RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
4 April 2001
(01-1699)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
Twenty-third Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 12-13 FEBRUARY 2001
Chair:  Ambassador Benedikt Jónsson (Iceland)
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the proposed agenda contained in document
WTO/AIR/1469/Rev.1.
B. REQUEST FOR OBSERVERSHIP
2. The Chairman recalled that Members had agreed at the 25th Session of the Committee on
Trade and Development (CTD) to invite ad hoc  observers from intergovernmental organisations,
listed in document WT/COMTD/W/22/Rev.5, to observe meetings of the CTD and the Sub-
Committee on a meeting-by-meeting basis.  He pr oposed that, the Sub-Committee, following recent
practice, should decide to invite the agreed intergovernmental organisations to participate at the 23rd
Session and at the next formal meeting.
3. It was so decided.
C. FOLLOW-UP TO THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
(a) Proposal for an Integrated Framework Pilot Scheme
4. The Chairman recalled that that at the 22nd session, some Members of the Sub-Committee had
requested him to hold informal consultations in order to reach a common understanding on the
implementation of the IF, within a clear time-frame, and that the Sub-Committee had so agreed.  He
drew the attention of the Sub-Committee to  the dr aft proposal for the Integrated Framework Pilot
Scheme which had emerged  from the informal consultations among Members with a view to
proceeding with implementation of the IF on a pilot basis. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-
Committee revert to an informal mode for Members to make comments and suggestions, and that the
Sub-Committee would revert to formal mode later in the day to adopt the proposal.
5. It was so agreed.
6. [Extended Informal Discussions]
7. On resumption of the formal meeting, the Chai rman said that Members had before them the
revised document on the IF Pilot Scheme which incorporated comments made during the informal
discussions.  He said that the discussions had been constructive and reflected the best WTO traditionsof give and take, and respect for the concerns of others.  As a result, the draft had been improved in its
substance, as well as its language, and had reached a degree of comfort for all delegations.  During the
informal discussions, it had also become evident that all Members wished to make progress and
proceed with the actual delivery of concrete trade-related technical assistance to LDCs.  Moreover,
the adoption of the document would send a powerful signal that the WTO was ready to moveconcretely on integrating LDCs into the multilateral trading system and the global economy.  InWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 2
addition to being a concrete "deliverable" for the Third UN Conference on LDCs (LDC-III), the
adoption would be an important confidence-building measure as the WTO prepared for its 4th
Ministerial Conference.  The Chairman asked whether Members of the Sub-Committee  were in theposition to adopt the revised proposal for the Integrated Framework Pilot Scheme.
8. The representative of the United States expressed concern that the management structure, as
described in the proposal, confused the roles of the IF Steering Committee and the Inter-Agency
Working Group (IAWG) regarding decision-making in Trust Fund matters.  She also recalled the
establishment of a Board of IF Trust Fund that had been earlier proposed by the agencies, which she
thought would be more appropriate for dealing with trust fund matters.  She asked why the IAWG
would now function as the IF Trust Fund, thus making  decisions regarding the allocation of the Trust
Fund.
9. Concerning the newly revised paragraph 5, the U.S was in the position to accept the revision,
but also proposed to add the wording "on-going" before "bilateral contributions to the IF and its Pilot
Scheme" in the first sentence.
10. The representative of Bangladesh stated that informal consultations had been useful and
constructive, and that the revised document fully reflected the understanding of his delegation.  He
echoed the sentiment expressed by the Chairman that the adoption of the proposal of the IF PilotScheme would send a strong signal to the international community.  He reiterated his country's total
support to the revised proposal, and expressed the hope that actual implementation of the proposal
would now begin.
11. The representative of the European Communities stated that the Communities supported and
were in the position to adopt the revised document as it stood.  Regarding the suggestion of the United
States to add the wording "on-going," he said that it would discount the possibility of "future"
bilateral contributions to the IF and its Pilot Scheme.
12. On the management structure, the EC representative recalled the extensive discussions
Members amongst Sub-Committee members including in informal consultations, and reiterated that
the dual role played by the IAWG/IFTF was to reduce the bureaucracy in the new IF structure.Therefore, he believed that the IAWG had Trust Fund functions.
13. The representative of Tanzania expressed support for the view expressed by the European
Communities regarding the suggestion by the United States on the additional wording "on-going".
The addition could be a limiting factor.  On the role of the IAWG/IFTF, Tanzania agreed with the EC
that the management structure should be kept to the minimum necessary level.  The representatives on
the management bodies would be  the same  officials wearing different hats.
14. The representative of the United States said that she had taken note of the views expressed by
the EC and Tanzania on the additional wording "on-going", and supported their suggestion not to
include the wording.  Regarding the management structure, while the U.S. was able to accept the
notion of the "dual role" of the IAWG/IFTF, it was still concerned about the roles of the IF Steering
Committee and the IAWG/IFTF regarding decision-making  in trust fund matters.  In the US view, the
IF Steering Committee should not be charged with  Trust Fund functions, although it understood that
there was a necessity for contributing donors to be able to provide guidance on Trust Fund matters.
The representative requested that clarification be made  in the text regarding the role of the IF Steering
Committee when providing guidance to the IAWG/IFT F on Trust Fund matters, as well as the role of
the IAWG when performing IFTF functions.
15. The representative of Djibouti said that the drafting exercise had gone on long enough for
Members to finally reach an agreement.  He expressed satisfaction that after four year since the
initiation, all stakeholders to the IF were finally able to achieve something concrete.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 3
16. On the issue of the role of the proposed Steering Committee and the Trust Fund, the
representative of the European Communities clarified that, in their understanding, the Steering
Committee would provide oversight  for activities which were to be delivered by the six agencies, butfinanced by the contributing donors to the IF Trust Fund.  It was important for donors at the IF
Steering Committee to be able to set the direction for the usage of the Trust Fund, without creating anadditional body to exclusively deal with financial matters.  The EC representative requested the US to
take into account the views of the EC. Moreover, he reminded he said that additional concerns, as
expressed by the  US could be addressed, in the review process of the Pilot Scheme, at the end of the
pilot phase.
17. The representative of the United States said that while she had taken note of the EC's
comments, the U.S. still remained concerned about the role of the IF Steering Committee.  She
proposed that donors be represented within the IAWG when performing IFTF functions.
18. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-Committee suspend its session to allow further informal
consultations among Members in order to reach an agreement on the text before adoption.
19. It was so agreed.
20.  [Informal discussions]
21. On resumption, the Chairman read out the  amendments to the text of the proposal for the IF
Pilot Scheme that had emerged during the informal discussions.
22. The representative of the European Communities inquired as to the reason for the deletion in
the latest revision of the number of special representatives of donors and LDCs to the Inter-Agency
Working Group.
23. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that the number of
Special Representatives of donors and LDCs' representatives to the IAWG could be decided at a later
date.  The crucial issue was that the views of donors and LDCs would be reflected at inter-agency
meetings.  The specific number of special representatives would then be considered by taking into
account the need for flexibility and a small number that would ensure that the meetings were
manageable.  Furthermore, representation amongst donors should considered in the light of a balanceamong the DAC/OCED Secretariat, contributing donors  to the IF Trust Fund, and bilateral donors.
24. The Chairman said that a result of intensive informal consultations, there finally seemed to be
a consensus on the latest revised text of the proposal for the IF Pilot Scheme.  He therefore proposed
that the Sub-Committee adopt the proposal for th e Integrated Framework Pilot Scheme and the
recommendations contained in it.
25.  It was so agreed.1
26. The Chairman said that he would report the adoption in the form of a letter to the Director
General, in his capacity as the Chairman of the IAWG at the level of the Heads of Agency, and that an
appropriate report would be made by the Sub-Committee, through the CTD, to the General Council, at
its next meeting.
27. The Chairman expressed his deep gratitude to all Members who had been involved in the
difficult exercise of drafting the proposal for the IF Pilot Scheme since the 22nd Session of the Sub-
Committee.  The final text before Members was the result of a difficult exercise.  It reflected the
                                                     
1 The proposal for the Integrated Framework Pilot Scheme, as adopted by the Sub-Committee on Least-
Developed Countries, is contained in WTO document WT/LDC/SWG/IF/13.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 4
constructive and flexible attitude of all the key parties involved, including donors, LDCs and the
agencies.  The Chairman then briefly highlighted the main elements of the decision on the IF Pilot
Scheme.
28. First, the decision would proceed with the implementation of the IF on the basis of a pilot
scheme.  Implementation of the IF would first be carried out in a few selected LDCs, which haddemonstrated a clear choice and commitment to mainstream, or integrate, a trade integration chapter
or agenda, as part of their development and poverty reduction strategies.  Once positive results were
attained in the pilot countries, this approach woul d be considered for extension to other LDCs.  The
Chairman emphasised that the pilot approach was the only way to proceed particularly after three
years, of failure at worst and modest results at best, in implementing the "old" Integrated Framework.
29. Second, the new approach to the IF focused on mainstreaming.  It would essentially involve
assisting LDC governments to formulate a chapter on trade integration in their Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs) or other development fram eworks such as the United Nations Development
Assistance Framework (UNDAF).  A trade integration strategy chapter would, inter alia , identify both
the domestic and external factors that had contributed to the country's lack of strong linkages with the
global economy through trade and investment flows.  Through analysis of the country's fundamental
strengths and weakness in a cross-country context and through evaluation of trends in the country'smajor export products and markets, the trade chapter would then draw conclusions.  The conclusions
would, inter alia , identify specific policy measures and trade-related technical assistance priorities to
maximize the benefits of trade policy reform and to promote integration, with a clear focus on the
linkage between external trade, growth and poverty reduction.  The Chairman stressed that this trade
integration chapter was the main instrument for the "new" IF which emphasised the policy context inidentifying and analysing the LDC's priority needs of trade-related technical assistance and capacity
building.
30. The Chairman said that after having overseen endless debates on the IF with much frustration
over the past years, he considered that the Pilot Scheme was a big step forward which would take the
IF to the next stage.  The new IF would assist LDCs in ensuring the role of trade as an engine for theireconomic development and poverty reduction.  He expressed special appreciation to those donor
Members who had indicated possible pledges to the IF Trust Fund and, therefore, converting the IF
from an unfunded into a funded mandate.  Their pledges would also transform the IF into a potentially
effective mechanism for the delivery of trade-related technical assistance, which was now properly
placed in the policy context.
31. The representative of Tanzania expressed full support for the latest revised text for the
proposal for the IF Pilot Scheme.  He said that the adoption of the proposal demonstrated concrete
progress for the IF, and that the countries identified under the Pilot Scheme would provide a role
model for other LDCs to follow in mainstreaming trade into country's development and poverty
reduction strategies.  Finally, he expressed appreciation to all Members, but in particular the
representatives of the U.S. and the EC, for their efforts to re-vamp the IF.
32. The representative of the United States expressed appreciation to the Chairman and other
delegations for working in a collegial manner to reach agreement on the text of the proposal for the IF
Pilot Scheme.  She said that the view of the US on the IF, as reflected in the first sentence of
paragraph 4 of the adopted proposal, was to ensure coordination and collaboration among all partners.
An enhanced and improved IF, either through bilateral assistance or the IF Trust Fund, should
enhance the original objective of the IF, which was to coordinate the delivery of trade-relatedtechnical assistance by the six agencies so that the needs of LDCs, including human capacity-building
and supply-side needs, could be addressed.  She reiterated the importance of coordination and
collaboration, which she hoped would be facilitated and complemented by extra resources to be
provided to the six agencies under the IF Pilot Scheme.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 5
(b) Joint IF Seminar: "Policy Relevance of Mainstreaming Trade into Country Development
Strategies: Perspective of Least-Developed Countries", 29-30 January 2001
33. The Chairman said that the joint IF semina r on the "Policy Relevance of Mainstreaming
Trade into Country Development Strategies: Perspective of Least-Developed Countries", 29-30
January 2001, had been attended by many Members, from donor, developing and least-developedcountries.  The participants had included not only trade officials based in Geneva, but also
development and finance officials based in the capit al, as well as a number of non-IF agencies, such
as regional banks and organisations.  The Chairman invited the Secretariat to report on the seminar.
34. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs  reported on the seminar.  He
said that the six agency seminar had been conducted on the platform of the Integrated Framework not
only as a mechanism for the delivery of trade-related technical assistance to LDCs, but also as a
mechanism for assisting LDCs to reflect trade priority areas of action in their overall nationaldevelopment plans and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).
35. Over 200 participants had taken part in the seminar.  Participants included representatives
from the trade, development and finance communities.  Bringing together officials from various
ministries had also been one of the main objectives of the seminar.  At the end of the seminar, Mr.
Jonathan Fried, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance, Government of Canada,
had provided Concluding Remarks for the Seminar, on his own personal responsibility.  Seminar
participants had agreed that the outcomes of the seminar, including the proceedings, lead
presentations, and the concluding remarks, would be communicated to the events follows: (i) the
Okinawa Workshop on Trade-Related Capacity Building, 2-4 March 2001; (ii) LDC -III, 14-20 May
2001; (iii) the Meeting on Financing for Development; and (iv) regional and multilateral institutions.Based on the decision by the Sub-Committee at its 22
nd Session, the outcomes of the seminar were
one of the deliverables for LDC-III.
36. The seminar had raised several important issues.  First, there had been a consensus that trade
priority areas of action needed to be integrated into overall national development plans and PRSPs.
Participants recognised that while trade reform and liberalisation were important, mutually supportivepolicies were essential if the dividends from these reforms were to be fully appreciated.  In this
regard, participants stressed the importance of sound macroeconomic policies, and coherent domestic
regulatory regimes, as well as trade liberalization and reform policies that were pro-poor and pro-
growth.
37. Second, many participants had raised concerns about the proliferation of policy frameworks
and of technical assistance programmes, and had called for improved coordination among bilateral
and multilateral donors.  In raising these concerns, participants had emphasised the necessity of thedelivery of technical assistance within a coherent policy framework, and not on a random or stand-
alone basis.  In this regard, there had been wide recognition that the IF could serve as an effective
mechanism for the delivery of trade-related technical assistance.  Many participants expressed support
for the implementation of the IF on the basis of a pilot scheme.
38. Third, many participants had voiced the need to strengthen the capacity of LDCs in future
trade negotiations and in the effectiveness of thei r participation in the multilateral trading system.
This point had been made by panellists from several LDCs, including the Gambia, Malawi,
Mauritania and Zambia who had given presentations on their national experience to reflect trade
priority areas of action in PRSPs.  Parallel to the seminar, the Secretariat had organised private
meetings  amongst representatives of donors, LDCs and the World Bank team led by Mr. KemalDervis, Vice President for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management.
39. Finally, there had been strong support among the participants for enhancing the TPR
mechanism for LDCs.  One of the suggestions that emerged from the discussions was that otherWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 6
multilateral economic institutions, such as the IMF, UNCTAD, and the World Bank, should be
actively involved in the TPR process, which wo uld in turn could have more positive yields
inenhancing the trade capacity of LDCs.
40. The representative of Mexico stated that the seminar had re-confirmed the importance of the
IF as a mechanism for improving coordination among development partners to assist LDCs in
building and strengthening their capacity in the area of trade.  It was imperative for the IF to produce
concrete actions, including mainstreaming trade in national development plans.  In this regard, the
adoption of the IF Pilot Scheme was a step forward in the right direction.  Finally, he asked how the
results of the seminar would be sent out to LDC-III, the Meeting of Financing for Development
Conference, and other multilateral and regional institutions.
41. In response, the Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that it had
been agreed at the end of the seminar that the Director-General would send out the results of the
seminar, once they were properly formatted.
42. The representative of the European Communities commended the Secretariat for organising
the seminar, which the EC had found useful.  The seminar had assisted in crystallising the consensus
that the PRSP process was the anchor for coordinating trade-related technical assistance for LDCs.  In
this regard, he found that the presentations by LDC representatives on their experience inmainstreaming trade into PRSPs  were interesting.  Finally, he hoped that the international community
would build on the success of the seminar, by taking  follow-up actions in the forthcoming events such
as at LDC-III.
43. The representative of the United States commended the Secretariat for the well-structured
seminar, whose outcomes could as well be shared by developing countries, which also faced similar
problems, and the challenge of mainstreaming trade priority issues into national development plans
and strategies for poverty reduction.  She hoped that the results of the seminar would be implemented
in a concrete term in LDCs, as well as in developing countries.  She noted that the presentations by
LDC representatives of their mainstreaming experiences had been particularly interesting.
44. The representative of Haiti stated that the seminar had been important and useful, and hoped
to receive a full report of the seminar soon.  One of the achievements of the seminar had been to bring
together officials from trade and finance ministries, as the latter ministry played a key role in making
important decisions in country.  Nonetheless, there remained a serious concern that the IF had not yet
produced results, and it was hoped that the IF Pilot Scheme could result in concrete actions.  The
representative of Haiti was also concerned that the IMF and the World Bank would not make any
contributions to the IF Trust Fund.  In his view, it was important for the two institutions to support the
IF Pilot Scheme that had been fully supported by bilateral donors.  Moreover, the representative hadreceived a positive indication from the representative of the World Bank on his suggestion of linking
debt relief with possible funding of projects emerging from the IF Round Tables.   He stressed the
importance of Trade Policy Reviews for LDCs, which he hoped could be supported financially by
donors.  Finally, he was concerned by the minimal presence of LDCs at the seminar, and asked the
Secretariat how many LDCs had participated.
45. The representative of Norway commended the Secretariat for the seminar, which had been
well-organised and useful.  He said that the seminar had demonstrated strong commitments to
mainstream trade into national development plans and the need for coherence between bilateral and
multilateral efforts.  Participants from Norway’s development agency had also found that it was a
useful event.  Moreover, the private meetings organised at the margins of the seminar had also beenuseful.
46. The representative of Tanzania stressed that the seminar had been useful for LDCs.  He
thanked donors for making it possible for LDCs’ capita l-based officials to participate in the seminar.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 7
In particular, the seminar had provided important interactions amongst donors, financial agencies and
LDC representatives, and a forum for the exchange of views on how to better integrate LDCs in the
global economy.  He added that the parallel private meetings, including with the Vice President of the
World Bank had been useful.  He stressed the importance of associating other multilateral institutions
in the TPR process for LDCs.  Finally, he expressed the hope that the seminar would help theimplementation of the IF, including mainstream ing trade into PRSPs, and delivering concrete
beneficial action on the ground.
47. The representative of Canada commended the Secretariat for the successful seminar whose
choice of speakers was excellent, particularly from LDCs.  She wished there had been more
participants from LDCs.  The seminar had provided a unique opportunity for Canada to bring together
its finance, development and foreign affairs officials to discuss the IF.  It was hoped that the seminar
would be replicated at the regional level, which would provide the opportunity for bilateral andmultilateral donors as well as recipients to discuss the IF on the ground.  Canada appealed to other
Members to support the IF agencies to conduct such seminars at the regional level.
48. The representative of Mauritania commended the Secretariat for the seminar, which had been
an enriching experience for his delegation.  His delegation, including experts from the capital, had
participated actively in the seminar, sharing Mauritania’s experience of mainstreaming trade.
Moreover, he highlighted the private meeting with  the Vice President of the World Bank at the
margins of the seminar.  Finally, he reiterated the need for follow-up actions to the seminar, including
the wide dissemination of the seminar conclusions to other forums such as LDC-III.
49. The Observer from the UNCTAD commended the WTO for organising the excellent seminar.
He said that there had been a good number of LDC participants at the seminar, including some
excellent speakers such as from the Gambia, though there could have been more.  The seminar had
provided an opportunity to include finance ministry officials who were dispensable for the IF which
would now go beyond trade ministries in the PRSP process.  Moreover, he emphasised the need for
the 6 agencies to work together to make sure that trade was an integral part of the PRSP process.  In
this regard, the adoption of the IF Pilot Scheme was important for the implementation ofmainstreaming, though further advocacy for mainstreaming was needed.  Finally, the representative
recommended that the seminar could be replicated at the regional level.
50. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said in response to the
questions raised by Haiti, that there had been 15 LD Cs participants from capitals in the seminar.  The
participation of LDCs was a general concern and needed to be taken up broadly.  Regarding the
agencies' contributions to the IF Trust Fund, he said that at the Second Inter-Governmental
Preparatory Committee for LDC-III on 5 Februa ry 2001, the World Bank had reported on the
proposal that it had made to the Development Grant Facility of the Bank for resources to be
contributed to the IF Trust Fund.  However, he reiterated that although it was a proposal, it would be
sufficiently significant if approved.
51. The Chairman said that the comments from Members indicated the success of the seminar,
and commended the IF agencies for organising it at the right moment.  He reiterated that the Sub-
Committee looked forward to receiving the full report of the seminar as soon as possible.  He also
proposed that the Sub-Committee note the requests by the seminar to the Director-General to
disseminate the results of the seminar to the fort hcoming international meetings, as listed in the
Concluding Remarks at the seminar, as well as to all interested audience, as widely as possible.
52. It  was so agreed.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 8
D. THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
53. The Chairman  recalled that the Second Inter-Governmental Preparatory Committee for the
forthcoming Third United Nations Conference on Least-Developed Countries (LDC-III) had been
held in New York on 5-9 February 2001.  He invited the Executive Secretary of LDC -III to report on
the preparatory process for the conference.
54. The Executive Secretary of LDC-III (UNCTAD) said that the conference was a major
response by the international community to pr oblems of 48 LDCs, now, 49 LDCs, or of over 700
million of people.  It was a test as to whether the international community could act on wide fronts.
The conference covered a number of issues encompassing governance, infrastructure, energy,
transport, telecommunication, investment and agricult ure, all of which would be treated in special
thematic sessions.  Trade was important part of the Conference, but equally were health, education,
employment and financing for development.  Each issue  had been assigned to a lead agency within oroutside of the UN system, which would have the task  of organising a thematic session on the issue.
For instance, the WHO was the lead agency for health, the FAO for agriculture, and the UNDP for
governance, while the lead agencies would collaborate with other agencies.  In some cases, agencies
outside the UN system would be lead agencies, such as the World Bank and the Development
Assistance Committee at the OECD in the area of finance and the WTO in the area of trade.  At eachthematic session, there would be co-lead countries,  one from an OECD country and the other from an
LDC.  Both would prepare the session, with a view  to the realisation of concrete initiatives or
"deliverables" to be announced at the conference.  The majority of participants would be from the
ministries of finance and planning , as well as Heads of State, while officials from other technical
ministries would be also involved.
55. There were three tracks in the preparatory process for the conference.  The first was the
formulation of individual national action plans, or  broadly speaking interim or full PRSPs, which
were produced by national preparatory committee, jointly with UN Resident Representatives.  Such
plans were intended as a reference point around which future development assistance and initiatives
could be organised.
56. The second track was the formulation of a gl obal programme of action (GPOA), which was
being negotiated in New York.  There had been some difficulties with the drafting of the GPOA
because one major group had not been fully prepared to discuss specific details.  Nonetheless, the
latest draft would be soon available, and would form the basis for negotiations to be held in the two
weeks from 26 March 2001.  The most problematic areas in the draft GPOA were finance and trade,
but in particular, trade as contained paragraphs 39 to 41 in the draft GPA.  The problem was that some
strongly felt that any reference to actions to be taken in the WTO, needed to be avoided in thedecisions of LDC-III.  The paragraphs which had caused concerns among some Members included,
for instance, the reference to making technical assistance an integral part of WTO binding
commitments, and the reference to exempting LDCs from domestic support and export subsidies.  The
Executive Secretary stressed that these references were declaratory rather than mandatory, thus only
calling the WTO to consider such actions, and that there would be further room for discussing and
negotiating the draft.  He noted that other parts of the draft did not contain such divergent positions as
the trade section.
57. The third track was the conference itself.  The Executive Secretary asked the Sub-Committee
to consider the relevant paragraphs of the draft GPOA and how best these could be forwarded to the
conference.
58. The representative of Haiti, speaking as a member of the group of LDCs and the Group of 77,
appealed to all Members of the G-77 for their support in helping LDCs.  Negotiations, in New York,
on the trade section in the draft GPOA had been difficult, and therefore the process could be refered toWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 9
Geneva where trade experts were located.  He reiterated the importance of reaching meaningful
agreements in the negotiations on the trade section.
59. The representative of the European Communities said that the negotiations could be re-
directed to Geneva where trade expertise was, and asked the Executive Secretary’s view on this issue.
60. The representative of Mexico said that a number of sections in the draft GPOA, such as
agriculture, services, technology and energy, had either direct or indirect reference to trade, and hence
were linked to the WTO.  These trade matters should be dealt in the context of the WTO.  WTO
Members should be afforded the opportunity to comment.  Moreover, he emphasised that any
commitments in these sections should not be made at the expense of developing countries and that the
GPOA needed to take account of a balance between developing and least-developed countries.
Therefore, developing countries needed to be involved in the negotiating process.
61. The representative of Tanzania said that because negotiations on the draft GPOA were taking
place in New York had  prevented many trade officials, based in Geneva, from actively participating
in the process.  He asked whether any particular decision regarding the location of negotiations on the
trade section had been taken at the preparatory meeting.  Moreover, he asked what steps needed to be
taken before finalising the GPOA.
62. The Executive Secretary of LDC-III said in response to the question by the EC and Tanzania
regarding the location of negotiations, that the UN inter-governmental preparatory committee for the
conference had taken a decision that the negotiations would take place in New York.  The decision
had been based on a number of considerations, including the fact that all 49 LDCs were represented in
New York,  and not in Geneva.  Moreover, it had also been decided that the inter-sessional meeting
would be held back to back with the third preparatory meeting in New York.  The location had beendecided by the representatives of each country to the UN based in New York.  The decision raised the
usual problem of coherence within governments.   UNCTAD had financially supported LDC officials
from Geneva to participate in the Second Preparatory Committee Meeting in New York, and was
prepared to do so for the forthcoming Third Preparatory Committee Meeting.  He appealed to
Members for their possible support for additional LDCs  at that meeting.
63. Regarding the trade section in the draft GPOA,  comments had already been received from
Canada, the EC, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the United States.  Comments were being awaited
from the G-77.  The latest draft would soon be circulated to all Governments. The Executive
Secretary asked Members to carefully review the draft, in particular, from paragraphs 39 to 41, which
referred to trade, and thus  concerned the WTO.
64. The Chairman expressed appreciation to the Executive Secretary for the Third UN
Conference for LDCs for his contributions to the work of the Sub-Committee on the item.  He
recalled that the Sub-Committee at its 22nd Session had decided on four areas of WTO contribution to
LDC-III.  The four areas were:
(i) the effective implementation of the Integrated Framework;
(ii) a study on mainstreaming, based on the joint IF seminar held on 29-30 January 2001;
(iii) a factual study on current market access opportunities for LDCs; and;
(iv) a status report on LDCs' accession to the WTO.
65. He invited the Secretariat to report on progress made in the preparations for its WTO
contribution to LDC-III, including on the report on the "Status of Least-Developed Countries'WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 10
Accession to the World Trade Organisation", as contained in WTO document WT/LDC/SWG/IF/11,
which was presented in the Sub-Committee.
66. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that reports on the
mainstreaming seminar and on the implementation of the IF on the basis of a pilot scheme had been
provided under the previous agenda items.  Concerning the report on market access, the Secretariathad provided a part of the draft report, which contained trade and tariff information on market access
opportunities for LDCs.  The Secretariat asked Members to verify the information by 28 February
2001.
67. The market access study involved relevant WTO Divisions namely, Development, Market
Access, Statistics, and the Secretariat Working Group on the Integrated Framework and LDC Issues.
The objective of the study was to establish factual market access opportunities, including
improvements and barriers that existed with regard to LDCs.  Once the report was finalised, it woulddetermine if improvements had been achieved in market access opportunities for LDCs.  As reported
by the Director-General at his meeting with LDCs on 13 January 2001 and also at the Opening
Session of the joint IF seminar on 29 January 2001, there had been significant improvements in
market access opportunities for LDCs in the past few months, including by Norway, Canada and New
Zealand.  The report would examine market access opportunities for 48 LDCs, as classified by theUN.  Once Senegal's re-categorisation as an LDC was confirmed, it would also be included in the
analysis.
68. The study would focus on 34 trading partners of LDCs, including Argentina, Australia,
Barbados, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the European
Communities, Ecuador, Estonia, Hong Kong, China, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Korea Republic,Latvia, Macau, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, the
Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Switzerland, Togo, Turkey, the United States and Uruguay.  These
countries had been selected due to the availability of their trade and tariff information, as reported in
the Integrated Data Base (IDB).  The Secretariat would search for additional information.
69. For the initial draft report, approximately 18,000 entries had been extracted from the national
trade and tariff submissions, as reported to the IDB.  The report would focus on about 4000 products,
as classified at the six-digit HS level, which represented about 90% of LDCs' exports.  The remaining
10% of LDCs' exports would  not be accounted for as they were either not reported in the IDB or the
trade levels were not significant.  The period covered by the report was from 1997 to 2000.  Duties
used in the analysis were MFN bound and currently applied rates, as well as preferential rates granted
to developing countries, including under the GSP and for LDCs.  In cases where preferences were
temporary and provisional, the statutory rate was used.  The recent preferences that had been notifiedby Canada, Korea, the EC, Norway, New Zealand, would be incorporated in the next draft.
70. The fourth area of WTO contribution to LDC-III was the report on the "Status of LDCs'
Accession to the WTO", as contained in document WT/LDC/SWG/IF/11.  One of the points made in
the report was that since the establishment of the WTO, no LDCs had yet completed their accession
process as provided under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO.  TheSecretariat requested Members to provide any feedback and comments on the document.
71. Apart from the four areas of WTO contributions that had been decided by the Sub-
Committee, the Director-General had also decided on the fifth deliverable to be reported to the
conference, which would focus on the institutional integration of LDCs into the multilateral trading
system.  An area of focus, in the report, would include the establishment of the WTO ReferenceCentres in LDCs.  All but 8 LDCs had  Reference Centres established in their countries.  The
Government of New Zealand was considering making the funds available, which would allow the
WTO Secretariat to complete the installation of the Reference Centres in the rest of LDCs, where the
civil and political conditions permitted.  The Director-General would also report on the Non ResidentWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 11
initiative whose objective was to include those LDCs without physical representation in Geneva in
WTO day-to-day activities and decision-making.
72. The representative of Lesotho said that the market access study could identify products of
exports for which LDCs could take advantage of duty-free access.  In this regard, he suggested that
the Sub-Committee seek the assistance of the UNCTAD in identifying such products.
73. The representative of Norway asked whether he could verify the trade and tariff information
once Norway’s new GSP commitments were incorporated in the next draft.  Moreover, he requested
an explanatory note to be attached to the document.
74. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that Norway could
verify the document once the GSP commitments were be incorporated.  He added that the Secretariat
would provide an explanatory note.
75. The representative of Mexico said that the draft was difficult to understand without a note
explaining the origin of the data, and the variables and methods used.  He questioned the accuracy of
the information contained in the draft document.  Moreover, he enquired as to the relationship of this
study with the market access study that had been conducted two years before.
76. In response, the Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that the
information contained in the draft document had been drawn from the data submitted by Members
themselves to the IDB.  In comparison with the earlier study conducted in 1997, this study was more
recent, as it included data from 1997 to 2000.
77. The representative of European Communities said that the draft document appeared to
exclude market access conditions in a number of large developing countries, such as Brazil, India and
South Africa.  The study could also focus on the analysis of the products, which were of interest toLDCs.  Recalling the 1997 study that had containe d some uncomfortable truth for some Members in
the analysis, the latest study needed to update information on tariff escalation in agriculture and
textiles.  He emphasised that the study needed to provide relevant and factual information in a
synthesis of the data contained in the draft report.
78. On the implementation of the Integrated Framework, the representative of the EU wished to
know what steps would be taken by May 2001 at the time of LDC-III.  On the report on
mainstreaming based on the joint IF seminar, he suggested that the report could contain an overview
of the seminar, based on the Chair’s concluding remarks, in addition to the compilation of
presentations and papers.  Regarding the docum ent WT/LDC/SWG/IF/11, he said that the status
report on LDCs’ accession to the WTO was factually correct.
79. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs clarified that the draft
document was only part of the final report, and that on the basis of the document, the Secretariat
would develop a synthesis and then draw conclusions  for the benefit of members.  The Secretariat’s
request for verification of the draft document was to establish a basis on which a synthesis would be
written.  Moreover, the final report would include non-tariff barriers, again based on the notification
by Members.  On the report on mainstreaming, the Secretariat would prepare a summary of the
proceedings of the seminar, along with lead presentations and the concluding remarks, which wouldbe included in the report.
80. The representative of the United States expressed its wish to discuss the analysis, the
conclusion as well as recommendations, which would go together with factual information.  She said
that the US had recently notified its additional GSP benefits  covering over 1800 new tariff lines
under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) .  Since a large number of LDCs were located
in Africa, she wondered whether the information co ntained in the notification would be included inWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 12
the study.  Moreover, she asked why China, which was a non-WTO Member, was included in the
study, while several large developing countries such as India, Brazil were excluded.
81. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on th e IF and LDCs replied that the coverage of
countries analysed in the study was limited by the availability of the information provided by
Members to the IDB.  Some Members had not reported to the IDB.
82. The representative of Tanzania enquired as to whether the draft document, which analysed the
conditions of market access-giving countries, would also analyse areas of product and export interests
for the LDCs.  He also suggested that the study could include a review of the evolution of market
access conditions in favour of LDCs, and of the impact of market access on LDCs since the High
Level Meeting in 1997.  Regarding the report on accession, he asked what would be the objective of
the report to be submitted to LDC-III as a deliverable.
83. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs replied that the Sub-
Committee had decided to present a status report on LDCs' accession to LDC-III because attention
had been drawn to difficulties that LDCs faced in acceding to the WTO.  Such status report would
draw the attention of the conference to difficulties experienced.  On the report on market access, the
limited availability of information could prevent an analysis from LDCs’ perspective.  The analysis
using the perspective of market access preference-g ivers would provide an important dimension of the
picture.  He said that market access difficulties that had been identified by LDCs themselves, in their
Needs Assessments, which had been submitted as pa rt of the follow-up to the October High Level
Meeting for LDCs, would be used in the analysis.
84. The representative of Canada said that a country and the UNCTAD Secretariat were
conducting similar work on market access studies, and that it would be important for the Sub-
Committee to discuss thoroughly the scope, approach, and synthesis of the study.
85. The representative of Mexico said that the study needed to focus on sector-based analysis.
86. The Chairman suggested that in further proceedi ng with the preparation of its contribution to
LDC-III, the S ecretariat should fully take into account the comments and suggestions by Members,
and that the Sub-Committee would revert to this agenda item at its next meeting.
E. LDC S' TRADE POLICY REVIEWS
87. The Chairman said that the importance of Trade Policy Reviews (TPRs) for LDCs had been
acknowledged and reiterated by a number of Members.  The TPR process per se  was a valuable
capacity building exercise, assisting LDCs to be part of a continuous process of "learning by doing"
and a mechanism for locking trade reforms.  The importance of TPRs had been reiterated at the joint
IF seminar on mainstreaming held on 29-30 January 2001, as reflected in the Chair's concluding
remarks, in which he had stated that the "TPR could provide guidance to LDCs on trade rules andliberalisation within the broader context of national development plans, and that World Bank, IMF
and country directors could be invited to partic ipate in the TPRs."  The Chairman invited the
Secretariat to lay out the new approach that had been adopted for conducting TPRs for LDCs with a
view to meeting their specific difficulties and needs through the TPR process.
88. The Director of the Trade Policy Reviews Division stated that the TPR and its process
constituted technical assistance for LDCs.  This point had been reiterated at the Singapore Ministerial
Conference, as well as during the appraisal of the TPR Mechanism in 1999 in which the report to the
Ministers had called for greater attention to be paid to LDCs in the TPR programme.  Since the
Singapore Ministerial Conference, there had been at least three LDCs in the programme each year.  In
2001, there would be three LDCs in the TPR programme, including Mozambique, Madagascar andUganda, and in 2002, it was hoped to have at least 3, possibly 5 LDCs, on the programme.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 13
89. The TPR was often a useful means to introduce the WTO to LDCs.  For instance, at the end
of the TPR of Mozambique, the delegation had stated that its TPR exercise had been the first time for
the country's senior officials to understand the WTO.
90. In attempting to accommodate LDCs which had not had much experience with the WTO, the
Secretariat was elaborating a new approach for the preparation of LDC's reviews, which would startwith the review of Uganda, followed by Malawi, and hopefully thereafter for all LDCs.  The new
approach would encompass the following:
(a) First, a brief visit to the country to explain the purpose and procedure of the TPR to
senior government officials, following a request for initial basic information on the
country to be reviewed.  On the same visit, the Secretariat would also assist the
country to collect information, which would form the basis for a draft Secretariat
report.  The purpose of this visit would also  be to establish an understanding not only
with the ministry of trade, but also wi th the inter-ministerial group which would
allow the Secretariat to reach other ministries for additional information required for
the review;
(b) Second, in the course of the preparation of a TPR, the Secretariat would conduct a
seminar in the country for senior officials, which would focus more technical andpractical issues for the TPR preparation, such as the content of Secretariat and
Government reports and notification requirements associated with the WTO
Agreements.  The Secretariat's presentation would be followed by a presentation by
the country reviewed on its trade policies and trade policy goals.  The seminar would
last for about four days, and would be conducted by the Trade Policy ReviewsDivision together with the Secretariat Working Group on the Integrated Framework
and LDC Issues.  At the margins of the seminar, the Secretariat might also collect
additional information and seek answers to the questionnaire to supplement the basic
information that had been initially collected; and,
(c) Third, the Secretariat would draft a report which would then be discussed with
government officials on their third visit to the country, before the report was finalised.
Previously, the Secretariat had visited the country only once, had prepared a draft,
and had sent draft chapters to the country by mail, hoping that it would receive
comments on the draft.  However, the Secretariat had not often received comments.
91. In addition to this new approach, TPR reports for LDCs and developing countries included a
section on technical assistance needs and priorities of the country reviewed.  It was aimed that this
section would now feed into the IF process, thus providing the IF with an additional element for the
delivery of trade-related technical assistance.
92. The Director expressed the hope that the new ap proach would help LDCs in the TPR process
to understand better the purpose of TPR as well as the functioning of the WTO with a view to
improving the country's participation in the multilate ral trading system.  He also hoped that the new
approach would ensure that the final report was factually accurate, and outlined the role of tradepolicy in the country, thus assisting the country to better understand its role in the WTO.  This
approach would be first adopted for the on-going TPR for Uganda, and be followed by the TPR for
Malawi, and other LDCs.  The Secretariat had receiv ed a number of requests from a number of LDCs,
including Mauritania, Haiti, Niger which it hoped would be placed in the TPR programme as soon as
possible.
93. The representative of Tanzania said that recalling his country's TPR exercise in 2000, that
government departments in Tanzania, other than the Ministry of Trade, had been surprised that their
work and areas of jurisdiction were relevant to WTO Agreements, such as in the case of the MinistryWT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 14
of Works in the area of government procurement.  The TPR exercise had thus been an important
introduction of the WTO to his country.  The representative commented that the new approach,
including the four-day seminar would be useful for LDC officials to increase their level of
understanding of the WTO Agreements, and that th e section on technical assistance needs would help
the implementation of the IF.  He added that despite higher costs, the new approach would bringconcrete benefits to LDCs.
94. The representative of Canada said that the new approach showed internal coherence in the
WTO by coordinating the TPR and the IF.  She asked whether the TPR would also analyse the impact
of trade liberalisation, in terms of costs and benefits.
95. The representative of the European Communities fully supported the new approach and hoped
that the approach would be regularised for all LDCs.  He also reminded the Secretariat that one of the
EC Member States provided financial support for TPRs on LDCs.
96. The Director of the Trade Policy Reviews Division said that the TPR programme had been
partly supported by Germany which had made available DM1 million for the TPRs of LDCs and
developing countries.  With this funding, the Secretariat would undertake the TPR of Uganda.  He
added that the four-day seminar to be organised in Uganda would also invite officials from Malawi,
Zambia and Tanzania.
97. In response to the question by Canada, he said that the TPR was a transparency exercise for
Members to improve their level of understanding of the country reviewed.   For LDCs and many
developing countries themselves, it was also transpar ency exercise for them to get to know what their
trade polices and instruments were and how these po licies and instruments would fit into the country's
overall economic policies.  In so doing, the Secretariat report would attempt to estimate how tradepolicies helped the country to achieve its economic goals, and to suggest the usefulness of trade
polices and of adherence to rules and disciplines of the multilateral trading system.  However, it was
not in itself the objective of the TPR exercise.
98. The Chairman said that as Ambassador of Iceland which had gone through its second TPR in
2000, he understood the difficulties in meeting the requests for documentation, notifications,legislation, answers to the questionnaire, etc., durin g a TPR exercise.  Nonetheless, he believed that
the TPR was a useful exercise for government officials of the country reviewed, particularly those
based in the capitals, to improve their understanding of the WTO Agreements and to have hands-on
experience on how the multilateral trading system functioned.  He expressed the hope that Members
would actively support the implementation of the new approach for LDCs' Trade Policy Reviews.
F. A
NY OTHER BUSINESS
99. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-Committee meet for its 24th session on 4 April 2001.
100. The representative of Lesotho reminded the Sub-Committee that the third inter-governmental
preparatory committee would take place on 2-6 April 2001, and many LDCs would be absent from
Geneva.
101. The representative of the European Commun ities suggested that informal consultations
should precede the next formal meeting so as to allow informal exchange of views on the reports
which would be submitted to LDC-III.  He asked the Secretariat when the first drafts of the reports
would be available for discussion.
102. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs said that the drafts were
being checked within the WTO Secretariat and could be circulated to Members for their comments by
the end of February 2001.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/23
Page 15
103. The Chairman said that he would consult with Members on alternative date for the 24th
Session of the Sub-Committee and would communicate shortly after.
104. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDCs announced that due to the
change in the date for the next Ministerial Conference, the date for the 4th Short Trade Policy Course
for LDCs would be brought forward  from  the end of September, as previously scheduled,  to 9-27July 2001.
105. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned.
__________