RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
27 June 2001
(01-3220)
Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries
Twenty-Fourth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9 APRIL 2001
Chair: Ambassador Simon Fuller (United Kingdom)
1. The Chairman thanked Members for his election as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Least-Developed Countries. He noted the commitmen t of his predecessor in supporting the efforts of
the LDCs to integrate into the multilateral trad ing system, and also the commitment of the United
Kingdom government to build consensus on matters of importance to some of the world's poorest
countries. This was set out he said, in the recent White Paper - Making Globalization Work for the
Poor . He stated that it highlighted the need to promote an open and fair rules-based international
trading system, focussed on poverty reduction. The WTO had a crucial role to play, for LDCs to
capture the benefits of the trading system. He called on Members to support the work ahead.
2.  Ambassador Jonsson (Iceland), as outgoing Chairman, in his statement expressed
appreciation to Members for the support given over the past two years in the work of the Sub-
Committee. Evidence of progress was emerging, but more work was required, as well as firm
commitment by multilateral agencies, development partners and by LDCs themselves. He believed
that the process had begun principally due to progress on the Integrated Framework (IF) but wouldneed to continue and be consolidated to overcome the challenge and to contribute to halving the
number of those in poverty by the year 2015. This would require an increased focus on and action in
favour of the LDCs and other low income economies. He said it had been an honour to serve and to
have contributed to the modest achievements that had been made. He expressed gratitude to Members
and the WTO Secretariat.  He urged Members to offer Ambassador Simon Fuller the same support
given to him.
3. The representatives of Paraguay on behalf of Mercosur, Tanzania as rotating coordinator of
LDCs, Bangladesh , Canada , India , Egypt , European Communities,  Norway , and the United States
expressed satisfaction with the appointment of the new Chairman, and offered him support in the
work ahead. They thanked the outgoing Chairman for his role in the work of the Sub-Committee.
A. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
4. The Sub-Committee adopted the proposed agenda contained in document
WTO/AIR/1522/Rev.1.
B. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS
5. The Chairman recalled that Members had agreed at the 25th Session of the Committee on
Trade and Development (CTD) to invite ad hoc  observers from intergovernmental organisations,
listed in document WT/COMTD/W/22/Rev.5, to observe meetings of the CTD and the Sub-
Committee on a meeting-by-meeting basis.  He pr oposed that, the Sub-Committee, following recent
practice, should decide to invite the agreed intergovernmental organisations to participate at the 24th
Session and at the next formal meeting.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 2
6. It was so decided.
C. FOLLOW-UP TO THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
7. The Chairman invited Ambassador Iversen (Denma rk), to report on the first meeting of the
Integrated Framework Steering Committee (IFSC),  held on 15 March 2001, at the WTO in Geneva.
8. Ambassador Iversen (Denmark) as Chairman of the IFSC said that the inaugural meeting of
the Steering Committee was one of the key elements in the "new" IF, designed to improve IF
management, by distributing responsibilities a nd ensuring ownership amongst donors, LDCs, and
agencies. He noted that the meeting provided concrete evidence of the successful re-design of the IF.
The Director-General, who conducted the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, opened
the meeting.  As a result, Ambassador Iversen said that he was elected as Chairman of the IFSC, and
Ambassador Lachesa of Lesotho as Vice-Chairman. To complete the new institutional set-up for the
IF, four special representatives: two donor countr ies and two LDCs, were appointed to participate in
an advisory capacity in meetings of the six core Agencies - the Inter-Agency Working Group
(IAWG).  These meetings were formerly restricted to agencies, however, for greater transparency, as
well as coherence in decision-making, wider participation of IF stakeholders’ in IAWG meetings was
called for. The United Kingdom and the United States would represent the donors, while Tanzania
and Nepal, would represent the LDCs.
9. He reported that the IF had been converted into a funded mandate at the first IFSC meeting.
The sum of US$ 4.55 million had been pledged at the meeting for the IF Trust Fund. Donors
immediately contributing were Canada, Denmark,  the EC, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and the UNDP. He said that most of the resources in the IF Trust Fund would be
directed towards mainstreaming work, led by the World Bank, in LDCs.
10. He said that the Steering Committee had considered the draft Pilot Phase work programme,
presented by the World Bank on behalf of the core agencies.  Following the exchange of views in the
Steering Committee, it was understood that the agencies could proceed with the work programme on
the basis of the comments made. A revised work programme would be presented at the second session
of the IFSC, on 3 May 2001.  The IFSC agreed th at the Pilot Scheme would begin with three
countries, to be selected by the IAWG, on advice by  the 4 special donor/LDCs' representatives.  The
Steering Committee agreed to an initial cluster of the possible countries to be in the Pilot Scheme, on
the basis of which the mainstreaming of a trade integration study would proceed.  These countries
were Cambodia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Madagascar,
Mozambique, Nepal, Sao Tome and Principe, Yeme n, and Zambia.  It was agreed that the World
Bank would lead missions to each country for the trade integration studies and the mainstreaming
exercise, and that other IF core agencies would be involved, based on the objectives of the missionand the specific expertise required.  The budget for each trade integration study during the Pilot Phase
would be approximately US$ 300,000.
11. Ambassador Iversen reported the agreement that the agencies, led by ITC, would identify,
prioritise and sequence the trade-related technical assistance projects, in support of mainstreaming
that had emerged during the Round Tables for five LDCs: Bangladesh, The Gambia, Haiti, Tanzaniaand Uganda. These projects would be submitted for funding from the IF Trust Fund.  The budget for
each of these five countries would not exceed US$ 300,000.  Other projects from these five Round
Table LDCs, in support of trade integration, and fo llowing consultations with the World Bank, would
be submitted for funding to bilateral resources, World Bank Consultative Groups (CGs), and UNDP
Round Table meetings.
12. He also said that Members had placed a high premium on coordination of efforts amongst
donors and agencies and emphasized the importance of  ensuring the incorporation of complementary,
on-going bilateral activities within the context of the IF. He noted that the re-modelled IF had got offWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 3
to a good start and that donors, LDCs and agencies had given it their solid support. He believed that
the equality of participation amongst donor Members, LDCs and agencies in the IFSC, and the
tripartite value of the Committee's configuration was the strength of the new IF and the benefits of
increased transparency were beginning to show. He added that not all the bilateral or potential donors
that had wished to participate at the inaugural mee ting were invited.  He assured all interested parties
of an open invitation to attend future IFSC meetings. He stated that the second meeting of the IFSC
was scheduled for 3 May 2001, and expressed hope that they would have some encouraging news to
report to the Third United Nations Conf erence on Least-Developed Countries, (LDC -III) to be held in
Brussels.
13. The Chairman thanked Ambassador Iversen for the report and commended Members for the
good start to an important process. He noted the remarks made regarding participation in future
meetings of the IFSC and invited comments from the floor.
14. The representative of Tanzania thanked the Chairman of the IFSC for the report and sought
further information from the Secretariat as to the latest developments in terms of funding for the IF
Trust Fund, and on pledges made at the IFSC.
15. The representative of the European Communitie s thanked the Chairman of the IFSC for the
report and the invitation given to all potential donors that had interest in the issues to attend the
meetings in the future. He added that more wo rk was needed on the UNDP paper on the question of
overheads and fees for the project. He expressed satisfaction with the progress made, and hoped that
others would join to make the project financially even more viable.
16. The representative of Canada thanked Ambassador Iversen for the report, and supported
openness and transparency as objectives of the IFSC and the pilot process. She welcomed all
interested parties to attend the next Steering Comm ittee meeting. She stressed the need for developing
an approach that blended Geneva and Washington views on trade integration. Reconciling these
perspectives were critical to the success of the IF process.
17. Mr Osakwe Head of the Secretariat Working Group on the IF and LDC Issues, in response to
the questions raised said that the current status of pledges remained, as stated by Ambassador Iversen,
at US$ 4.55 million. However, indications of support and possible contributions to the IF Trust Fund
had also been received from four donor Members in Geneva. He also reported that in contact with the
UNDP office in Geneva, donors had begun to redeem their pledges. Lastly, he added that at the recent
negotiations that took place in New York, on the draft Global Programme of Action for LDC -III, in
the trade section, one clear area of consensus was emerging to encourage new and additional
contributions to the IF Trust Fund. He concluded by noting that the prospects for the IF, the Pilot
Programme and the Trust Fund were promising.
18. Ambassador Iversen (Denmark) hoped that as work progressed on the IF, the idea to engage
as many as possible in the process would be realized. He assured Members that there would be
diligence in following up on overheads and administrative charges. He agreed on the principle of
openness and transparency, and in blending the views of Washington and Geneva on trade integration.
He agreed to elaborate further on these issues at a later stage.
19. The Chairman invited Mr. Osakwe, from the WTO Secretariat, to report on the recent meeting
of the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on 29 March 2001 at the UNDP Headquarters in New
York.
20. Mr. Osakwe in his report of the meeting, firstly said that it was the first meeting of the
enlarged IAWG. The United States and United Kingdom, special representatives of the donors,
participated. Also participating was Tanzania, special representative of LDCs'. Nepal as the other
LDC special representative was not present at the meeting. He stated that the process of transparencyWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 4
in inter-agency meetings was already underway.  S econdly, he said that at the IAWG meeting, the
comments made on the draft work program for the pilot phase, presented by the World Bank, at the
IFSC, were reviewed and accommodated. The revised draft work program, would be presented to the
IFSC at its next meeting on 3 May 2001, for formal adoption. Thirdly, he reported that the IAWG
considered the question of the initial three LDCs as pilots to be selected from the pool of fifteencountries that Ambassador Iversen had mentioned in  his report.  There was an extensive discussion,
and the IAWG had decided that the World Bank needed to provide more technical data on a set of
LDCs which would facilitate the choice of the three pilots, and to ensure that the selection, when put
forward to the IFSC, would be based on a rational set of  criteria. To facilitate the selection he said that
the IAWG would hold a video-conference meeting on 17 April 2001, to take a decision on the three
LDCs for the pilot phase. Finally, in the pool of LDCs for consideration in the pilot phase, as
mentioned by Ambassador Iversen, the IAWG al so decided to add Ethiopia to the list.
21. The representative of Norway said that the adoption of the work program at the next meeting
of the IFSC would be facilitated if the draft we re circulated in advance of the meeting on 3 May.
22. The representative of the United States said th at the establishment of criteria for identifying
the first three pilot projects countries was an important step taken by the IAWG. He noted that for
concrete results from this process and to increase the likelihood that the pilot project would succeed, itwas important that the three pilot countries shou ld demonstrate strong commitment to reform, and
reasonable level of infrastructure, including institutional capacity. By setting out the criteria the
IAWG had taken the first step. The next step would be to apply the criteria.
23. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-Committee take note
 of the reports by Ambassador
Iversen and Mr. Osakwe and that the item be retained on the agenda for the next meeting for follow-
up, as appropriate.
24. It was so agreed.
D. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES
25. The Chairman under this item, recalled that the Sub-Committee was proceeding on the basis
of the mandate established at its 22nd Session on 6 December 2000, and also on the basis of the
decision by the Director-General to report on Secretariat initiatives and measures to assist the
institutional integration of the LDCs into the trading system. In December last year, the Sub-
Committee had agreed on four areas of WTO contribution to the Third United Nations Conference on
Least-Developed Countries (LDC -III) Conference. These were:
(a) the effective implementation of the IF, to provide the basis for a report to LDC-III;
(b) a  report on mainstreaming, based on the joint IF core Agency seminar held on 29-30
January 2001;
(c) a factual study on current market access opportunities for LDCs; and,
(d) a status report on LDCs' accession to the WTO.
26. Furthermore, as the Secretariat reported to Members, the Director-General had decided on a
fifth area of contribution to the conference.  This area would focus on:
e) the institutional integration of LDCs into the multilateral trading system.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 5
27. Before consideration of the documents, the Chairman invited the representative of UNCTAD,
as the Executive Secretary of LDC-III, to report on the Third Inter-Governmental Preparatory
Committee that had been held in New York on 2-6 April 2001.
28. The representative of UNCTAD said that the Third Preparatory Committee was held over two
weeks, with an informal session, followed by the fo rmal session from 2 to 6 April. The sessions were
devoted to finalizing the draft Plan of Action for LDCs. Two working groups took up the different
commitments in the draft Plan of Action. The summary by the two chairs was that the discussions
were positive and contributed to clarifying a number of the positions, in the Plan of Action, but a lot
remained to be done. He said that work would be co ntinued in Brussels itself in finalizing the draft
plan of action. At the Preparatory Committee, reports were made on some pre-conference events, such
as on Tourism held in Las Palmas, Spain; on Gender issues held in Cape Town, South Africa. These
would be integrated into the draft Plan of Action. He stated that though there was positive progressmade, it was likely that discussions on the draft Plan of Action would continue in Brussels so as to
finalize the document.
29. The representative of Mexico sought clarification from UNCTAD on the trade section of the
draft Plan of Action. He understood that UNCTAD ha d held meetings. He wished to know if any
future meetings were planned in advance of the Brussels Conference, and if so when, in order tocomment on the trade aspects.
30. The representative of the European Commission noted the report made by the representative
of UNCTAD. He stressed the importance his delegation attached to the Conference. He said it was
important for poverty eradication, and as the first follow-up to the Millennium Summit a political
focal point for many of the issues raised at the Sub-Committee, not least the issue of market accessand capacity building. Issues such as investment, anti-dumping, access to medicines and action on
communicable diseases also had a trade component. His delegation did expect some high quality
output from the WTO, given the importance of trade for development and poverty reduction.
31. The representative of UNCTAD in response to th e comments said that there was some idea of
holding informal consultations before the Brussels Conference on 14 May, on some of the areas. He
said that he was, however, not aware of any planned meeting to take place to look at the trade section.
He said that if there were to be such a meeting, officers dealing with the Conference would inform all
delegations involved and invite them to participate.
32. The Chairman invited the Sub-Committee to consider the documents, on the five distinct
areas of WTO contributions to LDC-III. He sought comments from the Sub-Committee, with a view
to inviting the Sub-Committee to take formal note of the reports. He noted the subject matter
contained in the progress report on the implementation of the Integrated Framework(WT/LDC/SWG/IF/17),  had been broadly discussed earlier under Agenda Item C. As in previous
years, the report on the IF, had been issued, by the Director-General, as part of the Follow-Up to the
High Level Meeting (HLM) for LDCs.  He invited the WTO Secretariat to introduce the report.
33. Mr Osakwe said that the document before the Sub-Committee was a factual report that was
circulated by the Secretariat as a Report by the Director-General. The Report updated and traced
developments from when the IF was endorsed. There were three parts to the document, the origins of
the IF at the 1997 meeting, the second part reviewed the IF up until November 1999, when the review
process was initiated, with a factual summary of the review process, the third part addressed also by
Ambassador Iversen highlighted recent developments. He noted that the Director-General prior to the
Seattle Ministerial Conference circulated a similar factual report.
34. The representative of the United States said that it was difficult for his delegation to comment
on the report that was received at short notice.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 6
35. The representative of the European Commun ities said that all of the documents to be
discussed at the meeting were very recent and that it created problems for his delegation. He urged the
Secretariat to produce papers well in advance of the meetings.
36. Mr Osakwe in response said that a legitimate issue had been raised. He added that the reports
by the Director-General were normally just circulated as Secretariat documents. That was not to say
that there was not a courtesy required in an appropriate time horizon. He also highlighted an issue
raised in the Budget Committee that there was pressure on documentation and translation services,
and this was a systemic problem that Members were aware of without prejudice to the legitimacy of
the comments made.
37. The representative of the United States said his delegation attached particular importance to
advance clearance of whatever was being sent from the WTO to other organizations. He said he was
aware of the ongoing debate in the Budget Committee and it would be meeting jointly with the CTD,however, it was his understanding that the CHF 1 million added to the budget for documentation
services had made a major contribution in dealing with the backlog faced. He noted that the
improvements would in the near future no longer cause problems on this account.
38. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-Committee takes note of the factual report by the
Director-General that would be forwarded to the Executive Secretariat at UNCTAD, for for
circulation at LDC-III.
39. It was so agreed.
40. The Chairman invited the Sub-Committee to consider the second contribution, the report,
prepared by the Secretariat, on the  IF Joint Inter Agency Seminar on the Policy-Relevance of
Mainstreaming Trade into Country Development Strategies: Perspectives of LDCs. The seminar hadtaken place at the end of January and had brought together experts from the trade, finance and
development communities including from capitals. He recalled that the Secretariat had presented an
oral report to the Sub-Committee, at its 23
rd session, in February. Members had commented
extensively, and the Sub-Committee had considered the seminar a success, as indicated in the records.
He invited the WTO Secretariat to introduce the report.
41. Mr Osakwe expressed regret for the late circulation of the report but noted that Members had
seen parts of the compilation. In February, the Concluding Remarks by Minister Jonathan Fried had
been circulated. The report itself was orally presented to the 23rd session of the Sub-Committee, and
all the papers and lead presentations annexed to the report had been circulated to Members at the
seminar in January. The document was therefore a sequenced and edited compilation of presentations,
papers and concluding remarks that Members already had before them. On behalf of the core
agencies, he expressed gratitude to the Government of Canada for assisting the agencies in defrayingthe costs of the seminar, particularly in bringing to Geneva, the LDC capital-based participants.
42. The representative of the United States said that the seminar had been very useful. He thanked
the Secretariat for the explanation of the material th at went into the report. He sought further time for
his delegation to review the report before agreeing to it. He said that the review could be
accomplished quickly. He requested Members that his delegation be given that opportunity.
43. The representative of the European Communitie s thanked the Secretariat for the compilation
and shared the assessment made by the US that it had been a useful exercise. He suggested that the
Concluding Remarks to the seminar be placed more prominently in the compilation.
44. The representative of Mexico said that the compilation circulated by the Secretariat was
excellent because it included all the presentations given by the lead speakers and it included the
strategies to alleviate poverty through the integration of trade in overall development policies. TheWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 7
compilation was done by subject and theme. It highlighted the conclusions in the Concluding
Remarks. It was useful for LDCs and developing countries because, it covered a broad range of
subjects. He said that the participation though low was very substantive.
45. The Chairman thanked Members for their comments and noted that the response to the
document had been positive. The material had been available earlier. He noted that the drafting
amendments suggested by the European Communities, were of an editorial nature. He said that he had
hoped to propose that the Sub-Committee would take note of the factual report by the Secretariat, and
that the report would be forwarded to the Executive Secretariat of the Third UN Conference for LDCs
for circulation at the Conference. If the proposal could not be agreed to at this stage, he suggested a
Silence Procedure, rather than to reconvene the meeting.
46. The representative of the United States said that a Silence Procedure would be acceptable.
47. It was so agreed.
48. The Chairman invited the Sub-Committee to consider the factual market access survey on
improvements in market access opportunities fo r LDCs contained in WT /LDC/SWG/IF/14 and Add.1.
He noted that the survey had also drawn on data from UNCTAD.  The Sub-Committee had already
gone through two stages: a compilation of data was presented by the Secretariat to the Sub-Committee
on 12 February 2001.  On the basis of the data compilations and subsequent improvements to the data,the Secretariat presented a paper to Members, in informal consultations on 21 March 2001, where
there was a full discussion of the paper and data, and general satisfaction with the thrust of the
Secretariat report as well as with the format. There were comments, forwarded by Members, as
agreed, by the end of March, which the Secretariat had accommodated, as far as practicable. He
requested the Secretariat to briefly present the documents prepared.
49. Mr Osakwe recalled that the initial data compilation on which the prose was written was first
put out in February, and that following verification of the data and comments received, the survey had
incorporated Members' suggestions. It was an inter-divisional survey carried out by the WTO
Secretariat with the remit of the study limite d to examining market access improvements and
opportunities for LDCs. The period of the survey spanned from the October 1997 High Level Meetingto present, examining the notifications and announcements made by Members. All forty-nine LDCs,
including Senegal, had been examined in the survey. Thirty major trading partners accounting for
over 95 per cent of LDCs exports were studied. The data sources used for the survey were primarily
the WTO Integrated Database (IDB), and this was supplemented in specific instances by data from
UNCTAD and COMTRADE.  He added that applied tariff rates had been examined and not MFN
bound rates, because the request for use of the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database, put to
the Committee on Market Access, was not cleared on account of reservations made by someMembers.  In the prose contained in WT/LDC /SWG/IF/14, the findings highlighted significant
improvements in market access opportunities for the LDCs, particularly stemming from notifications
of preferences made by developed and transition economies, between October 1997 and the present.
The report also showed that a number of developing countries had also made market access
improvements for LDCs. In value terms, the average trade weighted applied tariff for LDCs stood at3.8 per cent and the unweighted average applied tariff was 7.1 per cent. In comparison to the baseline
of 23 markets in October 1997, there had been a decrease in unweighted tariff average from 10.6 per
cent to 6.9 per cent currently. While there were still restrictions remaining on LDC exports, he said
that this was a positive result, as there had been calculable, significant improvements in market access
for LDCs taken by some 28 WTO Members.
50. Mr. Tourette from the WTO Secretariat, introduced and explained the two sets of tables
contained in the statistical addendum, WT/LDC/S WG/IF/14/Add.1.  Table 1, with 30 leading import
markets for LDCs, had 9 developed, 17 developing and 4 transition economies examined. There was
no change in the list of countries since the presentation on 21 March, but there was some updating onWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 8
account of the new data received from COMTRADE, to enable a more accurate reflection of the
situation.  For Table 2, 127 products of interest to LDCs were selected at the HS 6 digit classification,
which covered over 90 per cent of LDCs exports to their major trading partners. The major LDC
suppliers of each of the products were also listed.
51. Mr. Richtering from the WTO Statistics Division reported on the sources and the methods
used in the study. He indicated that the main source of data was the Integrated Database (IDB)
maintained by the Statistics Division. The IDB c ontained submissions by WTO Members of trade and
tariff data. Where data were not available, additional sources were used. UNCTAD provided
information from the TRAINS database, other data were taken from the UN COMTRADE, and for
preferences, notifications made to the WTO Committee on Trade and Development were also used.
The cut-off date for the data included in the survey was 31 January 2001, for trade and tariff data and
31 March 2001, for tariff preferences. On the calculation of averages, he referred to paragraph 9 ofWT/LDC/SWG/IF/14/Add.1, which desc ribed the methodology used. In the survey, specific duties
had been flagged by the symbol "SP" but were not taken into account in the tabulation of the
averages.  Table 1 for presentational purposes did show only products with imports valued at over
US$ 100,000 into the 30 markets. On the selection of the 127 products contained in Table 2, at the 6
digit HS level, all LDC imports were added and ranked in descending order, cumulative shares werethereafter tabulated. The 127 products accounted for 90 per cent of all LDC imports into the 30
leading markets. The changes in the data, compared with the tables distributed on 21 March, were that
some additional data on preferences were included, the treatment of default duties was improved for
data that had been extracted from TRAINS, and comments received from Members had also been
incorporated.
52. The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Sub-Committee including elaboration
of any recent developments and further improvements in market access opportunities for LDCs.
53. The representative of the European Communities said that the document was improved
following the earlier consultations at which his delegation had made a number of specific comments.
He had a few further comments on the "prose" contained in WT/LDC/SWG/IF/14. On the table onpage 4, he suggested filling the blank cells under GSP/GSTP and LDC rates with some reference to
those Members that had not notified. He sought clarification on the duty-free rate indicated in the
table for Switzerland. On paragraph 30, he suggested a change in the order of the presentation of the
IF with reference to mainstreaming and trade-related capacity building delivery. He stated that the
section on non-tariff measures could be highlighted more. While it was not easy to quantify these
measures, there was some further information that could be drawn from earlier Secretariat documents.
He noted the useful data on trade weighted and unweighted average tariffs, in paragraph 10, andsought further aggregate average information in paragraphs 14-15, on products. In the statistical
annex, he indicated that it did not reflect the recent initiative of the EC to abolish all duties.
54. The representative of United States expressed appreciation for the Secretariat survey and
supported its conclusions that recent developments showed concrete and significant improvements in
market access opportunities for LDCs that would assist in their integration into the trading system. Healso stated that LDCs participation in the tradin g system was limited  by weak supply-side response
and that the redesigned IF was an important m echanism for mainstreaming trade priority areas of
action into national development plans. Given the shortage of time he sought guidance from the Chair
on procedure as his delegation too had a number of written comments and questions, which his
delegation had provided to the Secretariat. He saw the survey as work in progress and was unsure ofraising technical questions at this stage.
55. The representative of Tanzania expressed appreciation for the information contained in the
survey, and the improvements in market access for LDCs through preferences provided by major
trading partners. While the information was useful, since this documentation would be tabled before
LDC-III, he hoped that it would not imply that the continuing demand and requests of the LDCs forWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 9
better market access would be diminished. He said that as mentioned by the Secretariat, the
improvements did not mean that there were no restrictions on the market access of LDCs, and there
was need to look into further areas where market access could be expanded. It was in that context that
LDCs, were seeking "duty-free quota-free" access for LDCs, and the elimination of tariff peaks and
escalation. He noted that in the process of the discussion of the programme of action for LDC-III inNew York, and to be continued in Brussels, one of the issues yet to be resolved was market access for
LDCs.
56. The representative of Norway said the document was useful. He appreciated paragraph 14 and
sought its further expansion, if possible. He also noted reference to regional integration in paragraph
31. He expressed concern on the procedure to be adopted, and said that it would have to be expedited.
His delegation needed to have a further look at the papers, if there were substantial changes made to
the document. As for the addendum, he said it was acceptable.
57. The Chairman noted that more work to accommodate views of Members on the market access
document was needed. He said that the Secretariat had consulted over the lunch recess with Members
that had requested some changes to the paper. These suggested changes would be accommodated to
improve the paper, and the proposals for the revision were refinements, elaborations, and editing
changes or relocation of parts of the text for emphasis. He proposed that the Secretariat would takeaccount of changes and would rapidly circulate a revised market access paper, that would be followed
by a six day silence procedure, and that if there were no objections received, the Secretariat would
with the Sub-Committee's agreement, forward the document to UNCTAD, the Executive Secretariat
for LDC-III, for circulation to Conference participants.
58. It was so agreed.
59. The Chairman reported on some agreed improvements in the market access reporting
procedures. There were consultations with the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and
Development (CTD) and the Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG), and discussions in both those bodies,
on procedures for reporting LDC market access.  He noted that the emerging agreement was that
Members would transmit notifications and hold substantive discussions on improvements in LDCmarket access conditions within the Sub-Committee.  Thereafter, the Sub-Committee would report
back to the CTD or CTG as appropriate. He invited the Sub-Committee to take note of the changes in
reporting procedures for LDCs' market access.
60. It was noted.
61. The Chairman drew attention to the paper on the Status of LDCs' Accession to the WTO,
which had been in circulation since the last session of the Sub-Committee. At the meeting in
February, the Sub-Committee had considered the status report, and held an initial exchange of views.Following the general comments, it had been  circulated, as WT/LDC/SWG/IF/11/Rev.1.
62. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had no objection with the
paper going forward, but had some comments that it wished to make. He commended the Secretariat
for undertaking this work and said the participation of LDCs in the WTO was important. He noted
that 29 LDCs were already WTO Members, and shared the hope that other LDCs would when ready,be able to take the steps necessary to accede. He noted the discussion on the provision of technical
assistance, to build the capacities of LDCs in accessions. His delegation had been strongly supportive
of increasing such assistance to acceding LDCs. He however considered that mandatory or arbitrary
transition periods, in effect a "one size fits all" approach, to addressing the capacity limitations of
LDC accession applicants, was unhelpful and possibly counterproductive.  He strongly supported theflexibility provided by the current accession process. He believed that the document needed to explore
more fully how countries like Vanuatu, had in practice, used the flexibility to meet their needs.
Furthermore, he said the Note inferred, that acceding LDCs undertook more stringent obligations thanWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 10
present WTO Members. His delegation was unaware of any "WTO plus" requirements included in the
only LDC accession to date to reach protocol negotiations, that of Vanuatu. His delegation believed
that the paper needed to be reviewed, and redrafted, to better define what was meant by "WTO plus".
While he appreciated efforts to increase attention to the needs of LDCs to accede to the WTO, his
delegation believed that they were best served by increasing the level of assistance provided to themin this process, rather than creating the expectations that the pace of negotiations would be accelerated
or the terms of their participation would be weakened. He said that his delegation did not agree that
acceleration of the accession process was a useful goal, and would like this view reflected in the
paper. He stated that accession applicants, at all levels of development, especially LDCs, should
proceed in the accession process at a pace which reflected their unique capacities and interests. He
said a series of questions and comments on the text of the paper would be provided to the Secretariat
and that it should be reviewed by the Accessions Division to ensure technical accuracy of theinformation.  He did not think the Note was ready yet to contribute to th e LDC-III Conference. He
expressed hope that the changes suggested could be made so that the paper could go forward to the
Conference.
63. Mr Osakwe in response to the issues raised stressed that the paper was reviewed by the
Accession Division and had not been put into circulation until after the Director of the Division, Mr.
A. Hussain, and his colleagues, had verified and commented on the paper.  He agreed that the
document was work in progress, even though it had been circulated in January 2001, as
WT/LDC/SWG/IF/11. It had based on comments that had been received, been revised and circulated
as Rev.1, which updated the document, and reflected recent developments and changes that had been
made.  For instance, the Laos PDR had recently submitted its memorandum on the foreign traderegime and this was reflected in the revised document. The observer status of Sao Tome and Principe,
agreed to by the General Council, in February, was also reflected in the revision, as were other recent
developments such as reference to Senegal, as a LDC.  He said the document would indeed be
updated beyond Brussels and for the Fourth WTO Ministerial. Account would be taken with regard to
developments in the accession process for Vanuatu. With regard to proposals for fast-track for LDCsaccession, he said it was a matter before Members. It had been discussed in New York, and also in the
lead-up to Seattle. He said that the paper did em phasize maintaining the integrity of the system with
regard to accession procedures. He added that in addressing the issues raised, there would be no
difficulty whatsoever.
64. The representative of the United States said that the additional information provided by the
WTO Secretariat was helpful and welcomed the comment that the additional concerns and issues
raised could be taken into account in the re-drafting.
65. The representative of Tanzania commended the Secretariat for updating and preparing a
useful factual document pertaining to the accession of LDCs. He sought further information from the
Secretariat on the reference to "fast-track", which was one of the major proposals still on the table
regarding the accession of LDCs. He added that the EU had been instrumental in the proposal, which
took account of the difficulties that LDCs faced in acceding to the WTO. Paragraph 7 of the paper, henoted, did indicate the length of time that many LDCs had to undergo for consideration of their
accession. He added that the report was neutral on the issue of “fast-track”, which for LDCs in the
accession process, was an important proposal that could facilitate their accession. The question was
posed as to whether the Sub-Committee, institutio nally, could urge the Membership to view this
proposal positively. He sought clarifications on whether action could be taken on the matter.
66. The Chairman stated that the paper under discussion was a factual report and that the task of
the Sub-Committee in discussing the paper would not be to open up a debate on accession procedures.
67. The representative of Canada said that the paper was a thoughtful one and was factual.  Her
delegation said that as the report would be updated, it would have another chance to consider it.WT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 11
68. The representative of the European Communities said that the paper was a status report. His
delegation had made proposals at the LDC-III Preparatory Committee in New York on accessions.
The proposals had generated a debate which his de legation would not seek to repeat in the Sub-
Committee. He said that there was need to re flect on the comments by the US on “fast-track”
accession for LDCs. He expressed concern on comments made on the issue of "WTO-plus" and otherchanges suggested. Some of the changes suggested would raise procedural problems. He sought
clarification on whether a re-draft followed by a Silence Procedure was required. He repeated that the
paper was a factual report and that a substantive re-draft would raise procedural issues.
69. The Chairman said he hoped that on the basis of factual re-drafting of the paper by the WTO
Secretariat, the Sub-Committee would be in a position to process the document without need for
discussions on a further version of it.
70. The representative of the United States said that he had made clear the items to be clarified or
modified. He left it to the WTO Secretariat's judgement to reflect the changes.
71. The representative of the European Communitie s said that his delegation agreed that the
report should remain factual and it was unclear as  to what the changes would amount to. He expressed
the preference of his delegation to agree to the paper before it was sent on to the Conference.
72. Mr Osakwe said that the WTO Secretariat was fully aware of the sensitivities of all Members.
The comments of the United States, he believed, could be accommodated within the scope of factual
revisions. First, an update on the accession process of Vanuatu would be provided based on data from
the Accessions Division. Second, on the statement that no expectation should be created to indicate a
“fast-track” or accelerated accession procedure, he assured Members that the report was factual and
had been in circulation since January, and had not been drafted to raise expectations. He added, assuggested by Canada, that when a decision was made on the three pilot countries under the IF pilot
scheme, it would be reflected in subsequent updates, beyond Brussels, for the Fourth WTO
Ministerial. He expressed confidence that the Secretariat would reflect only factual revisions.
73. The representative of the European Communities said the changes proposed were acceptable.
74. The representative of the United States said that it was his understanding that some written
comments and questions may have been circulated to the Secretariat. If not, he agreed that any
additional revisions should be circulated to Member s for review before they were forwarded on to the
Conference.
75. The Chairman following consultation with the Secretariat said that no written comments had
been received. He proposed that the document be processed with factual amendments, and if further
changes warranted or suggested by the United States delegation, a revised version under a Silence
Procedure would be invoked before the WTO Secretariat would forward the report to the ExecutiveSecretariat of the Third UN Conference for LDCs, for circulation to the Conference participants.
76. It was so agreed.
77. The Chairman invited Members to consider the Report of the Director-General, on the
Institutional Integration of LDCs in the Multilateral Trading System.   The report issued as document
WT/LDC/SWG/IF/16, summarize d the initiatives and measures taken by the Secretariat to improve
the participation of 25 WTO Members and 9 Observers in the WTO, 16 of which were LDCs, and did
not have representation in Geneva. It had been a matter of concern and priority for the Director-
General, to try to ensure the effective participation of these countries.
78. The representative of Tanzania commended the Director-General for the initiatives taken for
strengthening LDCs integration into the multilateral trading system. He noted that the measuresWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 12
described in the report were factual and of benefit to LDCs.  A point not mentioned in the report, he
added, was the creation of the Secretariat Work ing Group for LDCs (SWG ). On the internship
programme, he sought further information on the expected commencement and operation of the
programme that was yet to be implemented.
79. The representative of Norway sought further time to examine the report.
80. The representative of Canada said that her delegation attached importance to distance
education as part of this process and the WTO Reference Centres covered this to an extent. Canada
was supportive of the new processes involved, with the TPRM as a means of identifying constraints to
the integration in LDCs and technical assistance needs.
81. The representative of European Commission stated that the improvements in the WTO Trade
Policy Review and its value as an instrument for familiarizing LDCs with WTO requirements could
be further highlighted.
82. The representative of the United States sought further time to examine the document.
83. Mr Osakwe said that the importance of distance education would be reflected in the report.
On the section on Trade Policy Reviews, he said that it was drafted by Mr Boonekamp, Director
Trade Policies Review Division, who would res pond to the comments under the next item on the
agenda.
84. The Chairman proposed a Silence Procedure to give further time to delegations and for minor
revisions to the document. It would then be forwarded to the UNCTAD Secretariat for circulation to
participants at the LDC-III Conference.
85. It was so agreed.
86. The Chairman thanked Members for their contributions and the Director-General and his staff
for the hard work in the preparation of the reports and studies. He expressed hope that, as agreed, the
WTO Secretariat would forward the documents to UNCTAD, for their dissemination at the
Conference. He concluded by noting that the Thir d UN Conference for LDCs was important, but not
the final stop in the journey ahead. After Brussels, the next stop would be Doha. The objective was to
support LDCs and to work to ensure their integration into the multilateral trading system and theglobal economy. In this regard, the work that had been done by Members constituted a contribution to
these objectives.
E. 
SECRETARIAT UPDATE ON LDCS ' TRADE POLICY REVIEWS
87. The Chairman said that at the last session of the Sub-Committee, a number of delegations had
underlined the importance of Trade Policy Review s (TPRs) for LDCs, and agreed that the TPR
process per se  was a valuable capacity-building exercise, as sisting them to mainstream trade priorities
into their development plans and poverty reduction strategies. In the concluding remarks at themainstreaming seminar, Mr. Fried, as Chair, had summarized that the TPR could provide guidance to
LDCs on trade rules and liberalisation within the broader context of their own national development
plans, and that World Bank, IMF country directors could be invited to participate in this process. Mr.
Boonekamp, Director of Trade Policy Reviews Di vision, was invited to provide an update on the
strategic plan for the TPR process.
88. Mr Boonekamp in response to the observations made by Members on the TPRs for LDCs,
said that the elaborated programme for LDCs was new and recently started for Malawi and Uganda.
Experience was being developed at every stage of the process. He added that it would be premature to
indicate success before the process had been fully carried out and further experience was gained toWT/COMTD/LDC/M/24
Page 13
build capacity and feed into the IF.  He reported that the exercise had started with short missions to
Uganda and Malawi that were successful. Senior officials from all the economic ministries had been
met. The TPR process was explained and there was collection of data and information. He stated that
they were in a position to start drafting and this had commenced. Mr Degbelo, in the TPR division
was in contact with the relevant officers in both Uganda and Malawi. A seminar was being organizedin Kampala towards the end of May 2001, with officials from Uganda, Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania
to attend. There would be a WTO mission to the seminar, hosted with the support of Uganda. The
Secretariat with funds provided by the German Government would pay for two officials from each of
the participating countries. Further participation from these countries would be welcomed but the
costs would not be borne by the Secretariat. During the seminar, the WTO commitments and the
relevance of the TPRM would be highlighted. Participants would be asked to present their trade
policies in the context of their overall economic strategy for alleviating poverty. During the course ofthe seminar, information collection would also be carried out, thereafter the drafting of the report
would be completed and sent to authorities. Separate  missions to Uganda and Malawi to discuss those
papers in detail with the officials were also planned. Uganda, could be scheduling the meeting of the
Trade Policy Review Body, in December 2001, and Malawi in early 2002. He hoped to begin the
process of the second TPR for Zambia with the seminar initiating the process. He also said that theywere close to finalizing the arrangements to start the TPR process for Haiti to be undertaken by the
first half of 2002. Two further TPRs for LDCs would also be scheduled next year. He also mentioned
that the OECD Secretariat had been in contact with the WTO and that they would be highlighting the
usefulness of the TPR for LDCs in the context of the DAC Committee. He stated that more staff and
resources for the TPR Division were required, as it was a constraint at the present time.
89. The representative of Canada said that the new approach showed internal coherence in the
WTO by coordinating the TPR and the IF.
90. The Chairman thanked Mr Boonekamp for the update, as TPRs were important for greater
transparency and an improved understanding of the functioning of the multilateral trading system.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
91. The Chairman proposed that the Sub-Committee meet for its 25th session on 20 July 2001.
92. It was so agreed.
93. In the absence of any other business, the meeting was adjourned.
__________