WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/IFSC/M/15 
6 June 2006 
 
 (06-2692) 
Integrated Framework Steering Committee 
Sixteenth Session  
 
 
 
REPORT ON THE 16TH MEETING OF THE 
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK STEERING COMMITTEE (IFSC) 
 
Friday, 12 May 2006, WTO, Geneva  
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador Mia Horn af Rantzien (Sweden) 
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committee (I FSC) held its sixteenth meeting on Friday, 
12 May 2006.  The adopted agenda is reproduced in Annex I. 
B. 43RD MEETING OF THE INTEGRATED  FRAMEWORK WORKING GROUP (IFWG ):  REPORT BY THE 
CHAIR OF THE IFWG  
2. The Chairperson of the IFWG  made a detailed report on the IFWG meeting held on 9 and 
10 May 2006.  She pointed out that the IFWG had taken up a wide range of issues including 
implementation of the IF in various countries a nd discussions on recommendations of the Task Force 
for an enhanced IF. 
3. On the implementation of the IF process in various countries, she reported that Diagnostic 
Trade Integration Study (DTIS) National Validation Workshops had been held in 20 LDCs, namely in 
Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Djibouti, Ethi opia, Guinea, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Sao Tome  and Principe, Senegal,  Tanzania, Yemen, and 
Zambia.  Reports by the representatives of th e World Bank, UNDP, as well as the LDCs and donors 
on each of these countries showed that, while prob lems remain, IF implementation was on the right 
track with a number of projects being implemente d, based on IF Trust Fund (IFTF) resources and 
through bilateral channels.  The Group had emphasized the need for further coordination between IF 
stakeholders at the country level and donors a nd agencies in order to improve reporting on the 
implementation of the IF action matrix.  In this contex t, the need to strengthen capacity of the IF at the 
country level was paramount to ensuring accurate and timely reporting of activities implemented in 
each LDC.  Emphasis was also placed on the importa nce for bilateral and multilateral donors to base 
their trade-related technical assistance funding plan s on the needs expressed in the diagnostic studies 
prepared under the IF.  The Group noted that the IF ha d been a useful tool inasmuch as it helped many 
LDCs integrate trade into their development plans,  which would ultimately assist them in attracting 
further resources from bilateral and multilateral donors.   
4. She said that the representatives of the World Bank and UNDP had also reported on 
progress in the preparation of the DTIS in the follo wing ten countries:  Angola, Burkina Faso, Central 
African Republic, Lao PDR, Maldives, Niger, Sier ra Leone, Sudan, The Ga mbia and Uganda.  She 
specified that National DTIS Validation Workshop s were scheduled for Angola, Sierra Leone and 
Uganda during the summer of 2006. WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 2  
 
  5. She added that, pursuant to its mandate to  the World Bank, the IFWG had received 
Technical Reviews for Afghanistan, Comoros, Democr atic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and 
Vanuatu.  Members of the Group had agreed that the World Bank would shortly finalize the Reviews 
for Afghanistan and Vanuatu, and would revisit th e Reviews for Comoros, Democratic Republic of 
Congo, Liberia and Haiti later this year and for Equatorial Guinea in the summer next year.  The 
UNDP also reported on its recent mission to the Comoros. 
6. As regards the requests by Guinea Bissau, Samo a, Solomon Islands, East Timor and Togo to 
join the IF, she reported that the IFWG had agreed  to mandate the World Bank to undertake Technical 
Reviews for Guinea Bissau and Togo, and the UNDP to undertake Technical Reviews for Solomon 
Islands and Samoa.  The Group had also agreed to  postpone mandating the World Bank to undertake a 
Technical Review for East Timor until more clarity  would be received on the conditions prevailing in 
that country.   
7. She continued by saying that the IFWG had hear d a report by the Secretary of the Standards 
and Trade Development Facility (STDF) on the implementation of projects addressing specific 
sanitary and phytosanitary needs which had arisen in validated diagnostic studies.  The report had 
highlighted the success of the emerging partnershi p between the STDF and the IF and had presented 
concrete project activities benefiting IF countries. 
8. As regards the future of the IF, she said that  the Chair of the IF Task Force had presented 
the preliminary recommendations of the IF Task Force to the IFWG.  The Group had welcomed the 
Task Force's intention to finalize its recommendati ons in the coming fortnight based on the comments 
received and to include more detailed elements with regard to certain issues.  She reported that there 
was agreement around the principles of an enhanced IF such as country ownership, coordination, 
monitoring, mutual accountability, in accordance wi th the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid 
Effectiveness.  The Group had also agre ed that the results of the work of the Task Force needed to be 
simple, practical and user-friendly for the LDCs.  There was consensus that the funding issue was 
crucial, as it allowed for all Task Force recommendati ons to become effective.  She said that there 
was also a generally shared understanding that an y proposed funds for the new IFTF were not meant 
to be the main source for all trade capacity building in the LDCs.  It was also clearly stipulated that 
the three elements of the enhanced IF, namely increased predictable funding, strengthened in-country 
capacity and governance were intrinsically interlinke d and could not be separated from each other.  
The Group had agreed that the Task Force would need to address transitional arrangements from the 
current to the enhanced IF.  As regards next step s, the Group intended to schedule a meeting in June 
for the review and decision of the finalized reco mmendations and report of the Task Force.  The 
Group had also agreed that a plan outlining the next steps would be presented at the next IFWG meeting.  
9. The Chair of the IFWG recalled that the IFWG and the IFSC, at their October meeting last 
year had welcomed the proposal by donors to establish a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) which 
would support and complement the existing structure of the IF Secretariat.  She reported that since 
then, a number of developments had taken place.  A Task Force was established to enhance the IF.  
Ministers in Hong Kong had welcomed the establishm ent of this IF Task Force and its mandate to 
provide recommendations on how the implementation of the IF could be improved.  Three donors, 
Denmark, Switzerland and the UK had pledged funds fo r the establishment of the PIU to be housed in 
the WTO.  Pending the outcome of the work of th e Task Force, the WTO had suspended the process 
of establishing the PIU and had informed the IFWG  of this decision.  The WTO had asked for its 
guidance on how to proceed next, that is to resume the recruitment process or to wait until the IF Task 
Force would come up with its final recommendations  on how to operationalize the enhanced IF.  The 
Group had agreed with donors' requests to be give n one week to consult further among themselves.   WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. With regard to the IFTF, she said that UNDP had provided a detailed status report.  The 
Group had expressed its appreciation for the contribu tions to the IFTF by the donors, particularly, 
Norway, Denmark, UK, Sweden and Canada. The Group had welcomed the clarity of UNDP's report 
but had raised some concerns with respect to th e figure which indicated a low expenditure rate of 
resources in Window II of the IFTF.  In this light, the IFWG had requested UNDP to include more 
detailed information in the table indicating the funds which had been advanced for Window II 
projects, which were higher than the funds indicat ed as disbursed, before accounts were closed.  The 
IFWG had agreed that it was necessary to fi nd ways to improve implementation of Window II 
projects including, in the short run, through be tter reporting and a better information flow and 
assistance between focal points and agencies, a nd in the medium term, through addressing these 
constraints under each pillar of the enhanced IF.  The Group had been reminded of the LPAC (Local 
Project Appraisal Committee) system on the ground, set up last year as a result of the IFWG and IFSC's efforts to improve on th e approval procedures for Window II projects in the LDCs.  The Group 
had reiterated the need to assist  LDCs to access Window II funding and to report to the IFWG.  The 
Group had felt that in the light of the pending r ecommendations on an enhanced IF and the measures 
previously agreed by the IFSC and the IFWG to  improve on the approval of Window II projects, it 
was appropriate at this stage to draw the IFSC's attention to these measures and to await the outcome 
of the work of the Task Force.
   
11. She said that UNDP had reported that a number of LDCs had expressed an interest in 
formulating additional projects under Window II, usi ng available resources within their country's 
allocation, but that the deadline to apply as set by  the Terms of Reference of  Window II had expired.  
The Group agreed that the following countries may submit additional projects within a maximum 
period of one year:  Lesotho, Mozambique, Nepal,  Djibouti, Mauritania, Madagascar and Guinea.  
The Group had also agreed that LDCs which in futu re would find themselves in this position, would 
need to make a request for a one-year extensi on to the IFWG on an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis.  
12. She continued by saying that the IFWG had also reviewed a project proposal prepared by 
the ITC jointly with Djibouti to organize a wo rkshop on the IF and Aid for Trade during the 
COMESA meeting in November.  It had encouraged  ITC to mobilize funding outside the IFTF, as this 
type of project did not conform to the terms of reference of the IFTF.  
13. As regards the IF Website, she said that the IFWG had heard a report from the World Bank 
on the IF website which was managed by the World Bank on behalf of the six Agencies.  Project briefs on Window II projects would be added and more  information would be translated into French.  
14. The Chairperson of the IFSC
 welcomed the report by the IF WG Chairperson and opened the 
floor for discussions on this report. 
15. The representative of Solomon Islands  expressed his gratitude for the favourable response 
by the IFWG towards the application of his country  and Samoa to join the IF. He assured that his 
Government would work very closely with the UNDP which had been mandated to undertake the 
Technical Reviews for both countries.  He also  expressed his gratitude to the World Bank for 
undertaking the Technical review fo r Vanuatu and hoped that Vanuatu would move to the next stage 
of the IF process shortly.  
16. The Chairperson of the IFSC  proposed that the Committee take note of the report on the 
IFWG meeting on 9 to 10 May and of the statements made. 
17. It was so agreed . WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 4  
 
  C. 
REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE IF ON THE WORK 
OF THE TASK FORCE ;  CONSIDERATION OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS  
18. The Chairman of the IF Task Force  highlighted the main issues of the draft 
recommendations relating to country ownership,  implementation, management and funding. 
19. On the issue of country ownership, he repor ted that the Task Force had recommended the 
increase of support for capacity building in-country to  permit LDCs to take ownership.  Discussions 
had shown that beneficiary countries had difficulties mastering human and financ ial resources to take 
ownership in a meaningful way.  He reported that the Task Force had also recommended the 
establishment of a high level inter-ministerial co mmittee to provide senior level engagement and 
coordination and to provide political commitment.  He  said that the Task Force had debated at length 
on the weaknesses of inter-ministerial communication across different levels of government.  A series 
of process prescriptions that may address these weaknesses had been included in the draft recommendations.  He pointed out that the Task Force was reluctant to propose a one-size fits all model because each LDC was different.  In its c onsultations with LDCs, donors and agencies, the 
Task Force had discovered that there were different  structures in the beneficiary countries, some of 
which worked well. 
20. He stated that ownership not only referred to LDCs and the IF process in-country, but also 
to donors and agencies with regards to their particip ation in the process.  He emphasized the need for 
commitment from donors to include trade as an importa nt part of their development strategy.  He 
noted that the paradigm in development agencies and donor agencies was changing to increasingly consider trade as an important part of the developm ent strategy.  He stated that more capacity was 
needed in the donors' and ag encies' trade departments. 
21. On the issue of implementation, he stated that  the low success rate thus far was viewed to 
have an important capacity dimension;  countries ne eded assistance after the diagnostics were over to 
take the IF process to the next step.  He re ported that the Task Force had recommended the 
strengthening of the IF Focal point in-country to address the issue of capacity to prepare well 
thought-out projects and strategies to be taken up af ter the DTIS phase.  He sa id that the Task Force 
also recommended the provision of more resources unde r the IF to enable first steps to translate the 
Action Matrix into concrete acti ons.  He emphasized that Tier 2 would act as a bridging mechanism 
that would enable beneficiaries to undertake small, first-step actions identified in the Action Matrix, 
and that this would pave the way for larger investments to follow. 
22. He reported that the Task Force also recomme nded periodic updates to the DTIS, to make it 
a living document.  The view was that these repor ts quickly became obsolete and support would be 
needed to update the DTIS as well to expand them in particular areas of priority and specific interests. 
23. On the issue of overall management of the pro cess, he reported that the Task Force proposed 
no changes to the Steering Committee.  The IFSC would provide overall policy direction, review 
progress and provide a platform for the exchange of experience.  Instead of the current IFWG, there 
would be a Board.  He said that the Task Force proposed a modest rebalancing between the 
representation of donors, LDCs and agencies in th e Board.  The Task Force had discussed that 
opportunity should be provided for the private sector to be involved either at the level of the IFSC or 
at the Board of the IF.  He stated that the bigge r change proposed was in respect to the Secretariat 
function.  The Task Force had recommended the est ablishment of an Executive Secretariat with a 
Chief Executive Officer who would be accountable to the Board.  This would provide for greater 
accountability and improve delivery. 
  WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 5 
 
 
  24. On the issue of funding, he acknowledged that the Task Force had received some 
well-earned criticism from the IFWG and the mee ting with agencies during the week, about the 
funding issue being the least well-developed elemen t of the report.  He stated that donors were 
working hard to strengthen this pillar.  He clarifie d the position with regard to funding, in particular 
that the Task Force, including the donors, agreed th at the future funding woul d be considerably higher 
than the current arrangements.  Although they were  still to come up with an exact figure, the donors 
remained committed to it.  He reported that the Task Force had proposed that Tier 1 should be 
centrally managed and funded out of multilateral funds, but that Tier 2 could be funded both 
multilaterally and bilaterally. 
25. The Chairperson of the IFSC  welcomed the report by the Chairman of the IF Task Force and 
opened the floor for discussions. 
26. The representative of Zambia  welcomed the Chair of the IFSC on behalf of the LDC Group.  
He also thanked the Chair of the IFWG for her de tailed and comprehensive report.  Being a member 
of the IF Task Force, he welcomed the recommenda tions on the enhanced IF.  He clarified that the 
funding figure stated in the report of US$ 200-40 0 million had not actually been discussed within the 
Task Force but had been discussed at the World Bank/IMF Development Committee meeting held in 
New York in 2005.  He stated th at the Task Force had agreed to consult further on the funding issue 
within the next week.  He expressed his apprecia tion that donors had asked LDCs to consult among 
themselves to come up with an indicative figure.  He thanked all the development partners for 
contributing to the IFTF and hoped th at they would continue to do so on a much larger scale in order 
to ensure that the objectives of the enhanced IF were fully met. 
27. The representative of Djibouti  stressed the importance of rein forcing capacity at the national 
level.  He welcomed the Task Force's r ecommendation on the establishment of an Executive 
Secretariat that would provide more accountability.  He suggested that each agency second staff to the 
Secretariat for it to function smoothly. 
28. The representative of Rwanda  thanked the Chairman of the IF Task Force on his 
presentation of the recommendations, and particular ly for the comments he had added between the 
lines of the report on the additional funding that was in the pipeline.  She stated that this translated a 
message of optimism that was not very evident when  the draft recommendations were first circulated.  
She pointed out that more hard wo rk was needed in order to come up with a more complete report. 
29. The representative of Bangladesh  supported the recommendations on the enhanced IF.  He 
urged the donors to pledge a substantive amount of funds for the enhanced IF to work, keeping in 
mind the needs of 50 LDCs.  He recommended that the IF should also focus on capacity building of 
the private sector in LDCs to enhance entrepreneurial skills. 
30. The representative of the World Bank  welcomed the point made on the need to strengthen 
trade departments in agencies.  He agreed with the scope of activities recommended by the Task Force 
and shared the vision that the enhanced IF w ould require a strengthened Secretariat as well as 
improved in-country management institutions.  He st ated that the following principles were important 
points of reference for future engagement with the IF:  (i) full funding of related costs for agencies 
executing IF tasks;  (ii) the recognition that both c ountries and agencies needed  to exercise selectivity 
when choosing partners to work with in line with comparative advantages;  and (iii) the importance of 
keeping in sight, on a country-by-country basis, th e role that progressive trade liberalization could 
have in fostering a beneficial integration of th e LDCs into the world economy.  He emphasized the 
importance of establishing mechanisms that would en sure that required support at country level was 
provided in a timely and effective manner by develo pment partners with a field presence and relevant 
expertise.  He stated that the World Bank's experi ence indicated that the most effective way in which 
agencies could support the development process w as through establishment of strong and stable WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 6  
 
  working relations, that are anchored at the country level.  He suggested the identification of a lead 
development partner per country that would be acc ountable for supporting the delivery of the Tier 1 
activities identified in the Task Force proposal. 
31. The representative of the EC
 emphasized the need for ownership, capacity and 
mainstreaming in individual LDCs.  He also agr eed that improvements were needed as to the way 
donors approached the IF.  He stat ed that his delegation attached much importance to following 
through on what was proposed with regard to an expanded Tier 1 in term s of stronger in-country 
foundation and structure for the IF.  With regard to Tier 2 funding, he reiterated that it was a bridging 
mechanism.  The main contribution, including fund ing of trade-related infrastructure and follow-up 
projects, would be picked up by entities other than the IF, particularly through the established 
channels of support from bilateral donors and the work of agencies. 
32. The representative of Nepal  stated that the beneficiaries had high expectations of the IF 
process, that it would definitely lead to the enha ncement of the productive capacity, the removal of 
supply-side constraints and the enhancement of th eir competitiveness so that they could effectively 
participate in the Multilateral Trading System.  He underscored that a strong and clear commitment to 
substantially enhance the level of resources would be  a very important message to all countries which 
were pinning high hopes on the IF.  This would also give a strong impetus to the integration of LDCs 
into the global trading system.  He called for a strong follow-up mechanism to carry forward the 
implementation with the full participa tion of both donors and recipients.  
33. The representative of Vanuatu  stated that his country, Solomon Islands and Samoa were the 
first countries in the Pacific region who were in the process of benefiting from the IF.  
34. The representative of ITC  stated that he supported the recommendations, particularly the 
reference to the Paris Declarations  and the principles therein as they pertained to country ownership 
and the involvement of the local private sector.  He also supported the recommendation that sufficient 
resources be found to provide stronger in-country capacity, linked to issues of ownership.  He 
mentioned the proposal by his organization and UNCTAD to help develop local capacity at the 
country level.  He stressed that private sector in terests in national implementation units should be 
represented as well as in the governance and othe r collaborative mechanisms of the IF.  He 
emphasized that in line with the Paris Declarati on, market principles to aid should be increasingly 
applied.  In this regard the choice of agency in undertaking the services to be provided to LDCs 
should be determined by such things as capacity, quality and cost. 
35. The representative of UNIDO  stated that, with regards to implementation of the Action 
Matrix, LDCs needed specific solutions and actions that were pragmatic.  He said that his 
organization played a significant role in assi sting LDCs develop projects from the DTIS 
recommendations. 
36. The representative of Lesotho  thanked the IFWG for providing another year in which 
Lesotho and other countries could apply for Win dow II funding and submit additional projects for 
funding within the limits of their allocation. 
37. The representative of UNCTAD  commented on how best to operationalize the 
recommendations on the enhanced IF.  He recount ed the lessons that had been drawn from the 
experiences in the implementation of the IF that we re shared during the Pre-DTIS Workshop in Kigali 
in 2004 and the Simulation Workshop in Addis Abab a in 2005.  These lessons would address some of 
the details in the operationalization of some of th e recommendations.  He stre ssed the need for support 
to implement the IF at the country level.  He under scored that strengthening the IF Focal Point at the 
country level would be critical to the success of the IF and for tapping its full potential for trade capacity building.  He stated that ITC and UNC TAD had jointly prepared a draft proposal, called  WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Strengthening of National Implementation Arrangement s, as a concrete contribution to addressing the 
capacity problems in-country.  He said that the proposal was not a one-size-fits-all model but a framework and a guide to be tailored to individua l countries.  He reported that they intended to 
consult further with the LDCs in order to develop the ideas in the project proposal so as to ensure the 
best possible ways to address the crucial needs that had faced implementation units. 
38. The representative of China
 asked how the enhanced IF and future Aid for Trade would 
complement each other.  He also asked if there was a possibility that the IF could be extended to other 
developing countries, particularly some African countries, and how the Executive Secretariat would be financed. 
39. The representative of Senegal
 reiterated the importance of strengthening the focal point 
in-country.  He asked for more clarification on the role of the private sector and how it could be 
involved much more in this process locally and internationally. 
40. The representative of the IMF  emphasized the importance of the Executive Secretariat in 
aligning accountability, incentives and capacity to act.  It would have to be a strong structure that 
would engage the beneficiaries, donors and agencies.  He stated that the Secretariat must not only 
deliver priority capacity building and other projects but should also strive to ensure a modicum of 
consistency, regardless of the agencies or donors invo lved, in helping LDCs enter trade reforms into 
the broader policy framework. 
41. The representative of Canada  highlighted the centrality of country ownership and stated that 
more work was needed to finalize th e report, especially on the funding aspect. 
42. The representative of Sweden  stated that he was encouraged by the support for the 
recommendations on the enhanced IF and was committed to a quick completion of the work. 
43. The representative of Denmark  underscored the importance of capacity at country level for 
concrete results to be achieved.  He assured that  Denmark stood ready to continue its support for the 
IF. 
44. The representative of UNDP  reiterated that the draft report addressed well the in-country 
capacity and implementation issues which were al so extensively discussed at the November 2005 
consultation on the IF convened by the Administra tor of UNDP.  He stated that in-country support 
needs and arrangements especially on Tier 1 issues must take into account that the challenges on the 
ground differed from one LDC to another LDC.  He al so reiterated that a realistic level of funding was 
required and appropriate transition arrangements were imperative, especially as concerned the IFTF. 
45. The representative of Uganda  was eager to know when the enhanced IF would become 
operational so that as Uganda went into the post-DT IS stage, his authorities would factor this into 
their plans. 
46. The representative of the United States  reiterated the importance of the IF and its continued 
growth.  She stated that the IF had been a success and her authorities had supported it through 
bilateral work, contributions to the IFTF, spons oring the Simulation Workshop in Addis Ababa, 
serving as donor representative and participation in the Task Force.  She emphasized that the ultimate 
goal of the IF was to integrate trade into the national development strategies.  
47. The Chairman of the IF Task Force  responded to the specific questions raised by China and 
Uganda.  As regards the question on how the enhanced  IF would complement Aid for Trade, he stated 
that the IF concept could be used as part of the foundation for Aid for Trade, especially as the 
diagnostic and needs assessment part for the aid pr ocess.  The IF provided the analytical base and WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 8  
 
  agreed framework for the actions that would follo w in LDCs.  On the expansion of the IF to 
developing countries, other than LDCs, he said that this had been considered in the Task force and 
had been rejected.  He stated that although a need s assessment process needed to be carried out and 
implemented in respect of all beneficiaries of Ai d for Trade, the mechanisms would have to be 
different, since LDCs would require more capacity bu ilding support than other developing countries.  
With regard to how the Executive Secretariat would be funded, he stated that donors would fund these 
costs.  He also stated that the 1 January 20 07 deadline was still the Task Force's target to 
operationalize the enhanced IF. 
48. The Chairperson of the IFSC
 took note of the appreciation that Members had stated to the 
Chairman of the IF Task Force and his team.  She proposed that the IFSC take note of the statements 
made and that this item be reverted to in the next meeting.  
49. It was so agreed . 
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IF :  REPORT BY BENEFICIARIES ON FOLLOW -UP TO THE DTIS  
50. The Chairperson  recalled that the IF Work Programme had placed special emphasis on the 
effective follow-up to the DTIS in the beneficiary countries.  To date, the DTIS had been completed 
in 20 LDCs.  They were:  Benin, Burundi, Cam bodia, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho, 
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambi que, Nepal, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, 
Senegal, Tanzania, Yemen and Zambia.  The prepar ations for the DTIS were currently ongoing in 
Angola, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Th e Gambia, Laos, Maldives, Niger, Sierra Leone, 
Sudan and Uganda.  The IFWG had furthermore mandated the World Bank to undertake Technical 
Reviews – the preliminary step in the IF pro cess – in Guinea Bissau and Togo and UNDP in the 
Solomon Islands and Samoa.  Technical Reviews or  revised Technical Reviews for Afghanistan, the 
Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatori al Guinea, Haiti, Liberia and Vanuatu had also 
been recently completed or were pending.  She en couraged the countries that had entered into the 
post-DTIS phase to share with the meeting informa tion on the status of IF implementation in their 
respective countries, including any positive elements and/or problems encountered.  She also invited 
donor countries and agencies to provide the meeting with any information they had under this item. 
51. The representative of Tanzania  said that his country acceded to  the IF in July 2003 and the 
requisite Concept Note was submitted in September 2004.  Mobilization of technical expertise for the 
DTIS was initiated in November 2003 and the draft report submitted in June 2005.  The DTIS report 
was subjected to a wider consultative process which included the public and private sector, development partners and other stakeholders.  Th e Validation Workshop was held in November 2005.  
He said that unlike other countries which had em barked on implementation immediately after their 
validation workshop, in Tanzania it was felt that  formal adoption by Government prior to the 
commencement of the implementation phase would enhance the success of the programme.  Apart from Window II funding, additional resources for impl ementation were expected to be raised from 
allocations for the National Growth and Povert y Reduction Strategy bette r known in its Swahili 
acronym of "MKUKUTA" and supplemented by bila teral and multilateral donor support to be 
mobilized through a process of consultations, coordinate d by the National IF Secretariat.  He reported 
that many bilateral donors had indicated willingness to support the implementation of the Tanzanian 
DTIS subject to cabinet approval.  He also repor ted that the National Steering Committee had met on 
10 May 2006 to deliberate on the status of DTIS.  The meeting had discussed and donors had agreed on implementing "quick wins" while the Government w as in the process of  endorsing the DTIS.  This 
Committee had resolved to meet with donors after ever y fortnight.  Follow-up on the formation of a 
National Secretariat had also been addressed.  
  WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 9 
 
 
  52. The representative of Mali  stated that in Mali's pre-DTIS period, it had invited the IF Focal 
Point of Cambodia to share Cambodia's experience in implementing the IF Process.  He said that the 
institutional framework for the IF was set up in  2003.  The National IF Steering Committee was 
chaired by the Minister of Trade, who was the National IF Focal Point.  The National IF Steering Committee included the Secretaries-General of a ll the different institutions involved in the 
implementation, technical directorates, the Cham ber of Commerce as well as representatives of the 
Civil Society.  He stated that there was also an  Inter-Ministerial Follow-up Committee chaired by the 
Prime Minister of his country and made up of Ministers in charge of the institutions involved in the implementation.  He reported that after the Na tional Validation Workshop, the Inter-Ministerial 
Committee had also validated the Action Matrix.  In May 2005, a Project Implementation Unit (PMU) 
had been set up to implement projects, organize R ound Tables and integrate the trade issues into the 
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).  He stat ed that one of the projects they were undertaking 
was to improve the quality of mangos  for exports.  He said that his country produced 200,000 tons per 
year, but exported only 3,000 tons.  His country pl anned to increase its mango exports (especially to 
the EC) to 10,000 tons in two to three years.  A f und was also established to assist mango exporters to 
package their produce for export.  He said that th e PMU had worked closely with the Ministry of 
Agriculture on this project.  Another project underw ay was the set up of a regulatory framework and 
law reform with regards to Intellectual Property Rights.  He said that this was very important, 
especially for Mali's music industry which had a niche market in France and the US.  He stated that 
the IF was working well in his country and that  the UNDP, ITC, UNCTAD and the WTO could attest 
to this fact.  His Government had been invited to Ni ger to share its experiences of the IF.  On the issue 
of mainstreaming trade issues into the PRSP, he sai d that his authorities were currently working on a 
Trade Policy Development document 2007-2011 with assistance from the World Bank.  Ongoing work included the formulation of projects to be s ubmitted to donors and the mobilization of partners 
for funding.  He said that the problems his country  continued to face during the implementation was 
the lack of capacity at the national level.  Mali had been assisted by the WTO, UNCTAD and ITC.  
He concluded by stating his country's slogan of the IF, "Poverty Reduction Through Trade". 
53. The representative of Rwanda
 said that the DTIS, undertaken in November 2004, had resulted 
in an action plan that focused on four identified pr iority areas:  infrastruct ure, finance, commercial 
sector support and capacity building.  The final dr aft of the DTIS and the Action Plan had been 
validated by all stakeholders in  September 2005.  Since then, the following actions had been 
undertaken:  (i) some of the DTIS recommendations  (especially for Agriculture) had already been 
incorporated into the PRS Annual Progress Report in  July 2005.  She said that the full revised 
Economic Development and Povert y Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) would be ready this year and 
would provide an opportunity to ensure full coordinati on and integration of the action matrix;  (ii) at a 
high-level strategic meeting between the Government  of Rwanda and its deve lopment partners which 
was held in December 2005 to discuss policies, st rategies and development programmes and mobilize 
the necessary funds, the Minister of Commerce ha d presented the key findings of the DTIS, the 
implementation plan and funding needs for activities in the Action Matrix.  This meeting had been 
seen as a good opportunity to draw in donor funding for commercial sector development;  and (iii) a 
project proposal (capacity building for implementa tion) had been completed for Window II funding.  
She said that some donors had already identified proj ects within the Action Matrix that they would 
support. For example:  (i) €1.9 million was availa ble from the EC for the creation of a national 
network of business development centres and for the support of export-rela ted standards and the 
enhancement of Rwanda's capacity in trade policy formulation and trade negotiations;  
(ii) Department for International Development (D FID) had provided support for the improvement of 
customs valuation procedures;  (iii) the World Ba nk had provided funds for the development of an 
export promotion action plan;  (iv) Gesellschaf t für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) and the 
World Bank were providing support for the devel opment of a Trade Point in Rwanda, offering 
business information and contacts for potential invest ors;  (v) the Netherlands Embassy was providing 
support for the development of cold storage facilities at the airport, for which work was underway, as 
well as planned support to micro hydro-electricity cen tres and rural electrification programmes;  and WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 10  
 
  (vi) in response to SPS concerns identified in the Action Matrix, the WTO, as partner to the STDF, 
had provided a consultant to do a further analysis  on specific SPS constraints in the horticulture sector 
and to develop a project proposal for funding.  She also stated that the Government of Rwanda had 
taken forward some of these recommendations, su ch as the review of business-related laws, 
development of a national cooperative policy and co operative law and dissemination of information 
on the financing opportunities available.  On the futu re of IF in Rwanda, she said that the Government 
was moving to get all the line Ministries to integrat e the trade priorities identified in the Action Matrix 
into their sectoral strategies.  So far Rwanda ha d achieved significant results in integrating other 
cross-cutting issues such as Gender, ICT, Enviro nment and HIV/Aids, in its Poverty Reduction 
Strategy and in getting the various ministries and instit utions to include them in their sector strategies.  
It was therefore expected that integrating trad e issues into the EDPRS would not encounter any 
difficulties.  She stated that the donors' role w ould be equally crucial as regards ownership and 
commitment in order to make this integration effective.  She reported that a structure for 
implementation had been set up, with the Ministry of Commerce as the lead Ministry and the national 
IFSC to drive the process implementation.  A high-level Ministerial Steering Committee had been 
proposed but was not yet in place.  It would be chaired by the Minister of Commerce and its role 
would be to provide strategic oversight for implementation.  These Committees would be supported 
by the national IF Secretariat, which would work cl osely with all relevant Ministries and agencies to 
ensure that the actions and their rationale were understood and integrated within sector strategies.  
The private sector cluster as well as other clusters, pa rticularly the rural cluster, the infrastructure 
cluster and the education cluster w ould also be engaged.  She said that monitoring and evaluation of 
progress in implementation would take place quarterly by the Ministerial Steering Committee, but 
more regularly in cluster meeti ngs.  An annual commercial sector re view would be formalized and 
would be undertaken jointly w ith Rwanda's development partners, for assessing progress of the 
planned implementation as well as the impact of the actions.  She concluded by thanking the IF 
Agencies for their valuable contribution to this process. 
54. The representative of Mozambique
 stated that since the National Validation Workshop held in 
September 2004, her Government ha d established the National IF Steering Committee and the LPAC.  
The National IF Steering Committee included all relevant Ministries including Finance, Planning and Development, as well as the private sector, civil society and academia.  Her Government had continued to work closely with the lead donor , the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), as well as with other inte rested donors such as the EC, the Netherlands and 
Switzerland, in supporting various IF related activ ities and proposals.  She said that bilateral donors 
had continued to finance activities identified in the Action Matrix such as:  (i) reforms in the labour 
laws in her country, financed by USAID;  ( ii) strengthening capacities for WTO negotiations on 
Agriculture, financed by the Swi ss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs;  (iii) strengthening trade 
institutions in her country and diversifying agri cultural products and markets, financed by the 
Canadian Fund for Africa Initiative.  She informed that the PRSP of her country called "PARPA" was 
in the process of being revised.  Members of the National IFSC had been participating in the committees revising the PARPA.  Almost all the DTIS recommendations had been included in the 
PARPA.  Her delegation, including the IF focal point and representatives from the private sector, had 
participated in the IF Simulation held in Addis Ab aba, Ethiopia, in September 2005.  Her country had 
been selected as one of the Simulation case study countries.  Her authorities considered the 
Simulation fruitful, in particular its discussion on how to better implement the IF.  The IF 
familiarization tour to Geneva  for her delegation from the capital, sponsored by USAID in 
collaboration with the ITC, had also been effectiv e.  Mozambique's IF focal point, representatives 
from the National IF Steering Committee, representa tives of the private sector, Ministry of Labour, 
Ministry of Planning and Development, Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Industry and 
Trade, the EC representative and USAID representa tive had participated in the tour.  The tour had 
provided participants with an in-depth overview of the objectives and benefits of the implementation 
of IF, experiences of other countries, functions of th e core IF agencies, and had contributed to a better 
understanding of how to overcome the challenges in implementing the IF.  Her Government had  WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 11 
 
 
  finalized the recruitment of a full time IF consu ltant funded from the IFTF.  The consultant would 
assist with the formulation of IF projects as well as create greater awareness of the IF in her country.  
She said that progress had been made in finalizing the first set of priority actions to be funded from IF 
resources.  A project on improving the fisheries sector in terms of applicable standards had been approved by the LPAC and sent to the UNDP for disbursement of funds.  A project on improving 
trade data would be finalized in the next few months.  She said that her country had provided 
guidance to other IF countries based on its own experience in the IF process, in particular to Sierra Leone and Angola.  She said that her c ountry, with the ITC's and UNCTAD's support, was 
organizing an IF momentum building event on 25 a nd 26 May 2006 to gather additional support for 
the implementation of the IF in her country. 
55. The representative of Zambia
 said that his country had validated the DTIS in July 2005 and 
that formal adoption by cabinet was expected this m onth.  He explained that the delay in the formal 
adoption was due to the internal discussions on rati onalization of the various trade-related technical 
assistance programmes in his country.  These discussions  were concluded with all stakeholders in 
April 2006.  He reported that his country had star ted engaging bilateral and regional partners as well 
as the IF Agencies to assist in the implementati on of activities.  Some projects were currently 
underway with the support of UNCTAD, ITC, World Bank, DFID, UNDP and USAID.  He said that his Government was working on Window II project proposals which would be submitted to UNDP in 
the coming weeks for disbursement of funds.  He informed that Window I funding was used for the 
following activities:  (i) a study on the implicati ons for Zambia on the proposed SADC and COMESA 
Customs Unions;  (ii) a study on implementation of the Export Processing Zones;  and (iii) purchase 
of equipments to strengthen the Focal Point.  Activities undertaken through support from bilateral 
donors included:  (i) a trade facilitation study with the support of USAID Gaborone Hub;  (ii) Trade 
Capacity and Policy Coordination, with the support of  DFID;  (iii) National Export Strategy, with the 
support of ITC;  (iv) Value Chain Analysis (which would fit into the overall export strategy as well as 
the Aid for Trade initiative), with the support of World Bank and the EC;  and (v) capacity building 
for the Zambian Business Forum, with the help of DFID and USAID. 
56. The representative of Angola
 stated that his country had participated in the IF process from 
2005.  He informed that the World Bank was in the process of finalizing the DTIS and his country 
hoped to have the Validation Workshop in Septem ber this year.  He thanked the World Bank for 
undertaking the DTIS and the EC, which was the lead  donor, for assisting in giving his country a good 
start in the IF process. 
57. The Chairperson  thanked the delegations for their statem ents.  She stressed that there was no 
alternative for first-hand information that countries  could provide in these meetings.  The IF could 
only better respond to the needs of its beneficiaries if  all IF stakeholders knew what was happening in 
the field.  In this regard, she encouraged IF beneficiaries to regularly report to the IFSC, the IFWG and to the Secretariat on the status of their IF implementation.  She proposed to take note of the 
statements made.   
58. It was so agreed
.  
E. IFTF:  FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT :  REPORT BY UNDP  
59. The Chairperson  invited the UNDP to provide a status report on the IF.   
60. The representative of UNDP  said that as of 31 March 2006, the Trust Fund had received the 
funds pledged for Window I amounting to US$15.7 million.  The pledges for Window II stood at 
US$19.8 million with transfers of US$19.1 million.  In total, the pledges amounted toUS$35.5 million 
and the transfers were US$34.8 million.  The difference of US$ 700,000 was the contribution from the Government of Germany scheduled for 2006 (€350,0 00) and 2007 (€250,000).  He said that 14 donors WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 12  
 
  had contributed to Window I and 10 donors to Window  II with some of them contributing to both 
Windows.  In all, 16 donors had contributed to th e Trust Fund.  The largest contributors were: 
Norway with US$7.6 million, Denmark with US$6.3 million, UK with US$5.5 million, Sweden with US$5 million and Canada with US$2.1 million.  The total contribution from these five donors 
amounted to US$26.5 million.  The remaining US$9.5 million was contributed by the remaining 
11 donors.  He said that donor Agencies also cont ributed to the Trust Fund.  The World Bank 
contributed US$1.8 million (US$1.5 million to Window I and US$300,000 to Window II), whereas 
UNDP contributed US$350,000 to Window I. 
61. He then made a summary of financial tr ansactions under Window I and Window II of the 
IFTF.  Window I had received US$15.9 million including interest adjustment of US$0.2 million.  
Total approved projects under Window I stood at US$12. 4 million which resulted in an end of period 
balance of US$3.4 million as of 31 March 2006.  U nder Window II, the total financing received 
including interest adjustment was US$19.2 million ag ainst a total expenditure for approved projects of 
US$10.5 million which resulted in an end of period ba lance of US$8.6 million.  This led to a total of 
funds received of US$35.1 million against a total e xpenditure for approved pr ojects of US$23 million, 
which resulted in an end of period balance of US$12.1 million.   
62. He compared expenditures to commitments at 52 per cent. Commitments amounted to 
US$23 million whereas expenditures amounted to US$11.9 million.  What had already been committed but remained unexpended was US$11.1 million.  He also compared commitments to transfers which stood at 66 per cent.  A total of US$23 million was committed against the transfers of 
US$34.8 million.  He clarified that he was presen ting a financial report of what had been committed 
and what had been recorded as expenditure.  He stat ed that actual disbursements may not be perceived 
correctly by looking at the figures indicated in the report.  He noted that there were projects being implemented by agencies or national governments who se reports on the utilization of funds were still 
being awaited.  The figure for advanced funds  was therefore higher than the figure for actual 
expenditure after the closing of accounts.  He expl ained that the reasons for the slow delivery of 
reports were either country specific or project specific. 
63. With regard to the disbursement of funds, he said that under Window I, funding had been 
provided for the DTIS/Needs Assessment for 33 count ries, totalling US$10.86 million.  This was for 
20 countries in which the DTIS had been comple ted and 10 countries in which it was ongoing or 
nearing completion.  The report also showed Needs Assessments which had been carried out in two IF 
countries under the IF:  Bangladesh and Haiti.  The DTIS was also commissioned in Eritrea but later 
suspended as the Government had decided to take a pause.  He said that another US$1.1 million had 
been provided for strengthening national impl ementation arrangements in 30 countries. 
64. He then turned to disbursement of funds under Window II.  Fourteen countries had received 
funding from Window II of the Trust Fund for one or more projects in each of these countries.  Total 
funding provided was US$10.6 million and the to tal expenditures so far was US$3.3 million.  
Expenditures were recorded at 31 per cent of commitments so far. 
65. With regard to funding projections until Sept ember 2006 (second quarter and third quarters of 
2006), he said that there were seven countries whic h had executed one or more projects but still had 
some balance in the US$1 million limit per country.  These countries were:  Lesotho, Mozambique, Nepal, Djibouti, Mauritania, Madagascar and Gu inea.  They had expressed interest in submitting 
additional projects, but the time limit within which they could submit approved projects, had expired.  
He reported that the UNDP had requested the IFWG to consider this issue and he stated that the 
IFWG had agreed to give these countries one additi onal year in which to submit approved projects for 
funding.  However, new cases would be considered by the IFWG on a case-by-case basis.  He said 
that the total funding requirement on this count would be in the range of US$2.9 million.  He 
continued by saying that six countries had validat ed their DTIS and Government endorsement had  WT/IFSC/M/15 
 Page 13 
 
 
  either been received or was expected by the second quarter.  These countries were Benin, Chad, 
Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe , Tanzania and Zambia.  A maximum of US$6 million would be 
required to fund projects in these countries. 
66. He reported that the total projected funding requirement was estimated at US$8.9 million and 
total uncommitted funding under Window II was US$8. 6 million.  Therefore, the projected deficit 
under Window II by the third quarter of 2006 was estimated at US$300,000.  He said that there were 
additional resources under Window I, therefore there was no shortfall overall.  In addition, the UNDP 
was expecting the scheduled contribution from the G overnment of Germany of €350,000 during 2006.  
He noted that the reasons UNDP made funding projec tions for two quarters, rather than longer term 
projects, were:  (i) this was a semi-annual report, more detailed projections c ould be reflected in the 
annual report;  (ii) UNDP wanted to be as objective as  possible by confining the projections on some 
concrete basis;  and (iii) the outcome of the IF Task Force's deliberations on the enhanced IF would 
have an impact on funding requirements. 
67. The representative of the United States  congratulated the UNDP for its report.  She asked for 
clarification of the transfers and commitments in the report. 
68. The representative of the UNDP  clarified that the total transfers referred to the contributions 
into the Trust Fund, whereas commitments refer to approved projects. 
69. The Chairperson  thanked the UNDP for its detailed report.  He proposed that the Committee 
take note of the report from the UNDP and the statements made. 
70. It was so agreed . 
F. ANY OTHER BUSINESS  
71. In the absence of any other bus iness, the meeting was adjourned .  The date of the next 
meeting would be set in light of developments in the discussion on an enhanced IF and would be 
communicated at a later date. 
 WT/IFSC/M/15 
Page 14  
 
  ANNEX I 
  
SIXTEENTH SESSION OF TH E INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK  
STEERING COMMITTEE 
 
 
 
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committe e will hold its Sixteenth Session on Friday, 
12 May 2006, starting at 10 a.m. in the WTO building. 
2. The items proposed for the agenda are:   
(a) Adoption of the agenda;   
(b) 43rd meeting of the Integrated Framework Working Group:  report by the Chair;  
(c)  Report by the Chair of the Task Force on the Enhancement of the IF on the work of the 
Task Force;  consideration of its Recommendations; 
(d)  Implementation of the IF:  report by beneficiaries on follow-up to DTIS:  countries which 
have validated their DTIS are encouraged to re port on the status of the IF process in their 
countries; 
(e)  IFTF:  financial status report:  report by UNDP;  (f) Any other business.
 
 
 
__________