such a resource centre.  There was already abody, funded by the Swiss government, to assist LDCs in particular and other countries which were
not well represented in Geneva.  That Agency went some way in addressing the issues that the United
States had proposed that the resource centre would undertake IF established.  The idea of establishing
a resource centre should be given careful consideration before it was implemented.
17. The representative of Norway said that many important issues regarding the IF had been
raised in the two oral reports given to the Sub-Committee and a thorough informal discussion had
been held in July 1999 from which many important conclusions had emerged.  One was that the IF
was not to be scrapped, however, it should be reformed from within and brought forward.  The Seattle
Ministerial Meeting was only eight or nine weeks away.  The most urgent issue to resolve seemed to
be the financing of technical assistance.  The delegation of Bangladesh had mentioned that and saidthat the most important aspect of the IF was technical assistance and had also made a reference toWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 7
proposals in that context.  In the special session of the General Council there were three proposals
directed directly at technical assistance, all of which had been mentioned.  He referred specifically to
the proposal from Kenya on behalf of the African Group and another from the delegations of
Bangladesh, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.  These two proposals were equal
in the sense that they aimed at solving the acute problem of financing, while the proposal by thedelegation of the United States was more related to the process of how technical assistance was
provided.  The three proposals were complementary and it would be beneficial to study them together.
All three could contribute to improve technical assistance in general and the functioning of the IF, in
particular.
18. The representative of the United States said that it had been because of comments similar to
those made by the representative of Lesotho that her delegation was in the process of revising its
proposal to make it clear that her delegation's intention initially had been to explore immediateexpansion of the IF.  However, her delegation had recognized that it first had to be proved that the
existing concept was workable and she was convinced that other countries which could benefit from
the IF wished to have that information as well.  The improvements laid out in the previous proposal
which continued in the revision were intended for the original designated beneficiaries before being
expanded to other developing countries.  However, the concept of the IF was a good one and shouldbe explored for other developing countries as well.  Her delegation's proposal also recognized the
need for capacity building assistance to address su pply-side, regulatory and infrastructure needs.
Some delegations had raised the issue of transfer of  technology.  That issue was sensitive in the view
of her delegation as it was dealing with private sector companies which had technology.  It had to be
negotiated with them what they could consider giving up.  The constitution and statutes of the UnitedStates prohibited the government from imposing th ings on private citizens.  However, to the extent
that the government had legislated in an interna tional forum to include an approach to technology
transfer it had to meet its commitments in that respect.  The focus of her delegation's proposal was on
capacity building and technical assistance.  Issues such as market access had not been included.  Her
delegation was, in that proposal, only interested in capacity building.  Her delegation envisioned that,in the part of its proposal that dealt with supply-side and infrastructure needs, issues of technology
transfer would be addressed in a coherent manner on a case-by-case basis.  Her delegation could be a
part of that discussion as indicated in the proposal, but it wished to include a more active role for
bilateral donors.
19. The delegation of Bangladesh said that the representative of Lesotho had raised the exact
concern he wished to raise regarding the comments made by the representative of the European
Communities with respect to a possible expansion of the IF to other developing countries.  From theLDC perspective at the receiving end, it was felt that to date, the IF had not been promising in terms
of real benefits on the ground.  Until the IF had been tested in actual implementation in the LDCs,
there could be no question of expanding it into new and broader areas.  However, the delegation of the
European Communities or any other developed country could carry out its own study of the
functioning and possible enlargement of the IF.  His delegation felt that the IF currently should focuson the LDCs which it had been conceived to support by virtue of the Ministerial Declarations of
Singapore and Geneva.  He was in full agreement with his colleague from Lesotho in raising that
concern.  Regarding the resource centre mentioned by the representative of Lesotho he said that his
delegation felt that there was a need for such a centre in the WTO.  What its shape was going to be,
what it was going to contain, and what it was going to do were matters that could be discussed at alater stage.  In terms of capacity building and technical assistance to the LDCs, a concentrated
resource centre in the WTO addressing the needs of the LDCs would be useful.
20. The representative of the European Communities sa id that he wished to clarify the position of
his delegation.  His delegation did not wish to burden the IF, and especially not the people who dealt
with it, with another fifty developing countries with in the next couple of months.  He had only raised
the issue in the Sub-Committee to say that the experi ence of the IF was needed to go ahead with what
his delegation believed was the right approach to capacity building and technical assistance.  HisWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 8
delegation was looking forward to the review to be able to draw the right lessons when approaching
the other developing countries' programmes and try to implement the principles of better coherence
with the World Bank, the IMF and the other agencies and thereby make capacity building more
effective.  He agreed with those who said that it was not yet time to enlarge the administrative
structures created for the IF.  Those had to remain primarily available to the LDCs.
21. The representative of  Côte d'Ivoire said that her delegation had noted the proposals made by
the delegation of the European Communities and by a group of countries including Norway, Sweden
and Switzerland.  The IF was a good approach based on good principles.  Certain delegation had said
that it was premature to extend it to non-LDC countries.  Her delegation thought that the IF was a
good approach and that it should be enlarged to intermediary countries which were not very
developed but which were not designated LDCs either.  These countries were in a delicate situation as
it was not clear how they should be classified.  The notions of LDCs and developing countries shouldnot be used too strict as there were a group of countries which found themselves somewhere in
between.  The IF could therefore be extended to benefit a larger number of countries.  The proposals
made by the European Communities were interesting in that respect.  One should not forget about the
intermediary countries.  Considering the JITA P programme of WTO/UNCTAD/ITC, she said that
certain countries easily attracted financing even though they hardly were less developed than others.Cooperation between the WTO and civil society and the WTO and other international organizations
was necessary to propose a system for enhanced financing of technical assistance for the weakest
among the developing countries.
22. A representative of the WTO Secretariat said that the evidence from the informal July 1999
meeting and the ongoing meeting showed that delegations felt that there was a good deal of
improvement to be made to the IF.  As mentioned in the report by the Secretariat, there was at least
one piece of good news and that was that one of the other Agencies, the World Bank, had integrated
the IF into its major policy frameworks; the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) and the
Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF).  That provided the WTO with the opportunity to
work more closely with the World Bank as well as with UNDP and UNCTAD and the other Agenciesinvolved.  He hoped that the WTO would be able to  work more closely with  them in the following
few weeks, especially in the light of the informal country-specific meetings to be held in the run-up to
roundtable meetings.  The roundtables themselves were only a further step in the process and the point
of the operation was to get good projects on the ground.  It was his aim to accelerate that process in
working with the LDCs and the Agencies to get good trade-related projects on the ground rather than
talking about it as had been done during the last year.  On the question of the review, the IF
mentioned the operation being reviewed by the six Agencies involved "after two years in the light ofexperience and taking into account the views of i ndividual least-developed countries where it has been
applied."  He supposed that after two years meant after October 1 999 but since it hat not yet been
applied much in any individual LDC the process of  review would essentially take place after the
Seattle Ministerial Conference.  One desirable outcome of Seattle would be pressure on the six
Agencies to make that review and to make it effective as well as making the process itself moreeffective.
23. Another representative of the WTO Secretariat said that Members had raised a number of
important issues relating to implementation, need for coherence and coordination, monitoring,
problems surrounding the roundtables, and the importance of ensuring adequate, effective and
predictable financing.  The question of whether a form of mechanism existed for feed-back from theLDC involved vis-à-vis the implementation of the IF had been raised by the representative of India.
The answer was yes and in various ways.  One important mechanism in a sense of a feed-back from
the LDCs was the Sub-Committee itself.  What had been heard during the meeting were important
aspects of the feed-back that the Agencies should get.  He said that he would himself encourage
participation by the Geneva-based LDCs in the Sub-Committee.  He knew that there often was aconflict regarding meetings in the WTO.  However, he considered the Sub-Committee a committee of
priority to LDCs.  Attendance at meetings would be an aspect of feed-back.  Secondly, focal pointsWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 9
had been established in the LDCs.  It might be argued that those were more of channels for
information to flow.  Nonetheless, through the medium of the reference centers and e-mail capacity, it
was possible for feed-back to reach the six Agencies.  The WTO Director-General had also taken the
initiative to organize a Geneva-week for non Geneva-based delegations in the week of 1-5 November.
That would also be an important forum for non-resident delegations to give feed-back.  The Web-siteof the Administrative Unit was another forum.  There seemed to be six broad issues that Members had
raised and that the Secretariat had to take account of.  The delegation of Haiti among others had
spoken with regard to market access issues.  The delegations of the United States, the European
Communities, Lesotho, Bangladesh and the observ er representative of  the OAU had spoken to
technical assistance; the necessity of predictabi lity, improvements, adequate funding etc.  The
European Communities had raised the importance of managing the informal meetings to prepare for
the roundtables in a manner that ensured that donors and other partners would be able to give theirviews, their opinions and their positions regarding how the roundtables would take place rather than
the apparent expectation for those informal meetings to be more of a pledging exercise.  The WTO
Secretariat would consult with the Chairmen of those meetings to make them as constructive as
possible.  The other broad issue of market access, supply-side capacity and the need for diversification
would be taken into account.  The views expressed w ith regard to the possibilities of enlarging the
number beneficiaries of the IF had been noted.  Finally, he stressed that the oral report he had given
was a building block to the review of the IF.  The review would not be a large one-off review but
rather a cumulation of the five progress reports already given.
24. The Chairman said that the interventions delegations had made underlined the importance of
the Sub-Committee keeping up its monitoring of progress in the implementation of the Integrated
Framework.  I was a way, not only for delegations to be kept informed, but also to keep up the
pressure on the core Agencies.  He proposed that the Sub-Committee met every two months to
monitor progress in the process.  That would mean that the Sub-Committee would meet once more
before the Seattle Ministerial Conference, but only after some of the trade-related meetings mentioned
by the Secretariat had taken place.   He suggested that the Sub-Committee meet on 19 November asthree roundtable meetings would hopefully have been held by that date.
25.  It was so agreed.
C. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT REGARDING THE COMPILATION OF EXISTING
MARKET ACCESS INFORMATION
26. The Chairman said that the Sub-Committee, at its last meeting, had asked the Secretariat to
circulate a draft version of the tables containing the compilation of existing market access information
that it had made.  Delegations would appreciate that the tables provided by the Secretariat on a
product by product base were extremely voluminous and would be both expensive to produce and
difficult to handle IF distributed to all Members at this stage.  What the Secretariat had done as a first
step was to circulate to each LDC the tables concerning its own trade, and to all of the 23 markets
concerned in the study a complete set of the tables.  At the initial stage, the tables were beingcirculated essentially for verification.  He said that he was sure, and the Secretariat would also
appreciate, that despite all best efforts there was need for updating and correction of some of the
information provided.  He requested delegations to verify the information and let the Secretariat know
of any corrections and updatings by 1 November.  He asked the Secretariat to help the Sub-Committee
understand the tables circulated and how it wished to proceed.
27. The representative of the WTO Secretariat said that the impetus to the exercise had come
from the former Chairman of the Sub-Committee, Ambassador Hans-Henrik Bruun, to build on the
work previously done on market access for LDCs for the High-Level Meeting in 1997 and in
particular the tables published in WT/LDC/HL/14 and Add.1. as well as documentWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 10
WT/CTD/LDC/11/Rev.1.  These two documents were derestricted.  Ambassador Bruun's initiative
which had been agreed to at the time by Sub-Committee was to provide information on market access
conditions and trade in the same markets that had previously been reviewed  in WT/LDC/HL/14, i.e.
23 markets, but not to LDCs as a group as had previously been done but to individual LDCs.  The
current work therefore presented information on ma rket access relating to the exports of individual
LDCs into the 23 major markets of interest to them and presented information on the trade flows, the
share of trade accounted for by the individual LDCs, the bound and applied rates of duty available,
any GSP or GSTP preferences, special LDC pref erences, other duties and charges and non-tariff
measures.  The main sources of information used had been data supplied by WTO participants
themselves in the Integrated Database complemented by trade data essentially from UN Comtrade.
Information up to 1997 was currently available under Comtrade and he believed that 1998 data was
beginning to become available.  At the previous meeting of the Sub-Committee, the details of thecolumns had been explained.  The first column showed the imports into each market in the survey
from the LDCs.  The second column showed the market  share of LDCs in total.  The third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh and eight columns showed the value and market shares in 1995, 1996 and 1997 of
an individual LDC as named on the top of the column and its relative market share into the different
markets into which it actually exported the particular product in that year.  The products were definedat the HS 6-digit level.  The next two columns were the MFN bound and applied rates available in the
Integrated Database, applied and bound by the particular market in the most recent year.  The bound
rate being the end of Uruguay period and the applied rate being 1997 data.  Where there were several
duties within a single six-digit tariff line, a tariff range was given as data was not broken down further
than the six-digit level which was the standard international coordination point for the HarmonizedSystem.  The following two columns gave informa tion, as available, on GSP and GSTP rates of duty
into the markets concerned and any special duties or  conditions applied to imports from LDCs.  The
column with the title "Other" gave information, ofte n footnoted to the tables, on specific preferential
schemes which fell outside the GSP and GSTP system.  For example the European Community rates
would be footnoted with information on the rates of  the Lomé Convention.  Information, as available
from data sources in the Secretariat on other duties and charges from the schedules of individual
Members was presented as was information on non-tariff measures which drew on the previous
information contained in WT/LDC/HL/14 Add.1 which in turn drew on the notifications by Members
of the WTO, the UNCTAD database on trade control measures and the WTO Trade Policy Review
series.  The non-tariff information was as compete as the Secretariat could make it.  However, he did
not wish to vouch for its absolute completeness.  The information was circulated to Members for its
verification.  He believed that the tariff information was correct and hoped that the same was true forthe non-tariff information but wished to have any comments from delegations by 1 November 1999.
28. The representative of Switzerland said that the work that had been done was interesting and
promised to provide a good insight into the matter of market access and problems faced by individual
LDCs.  To consider past exports, which meant actual imports, was to only consider one side of the
coin.  Another one would be to consider potential ex ports.  He said that he was aware that that was a
difficult task as it involved estimating potential product capacity and asked whether the Secretariat in
any way had considered including potential exports in the study.
29. The representative of the WTO Secretariat said that the draft information circulated was a
first step in a process which he hoped to carry further.  The first step involved a compilation of data
on products exported by any LDC to any of the 23 markets.  Through showing the position across
markets he hoped to show the potential or at least the market access conditions for exporting the same
products LDCs were already exporting to one market  to the other markets included in the study.  The
issue of potential exports could be developed in two ways.  One was to look at the market access
conditions for processed and manufactured goods derived from raw products currently exported by
LDCs.  It could also be useful to get a picture from the LDCs of the potential as they saw it forexporting other products to different markets.  He said that he appreciated any ideas from Members on
how to carry out further studies of potential exports of LDCs.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 11
30. The representative of the European Communities said that it was academic to discuss whether
market access was more important than supply-side constraints.  His delegation was pursuing a
strategy where both were essential.  Neither of them was very much without the other.  His delegation
had put forward a proposal for basically zero tariff access for LDC exports.  Considering the lists and
the rates compiled by the Secretariat there still seemed to be a case for that type of a proposal.  It wasalso important to extend market access in countries neighbouring the LDCs.  His delegation's
initiative and the information provided by the Secretariat would help to prove its value as a part of a
more general strategy.  On the other hand, IF the necessary was not done on capacity building, market
access would not lead far either.
31. The representative of UNIDO said that his delegation supported the proposal by the
Secretariat that in considering potential markets th ere was a need to take the extent of value-added
into account, products which presented processing opportunities.  Considering the opportunitiesemerging in global markets, not many of them were in traditional products.  When the analysis
focussed on traditional exports and zero tariffs le vels for those traditional exports, the comment made
by the representative of Lesotho became valid.  The issue was not access, it was to diversify
production capacity.  There was an earlier study by UNCTAD which had classified products into
"dynamic products" for which there were some value added which could result in employmentcreation and poverty alleviation.  He underscored the points made by Lesotho and India that the work
of the Sub-Committee should concentrate on ways in which countries could be assisted to diversify
production.  IF capacity building was considered for diversifying the production base the work of
other agencies became critical.  The newly appointed WTO coordinator for LDCs would be able to
include activities of other agencies that could enhance the effectiveness of the technical assistancegiven to enhance production capacity in LDCs.  In that regard, the effort mentioned in the report by
the coordinator to align the IF with the CDF of th e World Bank was welcome as was any effort to link
the IF with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF).
1  The latter would be
critical as most UN agencies were involved in that process at the country level.  That would enhance
the effectiveness of any technical assistance provided.
32. The representative of Bangladesh said that as had been said, it was clear that the discussion of
market access versus capacity building was an academic one.  It was important to understand that the
two were related.  Which of them was more important was not the issue.  The issue was that there
should be an integrated approach to market access and capacity building.  From a small market
perspective, market access did activate LDC economie s.  It brought in FDI, it helped technology
transfer and capacity building indirectly as well.  At the end of the debate, market access did remain
of primary importance as it was the prime mover of capacity building.  He stressed the importance ofkeeping market access at the centre of the debate.
33. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire asked whether it was possible for the Secretariat to
undertake a similar compilation of market access information relating to other countries which were
not LDCs, either to all other developing countries or at least to those who so requested.
34. The representative of the WTO Secretariat said that the "brief" of the exercise initially had
been to do work for LDCs.  However, he recognized that there were other countries which might be in
a similar position of needing information.  There was also work going on in the Technical
Cooperation Division in that respect and he wished to talk to the representative of Côte d'Ivoire and
                                                     
1 "As a product, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is a single
framework document promoting the complementary and mutually reinforcing qualities of the discrete country
programmes of individual UN funds and programmes. UNDAF is thus a tool for maximizing the individual and
collective impact of UN programmes of assistance on country priorities.
As a process, UNDAF will help UN funds and programmes to work in concert to achieve policy goals,
including those flowing from recent global conferences, and to support national capacity development morecoherently".  (Source: FAQs on UNDAF's Website at http://www.itcilo.it/undaf.faq.htm)WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 12
discuss it with the Technical Cooperation Division to see what could be done to help her delegation in
particular.
35. The Chairman said that as the documentation compiled by the Secretariat was so voluminous
that it was difficult to get an overview, he suggested that the Sub-Committee agreed not only that the
delegations concerned send any corrections and up-dates they might have to the Secretariat by1 November 1999 but also that the Secretariat used  the information compiled to write a short note
summarizing and giving an overview of the data which would be attached to the revised tables.
36. It was so agreed.
D. FUTURE WORK OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
37. The Chairman said that considering the two previous items on the Agenda, the
Sub-Committee  already seemed to have decided on some of the work it would undertake in the nearfuture.  It was obvious that delegations attached importance to continued monitoring, by the
Sub-Committee, of progress in the follow-up to the High-Level Meeting and in particular of the
Integrated Framework.  The Sub-Committee would also continue to consider the item of market
access for the exports of the least-developed countries.  In addition, he had suggested at the last
formal meetings that the Sub-Committee could take up implementation and capacity-building and hewished to make a suggestion in that respect.  At its meeting on 6 July 1998, the Sub-Committee had
requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper which could help the Sub-Committee assess the
difficulties the least-developed countries faced with regard to the implementation of WTO
obligations. The context of the request had been several-fold.  First, the importance attached by WTO
Ministers in their 1998 Declaration to the implem entation of individual WTO Agreements and the
realization of their objectives.  Second, WTO Ministers' intention to further pursue their evaluation of
that issue at their Third Ministerial Conference.  That would cover, inter alia , the problems
encountered in implementation and the consequent impact on the trade and development prospects of
Members.  Third, the Sub-Committee's monitoring of  follow-up to the High-Level Meeting, which
had had as a central theme the least-developed countries' capacity to take advantage of the benefits ofparticipating in the multilateral trading system whic h was clearly and closely linked to their capacity
to implement WTO Agreements.  Subsequently, the Secretariat had circulated a document
(WT/COMTD/LDC/W/10) on LDC implementation of WTO Agreements.  The discussions on that
paper had not resulted in any concrete action.  He therefore proposed that the Sub-Committee asked
the Secretariat to consider that document and the discussions held on it and come up with suggestions
as to how LDCs could be assisted in implementing WTO Agreements.  That might be taken up in the
post-Seattle framework and he suggested that the Secretariat be asked to produce such a paper early inthe year 2000 for consideration in the spring.
38. It was so agreed.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
39. No item was raised under "Other Business".WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 13
ANNEX 1
Report by the Chairman on the Informal Consultations
of 28 July 1999 on the Integrated Framework
Following intense discussions on the Integrated Framework in the Sub-Committee on
Least-developed countries, it was decided that the Sub-Committee should convene in an informal
setting to discuss the Integrated Framework.  That informal meeting was held on 28 July 1999.
The purpose of the meeting was to have a frank exchange of views on the Integrated Framework.  I
was positively surprised and pleased to see such a large number of delegations present at that meeting,
considering not only that we convened at 8 in the morning, but also that the discussions of the
selection of the Director-General was ongoing and that it was just before vacation time.   I believe that
it was a very useful meeting in a number of respects: both because several least-developed countries
gave detailed accounts of how they saw the Integrated Framework and because the delegations
representing donors gave their views.  LDCs spoke about the practical problems they faced in the
implementation of the Integrated Framework, how  they had managed to solve those and proposed
changes to the Integrated Framework, while donors gave their opinions on the aims and functioning ofthe Integrated Framework.
Before that meeting, the Integrated Framework had often been criticized in an un-nuanced
manner.  I was therefore a bit provocative in my introductory remarks and asked whether the
Integrated Framework should be scrapped.  However, one of the conclusions that can clearly be drawn
from the informal consultations was that the Integrated Framework fulfilled a needed purpose.  No
delegation which took the floor wished to see it dismantled and all subscribed to its underlying
principles of a demand-driven exercise that aime d at making trade-related technical assistance more
efficient and forged cooperation on trade issues in the LDCs, within and among agencies and within
the donor community.  Some even said that one main drawback for the Integrated Framework wasthat it had received too little political attention, and that the profile of trade-related technical
assistance had to be raised.
It became clear at the meeting that the expectations on what the Integrated Framework should,
or could achieve, differed among delegations.  A few LDC delegations said that the interpretation of
"trade-related technical assistance" sometimes seemed to exclude areas of real importance to LDCs
like infrastructure development for example.  It was stressed that the Integrated Framework was notthe answer to all development problems of the LDCs.  Without the proper internal policies in the
LDCs and the external support of the international community in areas other than trade, the Integrated
Framework will not assist LDCs develop at all.  However, the Integrated Framework can be an
important part of a least-developed country's development strategy, IF put into the right context.  IF
successfully implemented, it could even set a precedent for domestic cooperation among ministries,involvement of the private sector and NGOs in the LDCs and of cooperation between large agencies
and involvement of donors.
Even IF the informal consultations showed that delegations generally considered the
Integrated Framework useful, all seemed to agree th at it could be improved.  Action to improve the
functioning of the Integrated Framework was called for at the level of all three main groups of
players: the LDCs, the six core agencies, and th e donors.  Coordination problems were frequently
cited problem at all three levels, but also among the different levels.  We heard first hand experience
from some LDCs which explained that in their capitals there were sometimes coordination problems
among ministries, among the private sector representatives, within the academia and NGOcommunities and among all those players.  However, in the LDCs that had encountered coordination
difficulties, steps had been taken to overcome those.  One way was for the LDC governments to be
careful in the selection of consultants who would assist them.  The national consultant had to have
experience both from the public and from the private sector.  Another way of dealing withWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 14
interministerial cooperation was for the focal point for the Integrated Framework in the LDC to create
an interministerial group to work on issues related to the Integrated Framework.  Some delegations
mentioned that it was already an achievement that the different players in the LDCs which dealt with
trade-related matters communicated and cooperated.  One LDC delegation mentioned that in order to
make the Integrated Framework process sustainable beyond the holding of a roundtable, a permanentsteering committee had been established in his capital and the aim was that the consultant would
follow the process together with the steering committee beyond the holding of a roundtable.  It was
also stressed that the WTO Trade-Policy Review Mechanism could assist LDCs prepare for the
holding of a roundtable meeting was mentioned as was the role of the press in teaching the public
about the importance of trade for development.  One LDC delegation mentioned that his government
did not have any coordination problems at all at the national level, but with the international
Agencies.
As concerned the cooperation among the agencies and between the Agencies and the LDCs, a
suggestion was that one of the agencies with LDC field representation would be selected as lead
agency for the Integrated Framework process in each LDC.  In this way the LDCs would have one
clear counterpart to turn to, and it would ease cooperation among the six core agencies and withdonors as it would be clear which agency took the lead in matters concerning the implementation of
the Integrated Framework in a specific LDC.  Th e lead-agency should also assist the LDC in taking
the first steps in arranging for the holding of a roundtable.  However, the Agencies have confirmed
my understanding that it already is the practice to  choose a lead Agency to which the LDC would
principally turn for assistance in the preparations for the holding of a roundtable.  During the informal
meeting, delegations also stressed that choosing one agency as lead agency would not mean that the
other agencies would not be involved.  There was a need for the active involvement of all agencies
even IF one was designated lead-agency.  A desire was also expressed for better internal coordination
between the agencies headquarters and field-staff as was coordination between donor countries
embassies and capitals.
Several delegations representing donors said they wished to be more closely involved in the
process.  They urged the LDCs to keep donors be tter informed about their preparations for the
organization of a roundtable .  There were also calls for the inclusion of other intergovernmental
organizations and non-governmental organizations.  It was said that the idea of engaging other
institutions was for those to contribute with resources and not for them to take part in the policy issues
of the WTO.
One of the problems with the Integrated Framework mentioned by LDCs was that it was
unclear from where the funds would come.  Some  donors replied that the initial idea with the
Integrated Framework was to use existing resource s more efficiently.  Some LDCs also found the
Integrated Framework unclear as to whether it was up to the governments of the LDCs or whether itwas the responsibility of the Agencies to contact donors for funding.  A couple of delegations
expressed the view that obtaining finance for projects actually was secondary to the benefits of
coherence in the Integrated Framework.
A concern raised by LDCs was the lack of clear deadlines in the implementation of the
Integrated Framework.  One delegation suggested that there should be a deadline in the case of each
LDC for the LDC government and donors to agree on the timetable for the exercise.  It was also
mentioned that, as the exercise for many of the LDCs had began with them preparing their
needs-assessments back in 1997, their needs assessments no longer corresponded to the current
situation.  There was therefore a need for several LDCs to update their needs-assessments.
The desire to set up a monitoring and follow-up mechanism was mentioned by several
delegations.  The need for proper monitoring and follow-up was raised both with regard to the
agencies and with regard to internal LDC policy .  One idea mentioned was for a WTO working party
to be established to discuss LDC issues, another was for a WTO Deputy Director-General with theWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 15
responsibility to report periodically on the progress and shape of the Integrated Framework.  After we
have listened to the report by the Secretariat, I will come back and make a proposal for enhanced
monitoring of the process from the WTO side.
I believe that the points I have mentioned were the most pertinent points raised during the
informal consultations.  In my view, these comments show that there is a role for the Integrated
Framework, but also that there is an urgent need for action to improve it.  However, I consider that the
Integrated Framework already has produced one major achievement and that is that issues related to
trade in least-developed countries have begun to be better coordinated both within the LDCs, among
the six core Agencies and even within the donor community.  Coordination and coherence is a slow
and burdensome process, but it produces real benefits with time.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 16
ANNEX 2
Fifth Progress Report by the Secretariat on the Integrated Framework
Mr. Chairman, for your report to the Sub-Committee, which I know Members will agree is
factual and balanced,  I am about to present the 5th in a series of continuing Progress Reports on the
Implementation of the IF.  In this report, I propose to share with Members some of the problems
encountered, progress made, the status of Roundtables, and the review of the IF as mandated in
paragraph 6 of WT/LDC/HL/1/Rev.1.
Before I present this report, let me extend to Members of the Sub-Committee, the warm and
personal greetings of the Director-General who wanted to be present at this meeting, but is currently
in Washington for the IMF/World Bank Meeting, and will travel to New York, later today, to address
the 9th Annual Meeting of Trade Ministers of L east-Developed Countries (LDCs), tomorrow,
29 September 1999.  The Director-General has asked me to convey to Members his determination to
work for a meaningful outcome for Least-Developed and poor countries at the Seattle MinisterialConference; and his stated priority to ensure a balanced outcome for all Members.
Let me return to the report that I am required to  present.  The concept of the IF is an excellent
and truly original idea.  We should commit ourselves to make it work.  The different parties in the IF,
donors, beneficiaries, participating agencies and others, have expressed various views about the IF.Practical difficulties have been recognized.  There have been problems in implementation.  Concerns
have been expressed.  There is divergence of expectations and different understandings on objectives.
Problems of coordination have been mentioned.  There have been complaints of bureaucratic
difficulties encountered.  Nonetheless, it is obvious that we are bound by a consensus to ensure that it
works.  Members, donors and beneficiaries alike all desire the maintenance of the IF.
When Members endorsed the Integrated Framework, at the High-Level Meeting for
Least-Developed Countries in 1997, no budgetary provisions were made for additional funding for its
implementation.  The six agencies were asked to undertake the major exercise of implementing the
Integrated Framework only by using efficiency gain s and possible re-prioritisation.  As a result, the
high expectations  of some LDCs have been disappointed.
At the same time, we should also recognize that the Integrated Framework was never
designed to solve the complex challenge of development; but address aspects of it that are
trade-related.  Some progress has been made considering the resources available.  We need to inject a
dose of realism in the circumstances. The IF can be used as a tool in achieving the goal of increasing
the participation of LDCs in the multilateral trading system.
I would like to briefly address the specific issues of (i) implementation; (ii) cooperation
among and within the six core agencies; (iii) donor requests; and, (iv) monitoring and follow-up.
Implementation
First, on implementation, there is scope for improvement.  There is a learning curve, and we
are still on that curve.  Implementation can be further improved by engagement.  We learn by
engagement.  Some LDCs are advanced in the implementation of the IF in particular with respect tointernal coordination.  This experience can be shared with others.  A statement of national experiences
may even be helpful, Members contemplate a review of the IF.  The Agencies would be better able to
assist LDCs by drawing on the experiences of those LDCs that are advanced in the implementation of
the IF.  For instance, the experience of some LDCs in the implementation of the IF has led to the idea
of creating a steering committee of several Ministries as well as the private sector and civil society forWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 17
enhanced internal coordination in the implementation of the IF.  The agencies have fully supported
the formation of Steering Committees; and as in Bangladesh and Haiti, have organized and
participated in short workshops to brief members of the Steering Committee and launch preparations
for the Roundtable Meeting.  Furthermore, experience  to date, suggests the need for more care in the
selection of national consultants that are experienced both in the public and private sector.  Onimplementation, Members may note that documentation by the Administrative Unit aims, inter alia, to
take account of experiences gained by those LDCs that are advanced in the implementation of the IF,
and to afford this experience to other LDCs.
At the G77 in Marrakesh and the recently concluded 2
nd Ordinary Session of the Trade
Ministers of the OAU/AEC, the DG held many bilateral meetings with Trade Ministers, including
with LDCs’ Ministers.  Issues raised included impr ovement of the implementation of the IF, in all its
phases:  pre-Round Table, Round Table phase, and post Round Table phase.  The results of
suggestions made are under analysis for feasibility.
Cooperation among and within the six core Agencies
Second, cooperation among and within the six core agencies has been raised as an issue.
Coordination will always be a problem; and we must seek to optimize coordination.  I would like to
assure Members of the Sub-Committee that the participating agencies are paying careful attention to
improving coordination, particularly since the Informal Meeting of the Sub-Committee on28 July 1999.  Members also have a role to play in enhancing coordination on trade-related issues
amongst the six participating Agencies.  As Members of the participating organizations, increased
emphasis can be accorded to the trade-related issues.  The views that Members express here at the
WTO can be reinforced IF they are similarly made in the other participating agencies.  The Secretariat
is glad to report that since the last meeting, the IF has been mainstreamed into the World Bank’s
Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), and the Comp rehensive Development Framework (CDF).  There
is now, therefore, a clear commitment by the Bank  to ensure that their country Directors include
trade-related concerns in their national programmes.  Contacts with Mme. Moulinier at UNDP,
Geneva, Mme. Tibaijuka, at UNCTAD, have made evident fresh ideas that the Agencies can pursue,
and have provided fresh impetus to the IF.  Members of the Sub-Committee should be assured that for
the Secretariat, it is not business as usual.  Comments have also been received from the IMF on how
coordination, inter alia, can be improved amongst the Agencies.  Our new Director-General is alsoproviding important political boost to the implem entation of the IF.  We are committed to enhancing
coordination amongst the participating Agencies.
Donors
Third, donors desire closer engagement with the process of implementation of the IF because
not all development partners are locally represented in some of the LDCs.  To respond this need, the
WTO, upon request proposes to host informal consultations at the WTO, together with the LDC
Government and the agencies, prior to the trade-sector Roundtable.  These meetings in Geneva areconceived as informative and preparatory meetings.  At these informal meetings, advance copies of
the documentation for the Roundtables are circulated, including the draft multiyear programme.
These informal meetings provide the donors with  a forum to listen to the LDC Government,
offer early or initial pledges, or simply offe r ideas and suggestions on the future Roundtable.
Examples of Informal Donor Consultations we re held in connection with the Trade Policy
Reviews of Mali, in November 1998, Togo, in January, this year, and Guinea in February, this year
also.  Just last Friday, we held a separate meeting for the Gambia.  A Meeting for Haiti is scheduled
for Friday, this week, and for Tanzania, on Monday, 4 October.  Others will surely follow.  TheseWT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 18
meetings are intended as precursors for the Round Tables which will be held later in October and in
November these countries.
It is obvious also that LDCs have a role in  informing their development partners of their
intention to schedule trade-related roundtable meetings, and to involve their partners in the process.During the Informal Consultations on 28 July 1999, the question was raised as to who would contact
the donors.  The answer is clear, either the LDC in forms the donors directly, or it could ask one of the
participating agencies to do so, or it could request the Administrative Unit to do so.  The
responsibility of contact with the development partners rests with the LDC.  As defined, the IF is
demand-driven; and, LDCs need to “own” the proce ss.  The participating agencies should not decide
which development partners to invited to a roundtable meeting of a particular LDC.  However, let me
emphasise that the WTO and the Administrative Unit will assist an LDC in organizing a pre-meeting(Informal Consultations) in Geneva.
Monitoring and follow-up
In paragraph 5(1) of WTO/LDC/HL/1/Rev.1, the IF stipulates that the role of co-ordinating
the implementation and monitoring of the trade-related technical assistance activities shall be
primarily the responsibility of the least- developed country.  The implementation and monitoring
modalities stemming from the endorsement of a multi-year country programme, and envisaged as the
next step of the Integrated Framework, would be facilitated with the setting up of a mechanism, such
as a Steering Committee, composed of the relevant stakeholders within each LDC.  As earlier noted,
some least-developed countries, with the involvement of field representatives of the World Bank
and/or UNDP, have already set up such mechanisms to prepare for the trade-sector Roundtable.
Least-developed countries, supported by their development partners, may wish to consider
strengthening and maintaining such Steering Committees, as a mechanism for overseeing theimplementation, monitoring and evaluation of the multi-year programme of trade-related technical
assistance activities.
No evaluations of multi-year country programmes, as mandated by paragraph 5 (m) of the
Integrated Framework, have as yet been undertaken by the six agencies, because no such programmes
have been endorsed to date.  However, on an annual basis, the six agencies have been monitoring the
status of implementation of their respective activities in the Integrated Responses.  The nextmonitoring update is due to be undertaken in March 2000.  The monitoring of the trade-related
technical assistance activities undertaken at the end of 1998 and early this year, has been sent to
representatives.  Typically, the monitoring updates are forwarded to the focal points of LDCs for
comments and verification as well as being disseminated on the Integrated Framework web-site.
The Secretariat has reported the regular monitoring of progress made on the follow-up to the
High-Level Meeting.  These Reports have been circulated to Members and Observers as Secretariat
documents WT/COMTD/W/40, WT/MIN(98)/2, WT/COMTD/W/45, WT/COMTD/LDC/W/12 and
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/12.  We have also adopted the practice of inviting representatives of the other
core agencies to address meetings of the WTO Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries on theirrole in the Integrated Framework.
2
One of the objectives of the Integrated Framework is to provide comprehensive information.
To this end, information is contained on the web-site of the Integrated Framework
(http://www.ldcs.org) about least-developed countries' Needs Assessments, the Integrated Responsesof the six agencies, their state of implementation, the activities of other development partners in a
                                                     
2  ITC, Administrative Unit of the Integrated Framework, World Bank, UNCTAD, IMF and the UNDP
have addressed the WTO Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries. This is reflected in the minutes ofthese meetings WT/COMTD/LDC/M/12 through 16.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 19
particular country (insofar as it is provided to the Administrative Unit), the state-of-play of the
organization of trade-related Roundtable meetings, and current and up-coming events in relation to
the Integrated Framework.
The evidence suggests that the web-site is serving the useful purposes of transparency and
information sharing among and between the six agencies, the least-developed countries and their
multilateral, regional and bilateral development partners. There have been well over 11,000 visitors to
the site since mid-September 1998.
The Status of the Roundtables
An important question, Chairman, repeatedly raised by Members is what is the status of the
Roundtable?
As background which Members already know, 40 out of the 48 least-developed countries,
have now completed their needs assessment.  Thirty have designated focal points3 for the Integrated
Framework.  Yemen, recently, became the forty-first country to request assistance to participate in the
Integrated Framework.
On the actual status of the roundtables themselves, to date, approximately twenty
least-developed countries have informed the partic ipating agencies of their interest in scheduling
trade-sector Roundtables under the Integrated Framework.  Most have requested assistance for
organizing these roundtables.  Drawing from past experience and the positive and constructive
suggestions put forward by Members, momentum has been generated for the Roundtables scheduled
in Bangladesh, the Gambia, Haiti and Tanzania in the fall of 1999.  Copies of the draft multi-year
programme documentation to be endorsed at the Roundtable and dates of the meeting can be accessedon the Integrated Framework web-site.
While all core agencies, pursuant to their mandate and expertise can provide the requested
assistance, the UNDP and the World Bank, by virtue of their extensive accumulated experience in
organizing Roundtable and Consultative Group Meetings as well as their field operations in most
least-developed countries, are very well-suited to play a central role in assisting least-developed
countries at this stage of the ex ercise. Over the next 6 to 12 months, the UNDP and/or the World Bank
together with, in some instances, one or more of the other core agencies, would be assisting Benin,
Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea , Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal,
Niger and Zambia in their preparations for a Roundtable meeting.
What about the WTO, where do we stand?  Members need to know that we have implemented
a proportion of technical assistance activities at th is stage of the Integrated Framework, on the basis
of, and I would like to emphasise, extra-budgetary support of Members . We can provide detailed
statistics of our technical assistance activities on request.  Essentially, we would just mention that
three-week Trade Policy Courses for participants from Anglophone and Francophone countries were
organized. Specialized regional seminars have been held as well as individual national seminars.  AsMembers already know, "Reference Centres have been opened in 38 LDCs. By the end of 1999, over
85 per cent of the activities to which the WTO undertook commitments in the Integrated Responses,
would have been undertaken.
On an annual basis, the six core agencies have been monitoring the status of implementation
of their respective entries in the Integrated Responses.  Implementation of the activities to which thesix Agencies committed themselves is progressing.  Almost half of the 2000 entries by the
                                                     
3 Contact details of the Integrated Framework focal  points in least-developed countries and in their
development partners - bilateral, regional and multilateral, can be accessed on the web-site http://www.ldcs.org  .WT/COMTD/LDC/M/17
Page 20
six Agencies in the Integrated Responses, have been completed or are in advanced stages of
completion.  For transparency, the information has been collated and disseminated by the
Administrative Unit on the Integrated Framework web-site, with the next update, based on the
six Agencies inputs, due to be completed by March 2000.  This information on implementation status,
has also been sent for comments and verification, to  least-developed countries who, as owners of the
Integrated Framework exercise, are responsible fo r co-ordinating the implementation and monitoring
of trade-related technical assistance under the Integrated Framework.
Members have expressed concern at the slow pace of progress at this phase of the Integrated
Framework.  We can and should accelerate, but we also need to recognize there are several factors at
play that are not under the control of participants in the process.  Hard work, patience and improved
coordination as well as sharing of responsibiliti es are required.  As expressed by Members and
recognized by the participating Agencies, the trade-sector Roundtables will not be an end in
themselves.  Results to be delivered including the endorsement of a multi-year programme is
contingent on the quality of the preparatory process leading up to the meeting.  Indeed, success in
endorsing a concrete multi-year programme of trade-related technical assistance at a Roundtable
depends on a host of factors including, the prevailing political and economic situation in theleast-developed country, the level of donor interest and support, the resources, mandate and expertise
available with the different agencies to deliver the requested assistance, and not least the priority and
importance attached to trade by the least-developed country themselves as the owners of the
Integrated Framework.
The Review Process
Chairman, the review of the IF by the 6 Agencies is mandated in paragraph 6 of
WT/LDC/HL/1/Rev.1.  This review to be undertaken after 2 years in the light of experiences gained
in the operation of the IF has already begun.  Discussions in the Inter-Agency Working Group,
chaired by the WTO, will be focussing on this issue further particularly in light of the views expressed
by least-developed countries and their development pa rtners at the forthcoming Ministerial in Seattle.
Perhaps more importantly, it is considered necessary that Members should be involved in this review
exercise.  The views of Members would be welcomed on how the review process can be structured to
include the participation of Members.  We could maintain regular monitoring of the IF on a
bi-monthly basis.  We could further discuss this IF another meeting is scheduled for the Sub-Committee before Seattle.  We could also consider a review after the Round Table Meetings have
been held with Gambia, Haiti, Tanzania and Bangladesh.
In conclusion, let me say that all stakeholders: Members, both least-developed, as owners of
this demand-driven exercise and others, as bilateral development partners seeking to increase thebenefits that LDCs derive, share a common responsibility with the agencies for success in meeting the
aims of the IF.
__________