WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
24 August 2012  
 
(12-4628) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries 
Sixty-Sixth Session  
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 28-29 JUNE 2012 
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador Steffen Smidt (Denmark) 
 
 
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 1  
B.  ACCESSION OF LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/846) ........................................................ 1  
-  Consideration of Draft Recommendations to the General Council to further 
strengthen, streamline and operationalize the 2002 guidelines pursuant to the Eighth WTO Ministerial Decision on Accession of LDCs (WT/L/846) .................................................. 1  
C. 
OTHER BUSINESS  ......................................................................................................................... 9  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the draft agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3964. 
B. ACCESSION OF LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/846) 
- Consideration of Draft Recommendations to the General Council to further strengthen, 
streamline and operationalize the 2002 guidelines pursuant to the Eighth WTO Ministerial Decision on Accession of LDCs (WT/L/846) 
2. The Chairman said that intensive consultations had been carried out over the past six months 
to develop recommendations to strengthen th e 2002 guidelines pursuant to the Eighth WTO 
Ministerial (MC8) Decision on LDC Accession.  Cons ultations had been carried out in different 
formats, and the resulting product had been placed be fore the Sub-Committee.  He invited Members' 
attention to the draft decision contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/55 setting out the recommendations 
by the Sub-Committee to the General Council.  He recalled that the Ministers had given Members a 
specific time-frame to complete this task by July  2012.  He noted that the document represented broad 
consensus among all the parties that had been invol ved in the consultations.  Following consideration 
by the Sub-Committee, the document would be subm itted to the General Council for approval within 
the stipulated time-frame of July 2012.  
3. He pointed out that the specific figures con cerning the benchmarks on goods in paragraphs 
5 and 7(i) and 7(ii) of the document had been left open, as further consultations were needed to close 
the remaining gaps.  He then suggested that the meeting be suspended to allow some final 
negotiations on specific numbers relating to goods be nchmarks.  He said that he would reconvene the 
same session on 29 June to formally consider the doc ument in its entirety.  He then opened the floor 
for any statements from Members/Observers. 
4. The representative of India said that her dele gation had been closely associated with the 
process of informal consultations initiated by th e Chairman in January 2012 to prepare draft 
recommendations to the General Council to further strengthen, streamline and operationalize the 2002 WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
Page 2  
 
  Guidelines as per the Ministerial mandate.  She thanked the Chairman for his efforts in this direction.  
She also thanked the Secretariat for its work in collating data that had served as a useful basis for 
discussions, including information on commitments undertaken by existing LDC members including RAM-LDCs.  Those data demonstrated a wide ga p between the commitments undertaken by existing 
LDCs vis-à-vis  those that had been undertaken by the RAM-LDCs.  This situation underlined the 
reasons as to why the LDC Group had sought to st rengthen, streamline and operationalize the 2002 
guidelines.   
5. She noted that the best endeavour clauses cont ained in the 2002 guidelines proved inadequate 
to restrain Members from seeking excessive concessions and commitments from acceding LDCs.  Thus, concrete benchmarks  were needed to provide adequate flexibility and predictability to the 
acceding LDCs.  The MC8 mandate on LDC Accession so ught to address that need.  It was in this 
spirit that India had consistently argued that deve lopment of benchmarks s hould be true to the MC8 
mandate, and be meaningful in order to provide  adequate comfort to the acceding LDCs.  She 
supported the LDC position that the finalization of numbers in square brackets in the goods 
benchmarks section would be critical.  She drew Members' attention to the LDC proposal of an 
average bound rate of 55.5 per cent for agricultura l products and 40 per cent for non-agricultural 
products.  She stressed that these numbers were re asonable enough for acceptance by Members.  In 
fact, the LDCs had shown tremendous  flexibility in bringing down their level of ambition.  She added 
that an early decision on these numbers would enable conclusion of the negotiations.  
6. She went on to say that the draft recommendations proposed a binding coverage of 
93 per cent for non-agricultural tariff lines, which wa s much higher than the binding coverage of both 
existing LDC Members as well as other developing count ries.  This would by no means constitute an 
improvement on the 2002 guidelines - nor would it adhe re to the MC8 mandate - especially since the 
remaining 7 per cent of unbound tariff lines were s ubject to negotiations.  She recalled that during 
informal consultations her delegation had underlined  the need to allow acceding LDCs flexibility to 
protect their sensitive lines as it would provide them  necessary policy space.  She stressed that clear 
language on this issue in the draft decision would help avoid the very problems that the acceding 
LDCs faced since 2002.  
7. She stressed that the final outcome should be based on a collective decision, involving the 
wider Membership which took on board all the views.   She reiterated her delegation's consistently 
held position that the acceding LDCs were important st akeholders in this process and that their views 
should be heard and taken into account while arriving  at any decision on the matter.  In conclusion, 
she noted that limited time was available given that Members were required to make recommendations to the General Council by July 2012.  There was an urgent need for all sides to show flexibility in order to expedite a decision on the matter.  Her delegation remained constructively 
engaged in the process so as to achieve a fair and meaningful outcome.  Finally, in view of the fact 
that the latest version of the draft recommendations  had been made available only very recently, her 
delegation would undertake consu ltations with the capital.   
8. The representative of Haiti, on behalf of the LDC Group, thanked the Chairman for his 
relentless efforts to fulfil the mandate given by Ministers at MC8.  The LDC Group attached great 
importance to this work, and appreciated the cons tructive engagement of all concerned parties to 
further strengthen, streamline  and operationalize the 2002 LDC Accession Guidelines.  He took note 
of the consolidated text that had been provide d in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/55.  That might 
not represent a perfect document for the LDC Group;  however, the Group had engaged itself in the 
negotiations in a flexible and pragmatic manner and was ready to further proceed on the basis of the 
present document.  He further recalled that the LD C Group had shown the highest degree of flexibility 
and concession from its original position to facilit ate an agreement.  He also acknowledged the 
flexibilities shown by some Members to reach an outcome within the stipulated time-frame.    WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. He noted that the document had some brack ets around the numbers on the benchmarks for 
goods.  In this regard, he thanked those Memb ers that had taken an initiative to work on 
middle-ground positions.  He said that, during the past  six months, despite capacity constraints, the 
LDCs had undertaken evidence-based analysis to id entify numbers for goods benchmarks that would 
serve and protect the interest and sensitivities of the acceding LDCs, including those that were not yet 
in the accession queue.  As such, the numbers presented by the middle-ground delegations did not 
represent random thoughts, but were substantiated by  in-depth analysis and arguments.  During the 
negotiations, the LDCs had signalled that it would be  difficult for them to make further concessions 
on the figures proposed by the middle-ground delegations, since those numbers already reflected huge concessions by the LDCs from their legitimate original positions.   
10. He continued by saying that the LDC Group di d not want to take "negotiations out of 
negotiations", since accession essentially implied a process of negotiations of acceding governments 
with existing Members.  However, the acceding LDCs should be able to take care of their sensitivities 
in that process.  In so doing, their development,  financial and trade needs should receive the primary 
consideration.  He said that the draft decision re presented a subtle balance between the interests of 
both parties - Members and acceding LDCs.  He st ressed that given an acceptable conclusion of 
negotiations on the numbers in the section on goods  benchmarks, the LDC Group could go along with 
the draft decision.  A satisfactory solution on the numbers would also address the concern with regard 
to the self-designation versus negotiated nature  of unbound tariff lines in the context of NAMA 
binding coverage.  In conclusion, he said that the LDC Group remained committed to work towards 
the successful conclusion of the negotiations.  
11. The representative of Brazil said that his delega tion had just received the document and that 
he would need to consult with his capital.  Notw ithstanding, his delegation had some concerns with 
footnote number 3 of the document which stated that: "The unbound tariff lines will be subject to negotiations and will include tariff lines that take into account the sensitivities of acceding LDCs".  
He was of the view that the LDCs should have enough policy space to choose which tariff lines would 
not come under binding coverage as per their own sensitivities.  Any di fferent approach to this could 
not only undermine the practical applicability of the instrument being negotiated but would also 
undermine its economic and trade logic.  He adde d that negotiations of unbound tariff lines would 
stifle the policy space of acceding LDCs which were needed for implementing their domestic 
development strategies.  He emphasized the importance of a more flexible approach to facilitate the accession of LDCs to the WTO.   
12. The representative of China thanked the Chairman fo r his leadership in bringing the work to a 
closing point.  He also expressed appreciation to the Secretariat for its work over the past months.  He 
further appreciated the constructive engagement of so me of the key players in the consultative process 
that had led to this final stage of work.  China ha d always recognized the LDCs as the most vulnerable 
group of the international community and, hence, ha d always been a firm supporter of their legitimate 
requests in the WTO.  China was the only Member  which had announced during the negotiations that 
it would not seek any market access from the acceding LDCs.  He underscored the importance of policy space for the acceding LDCs for their bene ficial integration into the multilateral trading 
system.   
13. He echoed the point made by the Coordina tor of the LDCs that the document under 
consideration might not reflect a perfect one from th e LDCs' perspective or from his delegation's point 
of view.  However, his delegation was ready to furt her proceed to conclude the work.  He noted that 
the acceptance of the document was subject to fu rther negotiations on the figures that remained 
bracketed in the goods benchmarks section.  He hoped that those Members seeking higher 
concessions from acceding LDCs would reciprocate the flexibility and constructive engagement 
shown by the LDC Group with a view to reaching an agreement.  In conclusion, he stressed the point 
that failing to reach an agreement at this stage of  the negotiations would not be well received by his WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
Page 4  
 
  delegation or for that matter by the international co mmunity at large.  Given that the Doha Round was 
in a stalemate, the failure to achieve an outcome  for the acceding LDCs would not augur well for the 
multilateral trading system.   
14. The representative of Ukraine thanked the Ch airman as well as Members for their dedicated 
effort to strengthen, streamline and operati onalize the 2002 LDC Accession Guidelines.  He 
recognized the importance of LDC accessions in th e WTO as it would strengthen the multilateral 
trading system and make WTO more universal in membership.  He said that the current terms of accession were different to those that prevailed be fore 1995.  In an ever growing inter-dependent 
world, there was a greater demand for assuming higher responsibilities by countries to strengthen the rules-based multilateral trading system.  Accession to  the WTO required contributions to the system 
in the form of concessions.    
15. He went on to outline the proposals of his delegation with regard to the work on LDC 
accessions in the Sub-Committee.  First, his dele gation wished to have a specific mention of 
Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO in the section on services benchmarks.  Second, he said that the binding coverage of  acceding LDCs should be 100 per cent for both 
agricultural and non-agricultural products.  Th ird, he quoted from the MC8 Decision on LDC 
accession: "We recognize that transparency in the accession negotiations should be enhanced, 
including by complementing bilate ral market access negotiations with  multilateral frameworks".  In 
this context, he explained that the acceding LDCs  should provide sufficient evidence and justification 
in a multilateral format for their proposal for unb ound treatment of goods; the agreed-upon list of 
goods, in a multilateral format, would then be excl uded from the bilateral ne gotiations.  He, however, 
pointed out that goods covered by Free Trade Ag reements (FTAs) should not be included in the 
above-mentioned list.  Fourth, he proposed that the recommendations being de veloped should not be 
applicable once an LDC graduated from the LDC status during the process of accession.   
16. In conclusion, he drew Members' attention to  the fact that several acceding countries to the 
WTO had been experiencing similar difficulties like the LDCs.  Hence, his delegation's preference 
was that those acceding countries could come under the ambit of the recommendations being 
developed for the LDCs.  In this regard, one accedi ng country had already contacted the Chairman of 
the Sub-Committee for facilitation of their accession process.  He said that his authorities were 
examining the draft decision, to firm up their pos ition, which he would immediately share with the 
Sub-Committee as soon as it was available.   
17. The representative of Pakistan  expressed appreciation for the work undertaken by the 
Chairman to put forward a consolidated text for Me mbers' consideration.  She noted that the numbers 
being negotiated on the goods benchm arks would be critical in finalizing the draft decision.  She 
extended her support to the LDC pos ition on the goods benchmarks.  Sh e urged Members to adhere to 
the proposal of 93 per cent binding coverage in  NAMA with average bound rate of 40 per cent, as 
well as average bound rate of 55.5 per cent for agri cultural products.  She believed that such an 
outcome would constitute a good compromise for all parties.  Hence, she sought flexibility and 
understanding from Members to conclude the remaining work as soon as possible. 
18. The representative of Singapore noted the convergence on most aspects of the draft decision 
to further strengthen the 2002 LDC Accession Guide lines.  His delegation had been following the 
developments relating to the work on LDC accessions over the last six months.  The Chairman of the 
Sub-Committee had always been forthcoming when information was requested by Members.  
Therefore, he could not agree to those delegations that said at the meeting that they were not in a 
position to agree since they had seen the text for the first time.  He pointed out that interested delegations had kept their capitals aware of the work on LDC accessions.  He urged Members not to 
procrastinate the debate, and to take a decision withou t any further delay.  He noted that it was a time 
when the credibility of the WTO was being tested.    WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. He went on to say that the draft recommendations before the Sub-Committee were very much 
reflective of the principles of the MC8 Decision on LDC Accession.  Those recommendations would 
improve the clarity and predictability of the LDCs' accession process to th e WTO.  He expressed 
regret that certain bilateral ne gotiations had produced results whic h were unfortunate and that, as a 
result, some recently acceded Members might have faced difficult situations.  However, those 
situations should not affect the finite number of LD Cs that were in the queu e to join the WTO.  He 
pointed out that the present exercise was not ab out correcting some ideological wrongs or about 
changing any fundamental aspect of the WTO system .  Rather, the overriding objective of the current 
efforts was to make the accession of LDCs simpler and easier than before.  In conclusion, he appreciated the flexibility shown by the LDC Group.   He also thanked other Members for their 
understanding and cooperation.  He  looked forward to seeing an agreement on the draft decision as 
soon as possible.   
20. The representative of Lesotho, on behalf of the African Group, associated himself with the 
statement made by Haiti, on behalf of the LDC Group.  He thanked the Chairman for his able 
leadership in steering the work on LDC accessions.  He also thanked the Secretariat for providing 
necessary background information whic h allowed delegations to participate in an informed manner.  
He also expressed appreciation to those delega tions which had come up with an effective 
middle-ground proposal.  His delega tion stood ready to take the process through to its end, including 
the conclusion of the negotiations on the numbers in the area of goods benchmarks.  He called for 
reciprocal flexibility from Members to match the fl exibility shown by the LDCs in the negotiations.  
He reiterated that the legitimate needs of acceding LDCs should not be compromised in the negotiated 
outcome.   
21. The representative of Mexico said that her dele gation stood ready to take the process forward 
with a view to concluding the work within the tim e-frame given by the Ministers.  She noted that 
major efforts had been made over the past months  to develop a set of recommendations to further 
strengthen the existing LDC accession guidelines.  The Chairman had undertaken his consultations in 
a transparent and exemplary manner.  Her delega tion had been aware of all the developments 
throughout the process.  She believed that negotiatio ns had reached a stage where Members should be 
able to take a decision.  She urged Members to  demonstrate flexibility and understanding to rally 
around the Chair's consolidated text which was critical  for the multilateral trading system.  She noted 
that some of the points raised by delegations were linked to the negotiations on numbers in the area of 
the goods benchmarks; once there was a deal on th e numbers on binding coverage and average bound 
rates, other elements of the draft decision woul d fall in place, including the necessity for a provision 
of self-determination by the acceding LDCs in the context of NAMA unbound tariff lines .   
22. The representative of the European Union said th at the process over the past months had been 
remarkable where all parties had shown flexibility to ensure a result for th e acceding LDCs.  At the 
start of the meeting, Members had listened to the LDC Group indicating its readiness to proceed on 
the basis of the draft decision suggested by the Ch airman.  As suggested by the LDCs, the focus of 
Members' work should be on numbers relating to  the goods benchmarks as it remained the only 
outstanding element of the draft decision.  He also noted that some delegations had indicated the need 
to consult with their capitals.  In this regard, he  pointed out that the text before the Sub-Committee 
had been developed over the past months and should  not come as a surprise to those delegations.  
However, he would respect any legitimate concern of  any delegation concerning the draft decision.  
He added that the proposed new guidelines would not  in any way undermine the principles of market 
access negotiations being followed under the accession process.   
23. In conclusion, he said that Members were onl y one step away from the finalization of the 
work on LDC accessions.  He would join the consen sus on the present text, subject to negotiations on 
the brackets in the goods benchmarks section.  He urged Members to conclude the remaining work in 
the next couple of days, with the necessary spirit of compromise.  The outcome would represent an WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
Page 6  
 
  important step for the acceding LDCs as well as for the WTO.  His delegation stood ready to play its 
due role to ensure a successful conclusion of the negotiations.  
24. The representative of Nepal associated himself with  the statement made by Haiti, on behalf of 
the LDC Group.  He reminded Members of the st ructural constraints and multiple vulnerabilities 
faced by the LDCs to integrate into the global economy.  Hence, solidarity of the international 
community was essential to help the LDCs pursue their development goals.  He recalled that the 
Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA) for the LD Cs for the Decade 2011-2020, adopted at the 
LDC-IV Conference in Istanbul in 2011, had set a targ et of enabling half the number of LDCs to meet 
the criteria for graduation by 2020.  In this contex t, the IPoA had clearly underlined the need for 
integrating as many LDCs as possible into the globa l economic system.  It was time to demonstrate 
genuine political will by Members to support the LDCs' development process.  Trade should play a 
critical role in acceding LDCs' development efforts.   He sought flexibility from Members to agree on 
the draft decision as soon as possible with a view  to enabling the early accession of the remaining 
LDCs to the WTO.   
25. The representative of Cambodia, on behalf of  the ASEAN members, expressed appreciation 
to the Chairman as well as to the LDC Group and ot her Members for their hard work in putting 
together a draft decision for consideration by the Sub-Committee.  He said that ASEAN members were pleased to join the consensus on the dr aft decision for onward transmission to the 
General Council for its adoption.  He noted that the benchmarks on goods and services contained in 
the draft decision would provide greater clarity and predictability for acceding LDCs to negotiate their 
market access commitments with Members; at the sa me time, it would provide flexibilities for them to 
pursue their development objectives.  The new guidelin es would also provide greater transparency on 
the LDC accession negotiations and bring more tec hnical and financial support for the acceding LDCs 
to implement their reform programme during and after the accession process.   
26. He went on to say that since the establishmen t of the WTO, some of the ASEAN countries 
had gone through a long and painful accession negotiati on process including Lao PDR.  He hoped that 
the agreement of Members on the draft decision w ould facilitate the smoother accessions of LDCs to 
the WTO and would enable them to fully capitalize on the benefits of their membership from this 
Organization.  He said that the finalization of th e new set of guidelines was an important achievement, 
signaling WTO Members' commitment to helping th e LDCs integrate into the multilateral trading 
system.  In conclusion, he hoped that other issues  of interest to LDCs contained in the outcome 
document of MC8 would see similar progress. 
27. The representative of Egypt expressed appreciation to the Chairman for his leadership which 
had led to the submission of a draft decision for Memb ers' consideration.  He said that his delegation 
had not been part of the private consultations that  the Chairman had undertaken over the past months.  
In fact, his delegation had received the draft decisi on only today.  He stressed that Egypt had been, 
and would always be, a supporter of LDCs and th eir legitimate concerns whether in accessions or 
elsewhere in the organization.  He regretted that at this point in time, his delegation did not have 
specific instructions from capital on the draft deci sion and thus would not be able to join the 
consensus to adopt the draft decision.  This woul d also be the case for the following day's meeting 
since today was the last working day of the week b ack in Egypt.  His authorities in the capital could 
only start considering the draft decision early in th e coming week.  He hoped that the Chairman would 
allow necessary time for his capital to consider the draft decision and to declare its position.   
28. The representative of Rwanda said that his delegation was not part of Chair's consultations 
and therefore had seen the draft recommendations onl y recently.  He thanked the Chairman for his 
tireless efforts, and Members for their constr uctive engagement.  The document before the 
Sub-Committee would be the collective responsibilit y of the entire Membership, and would not be 
limited to those delegations that were involved in  the informal consultations.  As a result, his  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
 Page 7 
 
 
  delegation would need to scrutinize the figures pr oposed for agriculture and NAMA under the goods 
benchmarks section as well as other commitmen ts being asked from the acceding LDCs.   
29. He went on to say that the recommendations to further strengthen the 2002 guidelines should 
ensure that the acceding LDCs were truly integrat ed into the multilateral trading system, in a manner 
that would allow them to build their productive cap acities.  He stressed that development endeavours 
of the acceding LDCs should be backed by sound polic ies.  He recalled that since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution, the existing industrial count ries, or newly industrialized countries had used 
appropriate policies to build their economies and to  pursue their development objectives.  Since the 
GATT came into being in 1947, industrialized c ountries had liberalized sectors where they were 
competitive.  Sectors which remain ed weak or sensitive were still given a cushion through protection 
or subsidy.  Examination of several accession protocols of acceded Members including LDCs had 
revealed that those Members had bound their agricultural subsidies at zero rates.  He wondered how this result would cater to development.  He encour aged Members to be fair with the weak economies 
like the LDCs and to ensure an outcome that coul d work as a development tool for these countries.   
30. The representative of Ethiopia associated himself with the statement made by Haiti, on behalf 
of the LDC Group.  He expressed appreciation to the Chairman for his leadership.  He thanked 
Members for their focused engagement in th e current work on LDC accessions.  Given the 
considerable progress, his delegation was hopeful fo r an outcome by the stipulated time-frame of 
July 2012.  He urged Members to arrive at a decision reflective of the special treatment of the LDCs within the WTO family.   
31. He said that the challenges and constraints faced  by the LDCs were well-known to Members.  
The institutional as well as human capacity of the LDCs had been limited.  The LDCs were the most 
vulnerable members of the international community with  low levels of development.  In view of these 
limitations, the acceding LDCs needed policy space and flexibility to meaningful ly integrate into the 
global economy.  The draft recommendations remain ed true to the letter and spirit of the MC8 
Decision on LDC Accession.  These recommendations would add value to the 2002 guidelines.  He 
recalled the mandate given by Ministers at MC8, and quoted from the Decision WT/L/846, "Taking 
note of the accession proposal made by the LDCs, we  direct the Sub-Committee on LDCs to develop 
recommendations to further strengthen, stre amline and operationalize the 2002 guidelines by, 
inter alia , including benchmarks, in particular in the ar ea of goods, which take into account the level 
of commitments undertaken by existing LDC Members" .  In line with the spirit and letter of this 
mandate, he urged Members to work  towards a decision which reflected the development status of the 
LDCs.  
32. The representative of Yemen expressed appreciation to Members for attaching high priority to 
the work on LDC accessions.  He associated himself w ith the statement made by Haiti, on behalf of 
the LDC Group.  As an acceding LDC, his delega tion had not participated in developing the draft 
recommendations but had closely followed the de liberations of Members.  He expressed high 
appreciation for the leadership of the Chairman, es pecially for having ensured that the process he 
initiated in the beginning of the year could deliv er its outcome on time.  At the same time, he 
extended gratitude to LDC representatives in the consultations, notably Bangladesh, Haiti and 
Lesotho for their diligent and sincere representation of LDC Group's interest.  Finally, he conveyed thanks to Members for their commitments to LDC accessions.  Several heads of delegations had taken 
active part throughout the consulta tion period and had made possible an outcome in time for the July 
General Council meeting.  He looked forward to seei ng the early conclusion of the remaining work.   
33. The representative of Haiti, on behalf of the LD C Group, took note of the positions expressed 
by some Members which needed to further consult th eir capitals to agree to the draft decision.  The 
statement by the delegation of Ukraine was unfort unate as some of the positions expressed by it 
would contravene the MC8 Decision on LDC Accession.  He said that the LDCs had been a WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
Page 8  
 
  recognized category by the international community, for which special treatment had been granted.  
At this stage of the negotiations, it would be  difficult for Members to consider similar 
recommendations for other acceding countries.  He recognized the difficulties faced by acceding developing countries and that they too needed speci al attention.  He reiterated his delegation's full 
support and cooperation to facilitate the accession of  those countries.  In conclusion, he sought 
understanding from Members to finalize the remaining wo rk so that a decision could be taken shortly.  
34. The Chairman said that he had heard all viewpoints expressed in the meeting.  There was 
broad consensus on the draft decision, subject to final negotiations on the figures concerning the 
goods benchmarks.  As indicated earlier, he woul d consult concerned dele gations to finalize the 
remaining work.  He would send out a revised version of the draft decision later that day 
incorporating two small editorial changes.  He sought cooperation from Members in view of time 
constraints, and urged Members to build on to the current momentum to conclude the work by the 
next day for its onward transmission to the Gene ral Council.  He proposed that the meeting be 
suspended and be reconvened on 29 Ju ne.  He also proposed that th e Sub-Committee take note of the 
statements made.   
35. It was so agreed.  
36. The meeting was suspended. 
37. The meeting was reconvened on 29 June.  Openi ng the meeting, the Chairman said that he 
had undertaken a series of consultations with con cerned delegations to agree on the figures for goods 
benchmarks.  Good progress had been  made.  However, some more ti me was needed before Members 
could formally consider the result of the consultati ons.  He proposed that the meeting be suspended, 
and be reconvened in the afternoon.   
38. The meeting was suspended. 
39. The meeting was reconvened on 29 June in the afternoon.  The Chairman invited Members' 
attention to the latest version of the draft decision contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/55/Rev.1.  In 
light of the consultations, the Chairman suggest ed the following changes to the draft decision 
contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/55/Rev.1: in para graph 5, the last sentence should read, "With 
regard to average bound rates, the acceding LDCs sha ll bind all of their agricultural tariff lines at an 
overall average rate of 50 per cent".   He then said that paragraph 7(i) should read, "Acceding LDCs 
shall bind 95 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an overall average rate of 35 per cent".  
And finally, he proposed that the brackets in paragra ph 7(ii) relating to transition period be removed.   
40. The representative of the United States proposed one additional change in  paragraph 7(ii) of 
the draft decision, which his delegation and the LD C Group had discussed and agreed to.  He said that 
the last sentence of paragraph 7(ii) should read as "In such cases the accedi ng LDC shall be entitled to 
transition periods of up to 10 years for up to 10 per cent of their tariff lines".  He believed the provision of transition period for 10 per cent of NAM A tariff lines would create an incentive for the 
acceding LDCs to undertake comprehensive bindings  of NAMA tariff lines.  He invited the 
Coordinator of the LDC Group to confirm the unders tanding that his delegation had reached with the 
Group.   
41. The representative of Haiti, on behalf of the LDC Group, confirmed the agreement with the 
proposed changes as introduced by the delegation of the United States.   
42. The Chairman proposed that as per the suggestion from the delegation of the US, vetted by 
the LDC Group, the following words in paragraph 7( ii) "...the additional tariff lines bound beyond 
93 per cent" be substituted by: "…up to 10 per cent of their tariff lines".  He hoped that these changes,  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/66 
 Page 9 
 
 
  as well as the ones suggested by him earlier, were ac ceptable to all Members.  He would then submit 
the draft decision to the General Council scheduled for 25-26 July for its adoption.  He noted that one delegation had asked for extra time for clearance from capital.   
43. The representative of the European Union expr essed agreement with th e changes introduced 
by the Chairman at the meeting.  He also expressed  appreciation to the Chairman for his leadership, as 
well as the Secretariat for the work undertaken over the past months. 
44. The representative of Egypt said that his delegati on could not be part of the consensus on the 
draft decision at present.  The latest changes proposed to the draft d ecision would need to be 
consulted with his capital.  He would thus require clearance from his capital to endorse the document.   
45. The Chairman said that he would submit the draft decision to the General Council once he 
received the clearance from the delegation of Egypt.   
46. It was so agreed. 
47. The representative of Zambia said that the LDCs in the accession process required necessary 
support for their beneficial integration into the gl obal economy.  She noted that the LDCs accounted 
for less than 1 per cent of global merchandise tr ade and remained the poorest segment of the 
international community.  In view of this low pa rticipation of LDCs in world trade, the acceding 
LDCs should be able to pursue policies that woul d accelerate their trade and lift their population out 
of poverty.  For this reason, any benchmarks for goods should allow for maximum flexibility for 
acceding LDCs to effectively pursue thei r national development policies.   
48. She went on to highlight that the draft decisi on, once issued as an addendum to the 2002 LDC 
Accession Guidelines, should be limited to the implementation of the MC8 Decision on LDC 
Accession (WT/L/846), and should not be interpreted in any way so as to prejudice the rights, 
obligations and flexibilities of Members of the WTO with regard to existing Agreements, the 
negotiations under the Doha Development Ag enda and any future negotiations.   
49. The representative of Lesotho, on behalf of th e African Group, noted that the draft decision, 
once approved by the General Council, would be issued as an addendum to the 2002 LDC Accession 
Guidelines.  He stressed that the interpretation of that adde ndum should be limited to the MC8 
Decision on LDC Accession, and that the addendum should not be prejudicial to the rights, obligations, and flexibilities of Members under the WTO Agreements and decisions, including 
negotiations under the DDA, and any future negotiations.   
50. The Chairman said that the draft decision woul d be available on Members' website as soon as 
possible.  It would be submitted to the General Coun cil in the coming week.  In this regard, he would 
await clearance from the delegation of Egypt.1  He thanked Members for their contributions, and 
looked forward to the formal adoption of the draft decision at the General Council meeting scheduled 
for 25-26 July 2012.   
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
51. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned. 
__________  
                                                      
1 The draft decision was first issued as WT/COMTD/LDC/W/55/Rev.2 on 29 June 2012.  Following 
clearance from the delegation of  Egypt, the draft decision was issued as WT/COMTD/LDC/21 on 6 July 2012.  
Following adoption by the General Council on 25 July 2012, the Decision was circulated as WT/L/508/Add.1.