RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
6 October 2006 
 
 (06-4784) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries 
Forty-Fourth Session  
 
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 12 JULY 2006 
 
Chairperson: Ambassador Ian de Jong (Netherlands) 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. WTO  WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDC S) ..........................1  
(i) Market Access for Leas t-Developed Countries...........................................................................1  
(ii) Trade-related Elements of the Brussels Pr ogramme of Action for the LDCs for the 
Decade 2001-2010............................................................................................................... .......9  
C. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................11  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the draft age nda contained in document WTO/AIR/2858. 
B. WTO  WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDC S) 
2. The Chairman  said that two elements of the WTO Work Programme for the LDCs would be 
considered, namely market access and trade-related elements of the Brussels Programme of Action.  Two Secretariat notes would be considered under the item on market access for LDCs:  (i) Market access issues related to products of export interest  originating from LDCs contained in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38;  and (ii) Non-tariff measur es on products of export interest to LDCs 
contained in document WT/COMTD /LDC/W/39 and its addendum. 
(i) Market Access for Least-Developed Countries 
- Market Access Issues Related to Products  of Export Interest Originating from 
Least-Developed Countries (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38)  
 3. The Chairman
 recalled that at its last session, the Sub-Committee had had a substantive 
discussion on the Note containing a review of market access for products originating from LDCs.  Members had requested additional information on tariff measures facing LDC products in both 
developed and developing country markets.  Accordi ngly, the Secretariat revised table 6 of the Note, 
subsequently circulated in the corrige ndum to the Note contained in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38/Corr.1. 
4. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that his delegation had made substantive comments on 
the Note at the last meeting.  A corrigendum had been issued to that document, which contained 
useful statistics.  It gave an idea of the products  on which certain Members offered market access to 
the LDCs.  China had offered duty-free access to 93.3 per cent of imports from LDCs.  Petroleum 
accounted for the vast majority of those imports.  He noted that for a large number of developing WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 2  
 
countries, the details of preferentia l treatment were not available.  He hoped that the Secretariat would 
develop data in this area.  The tables in the corri gendum also provided information on the extent to 
which the LDC products had been receiving duty-free access from the United States.  The tables were 
also relevant in the context of Annex F of the Hong  Kong Ministerial Declaration.  He said that his 
comments were preliminary and more time was requi red to examine the statistics in detail.  He 
suggested keeping this item on the agenda of the next meeting. 
5. The representative of China
 quoted paragraph 31 of the Note, which stated that:  "The data 
also show that, based on 2003 data, 93.3 per cent of  China's imports from LDCs enter duty free.  This 
figure, however, is misleading given the importance of oil in China's import basket from LDCs.  If oil imports are deducted, the duty-free figure becomes 48.4 per cent."  He regretted that the Secretariat 
regarded the 93.3 per cent figure misleading and wond ered how the Secretariat could come to such a 
conclusion, which his delegation coul d not agree to.  He referred to table 3 of the Note where it had 
been shown that petroleum and petroleum products  constituted 43 per cent of total exports of the 
LDCs.  That was in proportion with the imports of  petroleum products by China from the LDCs.  He 
added that the proportion of his country's duty-free import of non-oil products from the LDCs was in 
conformity with the export structure of the LDCs.  He emphasized that duty-free import of oil by his 
country was also a contribution to the development of  the LDCs.  He was of th e view that the figures 
about China's import from the LDCs were not misleadi ng, rather the analysis and the conclusions in 
the Note were biased and prejudicial against China and therefore were misleading.  He went on to 
state that most of the measures relating to  quantitative restrictions listed in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39/Add.1, were export-related rest rictions.  Those measures were irrelevant to 
import restrictions on products or iginating from the LDCs.  He hoped that the Secretariat would avoid 
this sort of mistake in future.  Finally, he said th at it would be necessary for the Secretariat to issue a 
corrigendum of the Note indicating where the corrections would be done.   
6. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that the President of China had made an announcement 
during the United Nations General Assembly in Se ptember 2005 to grant duty-free treatment to a 
large number of LDCs.  China had been rapidly moving in that direction.  He appreciated the efforts 
of China to provide duty-free facilities to imports from the LDCs.  He added that China had emerged 
as a major market for the LDCs.  He hoped that trade figures between LDCs and China would be 
different in future. 
7. The representative of Benin  thanked Members for granting duty-free and quota-free market 
access to products originating from LDCs at the Ho ng Kong Ministerial Conference.  He reiterated 
that the LDCs needed this important instrument fo r their development.  He made an appeal to the 
developing-country Members to provide the LDCs duty-free and quota-free market access.  He urged 
the developed-country Members to work towards the operationalization of the decision on duty-free 
and quota-free market access as provided in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  He 
also emphasized the need to achieve 100 per cent market access to the developed-country markets up 
from the 97 per cent as stipulated in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
8. The Chairman  said that the issue of enhanced market  access was of fundamental interest to 
the LDCs.  Measures were being taken to improve the market access situation for the LDCs.  The decision on duty-free and quota-free market access to the LDCs taken at Hong Kong was a concrete 
step in that regard.  He reiterated that in accord ance with the mandate of the Work Programme for the 
LDCs, the Secretariat would continue its efforts to  assist in the review by the Sub-Committee of the 
market access situation for LDCs.  He stressed the ne ed for LDCs and their trading partners to provide 
tariff and trade data to the Secretariat on a regular  basis so that the review of the market access 
situation for LDCs could be f ounded on proper data.  With regard to the remarks made by the 
representative of China, he said that the Secretar iat had expressed its apology for singling out China 
while describing the status of duty-free and quot a-free market access for LDCs, which had been 
reflected in the minutes of the last meeting contained in document WT/COMTD/LDC/M/43.  The 
Chairman added that table 6 had been revised in view of the remarks made by the representative of  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
 Page 3 
 
 
  China at the last meeting.  He recognized the effo rts made by the President of China in favour of 
LDCs, in particular in implementing the announc ement made during the United Nations General 
Assembly last year.  He also encouraged bilate ral discussion between the delegation of China and the 
Secretariat to clarify some of the data issues cont ained in the Note.  He hoped for a fruitful discussion 
on this item at the next meeting.  He proposed th at the Sub-Committee take note of the statements 
made. 
9. It was so agreed . 
- Non-Tariff Measures on Products of Export Interest to the Least-Developed 
Countries (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 and Add.1) 
 
10. The Chairman  recalled that at the last Session, in the context of the discussion on the 
document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/38, the Sub-Committee had requested the Secretariat to prepare a 
note on Non-tariff measures (NTMs) faced by LDC exports.  The Note had been prepared and 
circulated in document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39 and in  its addendum.  It contained an overview of 
the literature on NTMs, identified NTMs faced by  LDC merchandise exports and discussed possible 
avenues of addressing NTMs.  The addendum docu ment compiled notifications by LDCs' major 
trading partners on principal exports of LDCs in  areas such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) 
measures, technical barriers to trade (TBT), quantita tive restrictions and import licensing procedures.  
He then highlighted a few points of the Note.  Fi rst, the overview section of the Note showed the 
difficulties involved in the classification and measurement of NTMs.  There was no agreement on a definition of an NTM nor on a taxonomy to classify them.  The section also pointed to the fact that the 
relative importance of NTMs in the trading system  had been increasing alongside a decline in the 
level of tariff protection.  The section revealed th at the complex nature of NTMs had made it rather 
difficult to draw precise conclusions about their im pact on exports originating from LDCs.  Second, 
the Note gave some indication of the types of NTMs faced by LDC exports in different markets.  Based on available data, it appeared that SPS measure s affected the greatest number of LDC products.  
Preferential rules of origin, TBT and customs and administrative measures were also of key concern 
to the LDCs.  Third, the Note provided possible av enues that the LDCs might consider in order to 
address their concerns related to NTMs.  Among others , it referred to an increased use by the LDCs of 
the existing opportunities in the WTO as well as con certed efforts by the international community to 
strengthen standards-related capacity in LDCs.  In th is regard, initiatives such as Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) had been highlighted. 
11. The representative of Bangladesh
 expressed his gratitude to the Chairman for his support to 
the proposal of LDCs for examining the subject of NTMs.  He found the Note invaluable and appreciated the hard work that had gone into prepari ng it.  He said that it was the first time that the 
Secretariat had looked at NTMs in examining th e market access situation for LDCs.  The Note 
contained elements that required close examination.  While making preliminary remarks, on behalf of 
the LDCs, he requested to keep this item on the ag enda of the next meeting of the Sub-Committee. 
12. He noted the vast landscape of NTMs and their complexity.  He also acknowledged that there 
could be difficulties in agreeing to a definition of NTMs and even a common set of taxonomy for them.  He emphasized on the practicality of the issues.   He stressed the need to effectively address the 
NTMs applied by LDCs' trading partners.  He we nt on to state that since the creation of GATT, 
successive rounds of negotiations had focussed on th e elimination of tariffs.  However, many LDC 
products till date were facing high tariffs in certain  markets.  His delegation did not appreciate the 
qualifications attached to the decision on duty-free a nd quota-free market access to LDCs taken at the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The Uruguay R ound had made an attempt to discipline certain 
NTMs in the international trading system.  The r esulting agreements had not been adequate for the 
LDCs, and much more remained to be done. WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 4  
 
13. He pointed out that the incidence of quantitative restrictions, which had been one of the major 
trade policy instruments of governments until recently, had been gradually declining.  However, new 
dangers were looming on the horizon.   While certain types of NTMs were being eliminated, others 
had been appearing.  The rise of st andards in international trade was a case in point.  He referred to an 
UNCTAD publication, which stated that in the last ten years, there had been a sevenfold increase in 
government-mandated testing and certif ication requirements.  He added that countries that were now 
developed did not face them when they were deve loping.  NTMs had been considered by many as 
moving goalposts to protect domestic i ndustries of the NTM-imposing countries. 
14. He noted that the relative importance of NTMs  as trade policy instruments had increased over 
the last decade.  LDCs' exports were more vulnera ble to NTMs than exports from other countries.  
Ad valorem  equivalents for NTMs were difficult to estimate, and LDC specific results were even 
more scarce.  In this regard, he thanked the Secretariat for including tables 3a, 3b and 3c, which 
showed that LDCs had been facing some of the highest Overall Trade Restrictive Index (OTRI) in 
their major markets.  LDC exporters faced the second highest OTRI in quad markets combining 
agriculture and manufacturing exports.  These market s accounted for two thirds of total LDC exports.  
This was a worrying trend and needed to be addressed in the WTO.  
15. The existing studies on NTMs had only focused on the incidence of NTMs and that less work 
had been done to assess the degree to which NTMs affected trade.  He, however, said that the 
incidence of NTMs could give an indication of th e problems that the LDCs had been encountering.  
Measures applied both at the border as well as behi nd the border were affecting LDC exports.  While 
it might be difficult to draw conclusions about th e degree to which a particular NTM could affect 
LDC exports, it did have restrictive effects on exports from LDCs.  He added that the degree to which 
it could affect the LDCs was dependent on the pr oducts exported by an individual LDC, and the 
institutional and supply-side capacity of the LDC concerned. 
16. He said that the WTO agreements allowed specific SPS and TBT measures.  Many LDCs 
lacked capacity to determine whether a measure had fully adhered to WTO disciplines.  High 
standards imposed on products of export interest to LDCs might constrain the ability of LDCs to 
maintain existing trade, let alone enhance exports .  Meeting high standards might entail enormous 
costs with multiple dimensions.  In this regard, he underlined that action was also required at the 
enterprise level besides enhancing the capacity of the Governments.  It would be of no use to have a 
sophisticated certification laboratory or institutes if the production processes of a firm could not conform to importing countries' standards.  He not ed that the link between standards and trade was 
not always trade diminishing.  Higher st andards could increase pr oduct quality and enhance 
competitiveness.  That, he argued, would not come free of cost.  Higher standards might impose additional costs to the LDC exporters and coul d make their products non-competitive.  Given 
technological and financial constraints, it was unlikel y that imposition of higher standards would lead 
to increased exports from LDCs.  He underlined th at market failures could not be corrected by 
adopting measures penalizing the LDCs.  In view of this reality, the LDCs ha d always urged Members 
to exercise restraint in applying SPS and TBT measures on their exports.  The LDCs had also 
emphasized the urgent need for targeted and financial assistance to overcome specific 
standards-related weaknesses if those standards we re essential for the importing country.  He said that 
Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration also called upon donors and relevant international 
institutions to increase financial and technical  support to enable LDCs to fulfil SPS and TBT 
requirements.  
17. He added that preferential market access had pr ovided an opportunity to the LDCs to enhance 
their exports.  He was of the view that the primar y objective of the preference-providing countries was 
to enable the LDCs to increase their exports.  That  objective could be defeated with the design of 
certain NTMs such as restrictive ru les of origin.  He said that the "Everything But Arms" scheme of 
the EC had offered LDCs enormous opportunities.  However, the rules of origin associated with the 
scheme undermined the export potential of LDCs, esp ecially clothing exports from the LDCs.  He  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
 Page 5 
 
 
  added that those rules of origin requirements did not  match with the industrial capacity of the LDCs.  
Literature had been replete with analysis that hi gh value addition criteria, without the development of 
solid backward linkage industries, made it unviab le to manufacture a product.  Developing backward 
linkage industries in small LDCs had been a daunti ng challenge.  He said that in the modern world 
economy, with technological change, flexibility in sourcing inputs was a key element in 
competitiveness.  He hoped that Members would give  serious consideration to the LDC proposal on 
rules of origin submitted in the negotiations. 
18. He agreed with the Note that customs and ad ministrative procedures were one of the major 
obstacles for faster trade.  Improvements were needed  in these areas.  With the help from the Bretton 
Woods Institutions, LDCs had been making progress.  He said that delays often were also linked to 
the requirement to present certain certificates or do cuments at the border.  Effective resolution of 
NTMs such as SPS or TBT measures might prevent th ese delays.  There were other charges imposed 
at the border that raised the cost for LDC exporters.  In this regard, he underlined the need for more 
cooperation among LDCs' trading partners.   
19. He went on to say that some LDCs had been facing anti-dumping measures.  While some of 
the LDCs had been able to address this through cons ultations, it was difficult and costly to contest 
such measures.  He hoped that LDCs' trading pa rtners would not take any anti-dumping measures 
against their exports and would immediately terminate the measures that were in force. 
20. He said that the Note had identified the cap acity constraints faced by the LDCs.  He 
underlined two points in this regard.  First, he stressed on the need for enhanced training of LDC 
experts to understand the agreements that governed th e NTMs.  Second, he urged the trading partners 
to exercise restraint in undertaking any measure agai nst LDC exports.  He also urged them to make 
special provisions in case any measure was imposed on products which were considered essential in 
the exports of LDCs.  He then referred to the opportunities arising from the Doha round of 
negotiations.  He appreciated the efforts of the Dir ector-General to resolve the crisis facing the entire 
Membership.  He underscored that the conclusion of the round without the development dividends 
would not be desirable.  He pointed out that in the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) 
negotiations, the onus was on LDCs to submit notifications regardi ng NTMs and then to negotiate 
appropriate solutions through different approaches.  That posed a challenge for LDCs, given their 
capacity constraints.  LDCs would require liaising with their private sectors to identify the real 
problems and then to formulate defensible proposals at the negotiations.  He expressed concerns that 
solutions from such negotiations might take long to  materialize and immediate concerns of LDCs 
would not be addressed through this avenue. 
21. He said that LDC exports were limited both in  terms of products and in destinations.  The 
LDCs required special facilities in view of their weak  industrial base and low level of development.  
NTMs had been nullifying not only the advantages from preferential schemes but also exports under 
MFN.  They had prevented LDCs from integrating be neficially into the multilateral trading system.  
He argued that NTMs were also part of the explan ation behind the lack of diversification of exports 
from LDCs.  He hoped that LDCs' trading partners  would take into account their particular 
vulnerability and would not impose measures th at would impede exports from the LDCs.  
22. Finally, he outlined some actions that were requi red by the international community.  First, he 
asked for an immediate simplification of rules of or igin associated with preference schemes.  He said 
that preference margins were gradually eroding and LDCs were faced with increasing competitive 
challenges.  In view of these, he hoped that th e preference granting Members would realize the 
urgency of the matter.  Second, he underlined the need for timely assistance to the LDCs to address 
NTMs faced by their exports.  Ex-post assistance,  once exports had been affected by imposition of 
new standards, might not help in regaining market s.  Third, his delegation would make efforts to 
examine whether, and to what extent, the measure s identified in the addendum to the Note might WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 6  
 
affect exports from LDCs.  The private sectors in  LDCs might not be aware of some of these 
notifications or procedures.  He said that the most important contribution of the Note was its 
contribution to the understanding of NTMs, and the typ es of NTMs faced by LDC exports.  It had also 
increased the knowledge of the resources availabl e in the WTO and reiterated the point that 
meaningful improvements in market access for LDCs required elimination of bo th tariff and non-tariff 
measures.  He thanked the Secretariat for the Note. 
23. The representative of Tanzania
 associated himself with the statement made by Bangladesh on 
behalf of the LDCs.  He said that the Note was substantive in nature and had alluded to several 
elements that would need to be examined in detail.  It would be useful to keep the item on the agenda 
of the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.  He then  made some preliminary remarks.  He went on to 
say that one of the major challenges facing LDCs was meeting SPS requirements in their major 
markets.  Health and food safety concerns had be en obstacles for the LDCs to maintain exports.  
Referring to the box on page 15 of the Note on SPS me asures faced by LDC exports, he said that the 
case of his country was an example of how SPS concer ns could affect exports.  Tanzania had faced 
export bans during the period 1996 to  2000 in relation to fish exports.  The bans imposed by the EC, 
which had also affected the expor ts of fresh fish from Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda had been 
designed to prevent the spread of cholera.  His authorities argued that cholera could not be spread 
through fish.  This point was also reaffirmed from the reports of the World Health Organization 
(WHO).  All the bans were precautionary measures a nd none had scientific justification.  Although his 
country had received assistance from several organi zations after the bans were imposed, foreign 
exchange earnings as well as employment were lost in  the meantime.  Fishing and auxiliary industries 
incurred significant non-retrievable losses.  That was why donor assistance was viewed as post 
mortem tears as stated in Tanzania's submissi on in the Committee on SPS measures contained in 
document G/SPS/GEN/687.  In that submission, his c ountry had reported that one of the major effects 
of the bans had been the fall of total fishery produc t exports by 40 per cent.  He stressed the need for 
timely assistance from the international community, especially when a crisis occurred and urged  the 
trading partners not to penalize LDC exports b ased on perceived non-compliances.  He said that 
meeting the new regulations adopted by major im porting countries with regard to quality control 
would require substantial investment.  In this re gard, he pointed out that only fish coming from 
Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plants were permitted to the EU markets.  The 
investments needed to bring a fish processing plant up to HACCP plant standards were substantial.  
Many companies in developing countries felt that the implementation of the new regulations on 
fishery products was de facto  a non-tariff barrier discriminating against the value-added products 
originating from developing countries.  He, howev er, recognized the need to upgrade facilities to 
conform with certain measures without which exports from his country would not command 
confidence in its major markets.  His country was engaged with bilateral donors as well as with 
multilateral agencies to address some of these needs.  His country had also been benefiting from the 
STDF.  Finally, he said that his delegation intende d to examine the Note in-depth and reserved the 
right to come back with more comments at the next meeting. 
24. The representative of Nepal  associated himself with the statement made by Bangladesh on 
behalf of the LDCs.  He reiterated that reports on trends of LDC exports and market access conditions 
were important elements of the Work Programme fo r the LDCs, especially in view of the lack of 
capacity of LDCs to analyze the global situation in tr ade.  Market access was contingent on both tariff 
and non-tariff barriers.  As tariffs had been decreasing over time, the importance of NTMs was 
increasing.  Therefore, effective market access for LD Cs was important.  The Note had added value to 
the analyses on the issue of NTMs.  He noted that SPS measures affected the greatest number of LDC 
products.  Rules of origin, customs procedures a nd excessive documentation were other barriers to 
LDC exports.  These problems needed to be examined  closely to find appropriate solutions.  He posed 
a question to the Secretariat on paragraph 70 of the No te, which stated that:  "It is also difficult to say 
a priori how, and to what extent, NTMs affect trad e".  He said that the box contained in the Note had 
given examples on measures that had negatively affect ed LDC exports such as the one illustrated by 
the delegation of Tanzania.  In his view, this was an illustration of a case wh ere NTMs affected trade  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
 Page 7 
 
 
  and could be seen as a barrier to trade.  Finally , he underlined the need for support and cooperation 
from the international community to overcome the pr oblems faced by the LDCs with regard to NTMs. 
25. The representative of Zambia  associated himself with the statement made by Bangladesh on 
behalf of the LDCs.  He emphasized the importanc e of realizing the development dimension of the 
DDA, especially for the LDCs.  He noted the difficu lties pointed out by the delegations of Nepal and 
Tanzania in exporting products from the LDCs.  He  underlined the need for enhanced technical 
assistance and investments in the LDCs, especially in the agriculture sector, to enable them to increase 
their exports.  His delegation hoped to come back  with a comprehensive statement at the next 
meeting. 
26. The representative of th e European Communities  said that his delegation had been studying 
the Note in depth.  He then made some prelimin ary remarks on the Note.  He said that any study on 
the identification of NTMs and their impact assess ment on trade terms, specifically for the LDCs, had 
to be accompanied by a number of caveats.  He stressed that the SPS and TBT measures were by nature non-discriminatory.  He acknowledged that th e LDCs might be facing more difficulties than 
other trading partners in meeting the challenges of  reaching the standards.  Investments required to 
this effect might be high both in terms of human  and financial resources.  Technical assistance and 
capacity building was therefore needed, in particular to meet SPS and TBT measures .  In this regard, 
he noted the work being carried out in the Co mmittees on SPS measures and TBT.  He added that a 
considerable amount of work had been done on this  front and the EC and its member states had been 
carrying out technical assistance and capacity build ing activities on a large scale to help developing 
countries, particularly LDCs, meet the challenges of reaching export market standards.  He noted that, 
though the standards in the EU were still a challenge  for the LDCs, this did not prevent the EU from 
remaining the largest and most divers ified export market for LDCs.  On the issue of rules of origin, he 
said that the EC had been engaged in an internal re form process that would lead to an outcome in the 
direction set by Ministers in Hong Kong in term s of simplification and being more supportive of 
LDCs' development needs.  He invited all stakehol ders, including LDCs, to provide inputs to this 
process.  He said that rules of origin were require d in order to receive preferences.  Therefore, the 
question was one of design as opposed to the very exis tence of the measure.  He said that a particular 
measure or a trade policy instrument could be a to ol for the achievement of certain objectives, while 
at the same time such a measure could be percei ved as forming a barrier.  He also acknowledged the 
point made in the Note on the potential importa nce of trade facilitation measures and the need to 
address customs and administrative procedures under the current negotiations in trade facilitation.  He 
also emphasized the opportunities for LDCs in the NAMA negotiations.  He noted the capacity 
concerns of the LDCs, particularly in formul ating proposals and in defending those in the 
negotiations.  In this regard, he pointed out that  some proposals made by other Members could also 
have an interest for LDCs.  He cited an exampl e in the NAMA negotiations where his delegation had 
made proposals in the field of export taxes.  Si nce these taxes impacted on the LDCs, measures to 
address them would also benefit the LDCs even though they themselves had not made the proposal.  
Similarly, proposals that had been made by some developing countries could be of interest to the 
LDCs.  On the issue of capacity building and Aid fo r Trade he noted that the Integrated Framework 
(IF) had been a successful model.  He expressed satisfaction over the fact that Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies (DTISs) for some LDCs had been  used as source material for perceived NTMs in 
export markets.  He underlined that there would be a response from the donor community if 
challenges with regard to NTMs were identified in  the IF framework.  He also emphasized on the 
need for appropriate policy response from the LDC c oncerned.  He said that Trade-Related Technical 
Assistance (TRTA) and Aid for Trade should be demand-driven.  In his view, it was difficult on the 
basis of the Note to draw concrete conclusions  since in-depth examination was required on each 
subject.  Finally, he said that his delegation was r eady to work within the Sub-Committee to explore 
NTMs in more depth in future meetings of the Sub-Committee. WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 8  
 
27. The representative of the United States
 expressed her appreciation for the Note.  She also 
appreciated the efforts to put important caveats upf ront on the complexities of the issues surrounding 
NTMs and to maintain the distinction between NT Ms and alleged barriers.  She said that policy 
conclusions regarding NTMs based on legitimat e, non-economic objectives and introduced in a 
WTO-consistent manner would be different from conc lusions to be drawn based on explicit barriers 
which did not meet those criteria.  Her delegation found the section on possible avenues for 
addressing NTMs useful including the importance att ached to overcoming capacity constraints.  She 
emphasized the importance of interaction between  the private sector and the LDC governments to 
identify real problems and potential solutions.  This interaction could not be over emphasized, since 
all trade was essentially transactions between buyers and sellers.  She went on to state that the 
Committee on SPS measures provided a practical mode l for integrating LDCs into the process of 
implementing the WTO agreements.  There had been  increased participation of LDCs in that 
Committee.  She recognized that legitimate and WTO- consistent measures could affect trade and that 
Members might wish to examine ways to reduce the impact of such legitimate measures.  That was 
the rationale behind the proposal by her delegati on for reducing the trade and economic impact of 
labelling requirements on textiles, clothing, footw ear and travelling goods.  The proposal had been 
tabled in the NAMA negotiations.  She noted the correlation between higher standards and increased 
trade flows, improved product quality and overall  competitiveness.  While standards could seem 
burdensome, when they were reached, there woul d be a certain confidence level among trading 
partners, which could be helpful.  She requested  that more information could be provided on the 
problems LDCs had been facing from NTMs imposed by the developing countries.  She underlined 
the importance of an in-depth analysis on potential benefits of improved South-South trade, especially 
in the context of enhancing mark et access through streamlining NTMs .  Capacity building might play 
an important role in this regard.  In the cont ext of the NAMA negotiations, LDCs should maximize 
their opportunities by providing relevant informati on on NTMs of concern to them.  She encouraged 
the LDCs to submit notifications and specific pr oposals on the elimination or reduction of NTMs.  
She concluded by saying that her delegation had be en actively involved in trade capacity building in 
order to enhance LDCs' efforts to address NTMs.  In th e last fiscal year, the US total funding for such 
activities surpassed US$1.3 billion, which w as an increase of 45 per cent from 2004. 
28. The representative of China  said that since the Note was circulated recently, his delegation 
was awaiting instructions and comments from the capita l.  He hoped that the item would be kept on 
the agenda of the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.   He then made some preliminary remarks.  He 
attached great importance to the concerns expressed by the LDCs and emphasized that those concerns 
deserved careful consideration.  With regard to the SPS and TBT measures notified by his authorities, 
he encouraged the relevant government bodies of th e LDCs to consult with their counterparts in his 
government.  His authorities might eliminate some of the measures notified to the Secretariat, in case 
these would be considered unnecessary for trade with LDCs.  It also might be the case that some of 
the measures were out of date.  He hoped that developed-country Members would continue to 
simplify their rules of origin criteria to enable LDCs  export more to their markets.  He noted that the 
issue of rules of origin was being dealt with in  other WTO bodies, including negotiating bodies.  He 
then sought clarification on some tables contained in  the addendum to the Note.  He noted that four 
Members were selected in tables 1 and 2 dealing with  SPS and TBT notifications respectively.  In this 
regard, he wished to know the selection criteria fo r choosing these four Members as they were not 
necessarily the top four export markets for LDCs.  He noted that China was one of the top destinations 
for LDC exports.  With regard to information on quantitative restrictions listed in table 3 of the 
addendum, he said that 16 out of 20 measures listed we re restrictions relating to exports from China.  
He sought clarification as to why such restrictions  were listed, since the table was supposed to only 
provide information on quantitative rest rictions on products of export inte rest to the LDCs.  He further 
said that three out of the remaining four measures were related to automatic licensing.  He wondered 
whether automatic licensing could be regarded as a qua ntitative restriction.  He stated that China's 
customs administration had been using automatic licensing for collecting trade statistics and for 
monitoring of imports of those items listed in the tabl e.  These did not restrict imports from the LDCs.   WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
 Page 9 
 
 
  He therefore believed that most of the measures lis ted in the table were not relevant for the present 
scope of the Note. 
29. The representative of the Secretariat  answered the questions put to the Secretariat.  On the 
question asked by the representative of Nepal regardi ng a sentence in the concluding remarks, he said 
that the Note contained a lot of information, some of which was not analyzed in detail.  Therefore, a 
caveat sentence was required in that section.  He ad ded that the Note did not discard the point that 
NTMs had not affected trade, but it was rather diffi cult to say a priori how and to what extent NTMs 
had affected trade.  He gave two examples from the Note on the basis of which such concluding remarks were made.  First, he quoted paragraph 5, which stated that:  "As will be shown below, some 
measures, such as quotas are explicit barriers to impo rts, whereas others such as standards can, under 
some circumstances, increase the volume of trade rather than act as a barrier."  Second, he quoted the 
last sentence of paragraph 43, which in the c ontext of SPS notifications listed in the addendum 
document stated that:  "However, a detailed analysis  would be required to assess whether and to what 
extent measures listed in these notifications have (o r will have) an impact on the exports from LDCs."  
These points in the Note had been covered through th e sentence in the concluding remarks referred to 
by the representative of Nepal.  With regard to th e questions raised by the representative of China, he 
said that the countries listed in tables 1 and 2 of  the addendum to the Note concerning SPS and TBT 
notifications were among the top markets for LDC e xports.  He added that the top markets for LDC 
exports were shown in table 4 of document WT /COMTD/LDC/W/38.  On the issue of quantitative 
restrictions, he said that table 3 had been prepared on the basis of the work done in one of the bodies 
of the WTO.  The table had summarized notificati ons received on quantitative restrictions from the 
LDCs' major trading partners namely China, th e European Communities, India, Japan, and the 
United States.  He underlined that the informa tion had been presented according to the Decision 
adopted by the Council for Trade in Goods in 1995.  Finally, he said that more information would be 
provided to the delegation of China on a bilateral basis. 
30. The Chairman
 thanked the Secretariat for its thorough study on the subject of NTMs.  He said 
that the item would be considered at the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.  He welcomed the 
initiative by LDCs to take steps to conduct surveys of  their exporters.  Such surveys might be useful 
in gathering information on specific problems relating to NTMs and might help LDCs seek appropriate solutions.  He encouraged the LDCs to interact more with the private sector.  He 
underlined that both LDCs and other Members should carefully study the Note and the remarks that were made in the meeting.  He suggested that  it would be useful if UNCTAD and the World Bank 
were invited to the next meeting of the Sub-Comm ittee so as to get a full picture of the situation 
concerning NTMs. 
(ii) Trade-related Elements of the Brussels Progra mme of Action for the LDCs for the Decade 
2001-2010 
- Ministerial Meeting of the LDCs for the Mid-term Comprehensi ve Global Review of 
the Brussels Programme of Action fo r the LDCs for the Decade 2001-2010 
(WT/L/649) 
 
31. The Chairman
 recalled that Benin had hosted a Ministerial meeting of the LDCs in Cotonou 
from 5 to 8 June 2006 to prepare for the Mi d-term Comprehensive Global Review of the 
Implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action (BPOA).  The meeting had adopted the 
Cotonou Ministerial Declaration as well as the Co tonou Strategy, which had been circulated to 
Members in document WT/L/649.  He pointed out that a revision had been issued to the English version of that document due to an omission of a pa ragraph in the English version only.  He invited 
the representative of Benin to introduce the document. WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 10  
 
32. The representative of Benin
 reported that the Cotonou Ministerial Declaration underscored the 
different priorities that LDCs, together with thei r development partners, would need to pursue to 
ensure an effective implementation of the actions  identified in the commitments contained in the 
BPOA.  He said that the actions outlined in the Cotonou Strategy had been structured based on 
specific commitments undertaken by the LDCs and th eir development partners in 2001 in Brussels.  
He invited bilateral and multilatera l partners to support the LDCs in  their efforts to achieve the 
objectives contained in the BPOA.  This support would accelerate the social and economic development of the LDCs.  He recommended that  this item be kept on the agenda of the 
Sub-Committee meetings so as to effectively foll ow-up on the results achieved in implementing the 
BPOA. 
33. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs, thanked the representative of Benin 
for introducing the outcome documents from the Co tonou Ministerial Meeting.  He also thanked 
Benin for hosting this important meeting for the LDCs.  He said that the third UN Conference on 
LDCs in 2001 was the first major UN event sinc e the Millennium Summit.  The LDCs and their 
development partners had had a collective look at the complex factors impeding growth in the LDCs 
and had adopted the BPOA for the decade 2001 to 2010.  He stated that the BPOA was different from 
the earlier ones in that it clearly identified seven  areas of commitments around which the affiliation 
between the LDCs and their devel opment partners was formulated.  One among those seven areas was 
trade.  He noted that the international community would review the BPOA at a high-level meeting in 
the UN General Assembly in September.  He said th at although some progress had been registered in 
meeting the goals set out in the programme of actio n, the challenges of LDCs' participation in global 
trade were enormous.  Demand-side shortcomings a nd considerable supply-side constraints hampered 
the growth of LDC exports.  These were reflected in the Cotonou Strategy.  The duty-free and quota-
free market access for all products from LDCs was ye t to be realized.  NTMs prevented the full 
utilization of the preference schemes offered to th e LDCs.  Trade-distorting subsidies continued to 
hamper LDCs' participation in the world market.  He  said that a large number of LDCs continued to 
rely on exports of primary commodities, the prices  of which had been fluctuating erratically in 
addition to demonstrating a secular decline in the te rms of trade against manufactured goods.  He said 
that these were the reasons why the LDCs were unable to benefit more from their participation in the multilateral trading system.  He emphasized the need  for appropriate and substantial assistance to 
enhance the trade capacity of LDCs.  He reiterated the urgent need to address supply-side constraints 
faced by the LDCs.  Referring to the recent adop tion of the recommendations on an enhanced IF, he 
hoped that the enhanced IF would contribute to im prove LDCs' supply-side capacity.  There was also 
potential in the Aid for Trade initiative if it could be structured properly and funds were made available.  He said that mainstreaming the BP OA was one of the elements of the WTO Work 
Programme for LDCs.  The trade-related commitments  made by the international community at the 
third UN Conference on LDCs and the commitments by the WTO Members in favour of LDCs were 
no different.  Many elements contained in the BP OA were being addressed in various bodies of the 
WTO.  He stressed that full and faithful implementation of the commitments of the development partners was needed to promote the sustained deve lopment of LDCs.  He urged the Sub-Committee to 
continue monitoring the trade-related deliverables of the BPOA. 
34. The representative of Zambia
 expressed his support to the statements made by the delegations 
of Benin and Bangladesh. 
35. The Chairman  stated that the Cotonou Ministerial Declaration and the Cotonou Strategy 
reflected the growing recognition of the importance of trade for development and included references 
to specific trade issues of inter est to LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  He emphasized that 
several trade-related elements of the BPOA were also  an integral part of the WTO Work Programmes 
for the LDCs.  He said that enhanced market ac cess for LDCs, their accelerated accession to the 
WTO, increased trade-related technical assistance including through effectiv e implementation of the 
IF, which formed part of the calls made in the BPOA, were all being activ ely considered under the 
Work Programme.  He said that the Cotonou Minister ial Declaration and the Cotonou Strategy would  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
 Page 11 
 
 
  be the basis for the LDCs for the events leadi ng up to the high-level meeting at the UN General 
Assembly in September this year.  He wished th e LDCs success in their endeavours to achieve the 
goals which they and the internati onal community had jointly set in 2001 for the beneficial integration 
of LDCs into the world economy.  He proposed  that the Sub-Committee take note of document 
WT/L/649 as well as its revision and of the statements made. 
36. It was so agreed . 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
37. The Chairman  informed Members that the next Sub-Committee meeting was tentatively 
scheduled for late October 2006.  The exact da te would be communicated in due course. 
38. The Chairman  informed Members that this was his last meeting as the Chair of the 
Sub-Committee, which he had been chairing for nearly three years.  He would be assuming new 
responsibilities at The Hague.  He expressed his appr eciation of the importance and of the work of the 
Sub-Committee.  He said that there had been qu estions on the relevance of the work of the 
Sub-Committee within the WTO.  According to some , the Task Forces on an enhanced IF and on Aid 
for Trade should prepare recommendations about step s that would need to be taken by the LDCs, 
developed and other developing countries in or der to improve the supply-side capacity and 
trade-related infrastructure of the LDCs.  He noted  that both these Task Forces had been working on 
the operationalization of only a limited part of the mandate of the Sub-Committee.  The Work 
Programme for the LDCs was dealing with seven systemic issues:  (i) market access for LDCs;  
(ii) TRTA and capacity building initiatives for LDCs ;  (iii) providing, as appropriate, support to 
agencies assisting with the diversification of LDCs ' production and export base;  (iv) mainstreaming, 
as appropriate, into the WTO's work the trade-relate d elements of the LDC-I II Programme of Action;  
(v) participation of LDCs in the multilateral trading system;  (vi)  accession of LDCs to the WTO;  and (vii) follow-up to WTO Ministerial Decisions/Declarations.  He said that all these subjects were important for the LDCs.  Market access was a vital precondition for the development of 
export-oriented industries.  The Sub-Committe e had discussed studies on both tariff and non-tariff 
measures facing LDC exports.  Trade-related tec hnical assistance and support for capacity building 
was a necessity for the LDCs.  Members had reco gnized this by making 50 per cent more training 
opportunities available to the LDCs in the annual WTO TRTA plan.  He stated that developing 
countries, in particular the African Group, had b een trying to generate more understanding amongst 
Members for addressing the problems arising from the deteriorating terms of trade for commodities.  
The analysis on the market access situation for LD Cs showed that their exports often depended on 
only one or two products.  This made them vulne rable to international trade and underlined the 
importance of further diversification of the LD Cs' production and export base.  Mainstreaming the 
seven broad commitments of the BPOA into the work  of the WTO provided a pa rticular challenge.  In 
this regard, the WTO had been providing valuable assistance to help LDCs fostering a people-centred 
policy framework, achieving good governance at nationa l and international leve l, building human and 
institutional capacities, building productive capaciti es to make globalization work for the LDCs, 
enhancing the role of trade in development, reducing vulnerability and protecting the environment and 
finally mobilizing financial resourc es.  He was of the view that the participation of LDCs in the 
multilateral trading system had been improving.  The importance of the accession of more LDCs to 
the WTO had recently been re-emphasized by the Mi nisters at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  
The process was of great importance for the creation of transparent and effective trade policies in the 
LDCs.  He hoped for full participati on of all LDCs in the work of the organization.  Finally, he said 
that a number of complicated implementation issu es, particularly stemming from the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration, would need to be solved in the near future.  In his view, the Sub-Committee 
on LDCs should serve as a platform  for detailed discussions about those issues.  The Task Force on an 
enhanced IF and the one on Aid for Trade had vital roles to play in order to enhance the connection 
between trade and development.  He congratulat ed the WTO LDC Group, which had developed itself WT/COMTD/LDC/M/44 
Page 12  
 
rapidly in the last few years.  He appreciated th e active role of the LDCs in the WTO.  He also 
gratefully acknowledged the support receive d from Members during his Chairmanship. 
39. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs, expressed sincere thanks to the 
Chair for his total support to the LDCs.  The LDCs  had benefited from his guidance and leadership.  
He said that in each area of the work in the Sub- Committee, the Chair had left a lasting contribution, 
demonstrating that the LDCs had reposed their conf idence in a true friend.  He then outlined the 
accomplishments of the Sub-Committee during the period of his Chairmanship.  First, he recalled that 
in the past there was a great deal  of reluctance in the WTO to discuss supply-side issues.  The Chair 
had changed that atmosphere, and the issue of supply- side constraints had received adequate attention.  
The Sub-Committee had considered two notes by the Secretariat regarding supply-side issues.  He 
added that supply-side concerns  were now receiving priority attention in the Aid for Trade 
discussions.  Second, he emphasized that the annual  review of the market access situation for the 
LDCs was vital.  During the last few years, seve ral notifications were made by Members concerning 
improvements of market access measures in favour of  LDCs.  The subject of enhanced market access 
for LDCs, one of the key demands of the LDCs in th e WTO, had received priority.  In this regard, he 
underlined that without the commitment of the Ch air, the Sub-Committee could not have agreed on 
the request made by the LDCs for a note concerning the textiles and clothing sector.  He expressed his 
appreciation to the Government of the Netherlands  for making available financial resources to the 
WTO to carry out the study.  This was not a mean achievement.  Third, he said that the note on NTMs 
had been a landmark document and w ould not have been possible without the support of the Chair.  
He also expressed the gratitude of the LDCs to the Chair's Government for sponsoring the 
Netherlands Internship Programme.  The LDCs had b een benefiting from it.  Finally, he said that the 
Chair would be leaving behind a group of friends  and admirers and would be missed in Geneva.  
40. The representative of Zambia  expressed his appreciation to the Chair for his commitment to 
the cause of the LDCs.  He also associated himsel f with the remarks made by the representative of 
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs.  He was happy that the Chair would assume greater 
responsibilities back in his country, which he hoped would include overseeing the developments with 
regard to the LDCs.  He hoped that the Chair woul d now be in a better position to make decisions in 
favour of the LDCs.  His new appointment could not ha ve come at a better time .  He wished the Chair 
success in his new assignment and also conveyed best wishes to his family. 
41. The Chairman  took the opportunity to thank the Secretariat for providing support to his work. 
He thanked Members for their kind words to him. 
42. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________