WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
1 March 2012  
 
(12-1202) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries 
Sixty-Second Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 8 NOVEMBER 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador Steffen Smidt (Denmark) 
  
A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 1  
B.  ACCESSION OF LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO THE WTO  ...................................................... 1  
-  Communication from Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group 
(WT/COMTD/LDC/W/52) ...........................................................................................................  1 
C.  OTHER BUSINESS  ......................................................................................................................... 8  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Sub-Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3853.  
B. ACCESSION OF LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO THE WTO  
- Communication from Bangladesh, on beha lf of the LDC Group (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/52) 
2. The Chairman said that the LDC Group had submitted a proposal on LDC accessions 
contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/52.  He intended to  offer the floor to the LDC Coordinator, to 
introduce their proposal.  Thereafter, he would inv ite Members to allow a general response to the 
proposal.  He would then seek specific comments on the four pillars of the LDC accession proposal 
which they had developed in light of the LDC accession guidelines adopted in 2002 (WT/L/508).   
3. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of th e LDCs, explained that the objectives of the 
LDC accession proposal were to further strengthen,  streamline and operationalize the LDC accession 
guidelines adopted in 2002.  The current guidelines we re subject to different interpretations, making 
the accession process protracted and onerous for th e acceding LDCs.  The proposal sought to make 
improvements to each of the four pillars of the guidelines, namely:  market access;  WTO rules;  
process;  and technical assistance.  Under the first pillar, the proposal sought concrete benchmarks for 
market access obligations to be undertaken by th e acceding LDCs, based on average concessions and 
commitments undertaken by the existing LDCs (i.e . the LDCs joining the Organization in 1995, or 
sometimes referred to as original LDCs).  In add ition, the proposal called for replacing the current 
practice of bilateral market access negotiations with multilateral negotiations, with a view to 
enhancing predictability and transparency in the accession process.  With regard to WTO rules, the 
proposal stipulated that acceding LDCs should recei ve transition periods of up to ten years for 
implementing commitments under specific WTO Agreements, with action plans outlining the specifics terms of implementation.  As rega rds process and procedures, the proposal included 
provisions for dedicated sessions of General Council to discuss and resolve challenges related to LDC 
accessions.  Concerning technical assistance and capac ity-building support, he reiterated the need for 
assistance to the acceding LDCs at all stages of their accession process, including in the WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
Page 2  
 
  post-accession phase.  He also drew Members' atte ntion to the proposal of setting up an Accession 
Fund as well as to the call for developing a Master Pl an for technical assistance at the start of each 
accession process.  In conclusion, he said that the imminent accession of two LDCs - Samoa and Vanuatu - would mark a significant step for the WTO to become a truly global organization.  He urged Members to seize the opportunity provided by MC8 to deliver on a concrete outcome on 
strengthening the 2002 guidelines.   
4. The representative of India said that the proposal  included solutions to the issues that had 
plagued the LDC accessions in the past, including the challenges relating to tariff binding coverage 
and bound tariff levels.  The 2002 gui delines had never been truly operationalized.  In the absence of 
clear benchmarks, the "law of the jungle" had prevailed.  He extended support to the idea of 
developing benchmarks in market access negotia tions, which would allow Members to exercise 
restraint from making excessive demands.  His delega tion was also supportive of the need to replace 
bilateral market access negotiations with a multi lateral process.  Echoing the point made by 
Bangladesh, he underlined the need for technical  assistance in the post-accession phase.  He also 
recognized the need for an enhanced role of the good offices of the Director-General of the WTO in 
facilitating LDCs' accession.   
5. The representative of Mauritius, on behalf of the ACP Group, extended support to the 
proposal made by the LDC Group.  He said that th e effectiveness of the decade-old 2002 guidelines 
had been unsatisfactory, due to their lack of operati onal content and direction.  There were gaps in the 
LDC accession process that needed to be addressed , which could preserve WTO's credibility, both as 
an institution and as an entity that could deliver on  development for the poorest.  He argued that the 
issue of LDC accession was a stand-alone matter and should not be linked by Members to other issues 
under the Doha Round.  Describing the LDC accession issues as a systemically important test case for 
Members, he appealed to Members to take a decision on LDC accession which was a "must-have" for the ACP and the G-90 Groups in the forthcoming MC8. 
6. He went on to say that while the formal m eeting of the Sub-Committee provided a forum for 
Members to express their general responses to the pro posal, it might not be appropriate to work out a 
possible Ministerial decision in a formal setting, esp ecially in light of limited time available prior to 
MC8.  Instead, he suggested that the better way forward would be for the Chairman to hold small-group consultations, including with the help of  a co-facilitator, on eac h of the four pillars 
contained in the proposal, namely:  market access;  WTO rules;  process;  and technical assistance.  
The objectives of those consultations would be to  agree on some principles on all of the areas and 
how to make those principles operationalized.  Ther eafter, the outcome of small-group consultations 
could be taken to the wider Membership, i.e. to  a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, for its 
endorsement.   
7. The representative of the European Union said that his delegation was open to the issues 
raised in the LDC proposal.  Consideration of LDC issues had always been a central preoccupation for 
the EU.  He pointed out that given the limited time available, it would be procedurally difficult for his 
delegation to agree on a full-fledged decision before MC 8.  In this regard, it would be realistic to 
work on some broad objectives prior to MC8, wh ich could be taken forward after MC8.   
8. He went on to say that his delegation was re ady to consider appropr iate market access 
benchmarks, transitional periods for implementati on of commitments on a case-by-case basis, and to 
discuss wider involvement by Members in furt her improving the accession process of LDCs.  
However, his delegation ha d different viewpoints with regard to the basis of possible benchmarks to 
be developed for the market access commitments to  be undertaken by the acceding LDCs.  In this 
regard, his delegation could not agree to the proposal  made by the LDCs to base the benchmarks on 
the basis of average of existing WTO LDC Members.  He stressed that it was in the interest of both 
acceding governments and the WTO, that the former underwent structural reforms and other  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
 Page 3 
 
 
  necessary adaptations to conform to the WTO tradi ng regime.  He also had difficulties to accept the 
proposal of replacing bilateral market access negotia tions with multilateral ne gotiations.  As regards 
technical assistance, he said that all existing technical-assistance mechanisms available to the 
acceding LDCs would need to be maximized before  Members could consider creating a new funding 
facility.  In conclusion, he gave support to the holdi ng of small-group consultations, to allow in-depth 
discussion on the issues raised and to work out  an appropriate outcome prior to MC8.   
9. The representative of China underlined the need  for systemic improvements of the 2002 LDC 
accession guidelines.  She hoped that the LDC proposal  would be able to garner consensus of 
Members, and would become one of the deliverabl es of MC8.  She reiterated the commitment of 
China to support LDC accessions, as well as to the faithful implementation of the 2002 guidelines.  
10. The representative of Pakistan noted that sever al countries had acceded to the WTO since its 
establishment, including a number of LDCs, Cambodia,  Cape Verde and Nepal.  Despite some lags, 
the year 2011 had seen Vanuatu's and Samoa's acce ssion processes coming to fruition.  Yemen, too, 
would have been ready had it not been for its internal circumstances.   
11. He considered the LDC proposal to be an im portant step forward building on the 2002 LDC 
accession guidelines.  The proposal was concise and had practical elements in it to further facilitate 
the accession of LDCs.  He echoed the desire e xpressed by the representative of Mauritius that an 
outcome on LDC accession should be a "must have" for MC8.  He also supported the call for Chairman-facilitated consultations among concentric circles of Members to make progress as soon as 
possible, given the limited availability of time before MC8.   
12. The representative of Norway considered the LD C proposal timely.  She said that the notion 
that the acceding LDCs' obligations should be in ac cordance with the level of commitments of LDC 
Members was very pertinent.  She pointed out  that although LDCs should have represented a 
homogenous group; there had been wide variance in  the binding commitments of different LDC 
Members, which might have resulted from different  negotiating processes.  She emphasized the need 
for Members to exercise restraint in seeking excessive commitments from acceding LDCs, as well as 
the need to expedite accession negotiations for the LD Cs.  Her delegation also had some clarifications 
on the proposal, which would be put forward in more detail in future discussions.  She also extended 
her support to hold small-group consul tations to work through the issues mentioned in the proposal.   
13. The representative of the United States welcom ed the successful conclusion of the accession 
negotiations of Vanuatu and Sa moa, suggesting that the 2002 LDC guidelines had played an 
important role in both these accessions, despite what was said about the inadequacies of those 
guidelines.  He said that the US would engage on the LDC proposal on its merits.  
14. He went on to request a few clarifications on th e proposal; in particular as to how exactly the 
benchmarks would work for an acceding country.  It  was not clear to his delegation as to whether the 
LDC Group wanted the benchmarks to be reached as  the end result of a country's accession process or 
whether there would be any scope for negotiations  once benchmarks had been submitted by an 
applicant.  He expressed concern with any automa ticity in the accession process that could "take the 
negotiations out of the negotiations".  His de legation also had difficulties with the idea of 
benchmarks, based on original WTO LDC Members, given that those LDCs joining the WTO in 1995 
acceded under the provisions of the GATT that allowed accession without negotiations.  He then pointed out that the nature of services activities did not  lend itself to meaningful quantification.  He 
noted that attempts to suggest numerical approaches  to services market access were not well received 
by Members under the Doha Round.  He also expressed reservations concerning the idea of 
multilateralizing bilateral market access negotiations, since this would undermine the essence of the 
accession process.  With respect to technical assistance , he said that the US had been a major provider 
of such assistance to the acceding LDCs, and would con tinue to attach due importance to their needs.  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
Page 4  
 
  However, his delegation would not be able to endorse any proposal which would make technical 
assistance contractual.  He looked forward to enga ging further in the sm all-group consultations. 
15. The representative of Japan reiterated the commitment of his delegation to support early 
accession of LDCs to the WTO.  He added that  it was the shared responsibility of the WTO 
Membership to accelerate the accession of LDCs.  Hi s delegation stood ready to discuss the issues 
raised in the LDC proposal.  He said that any pr oposal to further strengthen the 2002 guidelines 
should be practical, feas ible and operational. 
16. The representative of Colombia said that ther e had been shortcomings in the accession 
procedures for the LDCs, demonstrated by the fact that only three LDCs had been able to join the 
WTO since its establishment in 1995.  As a result,  Members needed to discuss the ways to improve 
the efficiency and transparency of accession procedures.  Recognizing the limited time available prior 
to MC8, she called upon Members to address the issues highlighted in the LDC proposal on a priority 
basis, which would make the WTO more universal as well as an institution supportive of development.   
17. The representative of Australia said that acce ssion of countries to the WTO, including LDCs, 
represented an important systemic issue.  There were  elements in that proposal which her delegation 
would be in a position to support.  However, there were other elements where more clarifications 
were required.  She endorsed the suggestion made by  the representative of Mauritius to take the work 
forward in small-group consultations. 
18. The representative of Switzerland expressed hope th at Members would try to make the most 
of time available prior to MC8 to reach an outco me on LDC accession.  She said that some of the 
issues contained in the LDC proposal required close examination, including th e proposal on market 
access negotiations and technical assistance.  She welcomed the suggestion to work through the 
details of the proposal in  small-group consultations. 
19. The representative of New Zealand said that th e 2002 guidelines remained a useful basis to 
facilitate the accession of LDCs.  However, the acce ssion experience of LDCs including those in her 
geographical region had revealed that the implemen tation of those guidelines had not necessarily been 
perfect.  She believed that an examination of the 2002 guidelines and consideration of its possible 
improvements had become opportune.  Her delegation was open to e ngage in detailed discussions, 
and looked forward to participating cons tructively in the small-group consultations. 
20. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that  her delegation had some specific questions 
on the proposal, which she would raise later in the m eeting.  She considered that the principles laid 
out in the LDC accession proposal were in line w ith the spirit of the 2002 guidelines.  She looked 
forward to engaging constructively in further discussions on this topic. 
21. The representative of Canada said that while the LDC proposal contained a number of details 
which merited close scrutiny, the time available befo re MC8 was too limited to give each of the issues 
the attention it deserved.  The accession of three LD Cs – soon to be five – since the adoption of the 
2002 guidelines suggested that there were problems with their implementation which needed to be 
addressed.  He supported the suggestion made to  further discuss the proposal in small-group 
consultations. 
22. The representative of India responded to some of  the remarks made in the meeting.  He said 
that in his view, the LDC proposal did not enta il any automaticity in the accession process.  The 
proposal suggested conducting market access negotiations  at a multilateral level, in lieu of the current 
method of bilateral negotiations.  He  drew the attention of Members to  the limited time available prior 
to MC8, in particular the fact that a meeting of  the CTD would take place on 18 November – the body  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
 Page 5 
 
 
  through which the Sub-Committee was required to transmit any decision to MC8.  He stressed that the 
LDC accession issues deserved highest priority from  Members, and therefore delegations should be 
prepared to meet frequently, if not on a daily b asis, to reach a conclusion within the established 
procedure set for MC8. 
23. Following Members’ general response to th e LDC proposal, the Chairman invited the 
representative of Ethiopia to take the floor. 
24. The representative of Ethiopia expressed gratitude to Members for considering the LDC 
accession proposal.  He took the opportunity to state that Ethiopia had been making steady progress in 
its accession process.  His delegation had received c ontinuous support from the WTO Secretariat, and 
had been working to submit necessary documents fo r the forthcoming session of the Working Party 
for the accession of Ethiopia.  
25. He went on to say that a better framework fo r LDC accessions, building on the parameters of 
2002 guidelines, would be helpful to the accedi ng LDC governments.  The objectives of the LDC 
proposal were to make the existing guidelines more  effective and to make the accession process less 
onerous.  The terms of accessions for acceding LDCs should be in line with individual LDC’s 
development, financial and trade needs.  He adde d that in light of specific economic conditions of 
LDCs, Members should provide acceding LDCs w ith the necessary degree of flexibility for 
implementation of their commitments with longer transition periods which should be accompanied by 
adequate trade capacity-building support.  He s ought the understanding of Members for the requests 
of the acceding LDCs that commitments to be unde rtaken by them should at no cost go beyond those 
of existing WTO LDC Members.  He hoped that th e small-group consultations to be convened in the 
coming days would involve the acceding LDCs with a view to working out an appropriate decision by 
MC8.   In conclusion, he thanked the Chairman for allowing him to address the meeting, as well as for 
his Chairmanship of the Working Party on Ethiopia’s accession. 
26. The Chairman invited the Coordinator of the LD Cs to explain different elements of the LDC 
proposal, before Members were asked to provide specific questions/comments on it. 
27. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of th e LDCs, said that he was encouraged by the 
general level of support expressed by Members on the LDC proposal.  He reiterated that the LDC 
Group had sought to improve the ope rationalization of the 2002 guide lines, and had not intended to 
reinvent the wheel.  He was pleased to see the broa d recognition for the need to set benchmarks for 
the concessions and commitments to be undertaken  by LDC applicants.  He believed that the 
establishment of benchmarks would largely addr ess the problems being faced by the acceding LDCs 
in their bilateral market access negotiations.  At the same time, he noted the concerns expressed by 
some Members to set the benchmarks on the basis of average commitments assumed by existing WTO LDC Members.  In this regard, he believe d that benchmarks were  not intended to be a 
straightjacket; rather, each LDC applicant was unique and needed flexibility within specific 
benchmarks. 
28. He went on to say that the acceding LDCs we re fully aware of the need to undertake 
necessary structural reforms as part of joinin g the WTO.  The proposal did not envisage any 
automaticity for the LDC accession process.  It only sought to build on the 2002 guidelines and had 
stipulated that special and differential treatment provisions of WTO Agreements should be applicable 
to all acceding LDCs.  He clarified that the propo sed elements in the area of technical assistance 
should not be equated to contractua l obligations for development partne rs to deliver assistance to the 
LDCs;  rather, the essence of the LDC submission w as to enhance predictability in the provision of 
technical assistance and capacity building to the acceding LDCs. WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
Page 6  
 
  29. In conclusion, he said that the LDCs were re ady to engage constructively with Members to 
advance an outcome on LDC accession at MC8.  He  sought further inputs from Members in order to 
find a common ground.  He endorsed the suggestion made to further discuss the issues in greater 
details in a small-group format, and requested that acceding LDCs be involved in that exercise.  He 
hoped that given political will, Members would be able to address the systemic issues involved with 
LDC accessions. 
30. The Chairman invited comments from Members on the first two pillars of the LDC accession 
proposal, namely, market access and WTO rules. 
31. The representative of the United States expr essed doubts on the idea of benchmarks, as it 
would bring rigidity to a process that needed to be flexible and relevant to the needs of each acceding 
LDC.  The US would not be able to accept any benchmarks based on the commitments of original 
LDC Members, since those LDCs entered the WTO as GATT Contracting Parties and did not go through market access negotiations.  He sought clar ifications from LDCs as to how benchmarks 
would work in practice.  For instance, whether ne gotiations would be permitted once an applicant had 
submitted the benchmarks.  How th e proponents would want the end -result of negotiations to fall 
within the benchmarks, and how benchmarks, whatever  their basis, would relate to the policy-based 
tariff regime of the LDC applicant?  How benchm arks would relate to an LDC applicant's actual 
economic circumstances, including in terms of its applied tariff regime.  How would an applicant's 
individual development, financia l, and trade requirements be assessed?  He noted that the LDC 
proposal stipulated that market access negotiations would be based on the applicant's initial offer, 
which had already been the established procedure for such negotiations.  He wished to ascertain 
whether the proposal had intended to mean a different procedure.  
32. He expressed concern with the section on mu ltilateral market access negotiations, as his 
delegation could not comprehend how such negotia tions could possibly work in practice.  He 
reiterated that the US remained faithful to the essence of the accession process as provided for in 
Article XII of the Marrakesh Agre ement establishing the WTO.  He sought clarification on one of the 
provisions contained in the proposal which stated that any derogation from the benchmarks would be 
allowed only under exceptional circumstances in  the context of multilateral market access 
negotiations; he wished to know who woul d determine the derogation under exceptional 
circumstances.  Furthermore, he questioned the n eed for the proposal's specific language concerning 
sectoral market access initiatives, since the 2002 guide lines had stipulated that participation of 
acceding LDCs in optional sectoral market access initiatives would not be a precondition for acceding 
to the WTO.  He also wondered as to why Memb ers should be prohibited from inquiring whether 
acceding LDCs would be interested in undertaking sectoral market access commitments.  He then 
sought a clarification from the LDCs as to whether their proposal on the application of tariff rate 
quotas would apply to the entire schedule of an acceding LDC.   
33. He went on to say that benchmarks in the area of services would be difficult to define, since 
the nature of services commitments, unlike comm itments in goods, did not lend themselves to a 
numerical approach.  Attempts to quantify services commitments had not been well received in the past.  He argued that investments by foreign services suppliers were critical to the economic 
development of the acceding LDCs, and hence lack of flexibility in services negotiations would risk 
limiting an important benefit of accession for the acceding governments.  He also wondered whether 
any LDC had ever been required to take on commi tments which did not take into account their 
constraints in regulatory frameworks.  He was of th e view that the section which stated that services 
sectors and sub-sectors would be identified by the acceding LDCs might prejudge the right of 
Members to request sectors and sub-sectors for possible commitments by an acceding government. 
34. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that  given different levels of development 
across the LDC Group, it might not be useful to set benchmarks on binding coverage and bound rates,  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
 Page 7 
 
 
  on the basis of the average level of commitments of original LDC Members.  She wondered whether 
it might not be better for each acceding LDC, gi ven its unique economic conditions and tariff 
structure, to conduct its market access negotiations on  its own merits.  She felt that a one-size-fits-all 
approach could even go contrary to the objec tives of the 2002 guidelines, which had provided for 
acceding LDCs to make reasonable concessions a nd commitments in line with their individual 
development, financial, and trade needs.  In her view, the proposal on the application of tariff rate 
quotas or the application of other quantitative restrictions was unnecessary, since Members were supposed to apply trade measures in  accordance with the WTO Agreemen ts.  With regard to services 
benchmarks, she wondered whether it was practicab le to base acceding LDCs' commitments on the 
average number of commitments undertaken by origin al WTO Members.  In this regard, she wished 
to ascertain as to how the LDCs intended to define the average number of commitments in services, as 
it would require Members to reach a common unde rstanding on how to define services sectors and 
sub-sectors.  Some of the provisions in the pro posal relating to transitional arrangements and the 
accompanying action plans in the implementation of WTO Agreements seemed reasonable to her 
delegation.   
35. The representative of Japan posed a question to the LDCs as to how multilateral market 
access negotiations would take place in the accession process, as well as how such a process would 
ensure an early conclusion of th e market access negotiations.  He wondered whether the envisaged 
multilateralization of negotiations would entail discussion on goods on a line-by-line basis, and in 
case of services whether discussion would take place on a sector-by-sector basis or through request-offer mode.  He cautioned that multilatera l discussion on market access commitments could 
be more time-consuming than the present method a nd could even hold back the accession of LDCs to 
the WTO.  His delegation was of the view that th e concept of multilateral negotiations might not be a 
suitable or an operational one, including e xpediting the accession of LDCs to the WTO. 
36. The representative of Bangladesh said that some of the questions posed would require further 
discussion in the LDC Group, before those could be cl arified to Members.  He also suggested that the 
specific issues and questions raised in the mee ting could be addressed in greater detail in the 
small-group consultations. 
37. The Chairman invited Members to offer deta iled comments on the other two pillars of the 
LDC proposal, namely, process and technical assistance. 
38. The representative of Canada recalled that t echnical-assistance mechanisms were available 
for the LDCs, including with resp ect to accessions, both at multilateral as well as bilateral level.  For 
example, the acceding LDCs could access technical  assistance under the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework.  Institutions such as the ITC and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law could also extend support to the acceding LDCs.  In light of different channels of technical assistance available to the 
acceding LDCs, he questioned as to why an accession-sp ecific fund would need to be created which 
would draw away from the pool of resources curren tly available for LDC accessions and which would 
only add to the administrative costs of implemen ting technical assistance in favour of acceding LDCs. 
39. The representative of Switzerland echoed the concerns expressed by the representative of 
Canada.  She said that the proposals of the LDC Group in the area of technical assistance might 
unravel the established mechanisms.  Moreover, th e WTO might possibly not be the sole organization 
to deliver technical assistance for acceding LDCs, gi ven the number of other organizations involved 
with this work.   
40. The representative of Japan shared the views expressed by Canada and Switzerland.  He 
expressed reservation concerning the creation of an accession fund for LDCs.   WT/COMTD/LDC/M/62 
Page 8  
 
  41. The representative of Bangladesh underlined the need for further discussions to explore the 
feasibility of an accession fund for LDCs.  He sai d that the LDCs intended to engage in this 
discussion with an open mind.   
42. The Chairman proposed that based on the sugges tions made at the meeting, he would proceed 
to organize informal small-group consultations to make progress on the proposal, as well as to ensure 
that Members could reach an agreement within the deadline and procedure established for MC8. 
43. It was so agreed. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
44. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________