G/TFA/W/59/Rev.1  
 
4 October 2021  
(21-7446) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Trade Facilitation  Original: English  
 
 
TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT FOUR YEAR REVIEW  
ARTICLE 23.1.6 OF THE TFA  
COMMENTS ON THE WTO SECRETARIAT FACTUAL REPORT (G/TFA/W/41)  
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAD ON BEHALF OF THE LEAST  DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  GROUP  
Revision  
The following communication, dated 1 October  2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Chad on behalf of the LDC Group.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. The Least Developed Country (LDC) Group would like to offer the Trade Facilitation Committee 
its views on the factual report in the form of this submission to the first review of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement (TFA). Some of these comments were preliminarily delivered by the focal 
point (Nepal) at the TF Committee meeting held 22 -23 June 2021. In formation from further 
examination of the factual report within the LDC Group is included in this communication. Additional 
information on the implementation experiences of LDCs has been circulated in document 
G/TFA/W/58.  
 
2. The LDC Group sincerely apprec iates the draft factual report circulated as document 
G/TFA/W/41. The draft report is comprehensive and valuable comprising most of the facts and data 
regarding implementation of the TFA. However, the LDC Group is of the view that the draft can be 
improved  and take into account additional elements from the perspective of the LDCs. In this regard, 
the following is shared in this communication.  
 
2.1. Section I should elaborate further about the impact of COVID -19 on implementation and 
measures taken to facilitate trade.  
 
2.2. Some of the tables contain useful information. We think the addition of a brief analysis of 
those tables would further add value.  
 
2.3. While the factual report has well covered notifications by Members, experience sharing, trade 
concerns and implementation arrangements, it might be helpful to include a table in section 3 of the 
report on the number of LDC notifications under categories A, B, and C by article, with analysis of 
provisions most LDCs have notified in the same category. This could give Members an idea of those 
articles LDCs share in common within the relevant categories. This could provide a sense of the 
provisions different LDCs see as the most difficult or requiring assistance under category C. For 
example, one review t he LDC Group has conducted reveals that most LDCs have notified 
designations under category C for Article 5.3: Test Procedures, Article 7.2: Electronic Payment, 
Article 7.4: Risk Management, Article 7.6: Establishment and Publication of Average Release Tim es, 
7.7: Authorized Operators, Article 8: Border Agency Cooperation, Article 10.4: Single Window, to 
name a few. In contrast many LDCs notified Article 5.2 under category A (22) and Article 8 at 25 
designations in category C.  
 
2.4. LDCs are fully committed  to effective implementation of the TFA. Developed country Members 
are encouraged to support the LDCs in implementing their category C measures by extending 
additional support without any additional burden of notification and transparency to the LDCs. G/TFA/W/59/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Therefore, the report must maintain a balanced account of the entire experience of the journey 
toward implementing the agreement.  
 
2.5. Under the para 3.2, it  would be appreciated if a summary of constraints and achievements of 
LDCs could be incorporated in th e draft for a general understanding on the issues and challenges 
faced and lessons of what has worked to resolve challenges. The section could commence with the 
following drawn from our submission for the review G/TFA/W/58:  
 
"The LDC Group has reported cha llenges and achievements so far in G/TFA/W/58 based 
on an internal survey that it devised and conducted. Based on the information received so far 
and information from the WTO Secretariat, most LDCs completed notification obligations. In 
many cases, LDCs ar e doing better than what was expected in terms of notifications. However, 
there are a number of LDCs that require extensions of time as indicated in paragraph 3.7 of 
the factual report. However, effective implementation of all the measures notified under t he 
category C measures by the LDCs is important but challenging. Therefore, additional support 
from donor country Members is desired in the areas of implementation of the measures 
identified under category C. The gaps in technical and financial support still exist.  
 
Initial problems were found in understanding the Agreement, which impacted the 
categorization process, the establishment of the National Trade Facilitation Committee, as well 
as involvement of various relevant departments responsible for the corresponding provisions. 
Assistance from various institutions and partners as well as the organization of the regular 
session on technical assistance and capacity building mechanism helped Members to overcome 
these challenges. Moreover, for some, the process of gradually adapting the laws and 
procedures also contributed to understanding of the agreement. Provisions most difficult or 
easier to implement so far varied among Members but some provisions were common to a 
number of Members. Staff trainin g and capacity building remain imperative for sustained 
implementation. Continuous reform and modernization of customs administration, and 
cooperation among all stakeholders were also highlighted. For the support received by those 
who submitted responses, it is clear that different institutional and bilateral assistance were 
helpful.  Methods used by some LDC Members to resolve difficulties included workshops, 
interactions, and regular monitoring.  
 
Turning to the perceptions of LDC traders on the impact of t he TFA, indeed 
improvements were cited in transparency of measures, automation, streamlined procedures, 
and cooperation among actors in the supply chain; operationalization of single window; and 
24/7 operation of port services were also commended. On the o ther hand, LDC traders also 
noted some difficulties while interacting with some relevant agencies in trade facilitation, 
which had not yet joined the single window. Similarly, SPS and TBT standards in markets 
abroad remained problematic; infrastructure pro blems such as condition of roads, ICT 
infrastructure, trade logistics, and transit problems, among others were also mentioned as 
constraints. Some desired improvements cited by LDCs included:  
 
• The facilitation of LDC exports into other markets, transparenc y of rules in those 
markets, and the release of those goods in the destination markets are needed.  
• Problems are still faced in transit cases where Article 11.2 is yet to be observed and 
challenges remain on the release of LDC goods in other markets.  
• Reduct ion of non -tariff barriers including more transparent and supportive SPS and TBT 
measures of trading partners are expected.  
• Capacity constraints, technology constraints, and limited awareness, among others are 
hindering implementation of TFA in most LDCs.  
• The gaps in assistance are now much concentrated to implementation of category C 
provisions.  
• Effective implementation of those category C measures has a strong connection with 
significant additional support from development partners in terms of resource, 
technological, institutional and human capacity building.  
• In this context, donor country Members are encouraged to extend additional support in 
implementation of category C provisions in the LDCs mainly based on the technical 
assistance requirement notifica tion and consultations in respective capitals.  
• Additionally, landlocked least developed countries have further difficulties, especially 
within their territory, to develop and maintain sufficient trade infrastructure including 
ICT infrastructure.  G/TFA/W/59/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • Trade facilitation for LDC Members requires bridging a huge digital gap and the 
connection of the entire domestic business with an ICT system and e -commerce and 
then linked with the cross -border trade. " 
 
2.6. The LDC Group is of the view that presenting co mparative trade (export and import) data 
based on the different groups of countries such as developed, developing, LDCs and LLDCs from the 
year 2017 to 2020 would be helpful in providing a general understanding of the relationship of TFA 
implementation and  global trade facilitated across different groups of Members.  
 
2.7. Furthermore, Chart 8 represents the type of technical assistance required based on the 
notifications. It would be appreciated if LDC specific information could also be presented in this 
Chart. 
 
2.8. It could be useful to include in the factual report a separate section on LDCs with a brief 
assessment of both challenges and achievements. In many cases, LDCs are doing better than what 
was expected in terms of notifications. However, there are  a number of LDCs that require extensions 
of time as indicated in paragraph 3.7 of the draft factual report. The development of a section on 
LDCs might have lessons learnt on what worked and existing gaps. This could assist in easily 
identifying the situat ion of the LDCs in TFA implementation and areas for collaboration.  
 
2.9. Table 5 is very useful in that it reflects not only notification obligations of LDCs, but also rightly 
and fairly reflects the obligation of donor Members embedded in the specific pro visions for the use 
of category C. This is the requirement to provide information on arrangements entered into with 
LDCs on TACB for category C designations. The first date corresponds to 22 February this year 2021. 
It is hoped that notifications under 16. 2(e) are in progress since LDCs are expected to notify 
definitive dates in August 2022. If there will be difficulties, proactive efforts must be made by the 
Secretariat and donor Members to assist LDCs and to expedite their notification of arrangements. 
Moreover, TFAF efforts should include proactive steps to ensure the necessary notifications will be 
made on time, or that requests for extension of the deadline, where applicable and necessary, would 
be made on time to the Committee on Trade Facilitation.  
 
2.10. The LDC Group perceives that the next challenge now is to make sure that the measures 
notified under category C by LDCs are fully implemented in a timely manner with support from the 
donor country Members. Therefore, this aspect should be taken into a ccount while assessing 
challenges which indicate that only monitoring and notification may not contribute to effective 
implementation of the Agreement. It needs additional support from donor Members.  
 
2.11.  Additionally, the LDC Group is of the view that t he factual report should remain a document 
that introduces constructive and solution -oriented approaches rather than suggestions directed to 
any group of Members.  
 
__________