RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
16 June 2005 
 
 (05-2539) 
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries 
Fortieth Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 8 MARCH 2005  
 
Chairperson:  Ambassador Ian de Jong (Netherlands)  
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. WTO  WORK PROGRAMME FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDC S) .................................1  
(i) Market Access for Leas t-Developed Countries...........................................................................1  
(ii) Trade-Related Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building Initiatives for 
Least-Developed Countries...................................................................................................... ...9 
C. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................15  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  expressed his sincere gratitude for electing him as the Chair of the 
Sub-Committee.  He also thanked Members for the confidence that they had placed in him and sought 
continued cooperation from Members. 
2. The Chairman  recalled that the date of the mee ting had been changed from 10 March to 
8 March 2005 and that this change in the date had been notified in document WTO/AIR/2502/Corr.1.  
The Sub-Committee adopted  the draft agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/2502. 
B. WTO  WORK PROGRAMME FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDC S) 
3. The Chairman  said that he would focus on two elements of the Work Programme, namely:  
market access for LDCs;  and trade-related techni cal assistance and capacity -building initiatives for 
LDCs. 
(i) Market Access for Least-Developed Countries 
- Note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/35 and TN/MA/S/12)  
4. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 7 of the Work Programme for LDCs mandated an 
annual review of market access for products origina ting from LDCs.  Pursuant to that, the Secretariat 
had prepared a note, contained in document WT /COMTD/LDC/W/35, which had been presented at 
the 38th Session of the Sub-Committee in October 2004.  The LDCs had requested that they be given 
more time to study the document in depth before en gaging in substantive discussion.  On that basis, 
the discussion on the note was deferred to a future meeting.  In order to facilitate consideration of the 
note, he invited the Secretariat to briefly highlight the main points of the note.  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 2  
 
 5. The representative of the Secretariat
 highlighted the main points contained in its note on 
market access issues related to products of export in terest originating from least-developed countries.  
He said that an electronic version of the presentation had been made available on the Members' website after the first presentation on 29 Oct ober 2004.  He outlined the mandate, methodology 
issues, profile of LDC exports, tariff measures and u tilization of preferences, as addressed in the note.  
6. He said that the study divided the LDC exporters into three broad categori es:  (i) all exporters;  
(ii) manufacturing exporters;  and (iii) commodity exporters.  He said th at the LDCs had very 
concentrated export structures and that oil accounted for a significant share of the value of total LDC 
exports.  The leading export accounted for 50 per cent of total exports for 25 LDCs.  In terms of 
value, petroleum and apparel accounted  for two-thirds of total exports of all LDCs.  He went on to say 
that the export structure of LDCs had been changing  as reflected in the incr ease of fuel exports from 
LDCs which was overtaking food exports.  He noted, however, that fuel prices had increased in the 
past two years.  In terms of major markets, he sa id that the principal markets for LDCs remained the 
United States and the European Communities (15).  The other two main developed country markets 
for LDCs remained Japan and Canada.  Developi ng countries accounted for 38 per cent of exports 
from the LDCs with China, Thailand and Indi a being important destinations for LDCs.  
7. He said that LDCs had different interests in different markets and that there had been 
considerable variances.  For all products, Wester n Europe accounted for 38 per cent, while North 
America accounted for 27 per cent and Asia for 27 per cent.  That indicated that all those regions were equally important for LDCs.  He, however, pointed out  that 58 per cent of fish exports from LDCs had 
gone to Western Europe while the figure for North America was 8 per cent.  He further added that 
46 per cent of fuel exports of LDCs had gone to Asia.  Moreover, developing countries accounted for 
50 per cent of exports for 17 LDCs. 
8. He continued by saying that the market access conditions were defined by a broad range of 
factors, particularly tariffs, non-tariff barriers and th e utilization of tariff preferences.  In that regard, 
all developed countries granted some degree of non -reciprocal market access to LDCs.  Some had 
committed to unconditional market access while ot hers had few exceptions.  Within developed 
countries, the US and the EC together accounted for 90 per cent of imports from all LDCs.  He 
underlined that variances across schemes were impor tant factors in assessing market access conditions 
faced by LDCs.  For markets that offered non-reci procal market access, preferential rates had been 
used to determine market access conditions.  Pref erential access could be reciprocal (free-trade 
agreements) and non-reciprocal (GSP and other schemes ).  He said that the landscape of preferential 
rates had been different from that of the MFN rat es, which determine market access in markets that 
did not offer preferential access.  As regards utiliz ation of preferences, which was the focus of the 
note, the utilization of preferences looked at the shar e of imports that entered a given market under the 
preferential duty.  However, imports from LDCs might enter a market with a MFN duty, even though those imports had been eligible for preferential duty.  There were a number of ways to measure 
utilization of preferences.  It could be measured based on customs data which estimates the value of 
imports upon which the preferential duty was paid.  A lternatively, determination of the utilization rate 
could be based on the revenue collection method where total customs revenue collected from a 
preference beneficiary country was divided by total imports from that country.  He informed Members 
that in the last 18 months new data had been ma de available on line for some preference granting 
countries.  On preference utilization by the LDCs, he noted four stylized facts:  (i) utilization of 
non-reciprocal preferences was less than 100 per cent;  (ii) utilization of non-reciprocal preferences 
varied by product within a scheme;  (iii) utilization of preferences varied across beneficiaries within a 
scheme;  and (iv) utilization of preferences varied wi thin a market for a given LDC.  He highlighted 
recent initiatives to improve market  access for LDCs, particularly in itiatives by Australia, Canada and 
Switzerland, which had made recent notifications  on improvement in market access measures in 
favour of LDCs.  He added that the note also looke d at market access measures taken by developing 
countries in favour of LDCs.  He cited some sc hemes of importance to LDCs such as China's  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 3 
 
 
 accession to the Bangkok Agreement, the extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
(AGOA) to 2015 including the third country fabr ic provision, the enlargement of the EC to 
25 Members, and the launching of the third round of  Global System of the Trade Preferences (GSTP) 
among developing countries at the UNCTAD XI meeting in June 2004. 
9. In conclusion, he said that there had been im provements in market access for LDCs in 
developed country markets.  Access to developi ng country markets would depend on final Doha 
negotiations on MFN rates, if non-reciprocal pref erences were not granted to LDCs.  He underlined 
that understanding that the export profile of LDCs was important in evaluating the market access of 
LDCs.  He expressed his concern that data quality  and availability continued to be a significant 
hindrance to the Secretariat to look at  the market access issue, particul arly with regard to tariff data 
and trade data.  
10. The representative of Zambia , on behalf of LDCs, congratulated the Chairman on his 
re-election and reiterated his conti nued cooperation.  He thanked the Secretariat for the study.  That 
study was an important element of the WTO Work Programme for the LDCs.  He expressed his apologies, on behalf of the LDCs, for the delay in providing comments on the study.  The subject 
matter was of fundamental importance to the group and requested that it be a standing item on the 
agenda of the Sub-Committee.  He said that the group of LDCs might make submissions under this 
item at a future date. 
11. He noted that the methodology section of the study  outlined the problems associated with the 
collection of data on LDCs.  Data  on LDCs had been difficult to obtain since data of a large number 
of LDCs, being small, did not appear clearly in the aggregated data sets of the UN or of the WTO.  He 
underscored the importance of obtaining data through other means or through innovative approaches.  
Otherwise, analysis on trends in LDCs would not be based on correct information.  He requested the 
Secretariat to devote greater attention to the subject of data. 
12. He continued by saying that Section III of the note provided an analysis of the export profile 
of the LDCs.  It had been shown that the export grow th of the LDCs had been in proportion to that of 
world exports in the 1990s.  He said that the method in which the data was ta ken could be improved.  
The UNCTAD analysis found that, in the 1960s, the LDCs  had a world trade share of three per cent.  
Gradually, over the years, that share had fallen.  The Secretariat study had put the share of LDCs in world trade at 0.67 per cent.  While other count ries had increased their respective shares in world 
trade, the LDCs' shares had declined.  He invited the Secretariat to provide more information on the 
trend of LDCs' shares in global trade  In the same  section, the note emphasized that the US and EC 
remained the major markets for non-oil exports of LD Cs.  He requested the Secretariat to explain why 
this was so.  He also invited the Secretariat to shed more light on the growing importance of developing country markets as the destination of LDC products.   
13. He appreciated that Section IV gave an account of the tariff structure faced by exports from 
the LDCs.  He wished that the analysis under that  section could have gone further in examining the 
impact of tariff peaks on LDC exports.  He pointed out that tariff peaks on products where the LDCs 
did not export would not be relevant.  On the other hand, it would be important if the peak was on a 
product exported by LDCs, such as apparel.  He  hoped that future studies would provide more 
information on key issues where action might be taken.  Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) were at the heart of the problems faced by the LDCs and he hoped for a deeper analysis on them. 
14. He said that the LDCs considered trade preferences as an important tool for better 
participation in the multilateral as well as global trad ing system.  It was an important tool for LDCs to 
improve their trade share.  If utilized effectively,  trade preferences might increase export earnings, 
promote industrial growth and improve the living sta ndards of LDCs.  He stressed that preferences in 
the textile and apparel industry a llowed this sector to develop in  some of the LDCs.  With the WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 4  
 
 elimination of quotas, the existing preferences had be come even more important to LDCs.  A correct 
evaluation of preferences had become a vital need  in the current round of trade negotiations.  He 
underlined the need to assess the va lue of preferences appropriately.  The Integrated Database (IDB) 
of the WTO allowed utilization of preferences to  be assessed accurately.  He explained that if a 
country allowed some products to  be imported on LDC-specific ta riff, the duty paid was known.  
Then, assessment could be done on what the duty would have been if MFN tariffs had been applied.  
The difference would have given a value to the pr eference.  He acknowledged that this method might 
not be applied to all countries;  however, the IDB ha d information that would allow this to be done for 
several countries.  He requested the Secretariat to provide more information in that regard and to 
cover more countries in future studies.  He stressed on the need for an analysis of factors behind less 
than full utilization of preferences by the LDCs.  He  noted that much remained to be done to improve 
utilization of trade preferences and that prefer ence granting countries might remove remaining 
obstacles for fuller utilization by the LDCs.  Re cent studies had provided empirical and factual 
evidence that rules of origin and related administrative procedures had been one of the main reasons 
for low utilization of preferences especially in garments and fish products.  Moreover, trade 
preferences in those sectors might be eroded as a result of Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) 
negotiations and a suitable multilatera l response should be identified.  In order to approach the issue 
of market access in a holistic manner, more attention should be given to other market entry barriers such as technical barriers to trade, sanitary an d phytosanitary measures, etc.  He thanked the 
developed country trading partners for providing market access for LDCs' products.  He noted that 
certain sensitive sectors continued to be excluded fr om the coverage of major trading partners.  He 
requested the developing country tr ading partners that had not yet done so, to provide enhanced 
market access to LDCs products. 
15. In conclusion, the representative of Zambia
 reiterated the importance of securing improved 
market access for LDCs' products and the need for all WTO Members to contribute in that regard.  He 
underlined the need for a legal framework within the WTO to make duty-free and quota-free market 
access more predictable.  That required political will  from trading partners.  According to LDCs, the 
credibility of the outcome of the Doha Round woul d be judged by how many concrete benefits the 
group might derive from it.  One of the key achie vements of the Round would be an agreement to 
establish a legal framework for the preferences.  He said that the group of LDCs would continue to 
pursue their positions on all these issues of ma rket access in the relevant negotiating groups. 
16. The representative of Djibouti  expressed his appreciation to the Chairman for his 
commitment, and that of his country to the cause of  LDCs.  He said that market access for LDCs was 
a crucial area.  The Secretariat should work on such  areas so that LDCs could come up with ideas to 
exploit market access given to them.  He thanked the developed country partners for granting market 
access to LDCs.  He underlined the importance of  research on issues regarding exports from LDCs 
which might contribute to finding ways to enhance market access for LDC exports.  The WTO should 
help LDCs consolidate progress in improving mark et access.  He underscored the importance of 
concrete ideas from the Secretariat study to overcome  the obstacles in market access faced by LDCs.  
17. The representative of Nepal congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  He associated 
himself with the statement made by the Coordinator of  the LDCs.  He said that the study highlighted a 
number of important points.  Those included:  low market share of LDCs in global trade;  variation in the utilization of preferences among LDCs;  preferences being the major factor behind effective 
market access;  and LDCs' reliance on very few expo rt products especially clothing, food, fuel and 
raw materials in few concentrated markets.  Those were the facts that should be taken into account in 
addressing issues relating to market access.  He would welcome studies on NTBs, which had been a 
factor in the utilization of preferences by LDCs.  He  said that the scope of preferences to LDCs had 
been limited.  Therefore, widening the covera ge of preferences that would include developed 
countries and developing countries which were in a po sition to do so, would greatly improve market 
access for LDCs.  He said that availability of pr eferences was important.  Equally important was the  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 5 
 
 
 utilization of preferences by LDCs.  There was a need  for technical assistance to tackle supply-side 
constraints, which would enhance the capacity of LDCs to utilize trade preferences.  He emphasized 
that in order to look at the issue of market acce ss, preferential arrangements both by developed and 
developing countries, barriers impeding effec tive market access of the LDCs and supply-side 
constraints should be considered in a holistic manne r.  He underlined the need for more reflection on 
the causes of the non-utilization of preferences by LDCs.  He sought clarification on how export of 
commercial services in the transport sector fro m LDCs to other countries was calculated. 
18. The representative of Bangladesh  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election and said that 
he looked forward to a productive year for the LDCs  under his chairmanship.  He said that market 
access was fundamental to the LDCs and that th e study under consideration was valuable.  He 
associated himself with the statement made by the Coordinator of the LDCs.  He emphasized that in 
preparing the next study, the Secretariat could take into account the elements raised by the 
Coordinator of the LDCs.  He said that the study concentrated on market access issues on 
merchandise goods.  Market access fo r services was also important.  He  stressed that the study should 
have shown clearly that it was preferences that enab led the LDCs to enter the markets of the EC and 
the US, which had been the main markets for LDCs.  Preferences might not have been fully utilized 
due to NTBs, rules of origin requirements, etc.   Despite that, the LDCs had been utilizing the 
preferences.  He said that there seemed to be an  attempt by many organizations to downplay the 
importance of preferences.  He cited the study by the IMF that looked at statistics during a certain period and gave minimal value to preferences.  He al so pointed out that no m onetary value was put to 
the methodology chosen by the Secretariat to asses s the utilization of preferences.  The IDB had 
allowed a monetary value to be put in many cases.  He said that the Coordinator of LDCs had shown 
one of the methods of assessing the value of prefer ences.  His delegation had done some analysis on 
the case of Japan using the IDB and found immense va lue of preferences for LDCs.  He said that the 
WTO should elaborate further on this issue to show how important preferences had been in value to 
LDCs.  He found Table 10 in the Annex of the st udy, which listed countries offering preferences to 
the LDCs useful.  He wondered whether those pref erences could be quantified in terms of value, 
which would strengthen the study itself.  A study which could show where the LDCs stood and their 
likely future would be useful for current negotiations.  Studies should not be limited to mere analysis 
of what had happened in the past.  He suggested th at the subject of market access be a standing item 
on the agenda and that supplementary studies might be produced by the Secretariat in future to look at 
the issue in depth.   
19. The representative of Canada
 welcomed the re-election of the Chairman and looked forward 
to continued progress in the Work Programme for LD Cs under his guidance.  She said that the study 
should be seen as an ongoing exercise.  The note did not  reflect up-to-date statistics and did not take 
into account the scheme of her Government, which b ecame effective on 1 January 2003.  This scheme 
was one of the far-reaching ones granted in favour of LDCs in view of its country eligibility, product 
eligibility and administrative simplicity.  She sai d that there had been a 150 per cent increase in 
overall LDC imports into Canada, comparing the average of the years 1999 to 2002 against 2003.  She noted the variations and fluctuations among LDCs making use of the Canadian scheme.  In 2002, 
Canada had imported Cana dian $682 million in value from LDCs.  In 2004, the imports from LDCs 
were valued at Canadian $1.2 bil lion, which was an increase of 76 per cent.  Increase in imports from 
African LDCs was 25 per cent in the same period.  She said that the scheme was having an impact and 
was opening up markets of her country for LDCs.  Mo reover, it proved to be administratively simple 
to use. 
20. The representative of Japan
 congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  He said that the 
study contained data and analysis that were more detailed as compared to the one in 2003.  It was 
important to highlight the fact that Japan was a less important market for the LDCs and came after 
China and Thailand as indicated in paragraph 13 of th e note.  In that context, more focus should be 
given to the importance of developing country market s for the LDCs.  He regretted the fact that the WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 6  
 
 analysis of tariff measures was based on 2002 data.  At the 35
th Session of the Sub-Committee, in 
December 2003, his delegation had notified its expa nsion of the coverage of duty-free and quota-free 
treatment to LDCs.  The coverage for LDCs had b een increased to 93 per cent in terms of total import 
value.  His Government would continue to make efforts with a view to attaining the objective of 
duty-free and quota-free access for all LDC products.  Finally, he underlined the importance of 
overcoming supply-side constraints to reap substantia l benefits from improved market access.  In that 
regard, his Government would continue to extend assistance to the LDCs. 
21. The representative of the European Communities  congratulated the Chairman on his 
re-election and looked forward to working with him in advancing the Work Programme for LDCs.  
He said that the study was useful and an important  document.  He expressed his satisfaction on the 
fact that the growth of LDC exports was higher than  the average world trend.  He noted that the EC 
remained the largest export market for LDCs.  He welcomed the fact that the importance of the EC 
market for LDCs was beginning to decline slig htly since that would mean that LDCs were 
increasingly exporting to diversified markets.  Divers ification of LDC exports to countries other than 
traditional markets should be given more attention.   He encouraged both de veloped and developing 
countries to improve market access for LDCs.  There had been positive developments with regard to 
South-South trade, from which LDCs should also benefit.  The study showed that the EC market was open to products from LDCs.  The remaining tari ff quotas were being reduced with the exception of 
arms and armaments, which were excluded from the Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme.  The EC market for LDCs had a simple unweighed average of a tariff duty of zero per cent for agriculture and 
non-agricultural products.  The enlargement of the EC from 15 to 25 countries expanded the potential 
export market for LDCs.  The statistics showed (Table  5) that the EC market was a diversified export 
market for LDCs.  The EC had been the largest  importer of LDC products in the category of 
agricultural products, fish and manufactured products.  In future, it would be worthwhile to look at the 
factors impeding the export performance of LDCs in  other markets and the reasons why the LDCs had 
not been able to diversify their export base.  Para graphs 39 and 40 of the Secretariat note seemed to 
indicate that the EBA scheme of the EC discriminated between individual LDCs.  That was not the 
case.  The EBA did not discriminate between individual LDCs.  He reiterated that the differences were not simply a product of rules of origin or an y other aspect of particular rules, but more of a 
complex interaction of factors that included, inter alia , supply-side constraints, ability of beneficiaries 
to take advantage of preferential schemes.   
22. The representative of China
 congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  His Government 
had made a significant contribution to the increase of exports from LDCs.  Exports to his country 
accounted for 14 per cent of total LDC exports to the world.  That illustrated that developing countries 
had been playing a key role in promoting LDC e xports.  His Government would continue to work 
with LDCs in addressing market access problems in futu re.  He encouraged the Secretariat to do more 
work on those issues.  He supported the idea of e xploring more in depth the underlying issues which 
affected market access for LDCs. 
23. The representative of Uganda  welcomed the re-election of the Chairman.  He supported the 
statement made by the Coordinator of LDCs an d hoped that the issues pointed out would be 
addressed.  He said that the study should not be seen as  an end in itself.  Rather, it should be seen as a 
process to help LDCs identify the areas that hitherto  had not been covered.  There were some areas 
which needed particular attention, particularly the factors for non-utilization of preferences by the 
LDCs.  Supply-side constraints were among the ma jor causes for non-utilization of preferences.  He 
said that most of the LDCs did not have the capacity to increase productivity and exports.  
Technology was required to increase productivity, and s hould be looked at in a future study.  There 
had been barriers at the market entry points.  He  explained that procedur es which required compliance 
with preferential access were elaborate, laborious and costly.  Those acted as disincentives for LDC 
exporters.  He said that while exporters from his country had been able to export apparel under the 
AGOA, they faced difficulties in exporting fruits.   Those issues should be explored.  Table 10 of the  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 7 
 
 
 study showed tariff peaks on exports from LDCs.  He called upon developed country Members to help 
LDCs to enable them to penetrate markets.  NTBs  were a major factor for LDCs and the next study 
should concentrate on that.  
24. The representative of the United States  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  She 
said that there had been a constant growth of imports into her country from the LDCs, of both 
agriculture as well as industrial products.  Her Gove rnment had been continuously trying to improve 
market access for the LDCs.  Under the AGOA, there had been an increase of 66 per cent of agricultural imports from LDCs to her country ove r the period 2000-2003.  She said that the overall 
trends for LDCs were encouraging.  More anal ysis on LDC exports to developing country markets 
was required, where barriers still remained.  In th at regard, there were opportunities in the Doha 
Round through tariff and NTB liberalization.  Sh e welcomed the positive trends of imports from 
LDCs into China, Thailand and a number of other developing countries, which further needed to be 
built upon.  She said that tariff peaks in the deve loping country markets were impeding LDC exports.  
This was an indication that there was a need to lo ok at the MFN rates of developed and developing 
countries and to bring those down to foster stability and enhance trade.  Focus was required to explore 
diversification of LDC exports into new markets and to build on the base markets.  In conclusion, she 
said that the current round of negotiations should be seen as a part of the whole process and underlined the need to improve linkages betw een the work of the Sub-Committee and other 
negotiating groups. 
25. The representative of Benin 
congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  He said that the 
Coordinator of the LDCs had underlined sev eral important aspects on which Members should 
continue to work so that market access for produc ts of export interest to LDCs was improved.  The 
issue of market access and in particular of pref erences was of critical importance to LDCs.  He 
commended those countries that had taken the initia tive to facilitate market access for LDC products.  
He said that rules of origin should be harmonized.  He requested the Secretariat to continue work on 
NTBs.  Finally, he invited bilateral and regional partners to improve market access for products of 
export interest for LDCs and help LDCs increase th eir level of utilization of preferences.  The key 
was to see how much preferences were being used by the LDCs. 
26. The representative of Sri Lanka  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  He 
recognized the importance of preferences for LDCs .  He wondered whether preferences alone would 
result in market access for LDCs.  If that had been the case there would have been substantial growth 
for LDCs, especially for ACP countries which had had duty-free access to the EC market for a long 
time.  A long-term preferential access in the cl othing sector had not turned those countries into 
exporters of garments.  He said that access to the US market by a large number of LDCs had been 
preference-driven as these countries had access to th ird-country fabric.  The targeted and specific 
provisions under the AGOA had helped LDCs beco ming exporters of garmen ts.  That had also 
occurred because of the fact that this had happene d at the later stages of the Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing (ATC) when there had been greater de mand in the market than supply.  He said that 
preferential market access alone could not guarant ee increased exports.  Other factors such as the 
involvement of the private sector, importers, reta ilers, producers in other developing countries and 
foreign investments played a role for increased expor ts.  He stressed that interventions in the policy 
area alone would not be enough to increase expor ts from LDCs.  There were areas beyond the 
competence of the WTO that would also need to be addressed.  He said that the issue of market access 
should be addressed in a comprehensive way so that adverse implications for other countries would be 
minimized.  He wondered whether putting a valu e on preferences would give a true value of 
preferences as the LDCs' main competitors might not pay MFN duty and might be exporting under free-trade agreements (FTA) or through other prefer ential schemes.  He said that LDC exports to the 
EC were more diversified than other countries beca use of their historic link.  In certain cases, 
transhipment was a factor.  He cited the example of cut flowers which had been distributed to the WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 8  
 
 whole of Europe from the Netherlands.  Finally, he noted that addressing preferences would be a 
difficult task. 
27. The Chairman
 expressed his thanks for the kind words expressed to him.  He invited the 
Secretariat to respond to the comments and questions raised by Members. 
28. The representative of the Secretariat  said that the study should be seen against its mandate.  
He recalled that the mandate of the study was in cluded in paragraph 7 of the Work Programme for 
LDCs (WT/COMTD/LDC/11).  He quoted paragraph 7(ii) of the Work Programme for LDCs, which 
included:  "annual reviews in the Sub-Committee,1 of market access improvements, of any market 
access measures undertaken by Members, and includi ng the identification of reported market access 
barriers to LDCs’ products in markets of interest to  them.  These reports will be on the basis of factual 
annual studies by the WTO Secretariat".  He said the mandate limited the Secretariat's margin to 
provide negotiating guidance to LDCs.  The study wa s meant to be an annual review of market access 
for LDCs.  With regard to the preparation of the study, he said that for the past three years, the 
Secretariat had been informing the Sub-Committee of the topic and scope of the study.  It had then 
followed up in the LDCs' Consultative Group in or der to indicate its contents and see how the 
mandate in paragraph 7 would be met.  In that rega rd, for the current study the Secretariat had met the 
LDCs' Consultative Group in September 2004.  At that  time, there had been a general endorsement of 
the outline of the study.  Thereafter, the Secret ariat had met the Quad Members to seek their 
assistance in obtaining data on preference utilization.  
29. He then responded to a number of specific comments and questions addressed to the 
Secretariat.  First, on the benchmark concerning the share of LDCs' trade, he said that the reference 
period 1990s was typically used by academics and economists because of the recession years.  Since 
the 1960s, the LDCs' export profile had not changed much, although there had been changes in their 
share of world trade.  Second, he said that the pape r was the third of its kind and should not be seen as 
a stand alone product.  Also some of the information on tariff peaks was available in last year's study.  
Third, the metric for LDCs to measure market access was duty-free and quot a-free market access for 
LDCs, which came out of the LDC III Conference held in 2001, the Fina ncing for Development 
Conference held in 2002 and featured in paragraph 42 of the Doha Declaration.  He said that as 
regards preferences, two concepts were important:  (i) utilization of preferences;  and (ii) value of 
preferences.  Utilization of preferences indicated whet her an exporter had been ab le to derive benefits 
from a preference margin.  That estimate was ra ther new as data on such utilization had been 
forthcoming only recently.  On the other hand, the va lue of preferences could be measured in terms of 
export earnings, opportunity cost in terms of costs imposed on the importing market, in terms of tariff 
revenue foregone, in terms of jobs created, etc.  He  cited the example of Lesotho, where according to 
media reports, most of the value of preferences was in the creation of jobs for women in the clothing 
sector.  He said that the least commonly used met hod to measure the value of preferences was the one 
mentioned by the LDCs, since that method could ov erestimate the value of preferences.  The only 
instance where that method would not be an overes timate was in a situation where price elasticity of 
demand would be infinite, and in that case, the demand curve would be completely vertical.  
Therefore, the method to measure the value of prefer ences needed to be looked at more closely.  On 
the availability of data, he pointed out that the ID B did not contain data on a large number of LDCs.  
He added that the IDB did not have preferential tari ff data on the EC.  That explained why data was 
obtained from a number of sources for the study.   He acknowledged the importance for LDCs of 
market access for services, but also noted limitations on existing data.  He said that maritime transport 
was deregulated and that flags of convenience under maritime transport had turned out to be a big 
item for the LDCs, both in the area of foreign investment  and export of services.  Data in that regard 
was obtained by calculating imports of developed countries using balance of statistics under the new 
                                                      
1 See paragraph 34 of WT/COMTD/LDC/M/25 for the reporting procedures of notifications of market 
access measures specifically in favour of LD Cs.  (Footnote 3 in original document.)  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 9 
 
 
 balance of payments 5 manual.  On diversificati on of exports, he noted that in 1999, the LDCs had 
exported products corresponding to 2200 HS 6 lines into the EC market;  for the US the figure was 600-900 lines.  On the role of preferences in de termining market access for LDCs, he said that the 
value of preferences might be determined by looking at a broad range of factors.  The EC and the US 
had been the largest markets not only for the LDCs bu t also for a large number of other countries.  He 
said that there were a number of factors that determined exports from a given country, such as, inter 
alia, market size, GDP, GDP per capita, transport costs, distance to markets, historical links.  Finally, 
he reiterated the mandate for the study and said th at work on value of preferences would go beyond 
the scope of that mandate. 
30. The Chairman 
said that Members had made valuable contributions, which might be taken on 
board in future reviews.  The discussion reflected  that enhanced and improved market access was 
critical for LDCs' beneficial integration into the mu ltilateral trading system.  He noted that market 
access was a standing item of the Work Programme for LDCs.  He proposed to take note of the 
submission by the Secretariat and of the statements made.  He also proposed that since it was a standing item of the Work Programme for LDCs, the S ub-Committee might come back  to it at its next 
meeting.  He looked forward to the next annual re view of market access for products originating from 
LDCs. 
31. It was so agreed
. 
(ii) Trade-Related Technical Assistance and Capac ity-Building Initiatives for Least-Developed 
Countries 
- Assistance to address supply-side c onstraints (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/33 and 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/33/Add.1)  
 
32. The Chairman  recalled that the note by the Secretariat contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/33 
had been prepared in response to the requests made by Members and had been discussed at the 
Sub-Committee meetings in June  and October 2004.  At its 38th Session held in October 2004, 
Members had suggested that this item be kept on th e agenda for the next session in order to have a 
more in-depth discussion.  At that session, th e Sub-Committee had requested the Secretariat to 
provide a summary of the state of the implementati on of the actions identified in the Action Matrices 
of the Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS) of  the Integrated Framework (IF) in so far as these 
actions related to the strengthening of supply-side  capacity and to identify factors impeding progress 
in their implementation.  Accordingly, the Secret ariat had prepared a new note which was contained 
in an addendum to document WT/COMTD/LDC/W/ 33.  He said that the addendum note provided 
information on supply-side related actions identif ied in the DTIS and country-specific progress in 
relation to those supply-side needs;  it also made  some preliminary observations based on the current 
state of implementation.  This was the first time that such an exercise ha d been undertaken in the 
context of the IF.  He pointed out the limited in formation that had been made available to the 
Secretariat by IF stakeholders, which had limited the Secretariat in its work to make a comprehensive 
assessment of the state-of-play in the beneficiaries in that regard.  He invited Members to take the 
floor. 
33. The representative of Zambia , on behalf of the LDCs, recalled that the LDCs had requested 
the Secretariat to provide information on how the DTISs' Matrices were being implemented with a view to delivering trade-related technical assistance,  particularly in addressing supply-side constraints 
of LDCs.  He thanked the Secretariat for its a ddendum note, which focused on the 14 LDCs that had 
completed their DTIS.  
34. He said that the addendum note might be considered  as a step in the right direction.  The note 
attempted to identify supply-side re lated actions contained in the DTIS .  He noted that the information WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 10  
 
 collected to date was partial and thus did not pe rmit a comprehensive assessment of the state-of-play 
in the beneficiaries, nor of the extent to wh ich the IF was responding in addressing supply-side 
constraints in the beneficiaries.  Therefore, th is work should be acceler ated towards achieving 
meaningful conclusions and recommendations.  The di agnosis of supply-side constraints in four major 
areas namely transport (roads and ports, in par ticular), customs/trade facilitation, quality and 
standards, and export promotion was solid.  Those were the kinds of supply-side constraints that 
LDCs continued to raise in the WTO calling on Memb ers to address them in order to allow LDCs to 
actively take advantage of market opportunities provide d to them.  He added that the Secretariat note 
fell short in providing practical recommendations on wa ys and means to overcome such constraints.  
He suggested involving organizations such as th e ITC and UNCTAD as well as  non-IF agencies such 
as the FAO and UNIDO in this exercise.  In that  context, he made a reference to the recent 
"Sutherland Report" on "The Future of the WTO" , which strongly made the point of "horizontal 
coordination" between the WTO and other internatio nal organizations.  That coordination should be 
strengthened and expanded and al so applied to supply-related issues faced by the LDCs. 
35. He continued by saying that it appeared from the note that major problems concerning 
implementation were lack of fina ncial resources or an inadequa te level of resources and poor 
coordination among donors and technical assistance provi ders.  Furthermore, few of the large number 
of projects in 14 DTIS countries had been effectiv ely implemented.  He expressed his frustration at 
the protracted process of technical assistance to addr ess supply-side constraints.  He proposed that the 
item be kept on the agenda for the next meeting of  the Sub-Committee.  He requested the Secretariat 
to provide more information at the subsequent meeti ng with the involvement of all IF agencies as well 
as non-IF agencies with practical recommendations on how to address supply-side constraints.  
36. He emphasized that actions to improve the supply-side constraints in LDCs should be 
coordinated with the outcome of the Doha negotia tions, so that LDCs could benefit from market 
access negotiations in agriculture including cotton, services and NAMA.  Therefore, there was a need 
to consider specific linkages between market acce ss opportunities in goods and services for LDCs and 
their improved supply capacities.  In the LDCs' vi ew, this should be done by establishing a special 
programme of action within the negotiating structure of the Doha Round.  He said that it was urgently 
necessary for the supply-side to become an integral part of the WTO rules.  That would effectively 
address supply-side constraints of the LDCs and allow them to take advantage of market access 
opportunities provided therein.  In that regard, the LDCs would submit their proposal in due course.  
37. The representative of the United States
 said that the addendum note was useful and that it 
showed the evolution of the IF process and its cont ribution in addressing supply-side constraints.  She 
said that there had been improvement in the impl ementation of the IF.  More Members had been 
moving on stage after the integration of the DTIS  into the PRSP process, which according to her 
delegation was the main part of the IF process.  At that stage, through either the Consultative Group 
(CG) or other bilateral processes, multilateral and regional donors should act to  realize larger projects 
emerging from the IF exercise.  She said that the note pointed out that some of the early projects 
frequently undertaken related to institutional questions or prepar ation for large projects.  Her 
delegation was pleased to see that the IF was m oving forward.  The United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) had been work ing in the DTIS countries and had been assessing 
where programmes might be changed to make them more responsive to the DTISs.  She recognized 
that problems still existed with the IF process, especi ally with its implementation.  She said that the 
donors had taken up a robust work programme to  improve the IF, especially to address 
implementation challenges and hoped to work with th e LDCs more closely in that regard.  More 
support for the IF Secretariat w as being worked out, especially to meet the coordination and 
implementation challenges.  With regard to the re quest by the LDCs for making this item a regular 
item of the Sub-Committee, she felt that the Inte grated Framework Steering Committee (IFSC) might 
be the appropriate forum to deal with the issue.  That would also avoid consideration of the same 
issues in several forums.  Finally, she said th at the WTO was not fundamentally a development  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 11 
 
 
 agency.  It was a trade institution, which had limitatio ns in addressing supply-side constraints.  The IF 
had been an answer to the supply-side challeng es of LDCs, and as such should be strengthened.  
38. The representative of Djibouti said that all IF agencies and other agencies such as the FAO 
and UNIDO should work hand-in-hand to address th e supply-side challenges of the LDCs.  Some 
projects were being implemented in his country with the involvement of ITC.  He added that liaising 
with donors was a challenge for his country since his authorities would need to go to neighbouring 
countries, such as Ethiopia or Yemen to contact donors.  
39. The representative of Canada  suggested that the note by the Secretariat would improve if 
linkages were made to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  That missing link was crucial to 
the approach used to address the co re issues of the link between trade and supply-side constraints.  
She said that the MDGs were based on commitment s from both the LDCs and donors and that joint 
responsibility had been the approach in the IF.  More  than 50 per cent of the activities identified in the 
DTISs were to be undertaken by the LDCs themselve s.  Donors would then come collectively to meet 
LDCs' needs.  She said that the PRSP or CG or Round Table processes could contribute to address 
major customs and transport problems identified in the DTISs.  She said that the negotiating agenda 
on supply-side was way beyond the scope of the WTO.   
40. The representative of Nepal  supported the statement made by the Coordinator of the LDCs.  
He said that the project funded through Window II of the IF Trust Fund had been approved in his country and was already in operation.  However,  the IF process as a whole faced a number of 
difficulties and this was also reflected in the addendum note.  He said that the IF process was 
complex.  The main difficulty in that process was th e release of funds.  Internalization of needs was 
also difficult.  Hence, th ere was a need for more coordination.  His delegation had tried to look at the 
supply-side issue in a comprehensive manner.  He said that there had been a delay in developing 
programmes through the mechanism of Round Table meetings or through the involvement of donors 
in the four supply-side areas (transport, customs,  standards and export promotion) identified in the 
addendum note.  A mechanism was required to acceler ate that process so that supply-side constraints 
could be dealt in an effectiv e and holistic manner.  That would be helpful for the LDCs. 
41. The Chairman
 noted the request from the LDCs to keep the item on the agenda of the next 
meeting.  He said that the addendum note pointed out that a large number of IF beneficiaries were yet 
to provide information to the Secretariat.  The S ecretariat would only be able to build on its present 
note if more information was made available to them .  He also noted the request from the LDCs that 
the note be revised with practical recommendations on addressing supply-side constraints.  In that 
regard, he recalled that the scope of the WTO in addressing supply-side issues was limited.  The WTO 
was committed to finding ways to meet those ch allenges jointly with pa rtner organizations, in 
particular through the IF.  There were other bodi es in the WTO dealing with issues pertaining to 
supply-side constraints.  He said that donors had ta ken note of the appeal made by both the Chair of 
the IFSC and the Chair of the IFWG seeking more funding to carry out the work in the IF process.   
The donors were willing to respond to that appeal, wh ich might also be bilaterally channelled.  He 
informed Members that the Government of Netherla nds had taken up projects with the ITC to assist 
East African countries.  He was also aware that other governments had been taking actions in this 
regard.  He said that work on these issues could be  dealt with in the IFSC, which was the IF's 
oversight body.  He proposed to take note of the note contained in WT/COMTD/LDC/W/33/Add.1 
and of the statements made.  The item would be kept on the agenda of the next meeting.  He asked the 
Secretariat to reflect on the views expressed.   
42. The representative of Zambia  underlined the importance of coordination in the IF process 
with other organizations and development partners. 
43. It was so agreed.  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 12  
 
 - Technical Assistance in Area s of the Doha Work Programme  
 
44. The Chairman
 said that the LDC group had requested that  this item be included in the agenda 
of the 40th Session of the Sub-Committee.  He recalled the provision in paragraph 10 of the Work 
Programme for LDCs that the Sub-Committee shall monitor and make recommendations, as 
appropriate, on technical assistance support to LDCs, in  areas of agreed negotiations at Doha.  He 
invited the representative of the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC) of the 
Secretariat to provide a brief overview of trad e-related technical assistance provided to LDCs. 
45. The representative of the Secretariat  provided a brief overview on how the Secretariat had 
covered LDCs in its Technical Assistance and Trai ning Plans, especially in relation to the July 
Package.  He gave an indication of the programme s that had been in operation since 2004 and the kind 
of national and regional seminars that had been held or were foreseen, focussing on how LDCs were 
associated with those activities.  He  said that the Secretariat offered training courses in Geneva and in 
the field as well as regional seminars and work shops.  National Technical Assistance (TA) was 
demand driven.  He said that the initiative for a re quest for a national activity would need to come 
from the beneficiaries before follow-up actions coul d be considered.  The LDCs were entitled to three 
national activities under the Technical Assistance (TA) Plan for 2005, while developing countries could request only two.  These national activities coul d be undertaken in addition to activities carried 
out under other programmes such as the Joint Inte grated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP) 
and the IF.  Requests could be made at any time of the year.  A methodology was available to Members to assist them in prioritizing their needs.  He said that the LDCs had been encouraged in 
various ways to submit their national requests.  Lette rs had been issued to all beneficiary Members in 
December 2004, inviting them to put forward thei r request.  The ITTC staff had contacted and 
reminded all LDCs of their entitlement.  He had me t with regional groupings, including the LDCs, to 
explain the approach in the TA Plan and the scope for providing TA. 
46. He said that out of 501 Trade-Related Techni cal Assistance (TRTA) activities (Geneva-based 
and field-based activities) conducted over the year 2004, the LDCs had been involved in a total of 
204 activities.  That represented 40 per cent of a ll TRTA.  The activities included national activities 
held in least-developed countries as well as regional seminars and training courses to which the LDCs 
had been invited.  He further informed Member s that 38 LDCs had asked for national technical 
assistance in 2004.  Thirteen national activities in LDCs  had covered one of the four areas referred to 
in the July Package.  Thirty regional seminars had addressed the same four topics in 2004.  He went 
on to say that under the TA Plan for 2005, the fo llowing activities had been foreseen:  (i) twelve 
regional short trade policy courses, which would cover the July Package issues;  (ii) five agriculture 
regional activities;  (iii) seven market access/NAMA regional activities;  (iv) four services regional 
activities;  (v) seven trade facilitation regional activiti es;  (vi) four Geneva-based three-month trade 
policy courses;  and (vii) five regional trade polic y courses.  He said that, to date, 48 activities had 
been held, of which 14 were regional and 34 natio nal.  Of the 14 regional seminars, 10 included 
LDCs, with one specially focussing on agriculture. 
47. With regard to activities at the national level,  he said that 15 had focussed on LDCs with 
10 activities covering the July Package i.e. five activities on NAMA and five on services.  The Secretariat had received 15 requests from LDCs for national activities to be conducted.  In those 
requests, nine activities were on issues related to the July Package including four on services, three on 
agriculture, one on NAMA and one on trade facilitati on.  He said that under JITAP, a total of 
17 regional activities had been scheduled, including  for developing countries and the LDCs.  A total 
of seven of those regional activities focused on the July Package, with two on services, two on 
NAMA, one on agriculture and two on trade facilitation.   A further 27 activities would be held at the 
national level, with a total of 13 for LDCs.  WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 13 
 
 
 48. He encouraged the LDCs to make requests fo r assistance in all areas of concern to them, 
whether they were related to implementation of ex isting agreements, understanding of rules, or on the 
July Package.  He said that the Secretariat would do its best to cover such requests and address the 
needs of the beneficiaries.  He urged the LDCs not to wait until the latter part of the year for making 
such requests, as "back loading" would create di fficulty in responding within the programme for 
2005.  He said that the Secretariat had been trying to frontload the implementation of the TA Plan 
because of the anticipated concentration on prepar ations for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 
the latter part of the year.  
49. He expressed his concern with regard to funding for TA.  The target figure for the Global 
Trust Fund had been set at 24 million Swiss Francs fo r the TA Plan for 2005.  At the end of 2004, the 
balance was around 8 million Swiss Francs.  That  had enabled the Secretariat to begin the 
implementation of the TA Plan for 2005.  At presen t, the Secretariat had a balance of 1 million Swiss 
Francs.  A regional trade policy course was to begi n in mid-April and all of that funding would be 
required for the financing of that course.  The Se cretariat had received no funding this year, although 
there had been pledges of 2.5 million Swiss Francs.  He said that under the rules of the Global Trust 
Fund, the Secretariat should have a quarter of the targeted amount, i.e. 6 million Swiss Francs at the 
end of March 2005.  The Secretariat had sent lette rs to Members requesting them to provide funding 
as soon as possible.  He recalled that in order to meet all requirements for the current year and to 
begin programmes in 2006, the Secretariat would require new contributions amounting to 20 million 
Swiss Francs.  He hoped that donors would respond gene rously so that the Secretariat could continue 
to plan its activities until the end of the year.  
50. The Chairman  subscribed to the appeal by the Secretariat and he called for contributions from 
Members to reach the level of 20 m illion Swiss Francs as soon as possible. 
51. The representative of Zambia , on behalf of the LDCs, said that the LDCs considered capacity 
building for trade negotiations as an important, in tegral part of the overall technical assistance 
programme.  He quoted the first sentence of paragra ph 38 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration:  "We 
confirm that technical cooperation and capacity bu ilding are core elements of the development 
dimension of the multilateral trading system".  He r ecognized the limitations of mandate of the WTO.  
He reiterated that the credibility of the outcome of the trade negotiations would largely be determined 
by the active participation of developing countries in general and that LDCs in particular did not have 
enough capacity to negotiate.  For that to happen, it w as important that the current TA be tailored to 
meet this need in an effective, flexible and effici ent manner.  He said that urgent improvement in the 
content and delivery of technical assistance was n ecessary to allow the LDCs to participate in the 
Doha negotiations in an informed manne r and to contribute constructively.   
52. He continued by saying that the current TA Plan was important.  However, it had its own 
weaknesses.  First, it was not flexible enough to respond to the rapidly evolving needs in the Doha 
negotiations process.  Second, the WTO mandate di d not provide for capacity building for Members 
in identifying and defending their interests in trade ne gotiations in line with their needs.  The role of 
the WTO was limited to capacity building concer ning understanding, compliance and implementation 
of Agreements.  He said that the LDCs needed capacity building in areas such as identification of 
trade negotiation objectives, analysis of proposal s from trading partners, etc.  Those needs had 
become even more important in the post-July Package phase.  In this regard, he quoted from 
paragraph 38 of the Doha Declaration:  "The de livery of WTO technical assistance shall be designed 
to assist developing and least-developed countries and low-income countries in transition to adjust to 
WTO rules and disciplines, implement obligations and exercise the rights of membership, including 
drawing on the benefits of an open, rules-based multilateral trading system."  Paragraph 39 of the 
same Declaration provided reference to the IF and JITAP.  Only JITAP had been able to deliver 
technical assistance to enhance capacity for trade negotiations in the on-going Doha Round for the 
18 participating countries, of which 13 were LDCs .  There was, therefore, no specifically designed WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
Page 14  
 
 programme of assistance to support the effectiv e participation of LDCs in the on-going trade 
negotiations as envisaged in the spirit of the Doha  Work Programme.  The LDCs could call upon that 
facility in a systematic manner to respond to the dynamics of negotiations.  He said that effective 
participation in the negotiations implied the cap acity to identify main trade interests in the 
negotiations, defining appropriate st rategies and developing positions to defend those interests.  Given 
the limited mandate of the WTO vis-à-vis  trade negotiations and capac ity building, he wondered 
whether the LDCs' expectations would be met.   
53. He continued by illustrating the problems concer ning LDCs with an example.  He said that 
developed countries had made proposals in the nego tiations on trade facilitation, a complicated and 
technical subject.  He further referred to paragra ph 16 of Doha Declaration, which stated that 
modalities in NAMA to be agreed would include appropriate studies and capacity-building measures 
to assist the LDCs to participate effectively in the negotiations.  He wondered when such capacity 
building would take place especially when negotiati ons required the LDCs to  urgently respond to 
proposals which were made by trading partners.  He  said that as a result of these above factors, the 
impact of technical assistance on the effectiveness of LDCs in the negotiations had been limited.  It 
was ad hoc in nature and had rigidities in the modalities for its funding.  
54. The representative of Zambia
 went on to say that LDCs had very limited technical expertise.  
As the negotiations entered the technical phase, support to enhance the LDCs' negotiating capacity 
would need to be intensified.  He added that th e rapidly evolving negotiations could not wait for the 
activities already planned in the TA Plan for 2005.  In order for the LDCs to effectively follow and 
contribute to negotiations, the delivery of technical assistance for the negotiations would need to be 
organized and tailored to their needs and to th e realities in the negotiating process.  Given the 
diversity of the subjects in the Doha Work Progra mme, that would suggest flexibility in funding as 
well as in sourcing of technical assi stance, depending on availability of expertise in the relevant 
international organizations.  He unde rlined the importance of flexibility in that regard.  He called on 
Members to find a solution in the form of an adequa tely funded mechanism targeted at responding to 
the LDCs' negotiating capacity-building needs aris ing from the rapidly evolving negotiations.   
55. The representative of the United States  expressed her disappointment over the statement by 
Zambia which was made on behalf of the LDCs.  Th e statement did not reflect the reality.  She said 
that the report by the Secretariat indicated that th e LDCs had not been taking advantage of the existing 
programmes under the TA Plan.  These programmes were not only focussed on the implementation of 
WTO Agreements but also provided expertise in th e areas outlined in the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia.  She acknowledged that there had been some challenges with the TA 
programmes.  She concluded by saying that the LDCs should make requests to the Secretariat to 
which they were entitled. 
56. The representative of Djibouti  said that technical assistance was an  integral part of the WTO.  
He also emphasized the need for cooperation to meet the technical needs of LDCs. 
57. The Chairman  said that the Secretariat had been tryi ng its best to accommodate the needs of 
LDCs according to its mandate.  He recognized that  there had been a gap in the assistance required 
and that delivered by the Secretariat.  In that re gard, he said that the Secretariat was yet to receive 
requests from LDCs particularly in the area of the Doha Round.  He encouraged the LDCs to avail 
themselves of the technical assistance provided by the Secretariat.  He underlined the availability of 
funding to make those programmes possible.  He hoped that the gaps between needs and delivery of 
technical assistance would be narro wed.  He proposed taking note of the oral report by the Secretariat 
as well as of the statements made. 
58. It was so agreed.   WT/COMTD/LDC/M/40 
 Page 15 
 
 
 59. The representative of Zambia  underlined the importance of working together to meet the 
challenges of technical assistance. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
60. The Chairman  informed Members that the next meeting of the Sub-Committee was 
tentatively scheduled for 23 June 2005.2  He proposed that at that meeting, the Sub-Committee discuss 
the paper on textiles for LDCs which the Secretariat had been requested to prepare at its meeting on 
20 January 2005.   
61. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
2 Subsequently scheduled for 8 July 2005.