WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/IFSC/M/13 
13 July 2005 
 (05-3113) 
Integrated Framework Steering Committee 
Fourteenth Session  
 
 
REPORT ON THE 14TH MEETING OF THE 
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK STEERING COMMITTEE (IFSC) 
 
Friday, 3 June 2005, WTO, Geneva  
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Henrik Rée Iversen (Denmark) 
 
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committee (IFSC) held its fourteenth meeting on Friday, 
3 June 2005.  
A. A DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
 
2. The Chairman  recalled that the meeting had been convened to revert in particular to two 
agenda items from the previous meeting, name ly the joint WTO/World Bank Initiative on trade 
facilitation and the Financial Status  Report of the IF Trust Fund.  
3. The adopted agenda is reproduced in Annex I. 
B. J OINT INITIATIVE BY WTO/W ORLD BANK ON TRADE FACILITATION NEGOTIATIONS SUPPORT :  
CHAIRMAN 'S CONCLUDING REMARKS  
 4. The Chairman
 recalled that at the IFSC's previous meeting, the Secretariat had provided a 
briefing on the joint initiative by the WTO and the World Bank to assist developing and LDC countries to effectively participate in the trad e facilitation negotiations.  He proposed that the 
Committee take note of the initiative and suggested th at the LDCs might wish to take advantage of 
this initiative in the implementation stage of the IF, since many of their DTISs included, as a priority, 
one aspect or another on Trade Facilitation.  He added that it would not be possible to use money 
from the IF Trust Fund (IFTF) for this initiative, excep t in the case when an LDC expressly decided to 
seek funding out of Window II for a priority project in its Action Matrix aimed at receiving assistance in the negotiations on Trade Facilitation and wishing to  use this initiative.  He clarified that direct 
financing of the initiative from the IFTF was out of the Committee's mandate and would not be 
possible. 
5. In the absence of further comments from the fl oor, he proposed that the Committee take note 
of his statement. 
6. It was so agreed
.  
C. IFTF:   FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT ;  STATE OF FUNDING /TRANSACTIONS INTER ALIA  IN LIGHT 
OF THE JOINT LETTER FROM THE CHAIRS OF THE IFSC AND THE IFWG OF 4 FEBRUARY  2005,  
SOLICITING CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE IF :  CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION FROM THE 
13TH SESSION   
 
7. The Chairman  recalled that at its previous meeting, the IFSC had heard a report from the 
UNDP on the status of the IFTF and had agreed to revert to this item at its next meeting.  WT/IFSC/M/13 
Page 2  
 
 8. The representative of the UNDP
 underlined two main points conc erning the financial status of 
the IFTF.  He first mentioned that projected funding for 2005 for both Windows I and II together showed a theoretical deficit of US$4.6 million.  He cl arified that it was a theoretical deficit since it did 
not take into account the commitments already made but not yet disbursed.  The second point 
concerned the commitment of the UNDP to improving the efficiency of the IFTF management and 
reporting.  In this regard, he reported that a s upervisory arrangement for the Geneva office over the 
coordination and treasury functions in  New York had been established. 
9. She presented the IFTF Status Report.  In terms of pledges and transfers made to the IFTF, 
she reported that pledges to Window I totalled US$16 million, while transfers amounted to US$15.4 million.  As for Window II, pledges totalled US$14.2 million and transfers amounted to 
US$12.3 million.  This amounted to a figure of US$30.2 million for total pledges and 
US$27.7 million for total transfers as of 30 April 2005 .  She said that two issues emerged from the 
figures, namely (i) that donors had performed rela tively well in respecting the pledges made to the 
Trust Fund since transfers were only some US$2.5 m illion behind the pledges; and that (ii) pledges 
and transfers to Window I had been higher than those to Window II.  
10. She also continued by saying that pledges and transfers to the IFTF had been growing 
throughout the years.  As far as Window I was concerned, data referring to the period up to 
31 May 2005 showed a balance of US$+3.9 million, with US$15.4 million received and 
US$11.5 million allocated.  She commented the data by  saying that Window I was in a rather healthy 
status.  As for Window II, the total funds r eceived at the end of May 2005 amounted to 
US$12.3 million, while the allocations for funded projects totalled US$8 million, leaving an end 
balance of US$4.3 million.  For both Window I and Window II, total funds received amounted to 
US$27.7 million and the total allocated to fund pr ojects US$19.5 million, showing an overall balance 
of US$8.2 million at 31 May 2005. 
11. She repeated that pledges and transfers to Wi ndow II had been lower than for Window I.  She 
reported on progress to date as regards Window I funding .  Three countries had been involved in pilot 
DTIS projects (Cambodia, Mauritania and Madagas car) and five old IF Roundtable countries had 
received funding from Window I at the time of the revamping of the IF process for projects relating to capacity building.  She added that a total of 28 countries were involved in the DTIS or post-DTIS phase and that three of these countries (The Gambia, Tanzania and Uganda) had already been part of 
the old IF Roundtable countries.  She said that the global projects referred to the National Implementation Arrangements to build institutional ca pacity to manage the IF process at the country 
level, to the second Evaluation of the IF and the funds dedicated to outreach activities.  She recalled 
that the total allocations from Window I stood at  US$11.5 million and that total disbursements 
amounted to US$5.9 million.  As far as different  Window I funding issues were concerned, she 
recalled that the total amount available to fina nce DTISs was US$15.4 million and that the total 
approved allocations out of Window I amounted to US$11.5 million, giving a surplus of 
US$3.9 million on 31 May 2005.  Four new DTISs totalling US$1.2 million were expected to be 
financed from Window I in 2005.  Moreover, foll owing the decision of the Integrated Framework 
Working Group (IFWG) at its meeting in April, si x Technical Reviews (Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, 
Central African Republic, Democra tic Republic of Congo, Haiti and S udan) would be carried out in 
the Autumn of 2005.  In this respect, the expect ation was that following a positive outcome of the 
Technical Reviews, disbursement for the DTISs for about four out of those six countries could already 
take place in 2005.  She underlined that more effort needed to be done to maintain the momentum that 
was created by validating the DTIS and start the im plementation phase of the IF as quickly as possible 
thereafter. 
12. She continued by reporting on progress under Window II.  She reported on the number of 
projects proposed and the total IFTF allocated funds for the countries that had reached the 
implementation phase.  In her presentation on the st atus of the implementation of Window II she  WT/IFSC/M/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
 recalled that total funds available for projects was US$12.3 million;  22 projects (out of 33 projects 
proposed) had been allocated funds so far.  She said  that the total value of the 22 allocated projects 
was US$8 million, showing a balance of US$4.3 million as of 31 May 2005.  There were 11 
additional project proposals in the pipeline, corres ponding to US$2.7 million in pending obligations, 
reducing the anticipated final balance to US$1.6  million, not taking into account new possible 
pledges.  Some of the 11 projects in the pipeline had already been approved at the country level by the 
Local Project Appraisal Committees (LPACs);  othe rs would be considered by the LPACs in the 
following weeks.  
13. She then reported on the IFTF Funding Projecti ons for 2005.  For Window I, the current 
balance was US$3.9 million;  projected funding requ irements amounted to US$1.2 million, in case the 
four new DTISs were commissioned before the e nd of the year 2005, thus leaving a surplus of 
US$2.7 million by the end of the year.  For Window II, the current balance was US$4.3 million;  US$2.7 million covered pending obligations for the 11 proposed projects in the pipeline;  a further 
US$8.9 million was calculated for projected funding requirements for a variety of countries:  four countries in the implementation phase which had rece ived funding but allowing for the possibility that 
they wished to make maximum use of the ceiling of US$1 million per country.  (Madagascar, Nepal, 
Djibouti and Guinea);  seven countries that had just  validated the DTIS, or were in a process of 
validating their DTIS over the summer months , namely Benin, Chad, Mozambique, Rwanda, 
Sao Tome and Principe, Tanzania and Zambia.  Sh e specified that the calculation assumed that the 
seven countries would send project proposals und er Window II up to the maximum ceiling of 
US$1 million available to each of them.  Accordi ng to these figures, the final deficit for Window II 
for 2005 would stand at US$7.3 million.  She however added, that some of the beneficiary countries 
would probably only be able to fully tap into the funds of Window II after 2005.  For Window I and Window II together the projected balance amount ed to US$8.2 million; pending obligations to 
US$2.7 million, projected funding requirements to US$10.1 million, resulting in a combined Window I and II deficit for 2005 of US$4.6 million.   She summarized that Window I had adequate 
funds to meet its immediate and projected requi rements, whereas projections for 2005 for Window II 
showed a deficit.  As regards Window II, she point ed out that many countries which were ready to 
start the implementation phase were better equipped th an the countries in the past, since the former 
could learn from the on-going IF process and past  lessons, as well as from the rationalisation of the 
LPAC procedures established by the IFWG.  
14. The Chairman
 thanked the UNDP for its presentation.  He recalled that the IF comprised 
some 28 countries which were at different stages of  the DTIS process, including the 14 that were in 
their implementation phase.  He clarified that so me additional US$11 million needed to be added to 
the deficit of US$7.3 million in Window II to cover a ll possible obligations, in order to take account 
of all likely demands from IF beneficiaries for funding under Window II in the scenario where they 
would submit proposals up to the maximum ceiling av ailable to them.  Although it was tempting, it 
would not be advisable to use funding from Wi ndow I to finance projects under Window II.  He 
summed up the figures by saying that in order to be realistic some US$1 million per month was 
needed for the following 18 months.  He added that  these data referred to Window II in its entirety 
including funding projections.  
15. The representative of the Netherlands  said that the remarks of the Chair were illustrative of 
how much was still needed for the future.  He adde d that, for the time being, he would not have a 
mandate to agree that at some point in the future, funds from Window I could be utilised under 
Window II.  
16. The Chairman  clarified that he had mentioned th e possibility of utilising funds from 
Window I merely as a temptation and that it was certainly not something he would submit as a proposal.  His remark was to be taken as a warning rather than as a proposal.  WT/IFSC/M/13 
Page 4  
 
 17. The representative of the United States
 asked for a clarification concerning the concept of 
"global projects" referred to by the represen tative of UNDP when reporting on Window I funding. 
18. The representative of the UNDP  clarified that there were three Global projects.  One was the 
IF National Implementation Arra ngements Project.  She added that pursuant to that project, 
US$38,000 per country was normally allocated to beneficiary countries that opted for this support in 
order to strengthen their institutional capacities to  manage the IF.  As for the two other global 
projects, they included the second evaluation of the entire IF process and the funds for outreach 
activities. 
19. The representative of Denmark  thanked the UNDP for its report.  He said that Denmark took 
a strong interest in the well-being of the IF, and considered the IF a key entity in providing the 
necessary technical assistance in order to help LD Cs to meaningfully participate in the Doha 
Development Round.  He added that at this political juncture of the IF process, Denmark was able to 
pledge a contribution for 2005 to Window II of 12 million Danish Crone, roughly corresponding to 
US$2 million.  
20. He continued by saying that a successful outcome of the Window II process involved more 
than the necessary financial resources.  He pointed out that it was important to continue to address a 
few substantial issues on how to im prove the IF.  In this respect, he highlighted the importance of:  
(i) recipient countries coming up with articulated a nd precise assessments of their needs;  (ii) donor 
countries and the agencies providing assistance which was better coordinated;  (iii) taking stock of 
experiences, lessons learned and best practices in th e bilateral programmes;  (iv) all stakeholders, 
governments, agencies and donors doing the utmost to  ensure that bureaucracy  was limited and that 
the implementation of Window II projects was thus carried out in a pragmatic, efficient and 
committed manner.  He added that, irrespective of the money disbursed, no progress could be made 
without taking these issues seriously.  At the same tim e, if the money was available and these pressing 
issues were continuously addressed, some of the "ifs" in the IF process would be erased. 
21. The Chairman thanked Denmark for its contribution to th e IF.  He said that he was continuing 
his bilateral discussions with many IF stakeholders a nd that he was thankful to all of them for their 
positive responses.  He said that these discussions  required time but that he was optimistic. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that US missions on the ground were focusing on 
the post-Window II implementation phase.  She added that it was very important that the IF functioned properly and that efforts should also fo cus on ways to do so.  The IF Simulation Exercise 
was moving forward and would take place on 7 to 8 September 2005, at the UN ECA Centre in 
Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. 
23. The representative of Germany
 thanked the UNDP for its report.  He recalled that Germany 
was a relatively new donor to the IF, and said that hi s country would continue to consider pledges for 
the IF.  He added that for the year 2006 an addi tional contribution would be made to the money 
already pledged for the IF of  €250,000. 
24. The representative of Rwanda  thanked Denmark for its additional contribution to the IF 
Window II.  She said that on-going discussions we re taking place within the LDC group on the 
existing limits of the IF.  She said that, as far as th e LDCs were concerned, the IF had been a very 
satisfactory tool in solving the restrictions faced  by the LDCs.  The limitations of the IF were 
nonetheless clear.  She clarified that the major limitation was the shortage in Window II funds, despite 
Denmark's contribution of US$2 million.  Discu ssions were taking place on how to mobilise 
additional resources for capacity building, integra tion and adjustment.  Discussions among LDCs also 
involved the suggested possible broadening of the IF  beneficiary countries, provided that additional 
resources were made available.  She said that she was reporting on a preliminary reflection among LDCs, and that the feeling was that it would be necessary to meet the existing limitations of the IF  WT/IFSC/M/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
 first.  These limitations had emerged clearly at the I FSC meeting.  In order to  fill the existing funding 
gap, it was important to immediately target the shor tcomings of the IF, to counter both the financial 
limitations and the others to which the representative of Denmark had referred, in particular the need 
for more specific assessment of n eeds.  She said that assessments were being made in the diagnostic 
studies, sometimes complemented by specific assessments of supply constraints, as well as of the 
demand needs.  She added that LDCs were of the view that a small bureaucracy was required to ease implementation of the IF, together  with additional resources.  She expressed her willingness to share 
in a very preliminary fashion a number of thought s that had been floating among the LDCs, which 
were concerned that additional resources should be mobilised, so as to really  operationalize the Doha 
mandate concerning the IF.1  She added that making the Doha mandate more effective and achieving 
more important results were a precondition to discu ssions on any possible broadening of the IF.  She 
specified that her statement was not a formal statement on behalf of LDCs.  She considered, however, that it was important to share those thought s with the other members of the Committee. 
25. The representative of United States
 said that it was important for the sake of clarity, to recall 
that the resources needed to complete all the IF work in Window II went beyond those needed to 
complete the year 2005.  She added that all memb ers acknowledged that there was a need to look for 
more funding, but that a difference existed between  the immediate needs of the IF and what was 
missing in order to complete the projects that were  in the pipeline.  She supported Denmark's remark 
concerning the need to ensure, as the IF was moving forward, that focus was placed on the substance 
of the process and not just on the money component.  She concluded by saying that the US had started 
to reflect on the future of the IF and hoped that the Simulation Exercise could be part of the effort to 
define what the real needs were and how  they could be pragmatically tackled. 
26. The Chairman  recalled that according to the UNDP report, the funding projection gap for 
Window II for the year 2005 amounted to US$7.3 m illion, and that some additional US$5.3 million 
was therefore needed to complete the year once th e most recent pledge made by Denmark had been 
subtracted.  He added that the estimated fina ncial needs amounting to US$16 to 18 million included 
US$7.3 million for the year 2005. 
27. The representative of Canada  said that it was essential that governments of the LDCs address 
directly donor governments' financing, planning and trade departments in capitals, in order to submit 
their requests for aid and indicate their sectoral priorities.  She added that the gap would not be 
covered otherwise.  She also said that the shor tfalls would be remedi ed when the financial 
departments of donor countries and LDCs would set to work bilaterally.  Finally, she underlined the 
fact that it was the responsibility of the countries to act in this respect. 
28. The representative of Japan  said that Japanese Embassies around the world had started new 
assessments for bilateral cooperation for the next year s, and invited those LDCs that had requested for 
trade-related technical assistance to contact th e Japanese Embassies in their respective countries 
directly. 
29. The Chairman  proposed that the Committee take not e of the report from the UNDP and the 
statements made.  He also proposed that the ag enda for the next IFSC meeting include an item 
devoted to the future of the IF.  
30. It was so agreed . 
D. A NY OTHER BUSINESS  
 31. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned
. 
 
                                                      
1 Paragraph 43 of the DDA WT/IFSC/M/13 
Page 6  
 
 ANNEX I 
 
The Integrated Framework Steering Committee
 
 
Fourteenth Session 
 
 
1. The Integrated Framework Steering Committe e will hold its Fourteenth Session on Friday, 
3 June 2005, starting at 10 a.m. in the WTO building.  
2. The Chairman wishes in particular to revert to  two agenda items from the last meeting, which, 
due to lack of time, could not be  addressed exhaustively.  Hence, the items proposed for the agenda 
are:   
(a) Adoption of the agenda; 
(b) Joint initiative by WTO/World Bank on Trade Facilitation Negotiations support:  
Chairman's concluding remarks; 
(c) IFTF:  financial status report;  state of funding/transactions inter alia  in light of the 
joint letter from the Chairs of the IFSC a nd the IFWG of 4 February 2005, soliciting 
continued support for the IF:  conclusion of the discussion from the 13
th Session: 
(d) Any other business. 
 
 
__________