COMMIT TEE FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICYHANDBOOK ON THE
LEAST DEVELOPEDCOUNTRY CATEGORY:
Inclusion, Graduationand Special Support
Measures

5

TH

EDITIONCOMMIT TEE FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICYHANDBOOK ON THE
LEAST DEVELOPEDCOUNTRY CATEGORY:
Inclusion, Graduationand Special Support
Measures

5

TH

EDITION

May 2024

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) is a vitalinterface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres
and national action. The Department’s mission is to promote and support international
cooperation in the pursuit of sustainable development for all. Its work is guided by theuniversal and transformative 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along witha set of 17 integrated Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly. UN DESA’s work addresses a range of crosscutting issues that affectpeoples’ lives and livelihoods, such as poverty eradication, employment, social inclusion, inequalities, population, indigenous rights, macroeconomic policy, development
finance and cooperation, public sector innovation, forest policy, climate change andsustainable development. For more information, visit https://www.un.org/en/desa.

Committee for Development Policy
The Committee for Development Policy (CDP) is a subsidiary body of the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It advises the Council on a range ofissues related to development policy and sustainable development, including periodically reviewing the criteria for and composition of the least developed country(LDC) category. The 24 members of the CDP are nominated by the United Nations
Secretary-General in their personal capacity and are appointed by ECOSOC for aperiod of three years. The Secretariat of the CDP is part of the Economic Analysis
and Policy Division (EAPD) of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UN DESA). For more information, visit https://cdp.un.org/.

United Nations publication
Sales No.: E.24.II.A.1
ISBN: 9789213589694
eISBN: 9789210010443
Copyright © United Nations, 2024
All rights reservedForeword
The category of the least developed countries (LDCs) was established in 1971 as a
special group of developing countries characterized by low levels of income, andstructural impediments to growth. Special measures were therefore deemed necessary
for overcoming challenges to their development.
The Committee for Development Planning, the predecessor of the Committee forDevelopment Policy (CDP), played an important role in the establishment of the LDC
category. Since then, the CDP has been responsible for identifying which countries
fall within the LDC category. The Committee has prepared a rigorous methodology
for this purpose, as detailed in this publication.
This Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category has been prepared by theUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which hosts the secretariatof the CDP. Its publication will raise awareness among diverse stakeholders on themethods and approaches used in the identification of LDCs, and the international
support measures available to them. It should be useful for all those interested in finding
solutions to the development challenges faced by these countries.
This revised edition has been updated to reflect recent developments in the LDC
category, including refinements to the LDC criteria and the progress of several countries
towards graduation from the category. Moreover, this edition of the Handbook contains
updated information on international support measures, including on “smoothtransition” provisions for countries graduating from the LDC category.
I hope that the updated and revised Handbook will continue to promote a better
understanding of the category and the challenges confronting LDCs. I trust it will
inform the implementation of the Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed
Countries, and other global efforts accelerating progress towards the Sustainable
Development Goals.

Li Junhua
Under-Secretary-General for
Economic and Social Affairs
United Nations
May 2024

Acknowledgements
The present publication is a collaborative undertaking of the Committee for Develop­
ment Policy (CDP) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. The procedures presented herein reflect the outcome of collaborative efforts
by various members, past and current, of CDP. This publication was prepared by thesecretariat of the Committee for Development Policy under the general supervisionof Roland Mollerus, Secretary of the Committee. It was coordinated by Matthias
Bruckner, who counted on invaluable substantive support from Annette Becker,
Mereseini Bower and Márcia Tavares. The contributions of Leah C. Kennedy andRachel Babruskinas in producing this publication are also gratefully acknowledged.

Summary
The fifth edition of the Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category provides
comprehensive information on the least developed country (LDC) category, including a description of procedures and methodologies used in the identification of thesecountries and the international support measures available to them. It builds upon
and updates the previous edition, published in 2021. The Handbook aims at providing
comprehensive and up-to-date information on the LDC category, and is intended foruse by government officials, policymakers, researchers and others interested in the
LDC category.
The Handbook is organized as follows: chapter I provides a detailed description of
the procedures for inclusion in and graduation from the category. Chapter II presents
an overview of the international support measures accorded specifically to LDCs,
including measures related to trade, development assistance and support for participation in international forums. Specific attention is given to the impact of graduationon these support measures. Lastly, chapter III provides a detailed explanation of the
LDC criteria, including composition, methodologies and data sources. In addition,
the chapter presents specific examples of the application of the criteria, based on
the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) 2024 triennial review of the list of LDCs.
As measures of support, provisions, procedures and methodologies evolve over time,the information contained in the present Handbook will be updated on a regular basis
to reflect relevant developments, including the outcome of the triennial reviews of
the list of the least developed countries. Updates will be posted on the LDC Portal.
Up-to-date detailed information, including statistical data on the LDC category, is alsoavailable on the CDP website.

Table of contents

I

II

Foreword  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

iii

Acknowledgements  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

iv

Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

v

Explanatory notes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

xi

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

1

A.	 The least developed country category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

1

B.	 Criteria for defining the least developed country category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

6

C.	 Procedures for inclusion in the least developed country category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

10

D.	 Procedures for graduation from the least developed category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

12

E.	 Preparing for graduation and the concept of “smooth transition”  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

20

F.	 Monitoring and reporting during the transition .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

28

International support measures for the least developed countries .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

31

A.	 Trade-related support measures .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

31

1.	 Preferential market access for goods .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

32

a.	 Duty-free, quota-free market access and preferential tariffs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

33

b.	 Preferential rules of origin for goods .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

35

c.	 Preferential market access after graduation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

36

2.	 Preferential treatment for services and service suppliers  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

37

3.	 Special treatment and flexibilities to implement World Trade Organization rules .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

38

4.	 Special treatment and flexibilities regarding obligations under regional agreements .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

42

5.	 Special priority in trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

43

B.	 Development cooperation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

44

1.	 Commitments in bilateral official development assistance flows to least developed countries  .  .  .  .

44

a.	 Quantitative commitments on official development assistance by donors .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

45

b.	 Modalities of bilateral official development assistance: grant element .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

45

c.	 Modalities of bilateral official development assistance: untied aid  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

46

d.	 Donor-specific terms and conditions for LDCs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

47

2.	 Multilateral and regional development cooperation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

47

a.	 International and regional financial institutions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

48

b.	 United Nations system .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

49

3.	 Mechanisms dedicated primarily to least developed countries, and their provisions
for graduated countries  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

52

a.	 Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

52

b.	 Climate change: work programme for the least developed countries, the Least Developed
Countries Expert Group and the Least Developed Countries Fund .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

53

c.	 Last mile finance: United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

54

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
viii

III

d.	 Investment Support Programme for the Least Developed Countries by the International
Development Law Organization and the Office of the High Representative .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

55

4.	 The least developed countries in South-South and triangular cooperation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

55

5.	 Scholarships and other forms of financial support for education and research .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

55

C.	 Support for participation in international forums .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

56

1.	 Caps and discounts on the contribution of least developed countries to United Nations systembudgets .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

56

2.	 Support for travel  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

59

3.	 Capacity-building for participation in negotiations .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

60

4.	 Other forms of support for participation in international forums .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

61

a.	 Flexibility in reporting requirements .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

61

b.	 Support for the costs of diplomatic representation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

61

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

63

A.	Overview .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

63

B.	 Gross national income per capita .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

64

1.	 Definition, methodology and data sources  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

64

a.	 Definition and rationale .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

64

b.	Methodology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

64

c.	 Data sources .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

64

2.	 Inclusion and graduation thresholds .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

65

3.	 Gross national income values for the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

66

C.	 Human assets index  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

66

1.	Composition .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

66

2.	 Inclusion and graduation thresholds .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

67

3.	 Definition, methodology and data sources of the indicators  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

68

a.	 Under-5 mortality rate .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

68

b.	 Prevalence of stunting  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

69

c.	 Maternal mortality ratio  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

70d.	 Lower secondary education completion rate .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

71

e.	 Adult literacy rate  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

71

f.	 Gender parity index for lower secondary education completion .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

72

4.	 Human assets index calculation: selected examples .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

73

5.	 Human assets index values for the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

75

D.	 Economic and environmental vulnerability index .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

75

1.	Composition .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

75

2.	 Inclusion and graduation thresholds .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

76

3.	 Definition, methodology and data sources of the indicators  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

77

a.	 Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in gross domestic product .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

77

b.	 Remoteness and landlockedness .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

77

c.	 Merchandise export concentration .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

80

d.	 Instability of exports of goods and services  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

81

Table of contentsixe.	 Share of population in low elevated coastal zones .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

83

f.	 Share of population living in drylands  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

83

g.	 Instability of agricultural production  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

84

h.	 Victims of disasters  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

85

4.	 Economic and environmental vulnerability index calculation: selected examples .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

86

5.	 Economic and environmental vulnerability index values for the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

88

E.	 Summing up: the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

88

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

FiguresI.1 Map of least developed countries, May 2024  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

1

I.2 Milestones in the creation of the least developed country category  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

2

I.3 Inclusion in and graduation from the least developed country category, as of April 2024  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

4

I.4 Programmes of action for the least developed countries .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

5

I.5 Least developed country criteria over time, as of the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

8

I.6 Timeline for inclusion in the least developed country category (over the course of the year
in which the triennial review takes place) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

I.7 Simplified overview of standard graduation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

I.8 Role of least developed country criteria and additional information in the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

15

I.9 Timeline of Committee for Development Policy recommendations and resolutions of the Economic andSocial Council and General Assembly on graduating and graduated least developed countries as of April 202418

I.10 Graduation process and timeline, and process for preparing a smooth transition strategy .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

23

I.11 Select country approaches to a smooth transition strategy .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

26

II.1 Imports utilizing least developed country-specific preference scheme, 2022 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

33

II.2 Aid from Development Assistance Committee countries – total and to least developed countries –as a percentage of donor gross national income, 2021-2022 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

46

II.3 Official development assistance disbursements by multilateral organisations, 2013-2023 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

48

II.4 Expenditures in the least developed countries, 2011-2021 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

50

III.1 Composition of the human assets index .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

67

III.2 Composition of the human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

74

III.3 Composition of the economic and environmental vulnerability index  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

76

III.4 Flow chart for calculating remoteness values .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

78

III.5 Bangladesh: countries included in the calculation of the remoteness indicator, 2024 triennial review  .  .  .

79

III.6 Composition of the economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries,
2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

87

III.7 Results of the 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

89

III.A.1 Gross national income per capita for all Member States in developing regions, 2024 triennial review  .  .  .

92

III.A.2 Gross national income per capita for all Member States in developing regions witha per capita GNI below 7,000 United States dollars, 2024 triennial review  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

94

III.A.3 Human assets index for all Member States in developing regions, 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

96

III.A.4 Economic and environmental vulnerability index for all Member States in developing regions, 2024
triennial review  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

98

Handbook on the Least Developed Country CategoryxBoxes
I.1 Committee for Development Policy and the least developed countries .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

3

I.2 Supplementary graduation indicators  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

14

I.3 Graduation from the least developed country category vs. graduation from other categories of countries
receiving international support measures .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

20

I.4 Country-specific support provided by the inter-agency task force on graduation and smooth transition  .

22

I.5 Resources on graduation and a smooth transition out of the least developed country category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

28

II.1 Milestones in preferential market access for goods exports from least developed countries  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

32

II.2 Support to least developed countries for the process of accession to the World Trade Organization .  .  .  .

38

III.1 The World Bank Atlas method  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

65

III.2 Max-min procedure to convert indicators into indices  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

68

Tables
I.1 Key asymmetries between the inclusion and graduation processes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

7

I.2 Income graduation thresholds in various country categories .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

21

I.3 Reporting and monitoring on transition out of the least developed country category .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

29

II.1 Major multilateral non-reciprocal preference schemes for least developed countries undertaken
by World Trade Organization members, 2023 (or latest available year) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

34

II.2 Smooth transition provisions in selected least developed country-specific market access arrangements

36

II.3 Least developed countries in the World Trade Organization, as of April 2024 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

39

II.4 Main provisions on special and differential treatment to least developed countries under World Trade
Organization agreements and related decisions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

40

II.5 Classification criteria of the Asian Development Bank .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

49

II.6 Minimum allocation floors for GEF-8 under the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources .  .  .  .  .  .  .

51

II.7 Rules for contributions by least developed countries to United Nations system budgets .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

57

III.1 Calculation of human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

73

III.2 Human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

74

III.3 Calculation of remoteness indicator for Bangladesh and Nepal, 2021 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

80

III.4 Calculation of economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries,
2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

86

III.5 Economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

87

III.6 Least developed country criteria for all least developed countries, 2024 triennial review .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

90

Explanatory notes
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariatof the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The
term “country” as used in the text also refers, as appropriate, to territories or areas.
The designations of country groups are intended solely for statistical or analyticalconvenience and do not necessarily express a judgment about the stage of development reached by a particular country or area in the development process.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the United Nations.
Every effort has been made to provide accurate information. Errors brought to theattention of the CDP secretariat will be corrected in forthcoming issues and online.
This publication in no way replaces legal texts or official policy documents.
The following abbreviations have been used.

Abbreviations
ADB

Asian Development BankAGOA

African Growth and Opportunity Act

CDP

Committee for Development Policy

DAC

Development Assistance Committee

DFQF

duty-free, quota-free

ECOSOC

Economic and Social Council

EIF

Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries

EVI

Economic and environmental vulnerability index

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GCF

Green Climate FundGDP

Gross domestic product

GEF

Global Environmental Facility

GNI

Gross national income

GSP

Generalized System of Preferences

HAI

Human assets index

IDA

International Development Association

IMF

International Monetary Fund

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
xii

ITC

International Trade Centre

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

LDCs

least developed countries

LDCF

Least Developed Countries FundODA

official development assistance

ODCs

other developing countries

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SDRs

special drawing rights

SIDS

small island developing States

TRIPS

Agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UN DESA

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNFPA

United Nations Population Fund

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNIDO

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UN-OHRLLS

Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries andSmall Island Developing States

UNSD

Statistics Division of UN DESA

UNU

United Nations University

UNWTO

United Nations World Tourism Organization

WHO

World Health Organization

WMO

World Meteorological Organization

WTO

World Trade Organization

CHAPTERI

The least developed
country category:criteria and proceduresfor inclusion and graduation

A.	 The least developed country category
The least developed country (LDC) category comprises the most disadvantaged ofthe developing countries. As of 2024, 45 countries are included in the category (seefigure I.1). LDCs comprise 15 per cent of the world’s population, but account only
Figure I.1

Map of least developed countries, May 2024
Sudan
Chad

Afghanistan

Niger

Nepal

Mali

Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic

Mauritania
SenegalGambiaGuinea-Bissau
Haiti

Djibouti

Sierra Leone

Somalia

Liberia

Ethiopia

Bangladesh
Kiribati
TuvaluSouth Sudan

Togo

UgandaBenin

RwandaCentral African Republic

BurundiSao Tome and Principe

Comoros

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Myanmar

Yemen

GuineaBurkina Faso

Cambodia

Eritrea

Timor-Leste
Solomon Islands

Madagascar

AngolaUnited Republic of Tanzania

ZambiaMalawiLesothoMozambique

Source: UN DESA, based on the List of Least Developed Countries.
Note: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply oﬃcial endorsement or acceptanceby the United Nations. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India andPakistan. The ﬁnal status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Final boundary between the Republicof Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
2

Figure I.2

Milestones in the creation of the least developed country category
I: Recommended special support for the less developed among developing countries
1964 UNCTAD
The
first
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD I) recommended that•international policies and measures adopted with a view to promoting the economic developmentof developing countries pay special attention to the less developed among them, so as to ensuresustained growth with equitable opportunitya

ASSEMBLY: Called for action to provide special measures for the least developed among1969 GENERAL
developing countries• The Assembly acknowledged the need to alleviate the problems of underdevelopment of the least
developed among the developing countries• It requested the Secretary-General to carry out a comprehensive examination of the special

problems of the least developed countries (LDCs) and to recommend special measures for dealing
with those problemsb

FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: Issued report on LDCs
1970 COMMITTEE• A working group of the Committee for Development Planning issued a report on special measures tobe taken in favour of the least developed countries• The report identified characteristics shared among LDCs and proposed criteria for identifying LDCscASSEMBLY: Reiterated urgent need for formal identification of LDCs
1970 GENERAL
The
Assembly
included a separate section on the least developed among developing countries in the••International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade
It reiterated the urgency of formal identification of LDCsd

FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: Established tentative list of LDCs
1971 COMMITTEE• The Committee determined the initial criteria for identification of LDCs

• It identified a tentative list of 25 countries as LDCs based on these criteriae

ASSEMBLY: Formally endorsed list of LDCs
1971 GENERAL• The Assembly formally endorsed the list of the 25 LDCs

• It requested the Committee for Development Planning to review and refine the criteria used for
identification

to take into account• It also requested international organizations within the United Nations systemfthe special needs of LDCs when formulating their programmes of activities

Source: Committee for Development Policy (CDP) secretariat.
a Final Act and Report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, annex A.I.1, United Nations publication, Sales
No. 64.II.B.11. The term “Less developed countries” had been referred to earlier—for example, in regard to food surpluses in a 1960
report by the Secretary-General and in resolution 1714 (XVI) of 19 December 1961.
b General Assembly resolution 2564 (XXIV) of 13 December 1969.
c General Assembly resolution 2626 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 and General Assembly resolution 2724 (XXV) of 15 December 1970.
d Report of the Committee for Development Planning on its seventh session (22 March-1 April 1971), Official Records of the Economic
and Social Council, Fifty-first session, 1971, Supplement No. 7.
e Resolution 1628 (LI) of 30 July 1971. The list was also approved by the Trade and Development Board (governing body of UNCTAD) at
its eleventh session.
f Resolution 2768 (XXVI) of 18 November 1971.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation3

for 1.4 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) and for 1.1 per cent of global
merchandise trade.1
The LDC category was established by the General Assembly in 1971, in its resolution
2768 (XXVI), as a result of the acknowledgement by the international communitythat special support measures were needed to assist the least developed among thedeveloping countries (see figure I.2 for a brief history).
The United Nations defines LDCs as countries that have low levels of income andface severe structural impediments to sustainable development. The countries categorized as LDCs are identified based on specific criteria and procedures, describedin detail below.
The initial list of LDCs contained 25 countries; 28 additional countries were added
throughout the years, as countries gained independence and faced severe development challenges and/or faced a sustained deterioration of economic conditions.
Seven countries had graduated by 2023 (see figure I.3).2
Decisions on inclusion in and graduation from the list of LDCs are made by the General Assembly, based on recommendations by the Committee for Development Policy(CDP) (see box I.1), endorsed by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The
Committee analyses the list of LDCs every three years during what are called triennial
reviews of the least developed country category (hereafter referred to as triennial

Box I.1

Committee for Development Policy and the least developed countries
The Committee for Development Policy (CDP) is a subsidiary advisory body of the Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC). Its 24 members are nominated in their personal capacity by the Secretary-General and are appointed
by the Council for a period of three years. The composition of the membership is aimed at reflecting a wide rangeof expertise in the fields of economic development, social development and environmental protection, as well as
geographical and gender balance. The Committee for Development Policy is the successor to the Committee forDevelopment Planning, which functioned between 1965 and 1998 and played a critical role in the establishment of
the least developed country (LDC) category.
Several functions of CDP are related to the LDC category. The Committee is mandated to make recommendations
to ECOSOC on countries that qualify to be added to the LDC category and those that are candidates for graduation
therefrom. The recommendations are based on analyses undertaken every three years at triennial reviews of the LDC
category. In addition, CDP monitors the development progress of LDCs that are graduating and of countries thathave graduated from the category; conducts reviews of the LDC identification criteria; reviews the application of
the LDC category by the United Nations development system; and undertakes analytical studies on LDC issues. The
Committee secretariat facilitates access to information on the LDC category, support measures and the graduation
process through web-based portals and publications.
Additional information on the Committee is available at http://cdp.un.org.

1
2

UNCTADstat database, accessed April 2024.
In addition, Sikkim, which was one of the 25 original least developed countries (LDCs), ceased to be an LDC when it became a stateof India in 1975. Moreover, both the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen and the Yemen Arab Republic were LDCs when the twocountries merged in 1990 into the Republic of Yemen, which was confirmed as an LDC by the Committee for Development Planningin 1991 and remains on the list of LDCs.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
4

reviews), to identify any countries that may qualify for inclusion in or graduationfrom the LDC category.3 The criteria and processes for inclusion in and graduationfrom the list are described in detail in the next sections.
Figure I.3

Inclusion in and graduation from the least developed country category, as of April 2024a
2027

Solomon Islands

2026

Bangladesh, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal

2024

Sao Tome and Principe

2023

Bhutan2020

Vanuatu2017

Equatorial Guinea

2014

Samoa

2012

South Sudan

2011

Maldives

2007

Cabo Verde

2003

Timor-Leste

2000

Senegal

1994

Botswana
Angola, Eritrea

1991

Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Solomon Islands, Zambia

1990

Liberia

1988

Mozambique

1987

Myanmar

1986

Kiribati, Mauritania, Tuvalu

1985

Vanuatu

1982

Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo

1981

Guinea-Bissau

1977

Cabo Verde, Comoros

1975

Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Gambia

1971

Afghanistan, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan,
Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen

Source: CDP secretariat.
Note: Countries in bold have already graduated from the list; those in bold italics are scheduled for graduation. Blue arrows indicate
inclusion; green arrows indicate graduation.
= inclusion;= graduation.
a At its 2024 triennial review conducted during the 26th session of the CDP plenary from 4-8 March 2024, CDP recommended that
Cambodia, Djibouti and Senegal graduate from the list of LDCs and found that all three countries require an extended period of five
years to effectively prepare for graduation.

3

Triennial reviews have been conducted since 1991. The most recent review before the publication of the present edition of the
Handbook was completed in March 2024.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation5

Since the establishment of the LDC category, support measures have been developed
for these countries in the context of international agreements and organizations aswell as by individual countries, educational institutions and others (see chapter II),
with a view to assisting LDCs in overcoming their challenges. Comprehensive programmes of action for LDCs were adopted at five successive United Nations Conferences on the Least Developed Countries, the most recent being the Programme of
Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2022–2031 (Doha Programmeof Action) (see figure I.4). Moreover, many key United Nations agendas and programmes continue to recognize the special challenges of LDCs and their particular
Figure I.4

Programmes of action for the least developed countries
1980s

The Substantial New Programme of Action for the 1980s for the Least Developed Countries, adopted in 1981
at the first United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
Aim: transform LDC economies and enable them to provide minimum standards of nutrition, health, housing andeducation as well as job opportunities to their citizens, particularly to the rural and urban poor

1990s

The Paris Declaration and Programme of Action of the Second United Nations Conference on the Least
Developed Countries
Priority areas: macroeconomic policy; human resources development; reversing the trend towards environmental degradation and reinforcing action to address disasters; rural development and food production; and thedevelopment of a diversified productive sector

20012010

The Brussels Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001–2010 adopted
at the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, shortly after the adoption of theMillenium Declaration
Overarching goal: substantially reducing the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and suffering fromhunger in the LDCs and to promote sustainable development
Priority areas: developing human and institutional resources; removing supply-side constraints and enhancing
productive capacity; accelerating growth; and expanding the participation of LDCs in world trade and in global
financial and investment flows

20112020

The Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011–2020, adopted at
the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
Overarching objective: enable half of the LDCs to meet the graduation criteria by 2020
Priority areas: productive capacity; agriculture, food security and rural development; trade; commodities; human and social development; multiple crises and other emerging challenges; mobilizing financial resources fordevelopment and capacity-building; and good governance at all levels

20222031

The Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2022-2031, adopted at theFifth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
Key focus areas: investing in people in LDCs: eradicating poverty and building capacity to leave no one behind;leveraging the power of science, technology and innovation to fight against multidimensional vulnerabilites andto achieve the SDGs; structural transformation as a driver of prosperity; enhancing international trade of LDCs
and regional integration; addressing climate change, environmental degradation, recovery from the COVID-19
pandemic and building resilience against future shocks for risk-informed sustainable development; and mobilizing international solidarity, reinvigorated global partnerships and innovative tools: a march towards sustainablegraduation

Source: UNCTAD (2021), The Least Developed Countries Report 2021 – The least developed countries in the post-COVID world: Learningfrom 50 years of experience, Geneva; and United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked
Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
6

need for support, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development4 and theAddis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing forDevelopment.5 In many negotiations and intergovernmental deliberations on development issues, in particular with respect to trade and climate change, LDCs act as agroup, aiming to promote their common interests.

B.	 Criteria for defining the least developed country category
In 1971, the Committee for Development Planning examined common features of theeconomic and social development of LDCs and, on that basis, proposed quantitative
criteria for the identification of countries to be placed on a list of LDCs.6 In that initialreport, the Committee noted the need to further refine the criteria. This has led tosubsequent refinements of the criteria over time by what is today the Committee
for Development Policy (CDP), with subsequent confirmations by the Economic andSocial Council and the General Assembly, as summarized in figure I.5.
While observing the original principle of identifying LDCs as “low-income countries that face structural handicaps”, the criteria have changed over time to reflect
improvements in data availability and the evolution in development theory and practice. From the outset, the Committee for Development Planning and subsequently,
the Committee for Development Policy, utilized a multidimensional concept of development. The criteria originally covered social and economic dimensions, and, in 1999,
CDP included indicators related to environmental vulnerability.7 The latest version of
the criteria for defining LDCs was adopted in 2023. That version built on the outcomeof a comprehensive review of the criteria that CDP undertook from 2017 to 2020 basedon a mandate by the General Assembly and ECOSOC. CDP has adopted four principles
it adheres to when refining the LDC criteria:• Inter-temporal consistency of the list and equitable treatment of countries requiresthat refinements to the criteria and their application should not lead to a questioning of recent decisions on graduation and inclusion.

• Stability of the criteria implies that refinements should only be undertaken if theylead to a significant improvement in identifying LDCs.

• Flexibility refers to the application rather than the criteria themselves. The principle

ensures that the criteria are not applied mechanically. CDP uses additional sourcesof information before making recommendations for inclusion and graduation (seebelow).

4
5
6
7

General Assembly resolution 70/1.
General Assembly resolution 69/313.
Report of the Committee for Development Planning on its seventh session (22 March–1 April 1971) (Official Records of the Economic
and Social Council, Fifty-first session, 1971, Supplement No. 7 (E/4990)).
Already in 1991, at the time of the first major revision of the criteria, CDP decided to use information related to natural disasters asadditional information. See the report of the Committee for Development Planning on its twenty- seventh session (22–26 April 1991)(Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1991, Supplement No. 11 (E/1991/32)).

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
7• Methodological robustness and complete data availability ensure that only

high-quality indicators for which data are available in all developing countries andupdated with sufficient frequency are utilized to identify LDCs.

The Committee for Development Policy continues to use three criteria to identify
LDCs, which it defines as low-income countries suffering from the most severe impediments to sustainable development. Gross national income (GNI) per capita reflects
the low-income aspect; two other criteria reflect key structural impediments related
to a low level of human assets (human assets index, HAI) and a high vulnerability
to economic and environmental shocks (economic and environmental vulnerability
index, EVI). The LDC criteria are applied by CDP every three years to all Member
States in developing regions. Countries are identified for inclusion in and graduationfrom the LDC list by comparing their criteria scores with thresholds established by
CDP (see chapter III for details on indicators and thresholds).
There is an asymmetry between inclusion and graduation rules, with graduation
requirements being more stringent than inclusion requirements (see table I.1). Thisasymmetry is intentional and serves to avoid frequent movements in and out of thecategory because of short-term fluctuations. For inclusion, countries must meet all
three criteria at the established inclusion threshold levels. For graduation, a country
needs to meet at least two criteria at the graduation thresholds, rather than only one.
Hence, there can be countries on the LDC list that may no longer be considered by
CDP as low-income but that are still characterized by both low human assets and highvulnerability to economic and environmental shocks and are therefore not candidates
for graduation. Similarly, low-income countries could graduate if they have overcome
both categories of structural impediments. Countries with a sufficiently high per
capita income, however, can graduate on an exceptional basis even if they continue
to have low human assets and are highly vulnerable, if that income level is deemed tobe sustainable.8 In the view of CDP, such countries have sufficient resources to confront their impediments without requiring special international support measures.
Table I.1

Key asymmetries between the inclusion and graduation processes
Criteria

Inclusion

Graduation

Number of criteria to be met

32aCriteria threshold

Establishedat each review

Established at each review but
set at a higher level than inclusion

Eligibility

Determined once

Determined twice (over consecutive reviews)

TimingEffective immediately

Preparatory period (3 years)

Approval by country

Required

Not requireda On an exceptional basis, countries with a per capita income over three times the regular income graduation threshold may not needto meet any other criteria (see chapter III).

8

Report of the Committee for Development Policy on its seventh session (14–18 March 2005) (Official Records of the Economic andSocial Council, 2005, Supplement No. 13 (E/2005/33)).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
8

Figure I.5
Least developed country criteria over time, as of the 2024 triennial review
2023

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from the most severe structural impediments to sustainable development
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic and environmental vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Prevalence of stunting• Maternal mortality ratio• Lower secondary education• Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP• Remoteness and landlockedness• Merchandise export concentration• Instability of exports of goods and services• Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones• Share of population living in drylands• Instability of agricultural production• Victims of disasters

completion rate

• Adult literacy rate
• Gender parity index of lower

secondary education completion

2020

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from the most severe structural impediments to sustainable development
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic and environmental vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Prevalence of stunting• Maternal mortality ratio• Gross secondary school• Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP• Remoteness and landlockedness• Merchandise export concentration• Instability of exports of goods and services• Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones• Share of population living in drylands• Instability of agricultural production• Victims of disasters

enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate
• Gender parity index of grosssecondary school enrolment

2017

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from the most severe structural impediments to sustainable development
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Percentage of population• Population• Remoteness• Merchandise export concentration• Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP• Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones• Instability of exports of goods and services• Victims of natural disasters• Instability of agricultural production

undernourished• Maternal mortality ratio• Gross secondary school
enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate
2011

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from the most severe structural impediments to sustainable development
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Percentage of population• Population• Remoteness• Merchandise export concentration• Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP• Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones• Instability of exports of goods and services• Victims of natural disasters• Instability of agricultural production

undernourished• Gross secondary school
enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
9

2005

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from low level of human resources and a high degree of economic
vulnerability
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Percentage of population• Population• Remoteness• Merchandise export concentration• Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP• Instability of exports of goods and services• Homelessness due to natural disasters• Instability of agricultural production

undernourished• Gross secondary school enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate
2002

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from low levels of human resources and a high degree of economic
vulnerability
GNI
percapitaHuman assets index (HAI)

Economic vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Average calorie intake per capita as a

• Population• Merchandise export concentration• Share of manufacturing and modern services

percentage of the requirement• Gross secondary school enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate
1999

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from low levels of human resources and a high degree of economic
vulnerabilityGDPpercapitaAugmented physical quality of life (APQL)

Economic vulnerability index (EVI)• Under-5 mortality rate
• Average calorie intake per capita as apercentage of the requirement• Population• Merchandise export concentration• Share of manufacturing and modern services

enrolment ratio
Adult literacy rate

• Instability of exports of goods and services• Instability of agricultural production• Combined primary and secondary school•
1991

in GDP

LDCs are low-income countries suffering from long-term handicaps to growth, in particular, low levelsof human resource development and/or severe structural weaknessesGDPpercapitaAugmented physical quality of life (APQL)

Economic diversification index (EDI)• Life expectancy at birth• Per capita calorie supply• Combined primary and secondary• Merchandise export concentration• Share of manufacturing in GDP• Share of employment in industry• Per capita electricity consumption

school enrolment ratio• Adult literacy rate
1971

in GDP• Instability of exports of goods and services• Instability of agricultural production

LDCs are countries with very low levels of per capita gross domestic product facing the most severe obstacles
to developmentGDP
percapita• Adult literacy rate

• Share of manufacturing in GDP

Source: CDP secretariat.
Note: Bold type indicates components that were added to the list for the first time in a particular year.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category10

For both inclusion and graduation, recommendations by CDP do not follow automatically from meeting the criteria. The Committee also considers additional information
outlined in the following sections on procedures for inclusion and graduation.

C.	 Procedures for inclusion in the least developed
country category
The procedures for inclusion in the LDC category, summarized in figure I.6 and detailed
below, are designed to be conducted over the course of less than a year. Inclusion is
not mandatory and requires the agreement of the Government of the eligible country.
The procedures for inclusion are as follows:
Preliminary review by CDP subgroup• During a preparatory meeting to the triennial review (known as the expert groupmeeting), usually held in January, a subgroup of CDP reviews the performanceof Member States in developing regions that are not on the LDC list against theinclusion criteria.

• If the subgroup determines that the country qualifies for inclusion, the CDP sec-

retariat notifies the Government, through the country’s Permanent Mission to theUnited Nations in New York, of this preliminary finding and of its forthcoming
consideration at the triennial review. In the notification, it invites the Government
to provide its views on possible inclusion in the LDC category.

• The CDP secretariat also submits to the Member State a country assessment notethat contains, among other information, an analysis of reasons for the recent deterioration of economic and social conditions, including an assessment of whether
that deterioration is the result of structural or transitory factors.

Triennial review• At the plenary meeting of CDP, typically held in late February or early March, thefull membership of CDP reviews the preliminary findings, including the Government’s views.

• If the Government has expressed objection to being included in the category prior
to the plenary meeting, the finding of eligibility and the country’s objection arerecorded in the report of CDP to ECOSOC and no further action is taken.

• Otherwise, if CDP confirms the eligibility and recommends inclusion, the CDP
secretariat notifies the Government accordingly.

Acceptance and endorsements• Unless the Government formally objects to the inclusion in response to the notification sent after the plenary session, CDP recommends, in its report to ECOSOC,
the inclusion of the country in the list.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation11• Once ECOSOC endorses the CDP recommendation in its annual resolution on thereport of CDP (typically adopted in June), the Government subsequently notifies
the Secretary-General of its acceptance of inclusion in the LDC category.

• Afterwards, the General Assembly takes note of the recommendation through a
resolution.

• The country becomes an LDC immediately, and the country is entitled to benefit
from the support measures described in chapter II from that day on.

Figure I.6

Timeline for inclusion in the least developed country category(over the course of the year in which the triennial review takes place)
January

Preliminary review by CDP subgroup

February/March

Triennial review

March to December

Acceptance and endorsement

Inclusion effective immediately
Source: Adapted from the report of the Committee for Development Policy on its ninth session (19–23 March 2007) (Official Recordsof the Economic and Social Council, 2007, Supplement No. 13 (E/2007/33(SUPP))), endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its
resolution 2007/34.
Note: Exact months may differ depending on the scheduling of the plenary meeting of the Committee.

Historical note
Between 1975 and 1991, there were no systematic reviews of the list of LDCs. After an initial review of the originallist in 1975, conducted on the basis of a revision of the original criteria and data, decisions on inclusion followed anassessment of specific countries on the basis of the established criteria but initiated by a request through ECOSOC
or the General Assembly.
Not all countries listed for consideration by the Committee for Development Planning were found eligible for inclusion, either because they did not meet the criteria or because the Committee was initially unable to make a decisionin view of a lack of corroborating data (e.g., Angola, Kiribati, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe and Tuvalu; all of themwere later found eligible when data became available). Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Namibia, Saint Kitts andNevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles and Tonga were not recommended for inclusion by
the Committee for Development Planning.
Ten countries have been included in the category since the systematic reviews began in 1991. As of 2024, the newly
independent South Sudan was the last country to be included in the LDC category (ECOSOC resolution 2012/32 andGeneral Assembly resolution 67/136).
Since the 2021 triennial review, no country that was not already on the list of LDCs met the inclusion criteria. However, in several instances in the past, countries had expressed objections to being included after the Committee forDevelopment Planning and subsequently, the Committee for Development Policy found that they met the criteria.
These include Ghana (in 1994), Papua New Guinea (in 2006 and 2009) and Zimbabwe (in 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015
and 2018). In other instances, CDP did not recommend countries for inclusion as it viewed the countries meetingthe criteria as a transitory phenomenon, rather than the result of structural impediments. These include Cameroon(1997), Congo (in 2000 and 2006) and Ghana (2000).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
12

D.	 Procedures for graduation from the least developed
category
Graduation from the LDC category is a multi-year process involving different stages
and multiple actors, thereby providing the country and its international partners withthe time needed to adapt to its new status as a developing country and minimizing
the risk of premature graduations. Though graduation does not depend on the Government’s consent, the process ensures that the views of the country are taken into
consideration in the decision on the country’s graduation. The graduation procedures
have evolved over time, shaped by General Assembly resolutions, specific requests by
ECOSOC and guidelines and additional recommendations by CDP. Figure 1.7 summarizes the standard graduation process, with further explanations below, as of the 2024
triennial review. In 2024, CDP initiated a review of the LDC graduation framework andprocedures might be refined for future reviews.
Figure I.7

Simplified overview of standard graduation process
Meeting of the graduation
critera for the first time
Year 0Information gatheringYear 0 to 3
Decision on graduation
Year 3
Preparatory period
Years 3 to 6
Effective graduation dateYear 6
Transition period
Years 6+

CDP establishes at triennial review that country has met the graduation criteria
for the first time
UNCTAD and UN DESA prepare country-specific analysis, in consultation with thecountry concerned and with other United Nations system entities
CDP establishes at consecutive triennial review that country has met thegraduation criteria for the second time and recommends country for graduation,
ECOSOC endorses and General Assembly takes note of the recommendation
Country prepares for graduation and smooth transition with international
community support
Country officially graduates from LDC status
Country implements smooth transition strategy; development and trading
partners phase out LDC-specific support measures

Source: Based on General Assembly resolutions 46/206 of 20 December 1991, 59/209 of 20 December 2004 and 67/221 of 21 December
2012, and the guidelines recommended by the CDP in the report on its ninth session in 2007 and endorsed by ECOSOC (resolution 2007/34).
Note: Actual length of the stages of the graduation process can take longer based on country-specific circumstances.

First triennial review (year 0)• During the preparatory meeting (known as the expert group meeting) of the tri-

ennial review (usually held in January), a subgroup of CDP reviews preliminary
data for the LDC criteria and, among other tasks, identifies those that meet theThe least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
13

graduation criteria for the first time. A country that has met the criteria in the past
but not in the previous triennial review is considered to be meeting the criteria for
the first time.

• During the triennial review, at the plenary meeting (usually held in late February or

early March), the full membership of CDP confirms the findings based on the final
data for the LDC criteria. If a country is found to meet the graduation criteria for
the first time, CDP takes the following steps:
a. Notifies the Government of its finding in writing;b. Includes the finding in its report to ECOSOC; andc. Requests the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

to prepare a succinct vulnerability profile and the United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) to prepare a succinct ex ante impact
assessment to be used for the preparation of the graduation assessment, representing a consolidated United Nations voice and appraisal regarding graduationfrom the LDC category.

Information gathering (years 0 to 3)• UNCTAD and UN DESA prepare the requested country analysis, in consultation withthe country concerned and with other United Nations system entities:

a. Vulnerability profiles are prepared by UNCTAD and are intended to (i) pro-vide information on the country’s economic and development situation; (ii)compare the values of the indicators used in the CDP criteria with relevant
national statistics; (iii) contain an assessment of the country’s vulnerability
to the impacts of external economic and natural shocks, beyond the criteria
of EVI; and (iv) indicate other structural features of the country that can be of
relevance for the graduation decision (e.g., instability of remittances, dependency on tourism, high infrastructure costs due to geographical conditions andthe impact of climate change);b. Ex ante impact assessments, prepared by UN DESA, examine the likely

consequences of graduation from the LDC category. The impact assessment
focuses on impacts related to the withdrawal, either upon graduation or after
a transition period, of international support measures provided exclusively
to LDCs in the areas of trade, development cooperation and participation inUnited Nations and other international forums (see chapter II). In preparing
these assessments, DESA obtains inputs from development and trading partners and the United Nations system entities and other international organizations. The assessments incorporate comments received by the country
concerned;c. Graduation assessments aim at representing a consolidated United Nations

voice and appraisal regarding graduation. They contain succinct ex ante
impact assessments and vulnerability profiles prepared by UN DESA andHandbook on the Least Developed Country Category
14

UNCTAD; an overall description of the country’s development prepared with
the involvement of the United Nations country team; and forward-looking
elements that could be considered for a smooth transition strategy. Independent from the succinct reports prepared as inputs towards the graduationassessments, both organizations could also prepare a more detailed reportcontaining the findings of their research for the impact assessments andvulnerability profiles. These detailed findings could be posted on the CDP
website and serve as a background document for CDP, officials at the country
level and other stakeholders.

• The General Assembly and CDP have suggested that countries initiate preparations

for a possible graduation early, particularly if graduation might have significant
impacts. The Committee also encourages countries that have met the graduation
criteria for the first time and their international partners to build knowledge andawareness of the graduation process and its impacts.

• The Committee secretariat and other relevant United Nations system entities arecalled upon to monitor the evolution of the country’s performance in relation to
the graduation criteria and the supplementary graduation indicators (see box I.2).
The secretariat also shares preliminary data with the country in advance of thesecond triennial review, so as to resolve any data discrepancies. The Governmentis invited to present its views at the preparatory meeting for the second triennial
review.

• The information gathering phase normally takes three years. However, in case
CDP defers a decision on recommending the country for graduation, the phase isextended for an additional three years.

Box I.2

Supplementary graduation indicators
In 2020, the Committee for Development Policy decided to introduce a set of supplementary graduation indicators as
an additional element of the graduation framework. The supplementary indicators complement both the official LDC
criteria and the country-specific information of the graduation assessment and vulnerability profile. They containmethodologically sound indicators covering most LDCs and other developing countries. The supplementary indicators are relevant for graduation but are not a requirement for graduation. Accordingly, there are no thresholds for theindividual indicators and they are not aggregated into a single index or multiple indices.
The supplementary indicators serve several purposes:• Cover vulnerabilities and relevant factors not adequately captured in LDC criteria• Function as a screening device for identifying discrepancies between performance against the criteria andbroader vulnerabilities and factors• Serve as an entry point for identifying priorities and support needs for smooth transition• Improve alignment with efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals• Enhance monitoring of graduated and graduating countries
After applying the supplementary indicators at the 2021 triennial review, CDP decided to keep those indicators underreview and, therefore, include adjustments for the 2024 triennial review. The current set and various visualizations
are available on the CDP website at bit.ly/LDC-data.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
15

Decision on graduation (year 3)• At the preparatory meeting for the triennial review (usually held in January), a

subgroup of CDP reviews the preliminary data against the LDC criteria. If thesubgroup confirms that the country meets the criteria for a second consecutive
time, it considers the required additional information, that is to say, since 2021,
the graduation assessment (including vulnerability profile and impact assessment)
and the supplementary graduation indicators. The subgroup may also obtain information from relevant United Nations system entities, including the resident coordinator, who participate as observers in the preparatory meeting. Furthermore, it
may also consider additional analysis. For example, in 2020, ECOSOC requested
CDP to undertake a comprehensive study on the impact of the coronavirus disease(COVID-19) on the LDC category. The study assisted CDP in fully incorporating into
the 2021 triennial review the impacts of COVID-19 on LDCs, including graduating
countries. Figure I.8 illustrates the role of LDC criteria and additional informationin the decision-making process.

• Importantly, CDP consults with the country concerned. For that purpose, it invites

the Government of the country to share its views on a possible graduation at the
preparatory meeting.

• After the preparatory meeting, the Government is invited to submit its views andany additional information it wishes to bring to the attention of CDP in writing, forconsideration at the Committee’s plenary meeting.

Figure I.8

Role of least developed country criteria and additional information in the 2024 triennial review
LDC criteria
applied to identify
LDCs eligible forgraduation
LDC
criteria
database

Country identified
for graduation
based on LDC
criteria

Country
discussed by
CDP at triennial
reviewInformation to
identify areas forresearch and support
needed during and after
graduation

CDP
recommendation
on graduation
based on LDC
criteria andadditional
information
Information not
captured by LDC
criteria to be included indeliberation on graduation
recommendation

Additional information
Country specific information(graduation assessment,
country presentation
at expert group meetingand statement at plenary)
Source: CDP secretariat.

+

Supplementary
graduation
indicators

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
16• At the plenary meeting, the subgroup reports on its preliminary findings to thefull CDP membership. Based on the analysis conducted by the subgroup and thewritten submission of the country, if the country has met the eligibility criteria
for a second time, CDP may decide to recommend graduation. If it has serious
concerns—for example, regarding the sustainability of the country’s development
progress—it may decide not to recommend graduation. In such cases, it typicallydefers its decision to the subsequent triennial review. It may also request updates
with respect to the additional information material so that it may assess the validityof its concerns at the subsequent triennial review. If the country has not met thecriteria, no further action is taken other than reporting on this finding to ECOSOC.

• The Committee includes these decisions in its report to ECOSOC. If it recommends

the country for graduation, it also includes a statement as to whether the standard
three-year preparatory period is appropriate or whether specific factors would
entail a longer period, not exceeding five years. Moreover, it includes suggestions
for policy priorities and the type of international support needed to ensure asmooth transition out of the category. For this purpose, it draws on the additional
information and the consultations with the country.

• ECOSOC endorses the recommendation through its annual resolution on the Com-mittee’s report. The resolution is typically adopted in June or July, before the endof the ECOSOC cycle. In cases in which ECOSOC had been unable to find consensus
on the recommendations, it has deferred the consideration to a later session, without further reference to CDP.

• The General Assembly takes note of the recommendation by CDP to graduate acountry in a resolution adopted at its first session following the endorsement by
ECOSOC of the Committee’s recommendation. Hence, action by the Assembly cantake place as early as mid-September of the year in which the second triennial
review is conducted and as late as mid-September of the following year. The
Assembly includes in its resolution the effective date of graduation.

• The decision phase usually takes less than a year. Nevertheless, should ECOSOC
defer the consideration of the recommendation, the phase can be extended.

Preparing for graduation (years 3 to 6)• The graduating country is invited to prepare and start implementing a smoothtransition strategy (see section E), as part of its overall development strategy.

• The graduating country is recommended to establish a consultative mechanism,in cooperation with its development and trading partners. The consultative mechanism should facilitate the preparation of the smooth transition strategy as wellas the identification of associated actions and the negotiation of their durationand phasing out over an appropriate period. It is recommended that the consultative mechanism be integrated with other relevant consultative processes andinitiatives. The country might request that the resident coordinator facilitates theconsultative process.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
17• The United Nations system, led by the resident coordinator at the country level

and the inter-agency task force at the international level, stands ready to provide
assistance in the preparation of the smooth transition strategy.

• Development and trading partners participate in the consultative mechanism andsupport the smooth transition strategy. The General Assembly invites them to extend
LDC-specific international support measures beyond the actual graduation date
for a limited time, to phase out these measures in a gradual manner and to provide
specific support for graduation (see section E and chapter II) with specific measures.

• The Committee monitors the country’s development progress and the preparationof the smooth transition strategy, in consultation with the Member State and basedon reports received from the country. It includes its findings in its annual reports
to ECOSOC (see section F for details).

• The standard length of the preparatory period is three years. The General Assembly

may, however, grant a longer period. The preparatory period can also be extended
by the Assembly during the course of the preparatory period, for example, in cases
where the country is hit by a disaster or a severe external shock. For example, in
2023 the preparatory period for Solomon Islands was extended by three years, until
13 December 2027, following a recommendation by CDP and ECOSOC.

Effective graduation (year 6)• The country begins its journey as a non-LDC from the date of its effective graduation, but there is no obligation for any action by the country itself.

• The country is no longer on the official list of least developed countries maintained
by UN DESA.

Transition (year 6+)• The country implements its smooth transition strategy.
• Development and trading partners extend or phase out their LDC-specific international

support measures and provide specific support for graduation, in line with establishedprocedures and the smooth transition strategy and in a predictable manner.

• The Committee continues to monitor the country’s development progress andthe implementation of the transition strategy, in consultation with and based onreports received from the country. The monitoring is done on an annual basis
for three years after graduation and then triennially thereafter, for two triennial
reviews. The monitoring by CDP after graduation lasts for between seven and nine
years, depending on the date of graduation.

• Certain LDC-specific support measures have a fixed transition period, within which

graduated LDCs may continue to use such measures. In other cases, the length ofan extension or provision of specific graduation support, if any, is determined by
the provider of support on an ad hoc basis.

Figure I.9 (see next page) contains an overview of actual graduation timelines. For
more details, please see the country-specific information on the CDP website.

Figure I.9

Timeline of Committee for Development Policy recommendations and resolutions of the Economic and Social
Country

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Botswana*

Cabo Verde

Vanuatu

Maldives

Samoa
TuvaluEquatorial
GuineaAngolaKiribati
Bhutan
Sao Tome
and Principe
SolomonIslands
Nepal
Timor-Leste
Bangladesh
Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic
MyanmarCambodia
Djibouti
SenegalComoros
ZambiaRwandaUgandaUnited Republicof Tanzania
Source: CDP secretariat.
* Botswana’s graduation process took place over a shorter time-frame as graduation procedures have changed over time.
Legends:
Under CDP consideration;
Under ECOSOC consideration;
Officially graduating (General Assembly resolution issued)

Council and General Assembly on graduating and graduated least developed countries as of April 2024
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Country
Botswana*

Cabo Verde

Vanuatu

Maldives

Samoa
TuvaluEquatorial
GuineaAngolaKiribati
Bhutan
Sao Tome
and Principe
SolomonIslands
Nepal
Timor-Leste
Bangladesh
Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic
MyanmarCambodia
Djibouti
SenegalComoros
ZambiaRwandaUgandaUnited Republicof Tanzania
criteria met for the first timedeferred decision/consideration
extension of transition period (GA)criteria met for the second time
criteria met for third time
graduation recommended (by CDP); recommendation endorsed (by ECOSOC); recommendation noted (by GA)
graduation effective
graduation criteria no longer met

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category20

It is important to note that graduation from the LDC category is not equivalent tobecoming a middle-income country nor to graduation from the concessional windowsof multilateral development banks or from eligibility for official development assistance(ODA) (see box I.3). In fact, as of April 2024, 20 of the 45 LDCs are classified by the WorldBank as lower-middle-income countries and one as an upper-middle-income country.
Box I.3

Graduation from the least developed country category vs. graduation from othercategories of countries receiving international support measures
Graduation from the least developed country (LDC) category should not be confused with graduation from accessto financing from multilateral development banks (such as graduation from the World Bank Group’s International
Development Association (IDA)) or from eligibility for official development assistance (ODA). Most institutions include specific thresholds for gross national income (GNI) per capita as the main criterion for graduation. Table I.2
presents the GNI per capita thresholds of various support instruments, as well as the thresholds of the widely used
analytical income categories. In addition to the thresholds, the figure contains basic information on other criteria
and key exceptions. However, for a full picture of the eligibility criteria, the reader should refer to the information
available through the sources provided. It should be highlighted that changes in classification typically occur after
the respective thresholds have been exceeded for a certain number of years and often become effective after some
preparatory or transition period. The widely used analytical thresholds of the World Bank occasionally serve theoperational purposes of other providers. For example, both Canada and the European Union graduate countries fromthe list of beneficiaries of their Generalized System of Preferences scheme once they reach the upper-middle-income
threshold according to the World Bank for a number of years.
Hence, depending on the country characteristics and additional criteria, countries may undergo several transitions,
simultaneously or consecutively.

E.	 Preparing for graduation and the concept of “smoothtransition”
The importance, in terms of the country’s development, of avoiding negative consequences due to graduation from the LDC category, for example from the loss ofinternational support measures (see chapter II) was recognized early in the history of
the LDC category and is reflected in the concept of “smooth transition” that is central
to numerous General Assembly resolutions on LDC graduation. The Committee foundin 2023 that the General Assembly resolutions require updating, a finding ECOSOC
has welcomed. A new General Assembly resolution on smooth transition may provide
further guidance on incentives and support measures for graduation.
The General Assembly has called for countries to integrate their preparations for sustainable graduation and its smooth transition beyond graduation into their long-term
national sustainable development plans and development financing strategies, as
appropriate. It has called upon development and trading partners to extend LDC-specific support measures for an appropriate period, or phase them out gradually, as wellas to provide targeted support throughout the entire graduation and smooth transition
process in order to avoid any disruptions to the development progress of graduating
and graduated countries. The General Assembly has also assigned specific responsibilities to the United Nations development system in order to support graduation.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
21

Table I.2

Income graduation thresholds in various country categories
GNI per
capitathresholdCategory

Institution

Other criteria

Comment$1,135

Low-income to lower
middle-income

World Bank

$1,306LDC

United Nations

HAI, EVI

Additional informationand country consultations
considered$1,315

IDA eligibility

World Bank

Creditworthiness;
assessment ofmacroeconomic prospects,
debt, vulnerabilities,
institutions, poverty, social
indicators

The income threshold does
not apply to small States.
IDA countries above theincome threshold receiveloans at less concessionary
terms$1,315

Poverty Reduction and
Growth Trust (PRGT)
eligibility - inclusion

IMF

Trend in income, financial
market access, short-term
vulnerability$1,810Gavi Alliance (GAVI)
eligibility

GAVI$2,945

PRGT eligibility graduation

IMF$3,918LDC

United Nations

Income-only exception,
sustainability of income
required, additional
information and country
consultations considered$4,465Lower-middle-income toupper-middle-income

World Bank

Analytical categories$4,465Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis andMalaria eligibility

Global Fund

Disease burden for HIV/
AIDS, tuberculosis andmalaria

Small island developing
States have an exception$7,805International Bank for
Reconstruction andDevelopment (IBRD)
eligibility

World Bank

Access to credit markets,
institutional development

IBRD countries above thethreshold pay higher interest
rates on IBRD loans, though
exceptions apply$13,150

Resilience andSustainability Trust (RST)
eligibility

IMF

Higher income threshold forsmall States ($32,875)$13,845

ODA eligibility

Development
AssistanceCommittee

Countries must haveexceeded the threshold forthree consecutive years$13,845

Upper-middle-income tohigh income

World Bank

Analytical categories

Analytical categories

Trend in income, short-term
vulnerability

Higher income thresholds
for small States ($3,945) andmicro-States ($7,890)

Source: CDP secretariat, based on Report of the Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development: Financing for Sustainable
Development Report 2020, United Nations, New York; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development
Co-operation Directorate, “Transition finance toolkit”; and various websites. Thresholds refer to data for the year 2022, except for the
LDC threshold, which refers to the 2020–2022 average.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
22

In order to improve coordinated United Nations system-wide support to countries
preparing for LDC graduation, in 2017 the United Nations system created an interagency task force (IATF) on graduation and smooth transition, which is chaired by the
Director of the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS).
The task force is working closely with the United Nations resident coordinators’ offices
and country teams, thereby ensuring linkages with and support to the Sustainable
Development Cooperation Framework at the country level as well as with international
financial institutions operating in-country. Its support is tailored to the unique needs ofeach LDC and includes the full mobilization and coordination of all parts of the United
Nations system as well as mobilizing international support and resources, including
partners from the global South to deliver technical assistance and/or facilitate peer
learning among graduating countries. For specific examples, see box I.4.
Box I.4

Country-specific support provided by the inter-agency task force on graduation and smoothtransition
Sao Tome and Principe (2019–2021): provided collaborative support and contributed to the preparatory process fora smooth transition and graduation in 2024.
Solomon Islands (2019–2021): provided integrated support, including a joint country mission, and contributed elements for a smooth transition road map for the country, which is scheduled to graduate in 2027.
Angola, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Senegal and Zambia (2021): a key objective of the task force is to generate
political awareness and support as well as enhanced understanding of the graduation process in a country, including
among the private sector and civil society. Awareness-raising efforts have been initiated for those countries in close
collaboration with and with support from the resident coordinator and country team.
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Solomon Islands (2022–2023): offered a package of IATF-coordinated graduation support to therespective countries that is country demand-driven and country-specific.

This section links activities to be undertaken by countries preparing for graduation
to the process described in section D (see figure I.10), and draws on the smoothtransition strategy guidance note developed by UN DESA as the secretariat of theCommittee for Development Policy. The guidance note is a direct response to several
countries’ request for a template to follow in preparing a national smooth transition
strategy. It is intended only as a guide and not as a blueprint. It guides the country
to note the stages in the graduation process and timeline and where the country is
encouraged to start the process of preparing a national smooth transition strategy(STS). Two main principles guide the STS process:1. Country-led, country-owned and existing country systems are used to theextent possible.

2. International community support is country-demand driven, timely and ofhigh quality.

In addition, nine principles espoused in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development(see General Assembly resolution 70/1, para. 74) and agreed to by Member States should

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation23

also guide the STS process, given that the strategy could also serve as a springboard foradvancing a country’s development progress beyond graduation and towards sustainable development.
The STS process involves nine key steps:
Step 1: country meets the graduation criteria for the first time. After CDP finds thatthe country has met the graduation criteria for the first time and the country has been
notified by UN DESA, the country, through its Government, may start to consider its
ownership and leadership role over the entire process in terms of what it will require toensure its readiness to prepare and manage graduation out of the LDC category and theapproach and specific measures required to ensure a smooth transition. That consideration is crucial and will include how the Government and national stakeholders are to
substantively engage and contribute to the preparation of the analytical information
described in section D. The country may wish to organize awareness-raising sessions at
the local, subnational and national levels in order to have as wide as possible an understanding of what it means to sustainably graduate out of the LDC category.
Step 2: Government initiates a country-led preparatory process for graduationfrom the least developed country category. A Government-led dialogue based onwhole-of-government policy leadership with key players from the private sector andnon-governmental organizations can consider how best to integrate LDC graduation
Figure I.10

Graduation process and timeline, and process for preparing a smooth transition strategy
Meeting thegraduation
criteria for
the first time

Information
gatheringYear 0Decision on
graduation

Year 0 to 3

1

Country meets
graduation criteria
for the first time

Year 3

5

Validate
draft STS

Use existing
consultative
mechanism3

Preparecountry-led
STS

4Transition
periodYear 6

Year 3 to 6

2
Government
initiates
country-led
preparatory
process forgraduation

Effective
graduation
date

Preparatory
periodYear 6+

6

9

Monitors andreport on STS
implementation

Government
endorses STS
LaunchSTS

7

Implement
STS

8

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
24

into the country’s existing national plans, policies and medium-term budgetary
frameworks and associated processes. It is essential to have strategic engagementwith the international community, at the outset, and for the Government to clearly
outline the support it will need throughout the graduation process.
Step 3: use existing consultative mechanisms to facilitate the preparation of the strategy.
As much as possible, the country should consider utilizing existing national consultative
mechanisms that have whole-of-government leadership structures and are inclusive.
Only where no appropriate mechanism exists is the country encouraged to establish a
new and dedicated consultative mechanism for LDC graduation and smooth transition.
An existing or new mechanism needs to be integrated with other relevant consultative
processes and initiatives between the country and its development and trading partners. The consultative mechanism could have two key components: (a) national andlocal stakeholders — government, think tanks, the private sector, civil society and otheractors; and (b) international partners — bilateral, multilateral and regional partners,
the private sector, philanthropies and international non-governmental organizations.
Having a component of the mechanism dedicated to national and local consultations
allows the voices and interests of different segments and groupings within the country
to be heard and considered in preparing the strategy and in implementing the process.
Including bilateral and multilateral development and trading partners as members of
the consultative mechanism enables the country to identify and negotiate graduation
support prior to preparing a smooth transition strategy. The negotiations required
could be conducted at the bilateral level if that is more conducive to the desired outcome than in the larger international consultative mechanism.
A country can call upon the United Nations system for its support through its country
presence, namely the resident coordinator and the country team. Further support from theinter-agency task force on graduation and smooth transition is available, upon request.
Step 4: prepare a country-led smooth transition strategy. The General Assembly recommended that the national smooth transition strategy include a comprehensive andcoherent set of specific and predictable measures that are in accordance with the priorities of the graduating country, while taking into account its own specific structural
challenges and vulnerabilities as well as its strengths (see Assembly resolution 67/221,
para. 7), and should be implemented as part of the overall development strategy.
In order to ensure that a country-owned smooth transition strategy is of high quality,
it is important that a country considers the strategic objective of the strategy, theapproach to developing and implementing the strategy, the key elements or featuresof the strategy and that it ensures an inclusive and participatory engagement process.
Sufficient time should be spent on a thorough analysis of the impacts of graduationand on the identification of the mitigating measures that will be needed to transitionsmoothly beyond graduation. Those measures become the smooth transition measures once they are negotiated with and agreed by development and trading partners.
The draft strategy should be shared with all stakeholders invited to the validation
workshop, well in advance of the workshop. Sharing the draft strategy a month
before, at a minimum, allows for in-depth comments and feedback to be provided,

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
25

which may add value to the draft strategy, although this may vary from country tocountry. Based on the comments received, a revised draft strategy is prepared forvalidation by the Government and a wide and inclusive spectrum of stakeholders.
Step 5: validate the draft strategy. A whole-of-government, country-led validation
workshop should be organized and facilitated through the consultative mechanism.
The scope and number of days needed for the workshop would depend on whether
the country’s strategy is being prepared as part of the formulation of a medium tolong-term national development plan or as a separate document. It will also dependon the objectives of the workshop, as determined by the country.
Step 6: Government endorses the smooth transition strategy. The validated strategy
should be endorsed by the Government so as to give it legitimacy as a prerequisite for
its implementation and to garner support from the international community. Responsibility for the implementation of the actions or specific measures recommended in
the strategy is to be clearly assigned within the Government, with indicative timeframes. Ideally, the strategy should be endorsed well in advance of the date on which
graduation becomes effective. Implementation of the strategy should begin as soon
as possible after its endorsement. Prompt implementation is particularly important
if the Government needs to initiate negotiations with bilateral partners. Such aspects
need to be considered by a graduating country when preparing its overall road map
and timeline for a smooth transition, including the commencement date for the
implementation of the strategy.
Step 7: launch the smooth transition strategy. The launch can be a stand-alone eventor as part of a bigger event of which the strategy is a key component. It should beseen as the opportunity to promote the key messages underpinning the importanceof a smooth transition beyond graduation that requires commitment by all.
Step 8: implement the smooth transition strategy. Countries are encouraged, as
invited by the General Assembly, to implement the smooth transition strategy as partof their overall development strategy and to incorporate it into future policies andstrategies and the action matrix of the Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies under
the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least
Developed Countries (EIF) (see Assembly resolution 67/221, para. 11).
Furthermore, the recent reform of the United Nations development system provides
an opportunity for seeking synergies with the common country assessment and thecountry’s United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework. Likewise, linkages can be identified with a country’s voluntary national review, Diagnostic Trade Integration Study, World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Policy Review,its poverty reduction and growth strategy and its national development strategy.
Elements of a smooth transition strategy can be incorporated into such documents,
depending on the stage of development or implementation of each document.
The resources required for the implementation of the strategy could also be reflected
in a country’s medium-term budget or fiscal framework, integrated national financing
framework, development financing strategy and/or its external resource mobilization

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
26

strategy, as well as being reflected by development and trading partners in their own
multi-year funding mechanisms.
Step 9: monitor and report on the implementation of the strategy. If the country’ssmooth transition strategy is well integrated into its national sustainable development plan and budget and processes, then monitoring of the implementation of thestrategy should also be embedded in the country’s monitoring and evaluation framework. Annual monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the strategy should
form part of existing national and sectoral monitoring and reporting, as well as thecountry’s integral reporting requirements to CDP (see section F).
It is also useful for a country to develop a brief advocacy and communication strategy
as a tool for higher levels of government to use in raising awareness, garnering support
across the country and strengthening key partnerships for the implementation of thecountry’s smooth transition strategy beyond graduation.
There is no specified length for the duration of the transition. The strategy should beformulated and implemented based on a time frame that responds to the country’s
specific needs and characteristics.
Importantly, there is no specified format for the smooth transition strategy. Among
graduated and graduating countries, approaches to preparing a smooth transition
strategy vary from country to country, see figure I.11.
Figure I.11

Select country approaches to a smooth transition strategy
Vanuatu established a National Coordinating Committee on LDC Graduation that is inclusive of the private sector and civilsociety and linked to the existing government decision-making mechanism. The Committee identified what was required
to address the negative impacts of the loss of LDC-specific support measures; what responses were already addressed in
the country’s long-term national strategic plan (2016–2025) and sector policies; and 24 specific measures to be reflectedin the country’s smooth transition strategy (STS) as a separate document. Vanuatu also made an early start with implementation of its STS, months before its effective graduation out of LDC category. It also conducted a mid-term review of
its STS (2023) and has implemented 75 per cent of the 24 smooth transition measures. Further, Vanuatu mainstreamed
remaining measures in departmental national corporate planning and annual business planning and budgeting process.
Bhutan approved the 13th Five Year Plan (2024-2029) as STS, following the recommendation by the national task force
on graduation that the STS be integrated into the national development plan to ensure that required interventions weremainstreamed and integrated into the overall development plan rather than maintained as a separate standalone strategy document. Bhutan integrated the SDGs as well as the six priorities of the Doha Programme of Action in its 13th
Five Year Plan to ensure the country’s graduation is sustainable and irreversible. The plan places strategic importanceto economic growth and is geared towards addressing challenges related to economic diversification, productivity
enhancement through adoption of technology and innovation and quality health and education outcomes. Implementation of the plan is through a “whole of government” approach that is anticipatory, citizen-centered and lean governancesystems to deliver transformative development outcomes. Bhutan emphasized that country-specific graduation support
from the international community is needed for implementation of its plan. Private sector development and investment
promotion for building resilience is a key area of support needed.
Samoa decided that the best transition strategy following graduation would be to ensure that it was able to fully implement its national development strategy. It integrated the issue of graduation into the Strategy for the Development of
Samoa (SDS 2016–2020) as well as into its efforts in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals, the Samoa Pathway, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.

The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
27

Cabo Verde set up a donor support group (Grupo de apoio à transição) to prepare a transition strategy to adjust to thephasing out of the support measures associated with LDC membership, as well as a Budget Support Group composedof Government entities and multilateral and bilateral donors to align and harmonize donor support around the Growthand Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Solomon Islands initiated early preparation for possible graduation within the first three years of meeting the graduation criteria for the first time (2015). The country sought the support of the United Nations and international community
to gather and analyse information on the implications of its graduation due to loss of international support measures.
Upon meeting the graduation criteria for the second time and being recommended for graduation, the Solomon Islands
prepared a roadmap for its STS and commenced negotiations of various economic partnership and trade agreements tomitigate trade related negative impacts of graduation. COVID-19 and its related border closures and movement restrictions prevented the country from undertaking critical country consultations, and hence stalled the country’s preparation
for two years. Solomon Islands has resumed preparations and has taken a two-pronged approach, capturing some ofthe pre-existing longer-term development issues in its national plan and developing an STS as a standalone document
but linked to its national development strategy and budgeting process. The country also integrated the developmentpeacebuilding- humanitarian nexus in its approach.
Sao Tome and Principe undertook an analysis to determine if an STS was needed, given that the negative impacts ofgraduation due to a loss of international support measures were negligible, what approach to employ, and the necessary conditions to guarantee a smooth transition. Sao Tome and Principe decided to integrate measures addressing
critical cross-cutting issues to improve the country’s overall institutional capacity in its development plans in the hopeof increasing its economic competitiveness and productivity.
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic set graduation as a national priority since 2000 and in successive quinquennial
national socio-economic development plans (NSEDPs). The country launched and discussed the approach and processof preparing its STS at the 13th High-Level roundtable meeting (2021). Lao People’s Democratic Republic adopted
an approach and process that provided an inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder platform to hold several rounds oftechnical, policy and high-level dialogues to discuss priority reforms, strengthen partnerships and cooperation required
for effective and sustainable graduation. The Lao PDR STS has a threefold objective to prepare for a smooth, quality
and sustainable graduation and includes a monitoring and evaluation component that will enable it to report to the CDP
as required. The country’s STS was developed, validated and endorsed by the Government as a policy framework andaccompanies the country’s 9th NSEDP with the objective to prepare for effective graduation in 2027 and, beyond graduation, move the country towards high-quality, green, sustainable and focused development progress.
Bangladesh positioned sustainable graduation as a springboard critical for achieving national and global development
agendas by 2023, upper middle-income country status by 2031, and a high-income knowledge-based smart developed
economy by 2041. The country adopted a “whole of society” holistic and systematic approach with highest level leadership through a 22-member National Committee on LDC Graduation under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary to
the Honorable Prime Minister. The Committee and its seven sub-committees have assessed the negative impacts andpositive opportunities related to graduation, undertaken several country-specific studies on specific issues, identified
several actions to adapt to a post-graduation era and aim to prioritise specific smooth transition measures in a timebound action plan as a key part of the country’s STS. Bangladesh is also using existing national expertise, consultative
mechanisms, institutional arrangements, and expertise to draft, consult and implement their STS.
Nepal formed a high-level Steering Committee under the chairmanship of the Honorable Vice-Chair of the National
Planning Commission (NPC) at the federal level to oversee and guide the preparation of an STS to ensure smoothtransition beyond effective graduation. The country consulted experts and policymakers within NPC and stakeholders
across a wider segment of the country – provincial government representatives, development partners, private sector
and civil society – as well as peer learning and exchanges with other graduating countries. Nepal focused on six major
areas (macroeconomic stability and financial sustainability; trade and investment; economic transformation; building
productive capacity; climate change and disaster risk management; and, social inclusion and integration). The STS
seeks to bring together the entire federal, provincial and local governments of Nepal, multi-lateral and bilateral development partners, private sector, civil society, cooperatives and South-South partners in tackling the most pressing
challenges the country will face due to LDC graduation. The STS is expected to be adopted in 2024. The 16th National
Development Plan – to be developed with a long-term vision of good governance, social justice and prosperity – willcomplement the STS.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category28

Box I.5 lists some additional resources on graduation and smooth transition.
Box I.5

Resources on graduation and a smooth transition out of the least developed country
category• UN DESA, LDCs at a glance: graduated country fact sheets.
• United Nations LDC Portal (International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries). The portal ismaintained by UN DESA and includes dedicated pages on support for LDC graduation.

• UNCTAD (2022), Strategy for Graduation with Momentum: Bridging Pre-graduation and Post-graduation
Development Processes in the Least Developed Countries, UNCTAD Policy Brief No. 99, Geneva.

• UN DESA (2021), Smooth Transition Strategy guidance note.
• Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries andSmall Island Developing States (2017), A guide to least developed country graduation.

• UNCTAD (2022), The Least Developed Countries Report 2016 – The path to graduation and beyond: making themost of the process, Geneva.

• Committee for Development Policy (2012), Strengthening smooth transition from the least developed country
category, CDP Background Paper No. 14, ST/ESA/2012/CDP/14 (February).

• General Assembly resolutions 59/209 of 20 December 2004 and 67/221 of 21 December 2012, both entitled
Smooth transition for countries graduating from the list of least developed countries.

F.	 Monitoring and reporting during the transition
At the request of ECOSOC and the General Assembly, CDP monitors:
a. the development progress of countries that are in the process of graduatingfrom the LDC category, on an annual basis;9b. the development progress of graduated countries, in consultation with therespective Governments, on an annual basis for three years after graduation andtriennially thereafter, coinciding with the two subsequent triennial reviews.10

In the monitoring exercise, CDP considers information it receives from the countries,
which have been invited by the General Assembly to report to the Committee on the
preparation and implementation of their transition strategy.11 The monitoring allows
CDP to bring any signs of deterioration in the development progress of the concernedcountry to the attention of ECOSOC.12
Table I.3 summarizes the current reporting and monitoring schedule for graduating
and newly graduated countries.
Report of the Committee for Development Policy on its fifteenth session (18–22 March 2013) (Official Records of the Economic andSocial Council, 2013, Supplement No. 13 (E/2013/33)), and Economic and Social Council resolutions 2008/12 and 2013/20.
10 General Assembly resolutions 59/209 and 67/221.
11 General Assembly resolution 67/221.
12 Report of the Committee for Development Policy on its tenth session (17–20 March 2008) (Official Records of the Economic andSocial Council, 2008, Supplement No. 13 (E/2008/33(SUPP)), chapter IV).
9The least developed country category: criteria and procedures for inclusion and graduation
29

Table I.3

Reporting and monitoring on transition out of the least developed country category
After graduation
Before graduation

First three years

Following four to six years

Graduating/graduatedcountry

Invited to report annually
to CDP on the preparationof the transition strategy

Invited to report annually to CDP on
the implementation of the transition
strategy

Invited to report to CDP every three
years (before the triennial review)

CDP

Monitors development
progress and reports to
ECOSOC

Monitors development progress inconsultation with the graduated country
and reports annually to ECOSOC

Monitors development progressin consultation with the graduatedcountry as part of the triennial reviews

Source: General Assembly resolutions 59/209 and 67/221; Economic and Social Council resolutions 2008/12 and 2013/20; andreport of the Committee for Development Policy on its fifteenth session (18–22 March 2013) (Official Records of the Economic andSocial Council, 2013, Supplement No. 13 (E/2013/33)).

The guidelines on reporting requirements for a smooth transition from the least
developed country category, developed by the Committee in 2013 and which built on
the relevant General Assembly resolutions and earlier guidelines and were endorsed
by ECOSOC,13 made the following recommendations regarding reporting:
Reporting by graduating countries on the preparation of the transition strategy:• Countries are invited submit their reports to CDP by end of November for the first
three years after the General Assembly has taken note of the CDP recommendation
for the country to graduate.

• Reports should include a summary of progress achieved in the setting up of a con-sultative mechanism (including information on participants, meetings convened
and their objectives and outcomes, support by United Nations institutions in convening the meetings); identification of the LDC-specific support measures most
relevant to the country and corresponding details about the level of commitments
made by development and trading partners in maintaining or phasing out thosemeasures; information on the preparation of the transition strategy (key issues tobe addressed, measures taken or to be taken by the country, decisions made andpending actions); and the latest version of the smooth transition strategy.

Reporting by graduated countries:• The report should include an overview of progress made in implementing thesmooth transition strategy and information on whether the measures by the Government of the graduated country and the commitments by its development andtrading partners identified in the transition strategy are being fulfilled.

• In cases where support is being reduced or withdrawn, the report should indicate
how this is affecting the country. This would assist CDP in its assessment and enable it to bring any negative effects to the attention of ECOSOC as early as possible.

13 See E/2013/33, chapter V; and Economic and Social Council resolution 2013/20.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
30

Reports by the Committee:• Reports by CDP on graduating and graduated countries contain a review of a

selected set of indicators and other relevant country-specific information withthe purpose of assessing any signs of deterioration in the development progressof the country; and a review of the information provided by the country on the
preparation or implementation of the transition strategy.

• In the case of graduated countries, before finalizing its report to ECOSOC, the Com-mittee, through its secretariat, consults with the New York-based representativeof the graduated country to the United Nations about the conclusions of its draft
report, so that the Government’s views can also be considered by the Committee in
its final report to ECOSOC.

Monitoring reports on graduating and graduated countries can be found on the CDP
website at https://bit.ly/LDC-monitoring.
In 2021, the Committee reviewed its experiences with the monitoring and found themonitoring system to be ineffective.14 It had received only seven reports from monitored countries, out of 33 invitations sent in line with the relevant resolutions andguidelines. CDP identified three main factors that limit the incentives for countries toparticipate in the monitoring:• The current monitoring mechanism is conducted only once a year, just prior to theplenary meeting of the Committee.

• In case of an urgent situation, no immediate response can be organized.
• Support and mitigating measures, including General Assembly resolutions on extending the preparatory period, are not linked with the outcomes of the monitoring.

In response to those shortcomings, CDP has started to develop and implement anenhanced monitoring mechanism that is responsive to emerging crises and that better
links monitoring to specific support, including possible extensions of the preparatory
period. The enhanced mechanism expands the coverage of annual monitoring reports
and introduced regular consultations between CDP and countries. It also includes a
new process to quickly react to interruptions to the graduation process arising within
the annual monitoring cycle, and strengthens the link between monitoring and support, including by mobilizing the existing crisis management expertise of the United
Nations system and other international entities, utilizing the convening power of
UN-OHRLLS. ECOSOC and General Assembly have called upon Member States andrelevant United Nations system entities to support these efforts. The Committee isreviewing the implementation of the enhanced monitoring mechanism and may makeproposals for its further improvement.

14 See E/2021/33, chapter VI.

CHAPTERIIInternational support
measures for the
least developed countries

Countries belonging to the least developed country (LDC) category have access to
support measures beyond those available for other developing countries. These
measures can be grouped into three main areas: international trade; development
cooperation; and support for participation in international forums. The sections
below present an overview of the main support measures in each of these areas. Moredetailed information on international support measures for LDCs can be found on the
LDC Portal.

A.	 Trade-related support measures1
Trade-related international support measures aim at supporting the integration of
LDCs into the global economy. They are framed by commitments set out in World
Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, ministerial declarations and decisions, as well
as by internationally agreed commitments as part of global development agendas,
such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the successive programmesof action for LDCs (see chapter I, figure I.4). The main categories of trade-related
support measures for LDCs are:
1. Preferential market access for goods;
2. Preferential treatment for services and service suppliers;
3. Special treatment and flexibilities to implement WTO rules;
4. Special treatment and flexibilities regarding obligations under regional agree-ments;

5. Special priority in trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building.

1

The authors are grateful for the inputs received from the World Trade Organization (WTO) secretariat, provided without prejudice tothe position of WTO members, and to UN ESCAP.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category32

1. Preferential market access for goods2
Most major trading partners provide duty-free, quota-free (DFQF) market access or
preferential tariffs, as well as preferential rules of origin, for products imported from
LDCs. Specific provisions have been put into place to enable trade preferences todeveloping countries, with special treatment for LDCs, under WTO rules.3 Box II.1
contains information on the main milestones in the development of LDC-specificBox II.1

Milestones in preferential market access for goods exports from least developed countries
The Enabling Clause, 1979. The granting of non-reciprocal preferential market access to developing countries was initially made possible with the adoption, in 1971, of a temporary waiver from the obligation contained in article 1 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to grant most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment to all contracting
parties. In 1979, the decision on “Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of
Developing Countries” (known as the “Enabling Clause”) allowed derogations to MFN treatment on a permanent basis. It
enabled developed country members of GATT to give differential and more favourable treatment to the exports of developing countries and to grant special treatment to LDCs in the context of any measure in favour of developing countries.
The Enabling Clause forms the legal basis for the Generalized System of Preferences that covers the trade preferences
schemes of most developed countries for developing countries, and within which many countries also have sub-schemeswith further preferences for LDCs.
Decision on Waiver, 1999. Developing country members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were allowed to extend
preferential market access to LDCs through the adoption of a special waiver in 1999. The waiver was initially granted for
10 years and has since been extended on several occasions, most recently to 2029.
Decisions on duty-free and quota-free market access since 2001. Market access initiatives for LDCs gained momentum with the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, held in Brussels in 2001, and with thelaunch of the Doha round of trade negotiations at the WTO. At the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the WTO, held in Hong
Kong, China, in 2005, members committed to further improving market access conditions for LDCs. Developed country
members and developing country members in a position to do so committed to providing duty-free and quota-free (DFQF)
market access on a lasting basis for all products originating from all LDCs. Members experiencing difficulties in making
that commitment agreed to provide DFQF market access on at least 97 per cent of products imported from LDCs, definedat the tariff line level. At the Ninth Ministerial Conference, held in Bali, Indonesia, in 2013, WTO members were called to
improve duty-free and quota-free market access for LDCs. A specific decision on market access for cotton was taken at
the Tenth Ministerial Conference, held in Nairobi, in 2015.
Decisions on preferential rules of origin since 2013. Following a call for simple and transparent rules of origin for LDCs,
as set out in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 2005, a decision adopted at the Ninth Ministerial Conference (Bali,
2013), contained guidelines to facilitate market access for LDCs under non-reciprocal preferential trade arrangements.
At the Tenth Ministerial Conference, held in Nairobi in 2015, another decision provided more detailed directions on specific issues, including: i) expanding possibilities for cumulation; ii) determination of substantial transformation, including
higher thresholds for the use of non-originating materials; and iii) simplified documentary and procedural requirements.
The WTO’s Committee on Rules of Origin reviews developments in preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from
LDCs on a regular basis and reports thereon to the General Council. The WTO’s Committee on Trade and Development
annually reviews the steps taken to provide duty-free and quota-free market access to LDC products.

2

3

Important references on the subjects covered in this section are United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)’s
series of handbooks on the generalized systems of preferences (GSPs) and on market access and rules of origin for LDCs; the
WTO’s Preferential Trade Arrangements Database and the annual note prepared by the WTO secretariat on market access for
products and services of export interest to least developed countries. The latest note was issued in October 2023.
Giving certain countries preference over others violates the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle that underpins the multilateral
trading system, so specific provisions have been put into place to enable these preferences to be given to developing countries, withspecial treatment for LDCs.

International support measures for the least developed countries
33

preferential market access for goods. Most of the time, preferences are extended to
all LDCs recognized by the United Nations.

a.

Duty-free, quota-free market access and preferential tariffs

Most developed countries grant either full or nearly full DFQF market access to LDCs,
and several developing countries have extended DFQF market access to a significant
number of products from LDCs. Table II.1 (see page 34) summarizes multilateral
non-reciprocal LDC preference schemes that are in place. The WTO database on
preferential trade arrangements contains detailed information for each WTO member
providing or benefiting from these arrangements. In addition, the South Asian Free
Trade Area and the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement grant greater preferences (coverageand tariff margins) to LDC members (see section II.A.4).
The practical significance of preferential market access schemes depends on the
country’s productive capacities, type of export products and the existence of otherpreferential trading arrangements.4 Figure II.1 shows the distribution of imports
utilizing LDC-specific benefits, covering the 10 schemes with the highest utilization. Based on the latest available data, more than $70 billion worth of merchandise
Figure II.1

Imports utilizing least developed country-speciﬁc preference scheme, 2022
Billions of United States dollars$1 billion
Australia$0.4 billion
Switzerland$1.1 billion
Chile$1.9 billion
Republic of Korea$3.1 billion
Canada$3.8 billion
United States of America$37.3 billion
European Union$4.2 billion
China$4.6 billion
Japan$6.1 billion
United Kingdom$6.7 billion
India

Source: CDP secretariat, based on WTO preferential trade arrangements database, accessed 12 April 2024.
4

See WTO, Committee on Rules of Origin, note by the Secretariat on the utilization of trade preferences by least developed countries:
2015–2019 patterns and trends (G/RO/W/204).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
34

Table II.1

Major multilateral non-reciprocal preference schemes for least developed countries
undertaken by World Trade Organization members, 2023 (or latest available year)
Preference-granting
memberDuty-free tariff-line coverage

Armenia (2016)

43.9% (excludes electrical machinery, chemicals, iron and steel products, alcoholic beverages)

Australia

100%

Canada

98.5% (excludes dairy and other animal products, meat, meat preparations, cereal products).

Chile (2022)

99.5% (excludes cereals, sugar, milling products)

Chinaa

96.3% (excludes chemicals, transport vehicles machinery and mechanical appliances, electricalmachinery, paper)

European Unionb

99.8% (excludes arms and ammunition)

Iceland

96.7% (excludes meat, food preparations, vegetables, dairy and other animal products, plants
and trees)

India (2021)

94.1% (excludes plastics, coffee and tea, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, food residues)Japan

97.8% (excludes fish and crustaceans, footwear, milling products, cereal products, sugar)

Kazakhstan (2022)

63.4% (excludes vehicles, machinery, beverages, articles of iron and steel)

Kyrgyz Republic (2020)

57.6% (excludes meat, fruits, chemicals, wood and paper, machinery)Montenegro

93.6% (excludes fish and crustaceans, alcoholic beverages, meat and dairy products)

New Zealand

100%

Norway100%

Republic of Korea

89.4% (excludes fish and crustaceans, mineral fuels, oil seeds and oleaginous fruits, wood
products, vegetables)

Russian Federation(2021)

61.2% (excludes transport vehicles, machinery and mechanical appliances, beverages, iron andsteel products, electrical machinery, meat products, articles of wood)

Switzerland

100%

Taiwan Provinceof China

32.2% (excludes machinery and mechanical appliances, chemicals, electrical machinery, fish
and crustaceans, plastics)

Tajikistan (2019)11.7% (includes duty-free access for machinery, glass products, petroleum products)

Thailand (2022)

67.8% (excludes transport vehicles, electrical machinery, machinery and mechanical appliances,iron and steel products, apparel and clothing)

Türkiye

78.2% (excludes iron and steel products, fish and crustaceans, food preparations, meat, oilseeds and oleaginous fruits)

United Kingdom

99.7% (excludes some arms and ammunition)

United Statesc

82.8% (excludes apparel and clothing, cotton, fibers, footwear, dairy and other animal products)

Source: CDP secretariat, based on WTO (2023), Note by the Secretariat on Market access for Products and Services of Export Interest
to Least Developed Countries (30 October).
a The information for China refers to 2021. Since January 2022, LDCs that have established diplomatic relations with China are all eligible to preferential tariffs on 98% of tariff lines, implemented after an exchange of notes with China. See Customs Tariff Commission
Announcements No. 10 and No. 8, available in the WTO preferential trade arrangements database.
b The European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) regulation, which includes the EBA, expires at the end of 2027 and was,at the time this document was concluded, under review. Should negotiations on the review of the regulations be concluded successfully
before 2027, the extension would be repealed, and the regulation substituted with the new one. All subsequent references to the EU’s
GSP and the EBA refer to the current regulation.
c Refers to the United States’ Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for least developed beneficiary developing countries. Legalauthorization for duty-free treatment under the GSP programme lapsed on 1 January 2021. The renewal of the GSP is being consideredby the Congress of the United States. The United States also offers 96.9 per cent duty-free, quota-free coverage to eligible Sub-Saharancountries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which is not LDC-specific.

International support measures for the least developed countries
35

products benefit from LDC-specific schemes each year, with the European Union
being by far the largest destination of these exports.
There are several reasons why not all imports from LDCs enter under LDC-specificpreferential schemes. Some export products of LDCs are already subject to zero MFN
tariffs in the most significant markets, or the exporting country may have access toother, non-LDC specific, preference regimes such as the United States of America’s
African Growth and Opportunity Act, Economic Partnership Agreements with theEuropean Union or the United Kingdom, or regional trading arrangements such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area. Exporters in LDCs
may also have difficulties in fulfilling the requirements to determine compliance withthe preferential rules of origin.

b.

Preferential rules of origin for goods

Rules of origin are the criteria used to define whether a product is considered to originate in a certain country and thereby whether it can benefit from preferential market
access. Whereas for some products the determination of origin is straightforward,
for others, particularly those produced through global value chains, determining
where the product was made is not as simple. Rules of origin are used to determine
the extent to which a product needs to be produced in a certain country in order tobe eligible for preferential treatment.
WTO members adopted two sets of rules of origin guidelines at the WTO Ministerial
Conferences held in Bali and Nairobi in 2013 and 2015, respectively, with a view tomaking rules of origin simple and transparent (see box II.1). Below are some examples
of preference programmes which include preferential rules of origin:• In the European Union, since 2011, the general threshold for non-originating materials
is 70 per cent for LDCs and 50 per cent for other Generalized System of Preferences(GSP) beneficiaries; and product-specific origin requirements are more lenient. In
textile and apparel products, the rules of origin permit single-stage processing for
LDCs while for developing countries they require double transformation.

• In the United States, an article produced in an LDC beneficiary of its GSP may

count inputs from least developed and other beneficiary countries in its regional
association towards the 35 per cent domestic content requirement for satisfying
the rules of origin on certain articles.

• In Canada, up to 60 per cent of import content is allowed for the product to benefit
from the LDC preferential tariff, as opposed to 40 per cent for non-LDC products tobenefit from the general preferential tariff. In addition, all beneficiaries of the LDC
preferential tariff are regarded as one single area for cumulation purposes, while all
beneficiaries of the general preferential tariff are regarded as a single area. There
are special rules in place for LDCs regarding textiles and clothing.

• The United Kingdom’s Developing Countries Trading Scheme allows 75 per centnon-originating content in approximately half of the HS2 chapters; alternativeHandbook on the Least Developed Country Category36

rules (e.g., change of tariff sub-heading or maximum non-originating content of
75 per cent for almost all product-specific rules); a single rule for entire chaptersin the case of most chapters; and extended cumulation.
There are also LDC-specific rules of origin under regional agreements. For example,
under the South Asian Free Trade Area, the general criteria are change of tariff headingplus 30 per cent for LDCs as opposed to 40 per cent for non-LDCs. Under the Asia-PacificTrade Agreement, the value-addition threshold for LDCs is 35 per cent as opposed to
45 per cent for non-LDCs, and regional cumulation is allowed where the regional value
addition is 50 per cent for LDCs as opposed to 60 per cent for non-LDCs.

c.

Preferential market access after graduation

Some LDC-specific preferential schemes contain provisions that extend eligibility
beyond the date of graduation (see table II.2). For example, countries graduating fromthe LDC category automatically retain eligibility to the European Union’s Everything
but Arms initiative for a period of three years. China, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom
also extend eligibility for 3 years after graduation. In other markets, some graduatedcountries have retained preferential treatment for a period after the date of graduation either because there are no automatic procedures for their removal from the listof beneficiaries, or because there is an administrative lag, or a combination of reasons.

Table II.2

Smooth transition provisions in selected least developed country-specific market accessarrangements
Markets
European Union,
China, Türkiye, United
Kingdom
Australia, New
Zealand
CanadaChile, Japan, India
Thailand, Republicof Korea, Norway,
Switzerland, Eurasian
Economic Union
United States

Smooth transition provisions
Smooth transition period of 3 years (either from the date of graduation or from any applicableadministrative acts acknowledging graduation).
Countries are not automatically removed from the list of beneficiaries. In Australia, the government would need to amend the Schedule setting out the beneficiaries. Several graduated countries
have remained on the list.
Canada relies on the United Nations’ list of LDCs to determine and update eligibility for the Least
Developed Country Tariff Programme (LDCT). However, graduation from the list has not resulted
in automatic graduation out of the LDCT, which is subject to government discretion. At the time ofwriting, Canada had manifested the intention to provide an additional 3 years of duty-free benefits
under the LDCT program following a country’s graduation from the United Nations list of LDCs.
No pre-established smooth transition period. In some cases, there may be a lag between graduationand loss of preferential treatment due to administrative procedures. In some cases, exceptions
apply (in Norway, low-income countries with fewer than 75 million inhabitants continue to benefit;
in Switzerland, countries that have adhered to an international initiative for debt relief in which
Switzerland participates and that have not yet eliminated their debt are accorded LDC treatment).
The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) statute authorizes the President to designate
any beneficiary developing country as a least-developed beneficiary developing country (LDBDC).
There is no time frame identified in the statute for removing an LDBDC for purposes of GSP
benefits, and UN LDC graduation does not automatically affect the country’s designation under
GSP as an LDBDC.

Source: CDP secretariat, based on government sources.

International support measures for the least developed countries
37

The General Assembly, in its resolution 67/221, invited trading partners that have notestablished procedures for extending or phasing out preferential market access, interalia, DFQF treatment, to clarify in a predictable manner, as a general measure or at theconsultative mechanism, their position with regard to the extension of the LDC-specificpreferences, the number of years of the extension or the details concerning the gradualphasing out of the measures (see chapter I, section D). In October 2023, WTO members
adopted a decision encouraging preference-granting members to provide a smooth andsustainable transition before withdrawing DFQF market access after graduation.
Once countries have graduated and no longer benefit from the LDC-specific arrangements, they may, depending on eligibility criteria, continue to have access to preferential
market access schemes under the standard GSP schemes where applicable, otherapplicable non-reciprocal arrangements, regional agreements or bilateral agreements,
including Economic Partnership Agreements.
The European Union, the United Kingdom and Norway have non-reciprocal preferential
market access schemes that lie, in terms of coverage, in between the LDC-specific ones
and the standard GSP. The Special Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good
Governance (GSP+) in the European Union, under current regulations, grants duty-freeaccess to most of the products covered by the standard GSP. Eligibility for GSP+ requires
the ratification and implementation of 27 conventions on human rights, labour rights,
environmental protection and good governance, and meeting certain vulnerability criteria. In the United Kingdom, low-income and lower-middle income countries meetingcertain vulnerability criteria are eligible for Enhanced Preferences under the Developing Country Trading Scheme, which grants duty-free market access for 85 per cent oftariff lines.5 Under Norway’s GSP+ scheme, beneficiaries are granted duty-free accessfor clothes and textile products and certain agricultural goods, and lower tariffs for others in comparison with standard GSP beneficiaries. All lower-middle-income countries
with populations of less than 75 million and low-income countries are eligible for GSP+.
In 2023, Canada amended its Customs Tariff legislation, extending the mandate for the
General Preferential Tariff (GPT) and Least Developed Country Tariff programmes until
the end of 2034 and creating the authority for a new General Preferential Tariff Plus
(GPT+) programme which, once operationalized, is intended to provide tariff benefits
beyond those of the GPT programme to countries that conform to international norms
relating to sustainable development and labour and human rights.

2. Preferential treatment for services and service suppliers
Increasing LDCs’ participation in services trade is a shared objective of the international community, recognized in the General Agreement on trade in Services (GATS).
In 2011, WTO members adopted a decision to provide preferential treatment to LDC
services and services suppliers, also known as the “LDC services waiver”.6 The LDC
5
6

See Mohammad A. Razzaque (2023), “What the United Kingdom’s new Developing Countries Trading Scheme means for least developed countries (LDCs), including countries in the graduation process”, CDP Background paper No. 55, United Nations, New York.
See WTO documents WT/L/847 and WT/L/982.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
38

services waiver is currently valid until December 2030, but does not apply once a
country graduates from the LDC category. Twenty-five WTO members (with theEuropean Union counting for one) have notified measures under the LDC services
waiver, indicating sectors and modes of supply.
Countries that graduate from the LDC category are not required to undertake new
GATS commitments after graduation. Studies have shown that while the measuresnotified under the LDC services waiver resulted in greater transparency, they have
not resulted in significant preferences for LDCs. Hence, graduation from the LDC
category is likely to be of little consequence for preferences in services.7

3. Special treatment and flexibilities to implement World Trade
Organization rules
As of April 2024, 35 of the 45 countries included in the list of LDCs were WTO members,
two (Comoros and Timor-Leste) have signed accession protocols and will become
members of the WTO following the deposit of their respective instruments of acceptance of the Protocol, while five others were in the process of acceding (see table II.3).
LDCs that are members of WTO benefit from special considerations in the implementation of WTO agreements. Special and differential treatment provisions for LDCs
provide flexibility in the implementation of WTO rules and respond to technicalassistance needs. They take into account the limited institutional capacities of LDCs;
can protect their policy space; and can support them in increasing their participation in international trade by addressing supply-side constraints and supporting
trade-related elements of development strategies.
LDCs that are in the process of joining the WTO benefit from support for the accession process (see box II.2).
Box II.2

Support to least developed countries for the process of accession to the World Trade
Organization
Guidelines to facilitate the accession process for least developed countries (LDCs) were adopted by the General
Council in 2002 and strengthened in 2012. The guidelines encourage World Trade Organization (WTO) members to
exercise restraint in seeking market access concessions and commitments on the trade in goods and services fromacceding LDCs in these processes. They contain benchmarks on goods and services commitments on transparency
in accession negotiations; special and differential treatment and transition periods; and technical assistance. The
accession of LDCs was recognized as one of the systemic issues under the work programme of the LDCs. The
Sub-Committee on LDCs regularly monitors the accession of LDCs and serves as one of the forums in which acceding LDCs and WTO members can exchange views and share experiences. The Director General reports on accessions
on an annual basis. Part of China’s “Least Developed Countries and Accessions Programme” under the framework of
WTO (the “China Programme”) is aimed at assisting acceding Governments in joining WTO.
Source: CDP secretariat, based on official documents.

7

WTO and Enhanced Integrated Framework (2020), Trade Impacts of LDC Graduation, Geneva.

International support measures for the least developed countries
39

Table II.3

Least developed countries in the World Trade Organization, as of April 2024
LDC Members of the WTO
Country

Year of accession

Country

Year of accession

Afghanistan

2016

Madagascar

1995

Angola1996

Malawi

1995

Bangladesh

1995

Mali

1995

Benin

1996

Mauritania

1995

Burkina Faso

1995

Mozambique

1995

Burundi1995

Myanmar

1995

Cambodia

2004

Nepal

2004

Central African Republic

1995

Niger

1996

Chad

1996

Rwanda1996

Democratic Republic of the Congo

1997

Senegal

1995

Djibouti

1995

Sierra Leone

1995

Gambia1996

Solomon Islands

1996

Guinea

1995

Togo

1995

Guinea-Bissau

1995

Uganda

1995

Haiti

1996

United Republic of Tanzania

1995

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

2013

Yemen

2014

Lesotho

1995

Zambia1995

Liberia

2016

Countries that have signed accession protocols (will become WTO members 30 days following the deposit of theirrespective instruments of acceptance of the Protocol)
Country

Date of accession
protocol signature

Country

Date accession
protocol signature

Comorosa

Feb-24

Timor-Lestea

Feb-24

Country

Date initiatedCountry

Date initiatedEthiopia

Feb-03

South Sudan

Dec-17

Sao Tome and Principe

May-05

Sudan

Oct-94

Somalia

Dec-16

Ongoing accessions

Source: CDP secretariat, based on WTO, "Least-developed countries".
Note: Eritrea, Kiribati and Tuvalu are neither members nor seeking accession. “Date initiated” refers to the date of establishment of theWorking Party.
a The Protocols of Accession of Comoros and Timor-Leste were signed at the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in February
2024. These countries will become members of the WTO 30 days following the deposit of their respective instruments of acceptanceof the Protocol.

Table II.4 provides an overview of the main special and differential treatment provisions for LDCs under WTO agreements and related decisions.8 Some LDC-specificprovisions applied only for certain time periods after the entry into force of the
8More detailed information is available on the LDC Portal and WTO website. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy. The
information contained herein does not replace legal texts or official policy documents and does not aim to be exhaustive.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
40

respective WTO agreements. In addition to these provisions, there are also a numberof references within agreements and decisions whereby WTO members commit to
taking into account the needs of LDCs, to ensure capacity-building for LDCs in thefulfilment of their commitments as members of WTO, and to further their participation in world trade.
Table II.4

Main provisions on special and differential treatment to least developed countries underWorld Trade Organization agreements and related decisions
Agreement/Decision

Support measure

Understanding on the
Balance-of-Payments
Provisions of General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

Simplified procedures when invoking trade restrictions for balance-of-payment reasons(paragraph 8)

Agreement on Agriculture
and related decisions

Exemption from undertaking commitments on the reduction of agricultural support (Art. 15.2)
Special flexibilities under the Decision Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on LDCs and NFIDCs. Applies to LDCs and net food importing developing
countries (NFIDCs). (Art. 16; Decision adopted by the Trade Negotiations Committee at the
Uruguay Round; list of beneficiaries is contained in G/AG/5/Rev.12, March 2023)
Exemption from the prohibition of granting export subsidies until the end of 2030 (LDCs and
NFIDCs) (2015 Ministerial Decision on Export Competition (WT/MIN(15)/45 – WT/L/980)
Longer repayment periods for export financing support (LDCs and NFIDCs) (WT/MIN(15)/45-WT/L/980)
Less frequent notifications to WTO regarding domestic support (G/AG/2)

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Measures and related decisionsa

WTO Members are to take particular account of LDCs in preparing and applying SPS
measures (Art. 10)

Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT)

WTO Members are to give priority to the needs of LDCs when providing advice and technical assistance to members (Art. 11.8)
The TBT Committee is required to take into account the special problems of LDCs in granting time-limited exceptions under the TBT Agreement (Art. 12.8)

Agreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures andrelated decisions

LDCs (and other countries with gross national income (GNI) per capita below $1,000 inconstant 1990 dollars) are exempted from the prohibition of export subsidies (article 27.2
and Annex VII of the Agreement and paragraph 10.1 of the Doha Ministerial Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17))

Trade Facilitation Agreement(TFA)

Longer deadlines under the early warning mechanism, in case an LDC has difficulties in
implementing categories B and C measures (article 17)
Longer time frame (4 years rather than 18 months) for new implementation dates for measures shifted from category B to category C before approval from the Trade Facilitation
Committee is required (article 19)
Longer grace period from dispute settlement (8 years from the date of implementation of
category B or C measures (article 20 ))Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) and related decisions

Exemption from applying all substantive TRIPS standards until 1 July 2034 (article 66.1,
latest extension IP/C/88)
Exemption from providing protection for pharmaceutical patents, from providing the possibility of filing mailbox applications and from granting exclusive marketing rights until 1
January 2033 (IP/C/73 and WT/L/971)

International support measures for the least developed countries
41

Agreement/Decision

Support measure

Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) and related decisions(continued)

Waiver from notification requirements for issuing compulsory licenses for exports of pharmaceutical products to LDCs or other countries with insufficient manufacturing capacities
in the pharmaceutical sector (article 31 bis). When notifying its need for a pharmaceutical,
an importing WTO member is required to confirm that it has insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector. LDCs are exempt from that requirement as they
are deemed to have insufficient manufacturing capacity. A developing country member or
LDC that produces or imports pharmaceuticals under compulsory licences and which isparty to a regional trade agreement (RTA) in which at least half of the members are LDCs
can export the pharmaceuticals to other members of the RTA that share the same healthproblem without any further notification under the system.
Developed country members are to provide incentives to encourage the transfer of technology to LDCs (Article 66.2)

Dispute Settlement
Understanding and related
decisions

Particular consideration should be given to the special situation of LDCs in all stagesof a dispute involving an LDC. Members should exercise due restraint in raising matters
involving an LDC (Art. 24.1)
LDCs can request the Director-General of the WTO or the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body to provide their good offices, conciliation and mediation for settling disputes(article 24.2)

Trade Policy Review Mechanism

LDCs may have a longer period between trade policy reviews than other countries (Annex 3)

Source: CDP secretariat, based on the texts of WTO agreements and decisions and information provided by the WTO secretariat.
a See also the special terms for LDCs under the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) in section II.A.5.

In addition to special and differential treatment provisions under the WTO agreements and related decisions, there are measures to support LDCs within WTO. Discussions in the Sub-Committee on the LDCs follow the work programme for the LDCs,
which covers systemic issues of interest to LDCs in the multilateral trading system.
The China Programme provides support to an internship programme, annual roundtables on accession-related themes, the participation of LDC coordinators in selected
meetings and a South-South dialogue on LDCs and development, among other formsof support. The LDC Group benefits from the support of a dedicated resource personin the LDC Unit of the Development Division at WTO (see section II.A.5 for more ontechnical assistance and capacity-building within WTO).
WTO members that graduate from the LDC category continue to benefit from a rangeof special and differential treatment provisions that apply to all developing members.9
The LDC Group at WTO has submitted proposals for smooth transition provisions forcountries that graduate from the LDC category under the WTO system. In 2024, WTO
members agreed that countries that graduate shall continue to benefit from the application of the Special Procedures Involving LDCs set out in Article 24 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding for a period of three years; and will continue to be eligiblefor LDC-specific technical assistance (see below) for a period of three years.10 They
also instructed the Sub-Committee on LDCs to continue to work on the remaining
provisions of the LDC request.
9

See WTO, “Note by the secretariat on special and differential treatment provisions in WTO agreements and decisions” (WT/COMTD/W/271).

10 See WTO, “WTO smooth transition support measures in favour of countries graduated from the LDC category” (WTO/MIN(24)/34).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
42

4. Special treatment and flexibilities regarding obligations under regional
agreements
Certain regional trade agreements contain special provisions for LDCs in addition to
the preferential tariffs and rules of origin mentioned above:• South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives,
Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka): among other measures, LDCs benefit fromsmaller sensitive lists adopted by some of the partners (meaning they receive
tariff concessions on a larger number of products) and preferential rules of origin(requirement of change of tariff heading and value addition of 10 per cent less than
the requirement for non-LDCs). The SAFTA agreement contains a special provision
for Maldives (article 12), which graduated from the LDC list in 2011, granting it
LDC-equivalent treatment in the Agreement and in any subsequent contractual
undertakings.

• Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (Bangladesh, China, India, Lao People’s Democratic

Republic, Mongolia, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka): LDCs benefit from larger listsof tariff concession items as well as deeper tariff concessions (higher margin ofpreference for market access) in some of the partners and have additional flexibility
in rules of origin (domestic value requirement of 35 per cent instead of 45 per cent).11• Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus: while tariff reduction by non-

LDCs started from the date of entry into force (13 December 2020), tariff reduction
by LDCs will start after each country’s graduation from the LDC category or after
10 years, whichever is later; and tariff elimination will take up to 25 years or more.12• Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement: RCEP includes

10 ASEAN countries and five Asia-Pacific economies (Australia, China, Japan, New
Zealand and Republic of Korea). Under Article 15.6, member countries with LDC
status (currently Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar) areentitled for special and differential treatment in the form of either exemption ordelayed implementation of the RCEP commitments. They also have access to economic cooperation support, including official development assistance and aid forcapacity building and trade reforms. Additionally, Article 19.18 provides special
and differential treatment for LDC Parties whereby the Complaining Party is obligated to exercise due restraint in raising matters where an LDC Party is involved.13• In the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, article 18 provides
that parties shall exercise due restraint in raising matters under dispute settlement
procedures involving and LDC party and, if applicable, in applying compensatory
measures.

11 For more information, see Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, “Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement”.
12 As of April 2024, the agreement is in force for ten parties: Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon

Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Nauru had signed but not ratified the Agreement. For more information, see Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, “Trade in goods”.
13 For more information, see RCEP legal text.

International support measures for the least developed countries
43• The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCFTA), which was launchedon 1 January 2021, draws a distinction between LDCs and non-LDCs for the tariff
negotiations. LDCs have 10 years to achieve 90 per cent liberalization, while nonLDCs have 5 years. The remaining 10 per cent of tariff lines are divided into two
categories: 7 per cent can be designated sensitive products and 3 per cent of tariff
lines can be excluded from liberalization entirely. LDCs have 13 years to eliminate tariffs on sensitive products and may maintain their current tariffs for the
first 5 years, backloading liberalization during the remaining 8 years. Non-LDCshave 10 years to eliminate tariffs on sensitive products and may also retain thestatus quo, starting liberalization in year 6. Both LDCs and non-LDCs may exclude
3 per cent of tariff lines, but the excluded products may not account for more than
10 per cent of their total trade.14

5. Special priority in trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building
A number of mechanisms are in place to support LDCs through technical assistanceand capacity-building related to trade. LDCs have received approximately a third ofaid for trade disbursements in recent years. The Doha Programme of Action for LDCs
aims at doubling aid for trade to LDCs by 2031.

• The Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) supports LDCs in building strong trade

institutions, ensuring evidence-based analysis and investing in productive sectors
with high export potential. At the time of writing, the EIF was approaching theend of its second phase and an interim facility had been instituted as discussions
continued in a taskforce at the WTO on a future aid for trade mechanism for
LDCs.15 The EIF’s current graduation policy allows countries that graduate fromthe LDC category to remain eligible to receive support from the EIF for five years
after graduation. Deliberations on a future support mechanism will likely consider
a smooth transition period.

• LDCs have priority in technical assistance delivered by WTO members and thesecretariat under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has a target of allocating at least 40 per cent of total project financing to LDCs or otherlow-income countries (OLICs). There is also a lower co-financing requirement fortechnical assistance. The minimum required contribution from LDCs and OLICS
is 10 per cent, as opposed to 20 per cent for lower-middle-income countries and60 per cent for upper-middle-income countries. The STDF has a transition mechanism for countries graduated from LDC status, which allows for LDC graduates tocontinue to benefit from the 10 per cent contribution requirement for LDCs for aperiod of three years following graduation.

14 See Trudi Hartzenberg (2019), “The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement: what is expected of LDCs in terms of tradeliberalisation?”, August; and Gerhard Erasmus and Trudi Hartzenberg (2021), “Trade under AfCFTA Rules started on 1 January 2021,
but hard work lies ahead”, blog, 10 February.
15 Enhanced Integrated Framework (2024), “Update on the EIF Programme: the EIF Interim Facility”, 13 February.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
44• LDCs are a priority for the technical assistance offered under the WTO’s biennial

technical assistance and training plan 2024–2025, which includes trade policy courses
designed specifically for LDCs. LDCs are also a priority in different internship programmes at the WTO, and benefit from China’s LDCs and Accessions Programme,
which aims at facilitating the participation of LDCs in WTO discussions. In 2024,
WTO members agreed that countries that graduate from the LDC category will continue to benefit from LDC-specific technical assistance and capacity building under
WTO’s technical assistance and training plan for three years after graduation.16 They
also continue to benefit from a wide range of technical assistance products offeredby the WTO Secretariat under its biennial technical assistance plan.

• The Advisory Centre on WTO Law provides legal advice on issues related to WTO,

WTO dispute settlement support and capacity-building, and LDCs do not have tojoin as members in order to benefit from its services.

In addition to LDC-specific support for training and capacity-building related to trade,
LDCs have access to instruments available to all countries or all developing countries.
For example, the ePing notification alert system of UN DESA, WTO and International
Trade Centre (ITC) provides countries with timely access to notifications under the
WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and theWTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and facilitates dialogue among the
public and private sector in addressing potential trade problems at an early stage.
At the WTO, a Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility has been created to deliver
support to LDCs and developing countries so that they may fully benefit from theTrade Facilitation Agreement. ITC works to build the capacity of private actors indeveloping countries so they can take advantage of the global trading system.

B.	 Development cooperation
As developing countries, LDCs are recipients of official development assistance(ODA) and other forms of development cooperation provided by bilateral donors andmultilateral institutions and participate in South-South cooperation. Most development cooperation is not contingent on a country being an LDC. However, the policies
of some donors and institutions give priority or more concessional terms to LDCs
and there exist a number of mechanisms dedicated exclusively to LDCs. This sectionrefers to the main provisions and mechanisms for LDCs in bilateral and multilateral
cooperation. For a more detailed catalogue of measures, please see the LDC Portal.

1. Commitments in bilateral official development assistance flows
to least developed countries
The definition of ODA used by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is “government
16 See WTO, “WTO smooth transition support measures in favour of countries graduated from the LDC category” (WTO/MIN(24)/34).

International support measures for the least developed countries
45

aid designed to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries”.17 ODA includes grants, “soft” loans and the provision of technical assistance,and can be provided bilaterally, from donor to recipient, or channeled through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations or the World Bank. LDCs received
21 per cent of total ODA disbursed by DAC countries in 2022.18 ODA represents animportant – in some cases critical – component of external financing in LDCs.
All developing countries, until they exceed the high-income threshold determined by
the World Bank for three consecutive years, are eligible for ODA, but special quantitativeand qualitative commitments have been made by providers of ODA in regard to LDCs.19

a.

Quantitative commitments on official development assistance by donors

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of theThird International Conference on Financing for Development and the Programmeof Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011–2020 all reiterated
long-standing commitments by developed countries to provide the equivalent of 0.15
to 0.20 per cent of their gross national income (GNI) in the form of ODA to LDCs. The
Doha Programme of Action for Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2022–2031
encouraged ODA providers to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per
cent of GNI for ODA to LDCs. This is in parallel to a longstanding commitment to provide the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of GNI in ODA to developing countries. Individual
countries and the European Union have made additional commitments with regard to
the allocation of aid to LDCs.
In 2021–2022, 3 of 31 DAC countries fulfilled the commitment of providing the equivalent of 0.15 per cent to 0.20 per cent of GNI as ODA to LDCs. Overall, ODA flows from
DAC countries to LDCs were equivalent to 0.08 per cent of GNI of the group of donors,
while flows to developing countries were equivalent to 0.32 per cent. Between 3 and46 per cent of DAC countries’ total ODA went to LDCs (see figure II.2 on page 46).20
These commitments refer to the aggregate flows of ODA to LDCs and not to flows to
individual countries. Because belonging or not to the LDC category is not, by itself,
the only or the main criterion for the allocation of most development assistance,changes caused specifically by LDC graduation are typically limited.

b.

Modalities of bilateral official development assistance: grant element

The DAC recommends that the average grant element in ODA to LDCs should be either
90 per cent of a given donor’s annual commitment to all LDCs, or at least 86 per cent of
the donor’s commitments to each individual LDC over a period of three years.21 Accordingly, most ODA extended to LDCs by DAC members is in the form of grants. In 2022, 85
17 See Net ODA data from OECD.
18 OECD-DAC, Development finance data, “Aid at a glance charts”.
19 OECD reviews the list of countries eligible for official development assistance every three years.
20 OECD, “Statistics on resource flows to developing countries”.
21 OECD, “Recommendation on the terms and conditions of aid” (OECD/LEGAL/5006), adopted on 28 February 1978.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
46

Figure II.2

Aid from Development Assistance Committee countries – total and to least developed
countries - as a percentage of donor gross national income, 2021-2022a
ODA to LDCs/GNI

ODA total/GNI

Percentage

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

United States

United Kingdom

Switzerland

SwedenSpain

Slovenia

Slovak Republic

Portugal

PolandNorwayNew Zealand

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Korea

Japan

Italy

Ireland

Iceland

Hungary

GreeceGermany

FranceFinland

Estonia

Denmark

Czechia

CanadaBelgium

Austria

Australia

0

Source: CDP secretariat, based on OECD, “Statistics on resource ﬂows to developing countries”, table 31, accessed on 22 April 2024.
a Includes imputed multilateral ﬂows.

per cent of ODA flows from DAC countries to LDCs were in the form of grants.22 Startingin 2019, the LDC status of the recipient affects the extent to which concessional loans
are counted as ODA. In the grant-equivalent approach adopted by DAC members tomeasure ODA, grants and the grant portion of concessional loans count as ODA. Loans
to LDCs and other low-income countries require a higher grant equivalent component
to be considered as ODA (at least 45 per cent for LDC, compared to 10–15 per cent forother ODA-eligible developing countries). Moreover, in order to determine the grantelement, DAC uses differentiated discount rates – 6 per cent for upper-middle-income
countries, 7 per cent for lower-middle-income countries, and 9 per cent for low-income
countries and LDCs. Differentiating the discount rate implies that loans to LDCs orother low-income countries are recorded as a higher level of ODA than a loan extended
under the same conditions to other country groups, which could provide an incentive
for donors to allocate ODA to LDCs. DAC also applies the grant-equivalent method toother non-grant instruments, such as equities and guarantees.

c.

Modalities of bilateral official development assistance: untied aid

DAC members have also undertaken commitments to improve the effectivenessof ODA by “untying” ODA to LDCs; in other words, not making aid conditional on
the procurement of goods and services from the donor. In 2001, they adopted the
22 OECD Stat database, Development, Flow bases on individuals project, Creditor Reporting System (CRS).

International support measures for the least developed countries
47

Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance to the Least Developed
Countries, which, since 2019, also applies to non-LDCs that are among the heavily
indebted poor countries, other low-income countries, and World Bank International
Development Association (IDA)-only countries and territories. The recommendation
covers most forms of ODA, but excludes free-standing technical cooperation, and it
was left up to members as to whether they could untie food aid. In its 2022 Report on
the Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance, DAC found thatthe share of ODA covered by the recommendation that is reported as untied was at
a 91.5 per cent in 2020, the second highest level historically, but that a few members
persistently fall short of their untying commitments.23

d.

Donor-specific terms and conditions for LDCs

Some donors have special modalities of ODA for LDCs:• In Germany, financial cooperation is extended to LDCs mostly in the form ofgrants, whereas for other developing countries it is mostly extended in the form ofsoft loans.

• France enacted, in 2021, a new law on programming of development cooperation
which stipulates that it will focus its bilateral development assistance, and particularly grants, on LDCs, and especially those in sub-Saharan Africa.

• In Japan, low-income LDCs have access to the most favourable terms underJapanese ODA loans, while non-LDC low-income countries and LDCs that are
not low-income have access to a second category of preferential loans. Other
developing countries have access to less favourable but still concessional terms
for loans, according to their level of income and the nature of the project.

• In the Republic of Korea, LDCs benefit from the most favourable terms among fivecategories of beneficiaries under the Economic Development Cooperation Fund(the other four are based on GNI per capita).

2. Multilateral and regional development cooperation
Several multilateral and regional development organizations, including the United
Nations system, dedicate a significant share of their resources to LDCs. In 2021, 44 percent of net disbursements of ODA by multilateral organizations went to LDCs (seefigure II.3 on page 48). However, most organizations do not rely exclusively on LDC
status as a criterion for the allocation of resources and some do not consider LDC
status. This section provides an overview of the institutional policies of international
financial institutions and the United Nations system with regard to LDCs and the LDC
category. Instruments developed by these and other organizations specifically for
LDCs are described in section 3.
23 OECD, Development Co-operation Directorate, Development Assistance Committee (2022), 2022 Report on the DAC Recommenda-

tion on Untying Official Development Assistance (DCD/DAC (2022)34/FINAL).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
48

Figure II.3

Oﬃcial development assistance disbursements by multilateral organisations, 2013-2023
LDCs

Non-LDC LICs

LMICs

2014

2015

UMICs

Unallocated by group

Percentage
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2013

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Source: CDP Secretariat, based on OECD Data Explorer, accessed 22 April 2024.
Note: According to World Bank income classifications, LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = lower-middle-income countries;
UMICs = upper-middle-income countries. The “More advanced developing countries” (MADCTs) included in the original data arecounted here as UMICs.

It is important to note that many international organizations and initiatives dedicate asubstantial part of their assistance to LDCs without necessarily having specific terms or
priority for LDCs as such. This is the case of GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance), and the Global
Fund. By prioritizing countries with the greatest challenges and vulnerabilities in theirrespective focus areas, they naturally prioritize many countries in the LDC category.
Graduation from the LDC category does not affect assistance from these organizations.

a.

International and regional financial institutions

Eligibility for concessional financing to developing countries by regional and multilateral financial institutions is generally not based on whether or not a country is an
LDC, but on other factors such as GNI per capita and creditworthiness (see box I.3 andtable I.2 in chapter I).24 The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), andmost other international and regional financial institutions do not consider LDC status
in determining the terms of its assistance to countries, but use per capita income andother criteria. A country’s graduation from LDC status does not lead to a change in theterms or volume of assistance provided by these institutions.
24 An exception is made in favour of small island economies (with a population of fewer than 1.5 million people), in view of theirfragility and limited creditworthiness. Several of these countries have continued to benefit from assistance provided by the WorldBank’s International Development Association (IDA), even though they had risen above the IDA income threshold. The International
Monetary Fund uses similar exceptions for small countries and for microstates (see IMF (2023), 2023 Handbook of IMF Facilities for
Low-Income Countries, Washington D.C.)

International support measures for the least developed countries
49

Table II.5

Classification criteria of the Asian Development Bank
Creditworthiness
Below the per capita
GNI cut-off
Lack of
LimitedAdequate

Group A (concessional
assistance only)Group B (OCR blend)
Group B (OCR blend)

Per capita GNI cut-off
Above the per capita GNI cut-off
LDC
Non-LDCGroup A (concessional
Group B (OCR blend). If at moderate or
assistance only)
higher risk, then Group A.
Group B (OCR blend)
Group B (OCR blend)
Group B (OCR blend)
Group C (Regular OCR only)

Source: Asian Development Bank (2023), “Classification and graduation of developing member countries”, Operations Manual Policies
and Procedures, section A, accessed on 16 April 2024.
Note: OCR = ordinary capital resources.

Among regional development banks, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) considers LDC
status, among other factors, in the policy that guides the terms and conditions on which
members access resources. The ADB classifies countries into groups that determine thetype of financing provided. These groups are defined primarily in terms of income andcreditworthiness, but whether or not a country is an LDC can, in some cases, affect theclassification. For example, as shown in table II.5, an LDC that has a per capita income
level below a certain threshold (currently the IDA’s operational cutoff threshold) andis considered to lack creditworthiness will be classified in a category that receives
concessional assistance only, whereas a non-LDC in the same situation might (depending on a range of factors such as risk of debt distress) be classified in a category thatreceives a blend of concessional and non-concessional resources. Depending on wherea country lies in the matrix summarized in table II.5, graduation from the LDC category
could trigger reclassification in some cases. Reclassification across groups is not, however, an automatic process, and is addressed on a case-by-case basis.

b.

United Nations system

LDCs are a priority for the United Nations system, as reflected in the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Doha Programme of
Action. United Nations system entities have put in place institutional mechanisms suchas dedicated internal structures and staff; prioritized LDCs under strategic plans; and/or have special rules for budgetary allocations.25 In some cases, support is provided
to LDCs among other groups in special situations. Additionally, there are a number of
instruments dedicated exclusively to LDCs. These are discussed in section II.B.3.
In 2022, LDCs received 50.7 per cent of total in-country expenditures by the United
Nations development system (see figure II.4 on page 50). Total expenditures in LDCs
increased 52 percent over four years, similar to the average for all host countries.
Expenditure per capita in LDCs ($18.36) was substantially higher than average ($5.99),
25 Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing

States (UN-OHRLLS) (2021), United Nations Support to the Least Developed Countries.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
50

Figure II.4

Expenditures in the least developed countries, 2011-2021
Humanitarian-related

Development-relatedExpenditures in LDCs ($US billions) in real terms
25

20

15

10

60%

55%

Share of total country-level
expenditures spent in LDCs
51%
52.3%
48%
Share of total development
expenditures spent in LDCs

51%

45%

5

0

50.7%

50.0%

47.7%

47.4%

50.5%

50.2%

45%
42%

41%
40%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

50%

40%

35%
2019
2020
2021
2022
Share of country-level expenditures spent in LDCs

Source: Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 75/233 on the quadrennial
comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system: funding of the United Nations
development system (A/79/72/Add.1-E/2024/12/Add.1).

and comparable to that for small island developing States ($17.03) and landlocked
developing countries ($20.56) (see A/79/72/Add.1-E/2024/12/Add.1).
Certain organizations, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), have targets for resource allocation to LDCs. These targets refer to aggregate resources allocated to LDCs, and do notnecessarily apply directly to the allocation to individual LDCs:• UNDP programmatic presence on the ground is financed primarily through coreresources distributed to programme countries based on the target for resource
assignment from the core (TRAC) system. TRAC is a three-tiered system in which
TRAC-1 and TRAC-2 resources are linked in a combined pool to support country
programming, while TRAC-3 resources are made available through a separate
pool to support crisis response. The allocation of TRAC-1 and TRAC-2 takes into
account a country’s gross domestic product per person and its population size.
By decision of its Executive Board, UNDP has a goal of ensuring the allocation ofat least 60 per cent of TRAC-1 and TRAC-2 resources to LDCs. These rules do notcover non-core resources, which often account for a significant share of resources
deployed in each country. Graduation from the LDC category could potentiallyaffect a portion of the core resources dedicated to the country in the subsequent
UNDP integrated budget cycle. However, the amount of resources available afterInternational support measures for the least developed countries
51

graduation would depend on numerous factors, including the country’s needs andoverall UNDP funding.

• UNICEF is also required by its Executive Board to allocate 60 per cent of its regular

resources to LDCs and 50 per cent to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The resources
are allocated based on a system that gives greater weight to countries with thelowest GNI per capita, highest under-5 mortality rate and largest child population.
This naturally results in LDCs being the greatest beneficiaries, but also means that
graduation itself does not affect the amount of resources allocated to a country.26• Specific instruments managed or co-managed by United Nations system entities

have provisions for LDCs. Among these, the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
System for Transparent Allocation of Resources for the eighth replenishment
period (GEF-8, 2022-2026) includes higher minimum allocation floors for LDCs and
SIDS (see table II.6).

• Following a similar system, the Programming Directions of the Global Biodiversity
Framework Fund (GBFF) establish that 36 per cent of GBFF resources, plus an additional 3 per cent initially (to be reprogrammed after 3 years if unused), should beallocated to LDCs and SIDS. Distribution of the GBFF also reflects potential global
environmental benefits that can be generated in the country, as per the GEF-8
Biodiversity Focal Area country allocations.

Table II.6

Minimum allocation floors for GEF-8 under the System for Transparent Allocationof Resources (millions of United States dollars)
Non-LDCs

LDCs and SIDS

Biodiversity

3

4

Climate change (mitigation)

1

2

Land degradation

1

2

Aggregate

58

Source: GEF Secretariat (2022), “Initial GEF-8 STAR Country Allocations” (GEF/C.63/Inf.05), 1 July.

Several organizations provide substantive support to LDCs, including policy analysis
and information services, capacity-building, support in obtaining access to information
and resources, and advocacy services. Such forms of support are not always reflected
substantially in expenditures. Examples include:• The Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), the Economic and Social

Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), UNCTAD, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

26 For more information, see United Nations Children’s Fund, “Assessment of ways to enhance results-based budgeting and assess-ment of the resource allocation system” (UNICEF/2017/EB/4).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
52

United Nations (FAO), among others, maintain dedicated research programmes orteams focusing on LDC issues.

• UN DESA provides support to LDCs in the form of analysis, data, information on

support measures and capacity-building, as well as by supporting the work of CDP
in its deliberations on inclusion and graduation from the LDC category (see chapterI). It collects and disseminates information on LDCs and countries that have recently
graduated from the category, maintains the LDC Portal on international support
measures, including support to graduation, and provides capacity-building, especially for graduating and recently graduated countries.

• UNCTAD produces an annual Least Developed Countries Report that addresses trends

and issues of interest to LDCs, provides substantive support to the Enhanced Integrated Framework (see above) and provides capacity-building to LDCs.

• ESCAP produces an annual Asia-Pacific Countries with Special Needs Development

Report, covering LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, and provides capacity-building to LDCs in
the region, especially on productive capacity, infrastructure, trade and institutional
development.

• The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Land-

locked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)
advocates in favour of LDCs within the United Nations and with other partners,
assists LDCs in mobilizing resources and other forms of support and provides
support to group consultations of LDCs. It also monitors the implementation ofprogrammes of action for LDCs.

Several organizations are committed to supporting countries through a “smoothtransition” out of the category in response to General Assembly resolutions andthe programmes of action for LDCs, including the Doha Programme of Action (seechapter I). UN-OHRLLS coordinates an inter-agency task force to that effect.

3. Mechanisms dedicated primarily to least developed countries,
and their provisions for graduated countries
The following organizations and mechanisms are dedicated exclusively or primarily
to LDCs and countries that have recently graduated (please see also the information
on trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building in section II.A.5):

a.

Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries

The Technology Bank, inaugurated in 2018, supports LDCs in building their science,technology and innovation (STI) capacities. It conducts baseline science, technology
and innovation reviews and technology needs assessments of LDCs, in collaboration
with UNCTAD, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) and other organizations; works to stimulate the production of high-quality
research in LDCs through capacity development and international research collab-

International support measures for the least developed countries
53

oration; and works to strengthen the capacity of academies of science in LDCs, inpartnership with regional networks of academies, the regional commissions andregional development banks.
A number of initiatives have been introduced over time, including the Technology
Access Partnership programme, in collaboration with WHO, UNCTAD and UNDP, tosupport the transfer of critical technologies to LDCs related to combating COVID-19
for the manufacture of medical equipment, medical devices and diagnostic kits;science, technology and innovation capacity-building programmes in LDCs in theareas of biotechnology in partnership with UNESCO and the World Academy of
Sciences for the advancement of science in developing countries and the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology; a partnership in satellite
technologies with the Office for Outer Space Affairs to train experts in LDCs and build
capacity in the use of satellite technologies for development; SDG Impact Accelerator
projects in Bangladesh and Uganda, in partnership with Türkiye and UNDP to unlock
entrepreneurial talent and leverage emergent technologies to improve livelihoods;
and an innovation programme focused on supporting LDCs to exploit their latecomer
advantage in order to leverage existing technologies through entrepreneurial activity
as well as enhancing their capacity to find, adapt and adopt proven, off-the-shelftechnologies and indigenous technologies. The Technology Bank has also joined theAlliance for Affordable Internet, a partnership with the World Wide Web Foundationthat aims to ensure equitable access to the Internet in LDCs.
After graduation from the LDC category, countries continue to have access to theTechnology Bank for a period of five years.

b.

Climate change: work programme for the least developed countries, the Least
Developed Countries Expert Group and the Least Developed Countries FundIn the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it is stated that“the Parties shall take full account of the specific needs and special situations of theleast developed countries in their actions with regard to funding and transfer of technology” (art. 4 (9)). That understanding served as the basis for the establishment ofan LDC work programme by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in 2001,
and to support flexibility provisions extended to the LDCs under the Convention and
the Paris Agreement.
A Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) was established in 2001 to provide
technical guidance and support to the LDCs on the process of formulating andimplementing national adaptation plans, the preparation and implementation ofnational adaptation programmes of action, and the implementation of the LDC work
programme. It also provides technical guidance and advice on accessing funding
from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) for the process of formulating and implementing
national adaptation plans and supports the participation of LDCs in workshops andevents organized under the framework of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
54

The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was established in 2001 to support the
LDC work programme, including the preparation and implementation of national
adaptation programmes of action, and more recently includes work related to theprocess of formulating and implementing national adaptation plans. It is operated by
the Global Environment Facility (GEF). As of February 2024, the LDCF has financed 408
projects and programmes with nearly $2 billion in grants. The approved strategy for2022-2026 aims to double the allocation of finance, particularly for adaptation, and toincrease support for planning and programming for climate adaptation actions. After
graduation, countries are no longer eligible to receive new funding under the LDCF.
Projects approved before and up until graduation would continue to receive funding
in order to ensure the full implementation of those projects.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) determines that, in the allocation of resources foradaptation, it takes into consideration the “urgent and immediate needs of developing
countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change,
including LDCs, SIDS and African States using minimum allocation floors”. The fundaims for a floor of 50 per cent of adaptation funds to be allocated to these countries.
The GCF has a simplified approval process, updated in 2022, for certain kinds ofprojects. Most of the projects approved under this process in its pilot phase were in
LDCs, SIDS or African States. Countries that have graduated from the LDC category
and that are considered particularly vulnerable, including SIDS or African States, willcontinue to benefit from the priorities under the GCF.
The Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems Initiative (CREWS) provides financial
support to LDCs and SIDS to establish risk-informed early warning services, implemented by three partners, based on clear operational procedures. Graduated countries that are SIDS maintain access to CREWS; those that are not, are not eligible toparticipate in future phases of the project.
A number of other funds and initiatives are in place to support LDCs and other countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.27

c.

Last mile finance: United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)

The United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) has the objective of making
public and private finance work for the poor in LDCs. It offers “last mile” financemodels that unlock public and private resources, especially at the domestic level,
to reduce poverty and support local economic development. In 2022, it operated in
37 LDCs. UNCDF’s strategic priority for 2022-2025 are accelerating inclusive, diversified, green economic transformation; catalysing additional private and public flows
of capital; and strengthening market systems and financing mechanisms.
After graduation, programmes can continue to be funded by the UNCDF, under
the same conditions, for a period of three years. Assuming continued development
progress, funding for another two years can be provided on a 50/50 cost-sharing
basis with either the Government or a third party.
27 For more information, please see the LDC Portal’s page on climate change.

International support measures for the least developed countries
55d.

Investment Support Programme for the Least Developed Countries by theInternational Development Law Organization and the Office of the High Representative

The Investment Support Programme for LDCs provides on-demand legal and professional assistance to LDC governments and eligible state-owned or private sector entities for investment-related negotiations and dispute settlement. The programme also
supports training and capacity-building activities. It functions through a collaboration between the International Development Law Organization and UN-OHRLLS andits services are provided by private law firms and other experts, at no cost to LDCs.
After graduation, countries remain eligible to apply for assistance under the programme for a period of five years after the date of graduation.

4. The least developed countries in South-South and triangularcooperation
South-South and triangular cooperation have become increasingly important. LDCs
have been actively involved in both. There are some instruments in which LDCs havebeen especially active. For example:• The Least Developed Countries Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Initia-

tive for Sustainable Development is dedicated to driving transformative change
towards universal energy access and the transition to renewable energy and energy
efficiency in all LDCs. It is fully owned and driven by LDCs and supported by theSouth Centre.

• The Least Developed Countries Universities Consortium on Climate Change is aSouth-South, long-term capacity-building initiative of universities in LDCs that
focuses on networking and collaborative research, teaching and training on climatechange issues.

Other initiatives are not dedicated specifically to LDCs but dedicate a significant partof their resources to these countries.
In general, whether or not a country is an LDC is not a major determinant of mostSouth-South and triangular cooperation, and graduation is unlikely to impact these
forms of cooperation.

5. Scholarships and other forms of financial support for education
and research
Governments, United Nations system entities, educational institutions and private
and other non-governmental organizations provide scholarships and funding for
research to LDC nationals. These include scholarships for graduate degree programmes, fellowships for the capacity development of researchers, travel grants forparticipating in academic conferences, or research funds for conducting research
projects (diplomatic training is addressed in the next section). In some cases, support

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category56

is provided exclusively to nationals of LDCs; in others, LDC nationals are given
priority. Examples include:• Some of UNESCO’s Fellowships Programmes prioritize nationals of LDCs. UNESCO

also gives priority and provides financial support to nationals of LDCs (along withother country groupings) through its Participation Programme and offers a limited
number of scholarships to some LDC candidates for education and training atseveral UNESCO centres.

• The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) Research Professors Programme provides

institutions and research groups located in LDCs with the opportunity to establish
long-term links with TWAS members to assist in research activities and advanced
training and so help develop the local scientific capacities. TWAS Members areappointed to institutions in LDCs for a period of five years, during which they visit
the host institution three times for a minimum stay of one month each time.

• The TWAS-Samira Omar Innovation for Sustainability Award recognizes scientists
from LDCs.

• The United Nations Technology Bank, TWAS and the International Centre for

Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) offer early-career scientists from
LDCs exchange visits of up to 6-months at the ICGEB laboratories in Italy, India
and South Africa in the fields of biomedicine, biotechnology and agriculture.

• Also in partnerships with the UN Technology Bank, the International Design Edu-

cation Program provides scholarships for students from LDCs for a Master’s degree
in industrial design engineering at Zheijang University.

• The University of California Berkeley Law School LDC Scholarship grants a waiverof half of the tuition for LL.M. programmes for nationals of LDCs.

C.	 Support for participation in international forums
A number of support measures are in place to help LDCs participate in international
decision-making forums, by limiting their mandatory budget contributions, providing support for travel, providing training for negotiators, or offering flexibility inreporting requirements under international agreements.

1. Caps and discounts on the contribution of least developed countries
to United Nations system budgets
LDCs benefit from caps, discounts or other favourable conditions regarding theircontributions to the budgets of United Nations system entities. These benefits are
determined following the two main methods that apply to all Member States:

International support measures for the least developed countries
57a.

Most of the United Nations system budgets are based on the “scale of assessments” (i.e., the percentages of the budget for which each country is responsible) used for the United Nations regular budget. The scale is determined basedon capacity to pay, which is calculated on the basis of indicators of GNI, debt
burden and per capita income, among others. LDCs, exclusively, benefit from amaximum rate (currently 0.01 per cent of the budget). In practice, however, theassessment rate for most LDCs is below 0.01 per cent of the budget, owing totheir income and other criteria affecting the calculation of the assessment rates;b.

A small number of agencies (ITU, World Intellectual Property Organization, Universal Postal Union) use a system based on classes of contributions. Each classof contribution corresponds to a certain share (or multiple) of a pre-determined
unit of contribution. Countries decide which class they will belong to (andtherefore how much they will contribute), but only LDCs can opt to contributeat the lowest levels.

Similar arrangements exist for secretariats of international conventions. In the caseof the UNFCCC secretariat, no contribution from an LDC can exceed 0.01 per cent of
the total, while for other countries, the applicable ceiling is 25 per cent.
Contributions to funds and programmes, such as UNICEF and UNDP, are voluntary.
Contributions to WTO are determined based on members’ shares of international
trade, without any specific concessions for LDCs.
Table II.7 summarizes the system for determining LDC contributions and the
LDC-specific concessions, as well as the effects of graduation from the LDC category.
Table II.7

Rules for contributions by least developed countries to United Nations system budgets
Entity/operation

Rules

LDC-specific support

What happens after graduation

Regular budget(and Working
Capital Fund)

A scale of assessments isdetermined every three years
in a resolution of the General
Assembly, based on capacity topay, translated into indicatorsof gross national income (GNI),
debt-burden and per capita
income, among others.

The maximum ratefor LDCs is 0.01%.

The 0.01% cap no longer
applies. This would raise thecontributions of graduatedcountries that exceed theassessment rate of 0.01%
according to the formula applied
to determine capacity to pay. It
has no impact on those that do
not exceed that rate.

Each Member State is assigned apercentage (the assessment rate),
corresponding to the share of theregular budget its contribution
will equal.
The minimum assessment rate is
0.001% and the maximum is 22%.

LDC list changes effected
subsequent to the approval of
the scale would be reflected ina subsequent scale period (e.g.,
the scale approved in December
2024 would still consider an
LDC a country scheduled for
graduation in 2026).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
58

Entity/operation

Rules

LDC-specific support

What happens after graduation

Peacekeeping
operations

Contribution is based on the scaleof assessments for the regularbudget adjusted by a premium inthe case of permanent membersof the Security Council, andby discounts in the case of all
countries with per capita grossdomestic product below theMember State average. Member
States are grouped into levels
based on per capita GNI, withlarger discounts applying for thelevels of countries with lower
incomes.

LDCs are entitledto the greatest
discount: 90%.

The applicable discount rate forgraduated countries with per
capita GNI below the average for
all Member States (most LDCs)
would be 80%. The discountrate is reduced progressively forcountries with incomes higher
than average.

International
Residual
Mechanism
for Criminal
Tribunals

Half of the budget is paid forby Member States based on thescale of assessments applicableto the regular budget of the United
Nations, and half in accordancewith the rates of assessment
applicable to peacekeeping
operations.

LDCs benefit fromthe cap on the rateof assessment of theregular budget andthe discount on therate of assessment
for peacekeeping
operations.

The amount due by thegraduated country will increase
proportionally to any increases
in the rate of assessment for the
regular budget or peacekeeping
operations budget.

Specialized
agencies
and relatedorganizations:Contribution is based on the scaleof assessments used for theUnited Nations regular budget,in some cases adjusted for more
restricted membership by theapplication of a coefficient.

LDCs benefit fromthe cap on the rateof assessment of theregular budget.

As for the regular budget, the
0.01% cap no longer applies.

International
Telecommunication
Union (ITU)

Voluntary selection of a classof contribution based on sharesor multiples of an annual unit ofcontribution of CHF 318,000.

Only LDCs cancontribute 1/8 or
1/16 of a unit ofcontribution.

In principle, the minimum
contribution would be 1/4 ofa unit of contribution. The
ITU Council can authorize a
graduated country to continue tocontribute at the lowest classes.

World Intellectual
Property
Organization(WIPO)

Voluntary selection of classes ofcontribution, each corresponding
to a share of a unit of contribution
determined for every biennium,
with only certain categories ofdeveloping countries eligible tocontribute in the lowest class ofcontribution (class S).

Only LDCs cancontribute at thelowest level—Ster—of the lowest class,with 1/32 of a unit ofcontribution.

Non-LDC developing countries
with an assessment rate forthe regular budget of less than
0.01% contribute 1/16; non-LDC
developing countries with anassessment rate for the regularbudget between 0.02% and 0.10%
contribute 1/8. Others contribute
1/4 and up.

FAO, ILO, UNESCO,UNIDO, WMO, WHO,CTBTO Preparatory
Commission, IAEA,
ICC, IOM, ISA,ITLOS, OPCWUNIDO, one of
the entities that
adjusts the scaleby a coefficient due
to more restricted
membership, does
not apply thiscoefficient to LDCs,
whose rate may
exceed 0.01%.

For UNIDO, the waiver on theapplication of the coefficient nolonger applies after graduation.

International support measures for the least developed countries
59

Entity/operation

Rules

LDC-specific support

What happens after graduation

Universal Postal
Union (UPU)

Voluntary selection of class ofcontribution, each corresponding
to a share (from 1 to 50 units)of a predetermined unit ofcontribution.

Only LDCs cancontribute at
0.5% of a unit ofcontribution. Smallisland developing
States with apopulation ofunder 200,000 cancontribute at 0.1% of
a unit.

Graduated countries contributeat least 1 full unit of contribution.
In exceptional circumstances theCouncil of Administration may
temporarily authorize non-least
developed countries to be placedin the class of 0.5 units.

Source: CDP secretariat, based on information published or provided by the respective organizations.
Note: FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; ILO, International Labour Organization; UNESCO, United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organization; WMO, World
Meteorological Organization; WHO, World Health Organization; CTBTO, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization; IAEA,
International Atomic Energy Agency; ICC, International Criminal Court; IOM, International Organization for Migration; ISA, International
Seabed Authority; ITLOS, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; OPCW, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Some organizations and conventions also grant greater flexibility for LDCs in arrears
in the payment of their contributions. In the framework of the Rotterdam on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides inInternational Trade and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
LDCs are exempt from the prohibition of eligibility to the respective Bureau of theConference of the Parties and subsidiary bodies for countries in arrears for two years
or more.

2. Support for travel
Representatives of LDC Governments receive travel support to participate in theannual sessions of the General Assembly. The United Nations pays for the travel(but not for subsistence expenses) for up to five representatives per LDC attendinga regular session of the General Assembly; one representative per LDC attending a
special or emergency session of the General Assembly; and one member of a permanent mission in New York designated as a representative or alternate to a session of
the General Assembly.
After graduation, if requested, travel benefits can be extended for a period of up to
three years.
A number of United Nations organizations and Conventions have also establishedfinancial mechanisms to fund the participation of LDCs in their processes. For example,• a specific trust fund has been established in UN-OHRLLS for the travel, daily subsistence allowance and terminal expenses of up to two representatives from each LDC toattend major conferences sponsored by the United Nations and ministerial meetings;• a trust fund established under UNFCCC funds the travel of two delegates to thesessions of the subsidiary bodies of the Convention and the travel of three representatives for participation in sessions of the Conference of the Parties;

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
60• WHO funds the travel of one representative to the World Health Assembly and thesessions of the Executive Board;• The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime funds the travel of one representative
to the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (every 5
years) and to the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption;• UNIDO funds the travel of the Minister of Industry and Commerce (or equivalent) tothe biennial Ministerial Conference of the Least Developed Countries, and provides
other forms of travel support;• LDCs receive travel support to attend the Ministerial Conferences of WTO.
Other organizations provide financial support for the participation of LDCs in various
international conferences and meetings, including those of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,
ITU (fellowships to attend meetings of the Telecommunication Development Advisory
Group), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to theVienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission), the World Organization for Animal Health, the International Plant
Protection Convention Secretariat and the International Criminal Court, as well asprocesses within the United Nations Secretariat, including the United Nations Openended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea.

3. Capacity-building for participation in negotiations
Least developed countries themselves have formed dedicated LDC groups in several
international institutions, enabling them to negotiate jointly rather than individuallyor as part of larger, often more heterogenous, country groups to advance issues ofmutual interest. Moreover, several organizations have programmes to help build thecapacity of LDCs to participate in negotiations.
For example:• The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) provides diplo-

matic training at a lower cost for LDCs and has fellowships for nationals of LDCs toparticipate in its Multilateral Diplomacy Programme and core diplomatic training
courses;• The WTO secretariat conducts dedicated courses for LDC participants in Geneva,

including an introductory trade policy course for LDCs as well as a one-week intermediate course on priority issues for LDCs in WTO (see section II.A.5 on trade-related capacity-building).

• The Voluntary Technical Assistance Trust Fund to Support the Participation of

Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States in the Work of the
Human Rights Council provides training on human rights and engagement with

International support measures for the least developed countries
61

the Council, fellowship programmes and practical induction trainings for delegates, annual briefings to delegates in New York on engagement with the General
Assembly, and regional workshops;• The LDCF has funded programmes to build the capacity of LDCs to participate

effectively in climate change processes, including the training of senior government
officials, and the development of negotiation strategies and knowledge products.
The LDC Group maintains a list of resources for LDC climate change negotiators. The
International Institute for Environment and Development supports the LDC Group
with on-demand legal, strategic and technical advice in climate negotiations.

4. Other forms of support for participation in international forumsa.

Flexibility in reporting requirements

Under certain agreements, LDCs have greater flexibility in reporting requirements.
Section B contains some examples of this in the area of trade and implementation of
WTO commitments. Under UNFCCC, LDCs and SIDS are accorded flexibility with regard
to reporting, which refers mainly to the timeline for the submission of reports such as
national communications and the biennial update reports (LDCs and SIDS are invited
to submit their reports at their discretion). LDCs and SIDS were permitted to submit
their first biennial update reports at their discretion and not required to do so by the2014 deadline, like other non-Annex I Parties. Flexibility is also extended with respect
to the details to be included in the different reports and associated review processes.

b.

Support for the costs of diplomatic representation

The Canton of Geneva subsidizes the rental costs of the permanent missions of LDCs
in Geneva, up to a certain monthly limit.

CHAPTER

III

Indicators, methodology
and data sources for least
developed country criteria

A.	Overview
As discussed in chapter I, the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) utilizes threecriteria to identify least developed countries (LDCs):a. Gross national income (GNI) per capita;b. The human assets index (HAI);c. The economic and environmental vulnerability index (EVI).

GNI per capita serves as a measure of the income and the overall level of resources
available to a country, whereas HAI and EVI measure main structural impediments tosustainable development. Both HAI and EVI are indices composed of several indicators(see below). These indicators have been selected by CDP on the basis of their relevance to measuring structural impediments, their methodological soundness and theavailability of the data with regard to frequency and coverage. In order to ensure comparability across countries, all indicators are based on internationally available data.
The criteria and results for all Member States of the United Nations in developing
regions1 are published on the CDP website. Applying the criteria to all these countries ensures that prospective candidates for inclusion are identified. Moreover, as
the LDC category aims to address the challenges of the “least developed among thedeveloping countries”,2 the criteria and indicators need to allow for a comparison
between LDCs and other developing countries.3
This chapter describes in detail the methodology and data sources used for the calculation of the LDC criteria. Country examples are used to illustrate these calculations
1

2
3

For the list of countries in developing regions, see United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Statistics
Division, Methodology, “Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49)”, "Historical and updated classification of developed and developing regions" (as of May 2022).
General Assembly resolution 2768 (XXVI).
From a technical point of view, indicator values for non-LDCs also play a role in the calculations for converting indicator values into
index scores (see box III.2).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
64

and are based on the 2024 triennial review.4 LDC indicators, methodology and data
sources are occasionally updated to reflect changes in the understanding of sustainable development and in the availability of data. Updated information on the LDC
criteria will be made available on the CDP website, at http://bit.ly/CDP-LDCs.

B.	 Gross national income per capita
1. Definition, methodology and data sourcesa.

Definition and rationale

GNI per capita provides information on the income status and the overall level ofresources available to a country. GNI is equal to the gross domestic product (GDP),less primary incomes payable to non-resident units (e.g., investment income flowing
to foreigners), plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (e.g., wages
and salaries received by residents who temporarily work abroad for foreign companies, proceeds from fishing licensing fees sold to foreign fishing fleets, etc.).

b.

Methodology

GNI in local currency is recorded in the national accounts in accordance with therelevant international standards.5 It is then converted into a common currency, theUnited States dollar, using the World Bank Atlas method to calculate conversion
factors (see box III.1). The Atlas method is based on market exchange rates but aims
at reducing the impact of short-term exchange rate fluctuations on GNI in UnitedStates dollars. GNI in United States dollars is then divided by the annual populationof a country to determine GNI per capita.

c.

Data sources

GNI per capita is calculated by UN DESA’s Statistics Division (UNSD) on the basis of
its National Accounts Main Aggregates (AMA) Database. The Database contains GNI
data in local currencies for all Member States of the United Nations as well as population data from UN DESA’s Population Division. To calculate the Atlas exchange rate,
UNSD uses AMA data on exchange rates (from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)or other suitable sources) and GDP deflators, as well as data on the relative weights ofcurrencies in the special drawing rights (SDR) from IMF.
To reduce the impact of short-term fluctuations on GNI, CDP takes an unweighted
average of the latest three years of GNI per capita calculated by UNSD as its income
measure; for example, for the 2024 triennial review, the average GNI per capita figuresfor 2020, 2021 and 2022 were used.
4
5

All data for the triennial reviews since 2006, including country-specific data sources, are available at www.bit.ly/LDC-data
The latest standard is the System of National Accounts 2008, even though a number of countries still use previous versions of the
System of National Accounts to compile their national accounts.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
65

Box III.1

The World Bank Atlas method
The World Bank Atlas method uses the Atlas conversion factor for converting all currencies into a common currency.
The conversion factor for any year is the average of a country’s exchange rate (local currency to US dollars) for thatyear and its exchange rates for the two preceding years, adjusted for the difference between the rate of inflation in
the country and international inflation. The objective of the adjustment is to reduce any changes to the exchange
rate caused by inflation.
A country’s inflation rate between year t and year t-n (rt-n) is measured by the change in its gross domestic product(GDP) deflator (pt):International inflation between year t and year t-n
is measured using the change in a deflator based on theInternational Monetary Fund’s unit of account: special drawing rights (SDRs). Known as the SDR deflator, it is aweighted average of the GDP deflators (in SDR terms) of China, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, the United States of America and the euro area, converted to US dollar terms; weights are theamount of each currency in one SDR unit.

The Atlas conversion factor (local currency to the US dollar) for any country for year t () is given by:where et is the average annual exchange rate (local currency to the US dollar) for year t.
Source: World Bank, “The World Bank Atlas method: detailed methodology”. The source contains additional explanations andsample calculations.

2. Inclusion and graduation thresholds
The threshold for inclusion is set at the three-year average of the level of GNI per
capita, which the World Bank uses to define low-income countries. In the 2024
review, the threshold for inclusion in the LDC category was $1,088.6 The thresholdfor graduation is set at 20 per cent above the inclusion threshold; it was $1,306 in the2024 review. The income-only graduation threshold (which enables a country to beeligible for graduation, even if none of the other two criteria are met) is three times
the normal graduation threshold and was set at $3,918 in the 2024 review.
As the World Bank adjusts its income threshold every year, the inclusion and graduation thresholds of the GNI criterion are correspondingly adjusted from one triennial
review to the next. It is important to note, however, that the World Bank adjusts its
thresholds with a measure for world inflation.7 This implies that the inclusion andgaduation thresholds can be regarded as being constant in real terms.
6
7

The World Bank thresholds for its low-income-country category were $1,045 in 2020, $1,085 in 2021and $1,135 in 2022.
The World Bank uses the special drawing rights deflator as a measure of world inflation. See also box III.1.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category66

3. Gross national income values for the 2024 triennial review
Figure III.A.1 in the appendix shows the GNI data of all developing countries includedin the 2024 triennial review, while figure III.A.2 shows all review countries with a GNI
per capita of less than $7,000 (this includes all LDCs).
The figures show that the majority of LDCs continue to have very low per capita
income (both in absolute terms as well as relative to other developing countries). In
the 2024 review, 16 LDCs had GNI per capita figures above the graduation threshold.
Eleven of these countries are already at various stages of the graduation process discussed in chapter I of this Handbook. The other five meet only the income graduationthreshold (established at $1,306 at the 2024 triennial review) and are therefore not yet
eligible for graduation.

C.	 Human assets index
1. Composition
The human assets index (HAI) is a measure of the level of human capital. Low levelsof human capital are major structural impediments, not only because they are a manifestation of unsustainable development, but also because they limit the possibilities
for production and economic growth, prevent poverty eradication, exacerbate inequalities and hamper resilience to external shocks.
Good health is an integral part of human well-being in all its dimensions. Improving
the health status of populations increases their economic productivity, improves educational achievement and reduces poverty. A low level of education is a major obstacle
to development, as it implies an overall shortage of skills for the organization and functioning of the economy and reflects a low capacity to absorb technological advances.
As discussed in chapter I, CDP regularly reviews the LDC criteria and occasionallyintroduces refinements to reflect advances in the understanding of impediments tosustainable development and improvements in data availability. In 2023, CDP decided
to replace the indicator on the gross secondary school enrolment ratio with an indicator on the lower secondary school completion rate. While this indicator does notmeasure education quality, it addresses long-standing concerns of CDP with theenrolment rate, particularly the neglect of drop-out rates and concerns on the qualityof administrative data. The new indicator provides an improved measure for the levelof skills deemed necessary for significant future development progress. To ensure
consistency of the LDC criteria, CDP also decided to replace the gender parity index
for gross secondary school enrolment with gender parity index for lower secondary
school completion.
The HAI still consists of six indicators, three on health and nutrition and three on
education (see figure III.1). All six indicators have an equal weight of one sixth in theoverall HAI. A higher HAI represents a higher development of human capital.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
67

Figure III.1

Composition of the human assets index
Under-5 mortality rate
Healthindex
Humanassetsindex(HAI)

Prevalence of stunting
Maternal mortality ratio
Lower secondary education completion rate

Education
index

Adult literacy rate
Gender parity index for lower secondary education completion

Source: CDP secretariat.

As HAI indicators are measured in different units, indicator values are first converted
into index scores between 0 and 100. The average of these index scores is then the
final HAI score of a country. Box III.2 describes the methodology (known as the maxmin procedure) used for converting the indicator values into index scores.

2. Inclusion and graduation thresholds
Since 2014, inclusion and graduation thresholds for HAI have been fixed at their 2012
review levels, with adjustments permitted for eventual changes in indicators, methodologies or data sources in future reviews.8
Despite the changes to the composition of HAI introduced in 2023, the overall distribution of index scores around the thresholds remains unaffected, so that an adjustment of thresholds was unnecessary. Thus, the HAI threshold for inclusion in the LDC
category at the 2024 triennial review was set at 60, the same value as in 2012, and thegraduation threshold was set at 10 per cent above the inclusion threshold, at 66.

8Previously, the thresholds for HAI and EVI had been established for each review based on the distribution of HAI (and EVI) valuesof a reference group, which changed over time (see Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1991, Supplement No. 11(E/1991/32)).The move to absolute thresholds enabled countries to qualify for graduation if they made significant progress in overcoming the structural impediments they faced, independently of the progress (or regress) of other countries (see Official Records ofthe Economic and Social Council, 2014, Supplement No. 13 (E/2014/33)).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
68

Box III.2

Max-min procedure to convert indicators into indices
In order to construct indices whose values can range between 0 and 100, the minimum and maximum admissible
values—also known as lower and upper bounds—must first be determined. The CDP bases these bounds on the
distribution of indicator values among all developing countries (see tables III.1 in section C.3.g. and and table III.4
in section D.4). However, in order to reduce the impact of extreme outliers on the distribution of index values, thebounds may be set higher (lower) than the actual minimum (maximum) value of the indicator’s data set. The bounds
are generally kept constant across triennial reviews. In addition, for one indicator (victims of disasters), the values
are transformed using the natural logarithm in order to address possible distortions caused by highly skewed distributions of indicator values, or to account for the fact that the associated impediments are clearly non-linear inindicator values.
The basic formula for converting an indicator value (V) into an index score (I) is:

where,
min_value is the minimum admissible value (lower bound) and,
max_value is the maximum admissible value (upper bound).
For countries with indicatorss values below (above) the lower (upper) bound, the actual indicator value is replacedwith the lower (upper) bound resulting in an index score of 0 (100).
In a few cases, indicator and criteria point in opposite directions. For example, a high under-5 mortality rate signifies
a low (rather than high) level of human assets. In these cases, the following adjusted formula is used.

Again, actual indicator values are replaced with lower or upper bounds, if necessary.
Source: CDP secretariat.

3. Definition, methodology and data sources of the indicatorsa.

Under-5 mortality ratei

Definition and rationale

The indicator is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other relevant organizations as “the probability of dying between birth in a specific year or
period before reaching the age of five, if subject to age-specific mortality rates ofthat period”. It is expressed as deaths per 1,000 live births. The under-5 mortality
rate (U5MR) provides comprehensive information on the health impacts of social,economic and environmental conditions in a country. Even though the indicator specifically measures child survival, it is seen as suitable and the best available measurefor the overall health status of a population, in particular in LDCs.

ii.	Methodology
The United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (IGME) estimates U5MR at a specific point in time on the basis of all available country-specificIndicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
69

estimates that are deemed to be of sufficient quality. Country-specific estimates arederived from a variety of sources, including vital registration systems and sample
surveys that ask women about the survival of their children in a detailed manner orin a summary format. Whereas the use of complete vital registration systems is thepreferred method, these systems are generally absent in LDCs, so nationally representative surveys or censuses are the main source of data. The estimation method
chosen by IGME ensures that the data are comparable across countries and takes
into account the differences in data quality across individual estimates and data
sources.9iii.	

Data sources

To calculate HAI, CDP uses IGME’s Child Mortality Estimation (CME) database, which
is updated annually. CDP uses the estimate for the latest available year, which is typically two years before the triennial review year; for example, the estimate for 2022
was used for the 2024 triennial review.

b.

Prevalence of stuntingi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator is defined as the percentage of children under 5 years of age who fall
below minus 2 standard deviations (moderate and severe) from the median heightfor-age of the WHO Child Growth Standard population. The percentage of children
who have a low height for their age (stunting) reflects the cumulative effects ofundernutrition and infections since and even before birth. Stunting is the result of
long-term nutritional deprivation and often results in delayed mental development,poor school performance and reduced intellectual capacity. This measure can therefore be interpreted as an indication of poor environmental conditions or the longterm restriction of a child’s growth potential.

ii.	Methodology
The UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates (JME) group
estimates the indicator by collecting national data sources that contain information
on child malnutrition — specifically, data on the height, weight and age of children
under 5 to generate national-level estimates of the prevalence of stunting. Thesenational-level data sources mainly comprise household surveys (e.g., multiple indicator cluster surveys, demographic and health surveys, Standardized Monitoring andAssessment of Relief and Transitions surveys and Living Standards Measurement
Studies). As national surveys are administered sporadically, the JME group applies a

9For a detailed description of the estimation method used for the under-5 mortality rate data used by the CDP, see Leontine Alkema
and others (2014), “Child mortality estimation 2013: an overview of updates in estimation methods by the United Nations Interagency Group for Child Mortality Estimation”, PLoS One, vol. 9, No. 7 (July).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
70

statistical model to enable comparisons across countries during the same year.10 The
estimation methods used by JME account for differences in definitions (i.e., age andgrowth references) and data quality across sources.

iii.	

Data sources

The CDP uses the country-level modeled estimates as reported by the JME group,
available from UNICEF. Estimates for countries not included in JME are obtained
from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
To ensure consistency across indicators and time, CDP uses the estimates from two
years before the triennial review; for example, the estimate for 2022 was used for the2024 triennial review.

c.

Maternal mortality ratioi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator is defined by WHO and other relevant organizations as “the number ofwomen who die from pregnancy-related causes while pregnant or within 42 days ofpregnancy termination per 100,000 live births during a given time period”. Maternalmortality is a leading cause of death and disability among women of reproductive
age, that is, at an age when death and disability have particularly negative social andeconomic effects. The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) represents the risk associatedwith each pregnancy and also captures broader development handicaps such as
poorly developed health systems and gender inequality.

ii.	Methodology
MMR is calculated by dividing the recorded (or estimated) number of maternal deathsby the total recorded (or estimated) number of live births in the same period andmultiplying the result by 100,000. Measurement requires information on pregnancy
status, timing of death (during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of terminationof pregnancy) and cause of death. The Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-agency
Group (MMEIG), which consists of WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank and the United
Nations Population Fund, estimates the indicator using data collected throughcivil registration and vital statistics systems, censuses, household surveys, reproductive-age mortality studies, verbal autopsies and other specialized studies. The
estimation method used by MMEIG accounts for differences in definitions and data
quality across sources. In cases of missing data, it also utilizes data on relevant covariates (e.g., GDP per capita, skilled-birth attendance and total fertility rate).11

10 The model is a penalized longitudinal mixed-model with a heterogenous error term, for details see UNICEF, WHO and World Bank

(2021), Technical Notes from the Background Document for Country Consultations on the 2021 Edition of the Joint Malnutrition
Estimates).
11 For details of the methodology, see John R. Wilmoth and others (2012), “A new method for deriving global estimates of maternalmortality”, Statistics, Politics and Policy, vol. 3, No. 2 (July)

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
71

iii.	

Data sources

CDP uses the indicator estimated by MMEIG, which is available on the WHO website
and is regularly updated. CDP uses the estimate for the latest available year, which istypically three to four years before the triennial review; for example, the estimate for2020 was used for the 2024 triennial review.

d.

Lower secondary education completion ratei.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the percentage of a cohort of children or young people aged
3–5 years above the intended age for the last grade of lower secondary education who
have completed that grade. It provides information on the share of population with alevel of skills deemed to be necessary for significant developmental progress.

ii.	Methodology
The Global Education Monitoring Report team of UNESCO is estimating the indicatorusing censuses and nationally representative household surveys. Age and sex-specific country-level completion rates from each survey or census are produced basedon data reflecting the number of years of education completed for each individualand official schooling schedules of the country. These completion rates are dispersed
over several years by reconstructing retrospective data. Finally, time series of school
completion rates are estimated using a statistical model.12

iii.	

Data sources

CDP uses the indicator reported by UNESCO in its Visualizing Indicators of Education for the World (VIEW) database. As data are not available for every year for every
country, CDP uses the value of the latest available year from the primary data source
within a five-year period. For example, the latest available data within the period
2019–2023 was used for the 2024 triennial review. If such data is not available, CDP
uses older estimates from the primary data source or estimates from additional official databases, reports or publications.

e.

Adult literacy ratei.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the number of literate persons aged 15 and above, expressed
as a percentage of the total population in that age group. The indicator provides
information on the size of the base available for enlarging the trained and skilledhuman resources needed for development.
12 For details, see UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report and Dharamshi, and others (2022), A Bayesian model for estimating

Sustainable Development Goals indicator 4.1.2: School completion rate, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied
Statistics), 71 (5).

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
72

ii.	Methodology
According to UNESCO, persons are considered literate if they can read and write, with
understanding, a simple statement related to their daily lives. However, the definition of literacy and methods of estimation vary across countries. For instance, when
the indicator is derived from census data, it is normally based on self-declaration.
If surveys are used, either self-assessments or brief literacy tests are used to estimate whether individuals are literate or not. Some countries also use information on
educational attainment as a proxy for literacy. Occasionally, UNESCO uses its Global
Age-specific Literacy Projections (GALP) Model to estimate current literacy rates
based on previous data.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is reported by UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) in its UIS Data Centre database. The database also contains information on country-specific methodologies for estimating literacy rates. Estimates for countries not reported by UNESCO
are obtained from additional official databases, reports or publications from otherinternational organizations.
As data are not available for every year for every country, CDP chooses the latest available year within a five-year period. For example, the latest available data within the
period 2018-2022 was used for the 2024 triennial review. If such data is not available,
CDP uses older estimates from the primary data source or estimates from additional
official databases, reports or publications.

f.

Gender parity index for lower secondary education completioni.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the ratio of girls to boys completing lower secondary education. It provides information on gender inequities in education that have long term
negative impacts on sustainable development, in particular discrimination against
girls. An index of less than 1 suggests that girls are more disadvantaged than boys
regarding learning opportunities, and an index of greater than 1 suggests the reverse.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated by dividing the female lower secondary education completion by the male lower secondary education completion. The age group for lower
secondary education may differ across countries, depending on the national curriculum. Female and male lower secondary completion rates are estimated using themethodology described above.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is calculated by dividing female by male lower secondary school completion rates as reported by UNESCO in its Visualizing Indicators of Education for
the World (VIEW) database. As data are not available for every year for every country,

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria73

CDP uses the value of the latest available year from the primary data source within afive-year period. For example, the latest available data within the period 2019–2023
was used for the 2024 triennial review. If such data is not available, CDP uses older
estimates from the primary data source or estimates from additional official databases, reports or publications.

4. Human assets index calculation: selected examples
Tables III.1 and III.2 and figure III.2 illustrate the calculation of HAI using Burundi,
Cambodia, Chad and Mozambique from the 2024 triennial review as examples.
Table III.1 presents the bounds for each of the six HAI indicators and shows how
indicator values are converted into index values (see also box III.2 on the max-min
procedure). The data value is the actual indicator value obtained for each country
from the sources described above. The column “Max-min procedure” shows the
Table III.1

Calculation of human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review
Indicator
Under-5
mortality rate
(per 1,000
live births)
Prevalenceof stunting

Maternal
mortality ratio(per 100,000
live births)
Lower secondary
education completion
rate
Adult literacy
rate

Gender parity index
for lower secondary
education completion

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

10

175

2.5

52.5

5

1,200

10

100

25

100

0.4

1

Country
Cambodia
Mozambique
BurundiChadCambodia
Mozambique
Burundia
Chad
Cambodia
Mozambique
BurundiChadCambodia
Mozambique
BurundiChadCambodia
Mozambique
BurundiChadCambodiaa
Mozambique
BurundiChad

Data value
23.7
66.2
50.5
102.9
22.3
36.4
56.5
32.3
218
127
494
1,063
58.6
10.9
28.2
18.1
83.8
59.8
75.5
27.3
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.5

Max-min procedure
100 × (175 − 23.7) / (175 − 10)
100 × (175 − 66.2) / (175 − 10)
100 × (175 − 50.5) / (175 − 10)
100 × (175 − 102.9) / (175 − 10)
100 × (52.5 − 22.3) / (52.5 − 2.5)
100 × (52.5 − 36.4) / (52.5 − 2.5)
100 × (52.5 − 52.5) / (52.5 − 2.5)
100 × (52.5 − 32.3) / (52.5 − 2.5)
100 × (1,200 − 218) / (1,200 − 5)
100 × (1,200 − 127) / (1,200 − 5)
100 × (1,200 − 494) / (1,200 − 5)
100 × (1,200 − 1,063) / (1,200 − 5)
100 × (58.6 − 10) / (100 − 10)
100 × (10.9 − 10) / (100 − 10)
100 × (28.2 − 10) / (100 − 10)
100 × (18.1 − 10) / (100 − 10)
100 × (83.8 − 25) / (100 − 25)
100 × (59.8 − 25) / (100 − 25)
100 × (75.5 − 25) / (100 − 25)
100 × (27.3 − 25) / (100 − 25)
100 × (1.0 − 0.4) / (1 − 0.4)
100 × (0.6 − 0.4) / (1 − 0.4)
100 × (0.7 − 0.4) / (1 − 0.4)
100 × (0.5 − 0.4) / (1 − 0.4)

Index
91.7
65.9
75.5
43.7
60.4
32.2
0.0
40.4
82.2
89.8
59.0
11.4
54.0
1.0
20.3
9.0
78.4
46.4
67.4
3.0
100.0
39.5
51.1
21.8

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.
As the data value is above the upper bound, the upper bound replaces the actual data value in the max-min procedure (see box III.2).

aHandbook on the Least Developed Country Category
74

Table III.2

Human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review
Country/ index
Under-5 mortality rate
Prevalence of stunting
Maternal mortality ratio
Lower secondary education completion rate
Adult literacy rate
Gender parity index for lower secondary education completion
Human assets index

Weight
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1

Cambodia
91.7
60.4
82.2
54.0
78.4
100.0
77.8

Mozambique
65.9
32.2
89.8
1.0
46.4
39.5
45.8

Burundi
75.5
0.0
59.0
20.3
67.4
51.1
45.5

Chad
43.7
40.4
11.4
9.0
3.0
21.8
21.5

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

Figure III.2

Composition of the human assets indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review
Human asset index
80
70
60
50
40
Gender parity index for lower secondary
education completion

30

Adult literacy rate
20

Lower secondary education completion rate
Maternal mortality (per 100,000 live births)

100Prevalence of stunting
Under-5 mortality (per 1,000 live births)
Cambodia

Mozambique

BurundiChad

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

calculation performed to derive the index for each country and indicator using thedata value and the lower and upper bounds as inputs. Note that while the three education indicators use the basic formula (I) described in box III.2, the three health andnutrition indicators use the adjusted version (I*). This is because higher child andmaternal mortality and stunting rates correspond to lower human assets.
As noted earlier, HAI reflects the average of the index scores of the six HAI indicators
using equal weights. Table III.2 shows the HAI calculation for the four sample countries using the corresponding index scores computed in table III.1.
Figure III.2 displays the composition of HAI of the four sample countries as a graphusing the corresponding data from table III.2.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria75

5. Human assets index values for the 2024 triennial review
Figure III.A.3 in the appendix shows the HAI score of all countries included in the2024 triennial review. It shows that most LDCs have significantly lower HAI scoresthan other developing countries. Only three non-LDCs have HAI scores below the
LDC inclusion threshold, whereas 17 LDCs have HAI scores above the graduationthreshold. Fifteen of these countries also surpass the GNI or EVI thresholds and are
therefore at one of the various stages of the graduation process discussed in chapter I.
The remaining two countries have not yet reached the GNI or EVI graduation thresholds and thus are not yet eligible for graduation.

D.	 Economic and environmental vulnerability index
1. Composition
The economic and environmental vulnerability index (EVI) measures the structuralvulnerability of countries to economic and environmental shocks. High vulnerability
is a major impediment to sustainable development in LDCs in view of their heightened exposure to shocks and the long-lasting negative impacts of those shocks. To an
extent, all countries are vulnerable to some specific adverse shocks. Thus, when using
vulnerability as an explicit criterion to designate countries as LDCs, there is a need tofocus on those sources of vulnerability that: (a) accentuate or perpetuate underdevelopment; (b) are not the result of misguided policies but, instead, are such that they limit
policymakers’ capacity to respond to shocks; and (c) are beyond a country’s control.
CDP understands vulnerability as the risk of being harmed by exogenous shocks.
Vulnerability depends on the magnitude and frequency of such shocks; on the structural characteristics of the country concerned which affect the degree to which it
is exposed to such shocks; and the country’s capacity to react to shocks. There is
no explicit resilience component in EVI, as some aspects of resilience are policy-related and therefore non-structural. Moreover, other key factors of resilience, such as
income and human capital, are measured by the other two criteria for the identification of LDCs, namely GNI per capita and HAI.
In terms of economic shocks, EVI focuses on trade shocks; with regard to environmental shocks, EVI covers natural hazards, weather shocks and climate change.
These shocks potentially affect economic activity, consumption, employment, thewell-being of the population and the natural resource base of economic and social
development. Moreover, they are mostly exogenous, at least from the perspective ofLDCs, even though the frequency and magnitude of trade shocks and environmental
shocks (e.g., climate change) are to some extent dependent on policy choices made at
the international level.
In 2023 CDP decided to adapt the methodology of the merchandise export concentration index to cover not only product but also market concentration, given that the
problem of a narrow set of export markets exposes many LDCs to the risk of coun-

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category76

try-specific external demand shocks. Noting the improved coverage of data fromthe Sendai Framework monitor reported by the United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction, including for selected Sustainable Development Goals targets, CDP
adopted the monitor as a main data source for the victims of disasters indicator owing
to its official status and the high quality of the data.
The EVI is still composed of eight indicators: four indicators on economic vulnerability and four on environmental vulnerability (see figure III.3). All eight indicators havean equal weight of one eighth in the overall index. A lower EVI score indicates lower
economic and environmental vulnerability.
As these indicators are expressed in different measurement units, indicator values
are first converted into an index score of between 0 and 100, using the max-min procedure described in box III.2, which is also applied to HAI components, as discussed
above.

2. Inclusion and graduation thresholds
As in the case of HAI, the inclusion and graduation thresholds for EVI have beenpermanently fixed at the 2012 level. Despite the changes to the composition of EVI,
the overall distribution of index scores around the thresholds remains unaffected, sothat an adjustment of thresholds is unnecessary at this time. Thus, the EVI threshold
Figure III.3

Composition of the economic and environmental vulnerability index
Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP

Economic
vulnerability
index

Economic andenvironmental
vulnerability
index
(EVI)

Remoteness and landlockedness
Merchandise export concentration
Instability of exports of goods and services
Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones

Environmental
vulnerability
index

Share of population living in drylands
Instability of agricultural production
Victims of disasters

Source: CDP secretariat.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
77

for inclusion in the LDC category was set at 36 in the 2024 triennial review, the samevalue as in 2012. The graduation threshold was set at 10 per cent below the inclusion
threshold, at 32.

3. Definition, methodology and data sources of the indicatorsa.

Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in gross domestic producti.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator is defined as the percentage share of the agriculture, hunting, forestry
and fishing sectors (categories A+B in the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) rev. 3.1) in the gross value added of a country.
It provides information on countries’ exposure to shocks caused by their economic
structure, because agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing are particularly subject
to natural and economic shocks.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated by dividing the value added of agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing by the total gross value added of all sectors. Gross value added isthe value of output less the value of intermediate consumption; it is a measure of
the contribution to GDP made by an individual producer, industry or sector. Data forvalue added in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing (either combined or separately) and for gross value added are reported annually by countries to UNSD throughthe United Nations National Accounts Questionnaire.

iii.	

Data sources

CDP uses data published annually by UNSD in its National Accounts Main Aggregates
Database in the series “Value Added by Economic Activity, Percentage Distribution”.
CDP applies the three-year average of the latest available years reported by UNSD for
all countries; for example, for the 2024 triennial review, the 2020–2022 average was used.

b.

Remoteness and landlockednessi.	

Definition and rationale

The remoteness and landlockedness indicator is defined as a trade-weighted averageof a country’s distance from world markets. Location is a factor that has a bearing on
exposure and resilience, as countries situated far from major world markets face aseries of structural handicaps, such as high transportation costs and isolation, which
affect the economy’s ability to export and import, and render countries less able torespond to shocks in an effective way. Countries isolated from main markets havedifficulty in diversifying their economies, even in the current era of globalization andthe Internet. Remoteness and landlockedness are structural obstacles to trade andHandbook on the Least Developed Country Category
78

growth and possible sources of vulnerability when shocks occur. The indicator takes
into account the increased transport costs incurred by landlocked countries.

ii.	Methodology13
The indicator measures the trade-weighted average minimum distance for a country
to reach a significant fraction (50 per cent) of the world market. For its calculation,
the CDP secretariat uses two sets of data: (a) the bilateral physical distance between
a country and all other countries; and (b) the market share of each actual or potential
trading partner in world markets (exports and imports). Figure III.4 illustrates thenecessary steps for the calculation of the remoteness and landlockedness indicator.
The steps are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Figure III.4

Flow chart for calculating remoteness values
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3Calculated minimum
average distanceof country

Remoteness value

Adjusted remoteness value

Using logarithm
tranformation andmin-max procedure

Applying coefficientof 15% for landlocked
countries

Source: CDP secretariat.

Step 1: For each country under consideration, all countries are sorted in ascendingorder by the physical distance to the considered country. The world market shares of all
countries (ordered by distance) are then added up until their cumulative share reaches
50 per cent of the world market. The minimum average distance is then calculated as
the weighted average of the distances of actual and potential trading partners to thecountry under consideration, with trading partners’ market shares used as weights.
Figure III.5 shows the countries (in blue) included in the remoteness calculation for
Bangladesh (shown in orange). These are the countries whose markets are the nearest
to Bangladesh and whose cumulative share in world exports and imports is 50 per cent.
Step 2: The minimum average distance is then transformed into logarithms and converted into the remoteness value by using the following formula:
Where,

i is the country index;
ri is the remoteness value of country i;
di is the minimum average distance of country i;
13 For a more detailed description of the methodology, see Committee for Development Policy secretariat (2015), “Measuring remote-ness for the identification of LDCs”, August.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
79

dmin is the smallest average distance (2000 km); anddmax is the largest average distance (10,300 km).
The values dmin and dmax are based on the smallest and largest minimum average distance values of all Member States of the United Nations in developing regions. The
formula is the same as in the max-min procedure used for calculating index values(see box III.2), but in the case of remoteness, the max-min procedure is applied twice:once in the second step while constructing the indicator value and then later when
the index values are calculated.
Step 3: An adjusted remoteness value ( ) is computed to take into account the particular situation of landlocked countries. These countries, facing higher barriers
to trade, often confront relatively higher transport costs for a given distance. The
adjustment factor is 15 per cent.
where,

Figure III.5

Bangladesh: countries included in the calculation of the remoteness indicator, 2024 triennial
review

Bangladesh.
Countries whose markets are the nearest to Bangladesh and whose cumulative share in world exports and imports is 50 per cent.
Source: CDP secretariat.
Note: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply oﬃcial endorsement or acceptanceby the United Nations. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India andPakistan. The ﬁnal status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Final boundary between the Republicof Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
80

Table III.3 demonstrates the three steps of the calculation of the remoteness andlandlockedness index for Bangladesh and Nepal.
Table III.3

Calculation of remoteness indicator for Bangladesh and Nepal, 2021 triennial review
Calculated minimum average distance (km)Logarithm transformation

Bangladesh

Nepala

4,067

3,974

	  ln(4,067) − ln(2,000)
100 ×ln(10,300) − ln(2,000)

ln(3.974) − ln(2,000)
100 ×	 (10,300) − ln(2,000)

43.3

41.89

0.85 × 43.30 + 0.15 × 0

0.85 × 41.89 + 0.15 × 100

36.8

50.6

Largest average distance = 10,300
Smallest average distance = 2,000
Remoteness value
Adjustment for landlocked countries
landlocked = 100
all other = 0
Adjusted remoteness value
Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.
a Landlocked country.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is calculated by the CDP secretariat based on data on bilateral distances
between the capitals or major cities in the world, obtained from the Centre d’études
prospectives et d’informations internationales (CEPII) data series “dist_cepii”. World
market shares are calculated based on the components “exports of goods and services” and “imports of goods and services” reported by UNSD in its National Accounts
Main Aggregates Database in the series “GDP by Expenditure, at current prices — US
Dollars”.
In order to reduce the impact of short-term fluctuations in exports and imports, CDP
uses the three-year average of the latest available years reported by UNSD for all
countries; for example, for the 2024 triennial review, the 2020–2022 average was used.

c.

Merchandise export concentrationi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the product and market concentration of a country’s exports
and provides information on the exposure to trade shocks resulting from a concentrated export structure. As currently applied, export concentration excludes services.
This is largely due to methodological differences in terms of both data collection andreporting. A more concentrated export structure indicates higher vulnerability toshocks, as a relatively larger part of the export-oriented sectors can be potentiallyaffected by product- or market-specific shocks.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
81

ii.	Methodology14
The indicator is a Theil index derived from all bilateral exports flows of all individual
products at the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) three-digit level to
all foreign markets applying the following formula:where,
n is the number of different (potential) products;
m is the number of different (potential) markets these products can be exported to;
Xkj is the value of exports of product k to market j; andis the average export flow.
The index T can range between 0 (in case the same amount of each product is exported
to each market) and ln(n×m) (in case a country exports a single product to a single
market).

iii.	

Data sources

CDP secretariat calculates the indicator based on the merchandise trade matrix reported
for all countries by UNCTAD in its UNCTADstat database in the series “Merchandise:
Product concentration and diversification indices of exports and imports, annual”
under the section “International merchandise trade”, subsection “Trade indicators”.
CDP applies the three-year average of the latest available years reported by UNCTAD for
all countries; for example, for the 2024 triennial review, the 2020–2022 average was used.

d.

Instability of exports of goods and servicesi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the variability of the value of exports around its r trend, calculated over a 20-year period. It is defined as the standard deviation of the difference
between the value of annual export earnings and its multi-year trend. Highly variable
export earnings cause fluctuations in production, employment and the availabilityof foreign exchange, with negative consequences for sustainable economic growthand development. High export instability indicates heightened vulnerability to trade
shocks. To reflect the fact that export instability is a greater impediment for countries that depend more on trade, the volatility of exports in terms of volume aroundtheir trend are weighted with the country’s trade dependency (the ratio of exports

14 For a detailed description of the methodology, see Bruckner (2023), Measuring export concentration for identifying least developed

countries, CDP Background paper No. 59, United Nations, New York.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
82

plus imports to GDP). The latest three-year average of the trade dependency ratio wasused for the 2024 triennial review.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated in three steps. First, the trend in export earnings of eachcountry is determined from the following regression equation:ln(Xt) = α + β ln(Xt−1) + γt + etwhere,

Xt is the value of exports of goods and services at constant United States dollars in year t;t is the time variable (each year in the sample period);
et is the error term in year t; andα, β and γ are the regression coefficients.
The equation is estimated separately for each country, using standard ordinary leastsquares. In this formulation, the trend is assumed to have both a deterministic and astochastic component. For this reason, the de-trending method used for this indicator is called a mixed-trend regression.
Then, the standard deviation of the differences between trend and actual values isused as the instability measure:

where,
êt = ln(Xt) ‒ α̂ ‒ β̂ ln(Xt‒1) ‒ γ̂t;
α̂, β̂, γ̂ are the estimated regression coefficients; andN is the number of observations.
Finally, the trade dependency scores (the ratio of exports plus imports to GDP) areapplied as weight to the instability value.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is calculated by the CDP secretariat, utilizing data reported by UNSD in
its National Accounts Main Aggregates Database in the series “GDP by Expenditure, atconstant 2005 prices — US Dollars” on the exports of goods and services in constantUnited States dollars. Trade dependency is calculated based on data from the series“GDP by Expenditure, at current prices — US Dollars” from the same data source.
CDP secretariat calculates the indicator based on data for the latest available 20 years.
Thus, the instability value for the 2024 triennial review was calculated on the basisof data for the period 2003–2022.15 For the trade dependency weights, the 2020–2022
averages were used.
15 Due to the inclusion of lagged exports in the regression, 21 years of data (2002–2022 in the case of the 2024 triennial review) areneeded as input for the calculation.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
83e.

Share of population in low elevated coastal zonesi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the share of the population of a country who live in low elevated coastal zones, defined as areas contiguous to the coast below a certain elevation threshold. Currently, an elevation threshold of five metres is used. The indicatorintends to capture vulnerability to coastal impacts (including sea level rise and storm
surges) associated with climate change.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated by dividing the number of people living in areas contiguous
to the coast with an elevation of less than five metres by the total population of thecountry. Classification of areas into elevation zones is done based on satellite data.
Spatially distributed population data is based on census or administrative records aswell as on the distribution and density of built-up areas.16

iii.	

Data sources

CDP uses the indicator produced by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University and the City University of New York (CUNY)
Institute for Demographic Research.

f.

Share of population living in drylandsi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the share of the population of a country who live in drylands.
Drylands and their fragile ecosystems are particularly sensitive to changing rainfall
patterns and land degradation induced by climate change. The expansion of drylands
is expected to continue as a result of continental warming, threatening to aggravate
poverty, food and water insecurity in affected areas.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated by the CDP secretariat using readily and publicly available
spatial population and climate data. The indicator uses the concept of “drylands” of theUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which refers to arid,semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, defined as areas where the ratio of precipitation topotential evaporation, is between 0.05 and 0.65. In line with common practice, the indicator uses 30-year averages of this ratio (known as aridity index).17 To avoid counting
16 For details on the methodology of the indicator, see National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Socioeconomic Data

and Applications Center, “Low elevation coastal zone urban-rural population and land area estimates (1990, 2000, 2015), version 3”
and K. MacManus et al (2021), Estimating Population and Urban Areas at Risk of Coastal Hazards, 1990–2015: How data choices
matter, Earth System Science Data, 13, 5747-5801.
17 For a discussion, see M. Cherlet et al, eds. (2018), World Atlas of Desertification: Rethinking Land Degradation and Sustainable Land
Management, 3rd ed., Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union. See also UNCCD for the text of the Convention and foran example of understanding the concept of drylands.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
84

transitions from arid land (an aridity index between 0.05 and 0.2) to hyper-arid land (anaridity index of less than 0.05) as a reduction in drylands and, thus, a decline in vulnerability, hyper-arid areas are also included as long they had an aridity index of 0.05
or higher in the past 20 years. The final indicator is derived by dividing the population
living in drylands by the total population of a country.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is calculated by the CDP secretariat based on an aridity index derived
from high-resolution climate data from the University of East Anglia Climatic
Research Unit (CRU TS version 4) and gridded population data from the Center forInternational Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University, version 4.
The indicator includes the latest 30 years for which data coverage is complete; forexample, for the 2024 triennial review, the period 1993–2022 was used for the calculation of the aridity index and 2022 data for population.

g.

Instability of agricultural productioni.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the variability of agricultural production around its trend,
defined as the standard deviation of the differences between production and its trend
over a given period of time (20 years). A high variability of agricultural production isindicative of high vulnerability to natural shocks, as such variability often reflects theimpacts of natural shocks, including droughts and disturbances in rainfall patterns.

ii.	Methodology
The indicator is calculated in two steps. First, the trend in agricultural production ofeach country is determined from the following regression equation:
where,ln(Xt) = α + β ln(Xt−1) + γt + et

Xt is the index of total agricultural production in volume terms in year t;t is the time variable (each year in the sample period);
et is the error term in year t; andα, β and γ are the regression coefficients.
The equation is estimated separately for each country using standard ordinary leastsquares. In this formulation, the trend is assumed to have both a deterministic and astochastic component. For this reason, the de-trending method used for this indicator is called a mixed-trend regression.
Finally, the standard deviation of the differences between trend and actual values isused as the instability measure:Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
85

where,
êt = ln(Xt) ‒ α̂ ‒ β̂ ln(Xt‒1) ‒ γ̂t;
α̂, β̂, γ̂ are the estimated regression coefficients; andN is the number of observations.

iii.	

Data sources

The indicator is calculated by the CDP secretariat on the basis of data reported by
the FAO in its FAOSTAT database as “Gross production index number” in the series“Agriculture + (Total)” under “Production” and “Production Indices”.
The CDP uses the trend of the latest available 20 years; thus, for the 2024 triennial
review, the trend was calculated over the period 2001–2021.18

h.

Victims of disastersi.	

Definition and rationale

The indicator measures the number of people who are victims of disasters per 100,000
population. Victims of disasters are defined as people killed, missing or directly
affected (i.e., people who have suffered injury, illness or other health effects; whowere evacuated, displaced, relocated or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets) as a direct
result of the hazardous event. The scope of disaster applies to small-scale and largescale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters caused by natural
or man-made hazards, as well as related environmental, technological and biologicalhazards and risk. The indicator reflects vulnerability to natural shocks, in particular
the human impact of disasters associated with these shocks.

ii.	Methodology
The share of victims is calculated by dividing the annual number of victims by the
total population of the country (estimated as of mid-year) and multiplied by 100,0000.

iii.	

Data sources

CDP uses the sum of the values of the “Number of directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population” and “Number of directly affected persons
attributed to disasters per 100,000 population” as reported by the Sendai Framework
monitor to the SDG database. Data gaps are filled by the CDP secretariat calculations, based on disaster data from EM-DAT and on population data from UN DESA.19
In order to account for fluctuations of disasters over time, annual indicator values
are averaged over a period of 15 years. Data for the 2024 triennial review refer to the
2008–2022 average.
18 Owing to the inclusion of lagged agricultural production in the regression, 21 years of data (2000–2021 in case of the 2024 triennial

review) are needed as input for the calculation.

19 United Nations (2022), World Population Prospects 2022 Revision, New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category86

4. Economic and environmental vulnerability index calculation: selected
examplesTables III.4 and III.5 and figure III.6 illustrate the calculation of EVI for the 2021 triennial review using Cambodia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Zambia as examples.
Table III.4

Calculation of economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries, 2024
triennial review
Indicator
Share of agriculture,
forestry andfishing in GDP(percentage of GDP)
Remoteness andlandlockedness(location index)

Merchandise export
concentration(Theil index)

Instability of exports ofgoods and services(index)Share of population
living in low
elevated coastal
zones (percentage
of population)
Share of population
living in drylands(percentage of
population)
Instability ofagricultural production(index)Victims of disasters(per 100,000
population)

Lower
bound

1

10

4

0

0

0

1.5

0.05

Upper
bound

60

90

10

50

35

100

20

15

Country

Data
value

Cambodia

24.1

Sierra Leonea

60.7

South Sudan

4.1

Zambia3.3

Cambodia

43.8

Sierra Leone

50.0

South Sudan

64.2

Zambia80.8

Cambodia

6.0

Sierra Leone

7.2

South Sudana

10.2

Zambia7.8

Cambodia

10.2

Sierra Leone

18.5

South Sudan

34.3

Zambia10.3

Cambodia

2.0

Sierra Leone

3.5

Max − min procedure

Index

100 × (24.1 − 1) / (60 − 1)
100 × (60 − 1) / (60 − 1)

100.0

100 × (4.1 − 1) / (60 − 1)
100 × (3.3 − 1) / (60 − 1)
100 × (43.8 − 10) / (90 − 10)
100 × (50.0 − 10) / (90 − 10)
100 × (64.2 − 10) / (90 − 10)
100 × (80.8 − 10) / (90 − 10)

39.1
5.2
3.9
42.2
49.9
67.7
88.5

100 × (6.0 − 4) / (10 − 4)
100 × (7.2 − 4) / (10 − 4)

33.0

100 × (10 − 4) / (10 − 4)
100 × (7.8 − 4) / (10 − 4)

100.0

100 × (10.2 − 0) / (50 − 0)
100 × (18.5 − 0) / (50 − 0)

20.5

100 × (34.3 − 0) / (50 − 0)
100 × (10.3 − 0) / (50 − 0)

68.6

100 × (2.0 − 0) / (35 − 0)
100 × (3.5 − 0) / (35 − 0)

53.2
63.5
36.9
20.6
5.7
10.1

South Sudan

0.0

100 × (0.0 − 0) / (35 − 0)

0.0

Zambia0.0

100 × (0.0 − 0) / (35 − 0)0.0

Cambodia

0.0

100 × (0.0 − 0) / (100 − 0)

0.0

Sierra Leone

0.0

0.0

South Sudan

64.2

100 × (0.0 − 0) / (100 − 0)
100 × (64.2 − 0) / (100 − 0)

Zambia46.6

Cambodia

6.6

Sierra Leone

11.9

South Sudan

8.1

Zambia7.9

Cambodia

0.21

Sierra Leone

0.06

South Sudan
Zambia64.2

100 × (46.6 − 0) / (100 − 0)
100 × (6.6 − 1.5) / (20 − 1.5)

46.6

100 × (11.9 − 1.5) / (20 − 1.5)
100 × (8.1 − 1.5) / (20 − 1.5)

56.3

27.8
35.6

100 × (7.9 − 1.5) / (20 − 1.5)
100 × ((ln(0.21) − ln(0.05)) / (ln(15) − ln(0.05))

24.9

11.00

100 × ((ln(0.06) − ln(0.05)) / (ln(15) − ln(0.05))
100 × ((ln(11.0) − ln(0.05)) / (ln(15) − ln(0.05))

94.6

1.64

100 × ((ln(1.64) − ln(0.05)) / (ln(15) − ln(0.05))

61.2

34.5
3.1

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC−data.
a As the data value is above the upper bound, the upper bound replaces the actual data value in the max − min procedure (see box III.2).

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
87

Table III.5

Economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries, 2024 triennial review
Country/Indicator
Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP
Remoteness and landlockedness
Merchandise export concentration
Instability of exports of goods and services
Share of population living in low elevated coastal zones
Share of population living in drylands
Agricultural instability
Victims of disasters
Economic and environmental vulnerability index

Weight
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1

Cambodia
39.1
42.2
33.0
20.5
5.7
0.0
27.8
24.9
24.1

Sierra Leone
100.0
49.9
53.2
36.9
10.1
0.0
56.3
3.1
38.7

Zambia
3.9
88.5
63.5
20.6
0.0
46.6
34.5
61.2
39.8

South Sudan
5.2
67.7
100.0
68.6
0.0
64.2
35.6
94.6
54.5

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

Figure III.6

Composition of the economic and environmental vulnerability indices of selected countries,
2024 triennial review
Environmental vulnerability index
55
50
45
40
35
Victims of disasters

30

Agricultural instability

25

Share of population living in drylands

20

Share of population living in low elevatedcoastal zones

15

Instability of exports of goods and services

10

Merchandise export concentration
Remoteness and landlockedness

50

Share of agriculture, forestry and fishingin GDP
Cambodia

Sierra Leone

ZambiaSouth Sudan

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

Table III.4 presents the bounds for each of the EVI indicators and then demonstrates
how indicator values are converted into index values (see also box III.2 on the maxmin procedure). The data value is the actual indicator value obtained for each country from the sources described in the previous sections. In the case of remotenessand landlockedness, the data value represents the adjusted remoteness value rather

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
88than the distance in kilometres. The column “max-min procedure” shows the calculation for deriving the index for each country and indicator using the data value
and the lower and upper bounds as input. As noted in box III.2, values for victims ofdisasters are first transformed into logarithms to account for the skewness of theirdistribution. For all indicators, higher indicator values imply higher vulnerability, so
the basic formula (I) is used.
As noted earlier, EVI reflects the average of the index values of the eight EVI indicators using equal weights. Table III.5 shows the EVI calculation for the four sample
countries using the corresponding index scores computed in table III.4.
Figure III.6 sets out the composition of the EVI of the four sample countries in a chart,using the corresponding data from table III.5.

5. Economic and environmental vulnerability index values for the 2024
triennial review
Figure III.A.4 in the appendix shows the EVI scores of all countries included in the2024 triennial review. While on average LDCs have significantly higher EVI scoresthan other developing countries, there are also a number of non-LDCs that are highly
vulnerable, in particular small island developing States (SIDS), and landlocked
developing countries (LLDCs). As non-LDCs, though, these countries have higher
human asset and national income levels than LDCs. In total, 28 non-LDCs have EVI
scores above the LDC inclusion threshold, whereas 10 LDCs have an EVI value thatis below the graduation threshold. Of these, four countries also meet the graduationthresholds for GNI and HAI and four countries meet the graduation threshold for HAI
and are therefore at one of the various stages of the graduation process discussed inchapter I. The remaining two LDCs have not yet reached the GNI or HAI graduationthresholds and are therefore not yet eligible for graduation.

E.	 Summing up: the 2024 triennial review
In figure III.7, individual LDCs are represented by a bubble. The horizontal andvertical positions of the bubbles correspond to EVI and HAI scores, respectively,
whereas the bubble size illustrates GNI per capita. The colour of each bubble reflects
the performance of LDCs vis-à-vis the graduation thresholds and their status in thegraduation process.
Moreover, figure III.7 and table III.6 show the results of the 2024 triennial review for
LDCs, and simultaneously present the scores of the three different criteria. Fifteen
countries met the eligibility criteria for graduation at the 2024 triennial review. In
addition, nine LDCs passed the graduation threshold of a single criterion and were
therefore not yet eligible for graduation. Almost half of the LDCs (21 countries) did
not yet meet the graduation threshold of any of the LDC criteria.

Indicators, methodology and data sources for least developed country criteria
89

Figure III.7

Results of the 2024 triennial review
Graduating LDCs

LDCs recommended for graduation by CDP

GNI, HAI and EVI
Bangladesh, Lao People's Democratic Republic

GNI, HAI and EVI
Cambodia

GNI and HAI
Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands

GNI and HAI
Djibouti, Kiribati, Senegal, Tuvalu

HAI and EVI
Nepal

LDCs met only one graduation threshold

LDCs met criteria for the first timeand are under CDP review

GNI
Angola, Benin, Haiti, Mauritania, Timor-Leste

LDCs met graduation criteria at least twoconsecutive times, but deferred by CDP
GNI, HAI and EVI
Myanmar
GNI and HAI
Comoros
LDCs meeting no criterion
Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central
African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republicof the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau,
Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mozambique, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen

HAI
Gambia, Zambia

HAI and EVI
Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania

EVI
Guinea, Togo

Graduation thresholds

Human asset index
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Income graduation threshold
15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Economic and environmental vulnerability index

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available at bit.ly/LDC-data.
Note: Bubble size designates value of GNI per capita.

Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category
90

Table III.6

Least developed country criteria for all least developed countries, 2024 triennial review
GNI per capita (United States dollars)
HAI
Burundi298 South Sudan
Yemen
350 ChadSouth Sudan
395 Niger
Afghanistan
437 Central African Republic
Central African Republic
473 Somalia
Liberia
473 Afghanistan
Madagascar
487 Burundi
Mozambique
491 Mozambique
Sierra Leone
497 Guinea
Democratic Republic of the Congo
547 Mali
Somalia
573 Benin
Niger
589 Guinea-Bissau
Malawi606 Liberia
Eritrea
609 Angola
Sudan
619 Sierra Leone
Gambia750 Ethiopia
Guinea-Bissau
764 Madagascar
Burkina Faso
835 Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mali
838 Burkina Faso
Rwanda843 Malawi
Uganda909 Lesotho
Chad
922 Togo
Togo
942 Sudan
Ethiopia
1,008 Eritrea
Guinea1,037 Yemen
United Republic of Tanzania
1,093 Mauritania
Zambia1,113 Haiti
Lesotho
1,184 Timor-Leste
Nepal
1,300 Uganda
Benin
1,316 Senegal
Myanmar
1,381 Rwanda
Haiti
1,536 Djibouti
Senegal1,558 United Republic of Tanzania
Cambodia
1,590 Comoros
Comoros
1,603 Gambia
Mauritania
1,797 Zambia
Angola2,027 Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Sao Tome and Principe
2,271 Nepal
Solomon Islands
2,281 Myanmar
Timor-Leste
2,314 Bangladesh
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 2,503 Cambodia
Bangladesh
2,684 Solomon Islands
Kiribati
2,916 Kiribati
Djibouti
3,238 Sao Tome and Principe
Tuvalu6,830 Tuvalu

EVI
19.3 Eritrea
21.5 Djibouti
25.5 South Sudan
29.4 Somalia
31.8 Niger
37.5 Kiribati
45.5 Mauritania
45.8 Tuvalu
46.4 Chad46.7 Solomon Islands
48.6 Mali
49.2 Lesotho50.6 Burkina Faso55.2 Afghanistan
55.3 Sudan
58.1 Liberia
58.6 Gambia
59.5 Malawi
59.9 Senegal
60.5 Yemen
60.7 Timor-Leste
61.1 Mozambique
62.0 Sao Tome and Principe
62.0 Zambia
62.5 Haiti
64.5 Sierra Leone
64.8 Angola
65.6 Burundi
66.3 Comoros
66.7 Ethiopia
66.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo
66.9 Central African Republic
68.1 Benin
68.7 Guinea-Bissau69.0 Madagascar
71.4 Myanmar
74.8 Lao People’s Democratic Republic
76.3 Nepal
76.3 United Republic of Tanzania
77.5 Guinea
77.8 Togo
79.4 Rwanda
84.6 Uganda
91.4 Cambodia
92.9 Bangladesh

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.
Graduation thresholds (GNI per capita $1,306 or above, HAI 66 or above, EVI 32 or below)
Income only graduation exception threshold (GNI per capita $3,912 or above)

56.4
54.7
54.5
54.4
54.2
53.6
52.9
50.8
50.2
49.6
49.0
47.8
46.9
46.8
46.4
45.9
45.5
43.2
42.3
41.3
41.3
41.0
40.0
39.8
39.1
38.7
38.5
37.3
37.0
36.9
34.6
34.2
34.2
34.0
32.3
30.2
29.8
29.7
29.5
29.2
29.1
28.2
28.2
24.1
21.9

Appendix

Figure III.A.1

Gross national income per capita for all Member States in developing regions, 2024 triennial review
Thousands of United States dollars
65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Viet Nam
Philippines
Cabo Verde
MoroccoVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Tunisia
Eswatini
Vanuatu
BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Djibouti
Kiribati
Bangladesh
Papua New Guinea
Lao People’s Democratic RepublicCôte d'Ivoire
Honduras
Timor-Leste
Ghana
Solomon Islands
Sao Tome and Principe
Congo
India
Kenya
AngolaNigeria
Uzbekistan
Nicaragua
Mauritania
Comoros
Cameroon
Cambodia
SenegalHaiti
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Myanmar
Benin
Nepal
Kyrgyzstan
LesothoTajikistan
ZambiaUnited Republic of Tanzania
GuineaEthiopia
Togo
Chad
UgandaRwandaMali
Burkina Faso
Syrian Arab Republic
Guinea-Bissau
GambiaDemocratic People's Republic of Korea
Sudan
Eritrea
Malawi
Niger
Somalia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Sierra Leone
Mozambique
Madagascar
Liberia
Central African Republic
Afghanistan
South Sudan
Yemen
Burundi

ODCs

LDCs

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Qatar
Singapore
United Arab Emirates
KuwaitBrunei Darussalam
BahamasBahrainSaudi Arabia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Oman
Barbados
Uruguay
Nauru
Palau
Antigua and Barbuda
Trinidad and Tobago
PanamaSeychelles
Chile
GuyanaCosta Rica
China
Malaysia
Argentina
Cuba
Mauritius
MexicoTürkiyeSaint Lucia
Kazakhstan
Maldives
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
GrenadaDominican Republic
Turkmenistan
BrazilDominica
Marshall Islands
Libya
Thailand
Gabon
Botswana
TuvaluLebanonSouth Africa
Peru
Colombia
BelizeEcuadorEquatorial Guinea
Paraguay
Suriname
Jamaica
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Iraq
Fiji
Georgia
GuatemalaNamibia
El Salvador
Indonesia
JordanMicronesia (Federated States of)Mongolia
Sri Lanka
Samoa
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Egypt
AlgeriaFigure III.A.2

Gross national income per capita for all Member States in developing regions with a per capita GNI below
Thousands of United States dollars
70

68

66

64

62

60

48

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Sao Tome and Principe
Congo
India
Kenya
AngolaNigeria
Uzbekistan
Nicaragua
Mauritania
Comoros
Cameroon
Cambodia
SenegalHaiti
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Myanmar
Benin
Nepal
Kyrgyzstan
LesothoTajikistan
ZambiaUnited Republic of Tanzania
GuineaEthiopia
Togo
Chad
UgandaRwandaMali
Burkina Faso
Syrian Arab Republic
Guinea-Bissau
GambiaDemocratic People's Republic of Korea
Sudan
Eritrea
Malawi
Niger
Somalia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Sierra Leone
Mozambique
Madagascar
Liberia
Central African Republic
Afghanistan
South Sudan
Yemen
BurundiInclusion threshold ($1,088)

Graduation threshold ($1,306)

ODCs

LDCs

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

7,000 United States dollars, 2024 triennial review

70

68

66

64

62

60

48

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Gabon
Botswana
TuvaluLebanonSouth Africa
Peru
Colombia
BelizeEcuadorEquatorial Guinea
Paraguay
Suriname
Jamaica
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Iraq
Fiji
Georgia
GuatemalaNamibia
El Salvador
Indonesia
JordanMicronesia (Federated States of)Mongolia
Sri Lanka
Samoa
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Egypt
Algeria
Viet Nam
Philippines
Cabo Verde
MoroccoVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Tunisia
Eswatini
Vanuatu
BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Djibouti
Kiribati
Bangladesh
Papua New Guinea
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Côte D'Ivoire
Honduras
Timor-Leste
Ghana
Solomon Islands

Figure III.A.3

Human assets index for all Member States in developing regions, 2024 triennial review
100

Human assets index

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

South Africa
Kiribati
Egypt
Indonesia
Philippines
Botswana
Marshall Islands
Iraq
Nicaragua
BelizeIndia
Solomon Islands
BhutanNamibia
Zimbabwe
Cambodia
Bangladesh
Syrian Arab Republic
Ghana
Myanmar
Nepal
VanuatuGabon…
Lao People’s Democratic
Republic
Kenya
Eswatini
ZambiaGuatemala
Libya
Equatorial Guinea
GambiaComoros
United Republic of Tanzania
Djibouti
Congo
RwandaSenegalUgandaTimor-Leste
Cameroon
Haiti
Mauritania
Yemen
Eritrea
Sudan
Pakistan
Togo
Lesotho
MalawiBurkina Faso
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Côte D'Ivoire
Madagascar
Ethiopia
Papua New Guinea
Sierra Leone
AngolaLiberia
Guinea-Bissau
Benin
Nigeria
Mali
GuineaMozambique
BurundiAfghanistan
Somalia
Central African Republic
Niger
Chad
South Sudan

0

Inclusion threshold (60)

Graduation threshold (66)

ODCs

LDCs

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

Kazakhstan
Chile
Georgia
Singapore
Qatar
Barbados
BahrainMongolia
Armenia
Uzbekistan
Cuba
Antigua and Barbuda
China
Türkiye
Seychelles
Saint Lucia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Samoa
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Brunei Darussalam
KuwaitJordanTonga
Kyrgyzstan
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
GrenadaFiji
United Arab Emirates
Maldives
Saudi Arabia
Peru
BrazilIran (Islamic Republic of)ThailandOman
Tajikistan
Jamaica
BahamasParaguay
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Uruguay
MexicoTuvaluMauritius
Argentina
Dominican Republic
Tunisia
Costa Rica
Palau
PanamaAzerbaijan
Sao Tome and Principe
Colombia
GuyanaSri Lanka
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)Dominica
EcuadorCabo VerdeViet Nam
El Salvador
Malaysia
Lebanon
Nauru
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Suriname
Micronesia (Federated States of)Algeria
Honduras
Morocco0Figure III.A.4

Economic and environmental vulnerability index for all Member States in developing regions, 2024 triennial review
Environmental vulnerability index
60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Brunei Darussalam
Nigeria
Chile
Guinea-Bissau
Benin
Central African Republic
Kyrgyzstan
Democratic Republic of the CongoSaint Vincent and the Grenadines
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Paraguay
Saint Lucia
Bahrain
Antigua and Barbuda
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)Armenia
Seychelles
Ethiopia
Comoros
BurundiSamoa
Dominica
AngolaSierra Leone
Haiti
Zambia
Sao Tome and Principe
Eswatini
Tajikistan
Botswana
Mozambique
Timor-Leste
Yemen
Suriname
SenegalNamibia
BelizeMalawi
Syrian Arab Republic
Cabo Verde
Iraq
GambiaLiberia
Vanuatu
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Burkina Faso
LesothoMicronesia (Federated States of)
Tonga
Fiji
Mali
Mongolia
Solomon Islands
Maldives
Chad
GuyanaTuvalu
Nauru
Mauritania
Kiribati
Niger
SomaliaSouth Sudan
Djibouti
Palau
EritreaMarshall Islands

Inclusion threshold (36)

Graduation threshold (32)

ODCs

LDCs

Source: CDP, 2024 triennial review, available from bit.ly/LDC-data.

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

TürkiyeEgypt
BarbadosCôte d’Ivoire
Equatorial Guinea
China
Saudi Arabia
Mauritius
Singapore
Bangladesh
GuatemalaIndonesia
BrazilMalaysia
PanamaEl Salvador
Kenya
Gabon
Oman
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Costa Rica
Colombia
Honduras
MoroccoDominican Republic
Algeria
MexicoJamaica
India
Qatar
EcuadorTunisia
Congo
ThailandPhilippines
Argentina
Cameroon
Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba
BahamasUgandaRwandaViet Nam
Azerbaijan
LebanonKazakhstan
Togo
GuineaGeorgia
Pakistan
Libya
United Republic of Tanzania
Nicaragua
JordanPapua New Guinea
Nepal
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
KuwaitVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
MyanmarGrenadaUruguay
Ghana
BhutanUzbekistan
Peru
Madagascar
South Africa
Iran (Islamic Republic of)COMMITTEE FOR
DEVELOPMENT POLICYThe Committee for Development Policy (CDP)is a subsidiary body of the United Nations
Economic and Social Council. It provides
independent expert advice to the Council on awide range of issues related to the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. The Committee isalso responsible for reviewing the least
developed countries (LDCs) category, making
recommendations as to which countries should be
included in the category or graduate therefrom,and monitoring the progress of countries
during and after graduation fromthe category.
For more information, please visit

cdp.un.org

ISBN 978-92-1-003132-5