My dear friend Dr. Supachai, it's truly an honor to be here with you today and to listen to your powerful message. I'd like to thank you as our WTO host of the Integrated Framework agencies for organizing this timely meeting. It's a privilege for me to join all of you--distinguished officials and conference participants-in this Opening Session. It's especially an honor to share this podium with Mexico's Ambassador to the WTO and Uganda's Central Bank Governor who are so committed to strengthening trade in their economies.

We all can learn from Amb. Eduardo Perez-Motta whose government had tremendous courage in negotiating NAFTA and charting an outward driven trade strategy that has resulted in both higher economic growth and widely shared improvements in living standards. And I was privileged to join U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neill on his visit to Uganda last May and to see first hand why Uganda is heralded as such a success story. The dynamic growth of commercial export-oriented enterprises have been championed by Uganda's Government. Central Bank Governor Emmanuel Tumusiime-Mutebile, you are to be commended for this visionary strategy and for putting the necessary policies and resources in place to undertake significant structural and trade modernization, and to improve social conditions despite the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS. Uganda's and Mexico's trade commitment sets an example for ALL countries.

In fact, I am here today to learn from you. I currently represent the United States Government on the Board of The World Bank, one of 24 Executive Directors who represent all 184 members/shareholders. But, I come from the private business sector. I spent my professional career thus far working as a municipal bond underwriter to finance basic infrastructure in the U.S., then analyzing commodity markets and policies -- first at The Chicago Board of Trade and then with my own SME. I traveled to many developing countries over the past twenty years and was deeply involved in the Uruguay Round agricultural negotiations in particular. So trade modernization and integration is one of my priorities for achieving The World Bank's mission of poverty reduction-not just because research says it's good for development, but because I've seen and experienced what open trade policies, competitive trade infrastructure, access to financial capital and well-trained individuals can produce-to increase development.

All of us here today-from developing country officials to IF agencies and bilateral donors-know that there can be no success in development without country ownership and country demand. This is no less KEY to a country's successful participation in the trading system.

Let's get to basics now.

We have a common purpose: Integrating countries more effectively in the trading system to benefit their economies and the lives of their people.

What have we done to get there? Over the past six years-since the IF was launched in 1996-we first produced needs assessments and now we are conducting trade diagnostics in individual countries to identify impediments to trade and investment.

What real results have we produced? As far as I can see, not enough. How much money have we spent? What have we achieved in real results from this time and money?

I put this challenge to you: to achieve real results by 2005. Because successful results in the IF mission are crucial not only to DOHA, but very directly to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. In fact, the first goal: to cut poverty in half by 2015 will not happen without increasing economic output, productivity, investment and trade in developing countries. And without the revenues accruing to governments from private sector led growth through trade, countries will have no resources to spend in their budgets on sustainable pro-poor programs.

My focus today is not to criticize the value of your work to date and the diagnostics completed. This has been a pioneering undertaking for all concerned. But, given these lessons learned, I think we know enough now to move from words to trade supporting actions on the ground. For example, all three pilot IF diagnostics broadly identified standards and customs as key areas for improvement-and specific components to address. These involve real operational capacities on the ground that are crucial to trade transactions. What are we doing to meet these needs?

I'd like to address three key pillars that I hope you will consider building in ex-ante to the IF process going forward:
· Responsibility
· Accountability and
· Results

Responsibility
Responsibility is individual, joint and collective. The Monterrey Consensus charted a new path of development "partnership" with responsibility on both parts-countries themselves and their donor partners. At the country level, the responsibility lies with leaders and their governments to make THE necessary commitment to effective participation in the trading system. The purpose of the IF diagnostics is not simply to lay out problems and a request for technical assistance, but to identify and prioritize the actions that must be taken -- and the timeframe required -- in order to implement policies and projects that achieve results.

The people of IF countries must be brought into full consultations, especially the private business sector-both local entrepreneurs and foreign investors-who can be invaluable resources for identifying the most important steps that could produce the most meaningful trade results in a realistic timeframe. The governments of IF countries must take ownership of IF, not only in requesting a diagnostic, but possibly in helping support the in-country costs of the diagnostic teams, and, as importantly, in committing to undertake project operations in the priority areas with development partners. And it is the responsibility of development partners-international and bilateral agencies and regional development banks to translate these diagnostics into effectively designed operations within their country strategies and lending envelopes. THIS is the practical way to mainstream trade into the development strategy of every country: Demand-driven, institutional coherence, commitment of resources by both countries and partners toward achieving specific, measurable priority results.

Accountability
As a partnership with six multilateral agencies, donors, and developing countries - we all are accountable for getting results from the I.F. process. We all must be accountable for the resources of time, money and human capital expended. For example, we must listen to countries who say: we don't need more conferences and meetings; we need real help on site in our ministries and at our ports.

Accountability in IF is complex, because trade capacity building is viewed differently by all the many actors who are responsible for components of trade:
Trade negotiators want help with negotiations: from data to determine their negotiating strategy to knowledge of the complex legal issues being considered. Some may lack sufficient trained personnel to participate in negotiating venues.

Those who administer trade agreements and operate the trade infrastructure in countries -- ministries, regulatory authorities, legal and judicial bodies -- want help with building their capacities. This could mean laws to regulate trade, standards codes and customs operations, modern software and hardware and trained personnel to move goods across borders, mechanisms to enforce agreements and legal training and assistance in dispute settlements.

Private, commercial producers of goods and services want to be able to trade their products. They want effective, transparent customs procedures and port/airport/transit operations. They want reasonable costs of their transactions so that they can compete. They want access to trade finance (pre and post export), letters of credits that don't cost multiples what their competitors pay. They want a basic infrastructure for their production-clean water, modern telecommunications, a predictable power supply, roads and other transport modes. And they want government help in identifying markets and supporting their commercial ventures in potential markets around the world.

How can IF be accountable? By improving the diagnostic template to identify the prioritized needs of the different partners in a country's trade structure, and by identifying who is accountable for achieving specific performance targets. For example, should a country be borrowing from the IADB under its fast disbursing Trade Facilitation Loan program for port modernization or operationalizing an SPS standards certification system for its fruits and vegetables? Accountability does not just mean donors allocating funds because they have experts available at that moment. It means shared accountability in setting priorities, matching these with appropriate expertise and resources AND, most importantly, for implementing targeted operations to achieve specific, measurable trade outcomes based on indicators of achievement.

Results
Lets talk about Results. As Secretary O'Neill consistently says regarding the development agenda: we need to achieve real results for real people in real time. I would add that this measurement of our success is KEY to achieving any reasonable hope for success in the DOHA Development Agenda context. In short, the IF's failure to produce results that meet this "test" of success will seriously jeopardize the road leading to Cancun and beyond, because we will not have lived up to our shared promises and responsibilities. I have no problem with I.F. agencies extending this work beyond the 49 initial diagnostic countries, if we proceed with a more streamlined template based on a practical, results-based platform from which diagnostics translate into policy and project operations. That is the only way that negotiations and agreements will translate into real trade transactions on the ground. We need to identify concrete projects to overcome trade impediments and to establish criteria for trade results measured in outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Are there 3 or 4 IF countries who are willing to take the lead and commit to working with agencies to achieve measurable results on two or three identified priorities by 2005-or sooner? Are their IF agencies willing to work with these countries? Certainly, we won't have a perfect trade world-neither in policies, institutions nor infrastructure over night. But while we are working on the toughest and longest term barriers to trade growth, we can be accelerating our work on projects with short and medium term trade-positive impacts.
· We can train negotiators to do their jobs better.
· We can get customs officers modern software, hardware and the training to use it.
· We can streamline processes for moving goods so an importer or exporter doesn't have to get twenty signatures to transport his products and we can increase the efficiency of port operations.
· We can improve e-capacities for transactions, regulations, marketing and negotiations.
· We may not meet all the physical infrastructure challenges, particularly impeding agricultural producers and processors, but we can put in place standards systems that can expand exports and protect consumers.
· We can work to improve access to trade finance for SMEs and micro-enterprises, and increase competitive financial service products for local entrepreneurs. A competitive financial services sector lifts all boats in the water-all sectors in the economy.
· And we can improve the knowledge and transparency of commercial codes in countries so that investors and traders can operate more productively.

In all these areas, we can and must achieve real results on the ground so that developing countries can participate more effectively in the trading system by 2005. Do we need to sequence our activities appropriately? Of course. But we need to sequence our resources to meet attainable priorities.

Who must lead the implementation of these commitments to trade? The developing country itself must lead the way. As my Mexican and Ugandan colleague can attest - decisions your government must take may be difficult - there will be political winners and losers and there is ALWAYS a battle for budget resources. This is not an easy process, but if you don't get your policies and trade infrastructure in place, your citizens will not benefit from the trading system and higher economic growth, regardless of how strong the Special and Differential treatment you negotiate in DOHA. S&D can give you some relief that benefits you during transition in your development process, but it is not a long term strategy for real development results; it doesn't process and export coffee or cotton, it doesn't ship containers, it doesn't generate export-led foreign investment, it doesn't build roads and it doesn't give you growing budget revenues for educating your children and improving their health.

The I.F. is a test case for the new post-Monterrey Partnership - for those countries who commit to the right policies and trade infrastructure in place, the multilateral agencies and donors will respond by supporting these activities. The U.S. Government is committed to this principle - and will soon be releasing the criteria for the disbursement of monies under our Millennium Challenge Account. The World Bank, is also putting greater financial and institutional resources into supporting trade as a development priority. We are committed to greater development effectiveness through results measured in higher living standards, literacy and economic growth-even in terms of improving private sector-led growth through identifying and reducing the number of days required in a country to open/license a small business.

Closely related to, and supportive of the IF work, are the World Bank's Investment Climate Assessments and Surveys which will produce "doing business" indicators and benchmark countries' competitiveness

This is what DOHA, the I.F. and also the Millennium Development Goals are all about - private sector led economic growth-through expanded trade and investment-- to achieve sustainable poverty reduction.

At the World Bank, we work with your Finance Ministry, supporting your Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), and in determining the variety of instruments, programs, lending operations in the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) - the Bank's three year business plan with each developing country. The WTO and World Bank are working more closely together. But are your Finance and Trade Ministries also working more closely together to mainstream trade in the prioritized operations that you finance with the World Bank? I've been told by colleagues that Finance Ministers don't want to borrow for trade-enhancing projects. And from my review of the CASs, it is clear to me that trade is NOT mainstreamed in country dialog with most World Bank teams. We-both donors and borrowing countries-must do a far better job in making the case that building trade capacities is a priority. It seems obvious to me because finance ministers need to have money to manage. And that comes from growing private enterprises, tax payers and trade that support external reserves and domestic budgets.

The World Bank has expertise in building the whole backbone of trade: physical infrastructure, institutions, financial markets, human and technical infrastructure, and policy advice. We have enormous information and training capacities through our World Bank Institute. Is your Finance Ministry making full use of this variety of instruments to further your trade competitiveness? Let's work together as partners to make this happen.

There are many possible investments that a country can undertake - and there are tools for determining which ones will most benefit your country. At least week's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders meeting in Los Cabos, the World Bank released a study that quantifies the return on investment to a country from investments in seven different areas:
· Port logistics
· Customs procedures
· Regulatory environment
· Standards harmonization
· Business mobility
· E-business use
· Administrative professionalism and transparency

This initial study showed that raising the performance of all APEC members half way up to the average of all 21 increased trade among APEC members by $280 billion-with the greatest gains from developing countries' ports and customs efficiency.

I have asked the Bank to expand this study to all countries, especially the LDCs, as I believe it will be groundbreaking for countries to have when considering projects in which to invest.

In closing, there is clearly no doubt that the Integrated Framework (if driven by country ownership with results based trade infrastructure capacity building and appropriate policy reform) could have enormous value. I urge you to work proactively with all the I.F. partner agencies, regional development banks, international standards organizations such as the ISO, and WCO -- AND ESPECIALLY your private sectors (in both developing and donor countries) to set priorities and to mobilize technical assistance, investments, and lending for the specific projects that will produce real results.

It is our shared responsibility to turn the promise of trade agreements and market access into growing trade transactions on the ground. That is the path of real development.

President Bush, speaking in Monterrey last March, said:
"As we plan and act, we must remember the true source of economic progress is the creativity of human beings… The spirit of enterprise is not limited by geography or religion or history."

The DOHA Development Agenda can unleash unprecedented shared economic prosperity that includes all people in the world. With your leadership, great dedication and focused commitment, this vision can become a reality.

Thank you.