INF/IFD/R/ 23 
12 July 2021 
(21-5488) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 11 AND 12 MAY 2021 
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open -ended negotiating meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development, coordinated by Ambassador Mathias Francke (Chile), was held on  11 and 12 May 
2021.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members ahead of the meeting ,2 
the purpose of th e meetin g was: (a) to hear the reports of the facilitators of the Discussion Groups  
on 'Scope' and the ' Movement of Business Persons (MBP)'; (b) to continue the discussions on the 
inclusion of a 'Most -Favoured Nation' (MFN) treatment provision ; (c) to discuss Section III TER of 
the 'Easter Text' on 'Transfer and subrogation' ; (d) to review as a whole the 'plain text' in Section  IV 
(including provisions on f ocal points, domestic supplier databases, domestic  regulatory  coherenc e 
and cross-border cooperation) of the 'Easter Text' ; and (e) to discuss provision 30 on 'Responsible 
business conduct' contained in Section VI of the 'Easter Text' . In addition , time was set aside at the 
beginning of the meeting for the Member which had submitted a text proposal on specific 
transparency provisions  to explain  the specific changes  its proposal  would introduce to the relevant 
provisions of the 'Easter Text' . 
1  DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC TRANSPARENCY PROVISION S (SECTION II OF THE E ASTER 
TEXT)   
1.1.  Following the introduction  of a text proposal on specific aspects of certain transparency 
provisions3 at the last negotiating meeting on 19  April 2021, the proponent further explained  how 
its proposal  would be incorporated in the  relevant tra nsparency provisions  of the  'Easter Text '.4 The 
text proposal was overall well supported by participants . A delegation , who had voiced concerns  at 
the previous negotiating meeting  on some specific aspects of the proposal , informed the plenary 
that, following further bilateral consultations with the proponent, it might be able to support some 
of the proposed changes . For the time being,  however, the delegation  in question  reserved i ts 
position , pending ongoing consultations in its capital  regarding notably the proposed changes to 
provision 7.1 on 'Single information portal' , and in particular the addition of the terms "or series of 
websites ". The delegation  considered that such  addition might dilute,  and cause the provision to 
depart from , the concept of 'Single information portal'. Another participant raised similar concerns.   
1.2.  On a different note, a delegation suggested harmoniz ing the language used to refer to the 
'beneficiari es' ("investors, other interested persons and other Members" ) across provisions 5 and 6  
in Section  II of the 'Easter Text' . 
 
1 This summary, prepared and circulated under the Coordinator's responsibility, provides a non -
exhaustive, illustrative review of the issues addressed by Members at the meeting.  
2 Document INF/IFD/W/3 3 dated 7 May 2021.  
3 Document INF/IFD/RD/73 dated 7 Apri l 2021.  
4 Consolidated Document by the Coordinator ('Easter Text'), document INF/IFD/RD/74 dated 12 April 
2021.  INF/IFD/R/ 23 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  REPORTS BY SMALL/ DISCUSSION GROUPS  
2.1.  The facilitators of the discussion  groups respectively on 'Scope' and on the 'Facilitation of the 
Entry and Temporary Stay of Business Persons for Investment Purposes'  (Movement of Business 
Persons – MBP) informed the plenary  about their ongoing work and future envisaged steps . 
2.2.  Since the last intersessional meeting, t he Group on 'Scope' met once, on 7 May  2021. Meeting s 
followed the same transparent approach that characterized the overall IFD Structured D iscussions , 
with invitations to meetings being sent to all WTO Members and provid ing the opportunity for all 
Member s to express their interest in participating  in the Group's meetings . Participa ting delegations  
agreed on the three parts to be address ed by the Group  as a priority , namely: the main 'Scope ' 
provision ('chapeau '); a number of key terms  that were crucial to define the ' Scope ' ('definitions '); 
and thirdly , the different exceptions to the 'Scope'. Currently, the Group was focusing on a possible 
'landing zone ' (consensus language) for the main 'Scope' provision . The facilitator reported that, 
although further discussions were needed, convergence  on a possible text for the 'chapeau ' of the 
'Scope' provision was starting to emerge.  
2.3.  The facilitator of the Group on MBP, which met for the first time on 30 April 2021 , informed 
the plenary that the conceptual discussion  based on some guiding questions she circulated  ahead of 
the Group's meeting, had contributed to a better understanding of participants' positions. Questions 
had been raised in the Group  about whether investment facilitation also included  the m ovement of 
associated business persons . The group also discussed the concepts of transparency  and procedures 
on MBP -related applications, and the relation between  Section s II and III of the 'Easter Text' and 
existing proposals on MBP . Finally, the  facilitator also info rmed the plenary that some of the 
proponents  on MBP  had expressed the wish to invite international organizations to make a 
presentation on the importance of MBP with regard to  investment facilitation, as well as for the 
Secretariat to present MPB -related p rovisions in RTAs, at the plenary meeting.  
3  CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE 'MOST -FAVOURED -NATION (MFN) 
TREATMENT' PROVISION  
3.1.  Participating Members continued the ir discussion on the possible inclusion of a 'Most-Favoured -
Nation (MFN) Treatment'  clause in the future Agreement , based on a text proposal submitted by a 
Member at the intersessional meeting o n 30 April  2021.5 The proposal includes  a 'chapeau'  
stipulat ing the MFN treatment obligation with respect to the application of provis ions set out in th e 
Agreement ; two exceptions, respectively for recognition measures and for certain types of bilateral, 
regional or multilateral agreement s; as well as a 'firewall' provision . 
3.2.  The discussion generated  a high level of engagement by particip ants who  exchange d detailed  
views on the specifics of the proposal and possible formulations for such clause . The question of 
whether  the MFN clause would apply only among the 'Parties' to the future IFD Agreement, or to all 
WTO Members  was left aside for the time being . Many participa ting Members who intervened saw 
value in including a carefully crafted  and circumscribed ( "with respect to the application of provisions 
set out in this agreement")  MFN language , paired with a corresponding  firewall provision,  in order  
to emphasize  the pro -multilateral character of the initiative.  
3.3.  On the other hand,  however, s everal Members reiterated their concerns on the application of 
an MFN provision and questioned its need/ value added in the IFD Agreeme nt context , stressing that 
most provisions of  the Agreement would likely anyhow  apply  on an MFN basis  in practice . A couple 
of delegations reiterated their concerns regarding the application of an MFN provision at the sub -
federal level  – also express ing concerns  on the inclusion of an MFN provision  in light of the broad 
scope of the future IFD Agreement  (likely coverage  of all stages of an investment ) and the breadth 
of the definition of the term "measure" . Two delegation s suggested that, if an  MFN provision was to 
be included in the IFD Agreement, the latter should provide ways for the signatories to make 
reservations from the MFN obligation . 
3.4.  Regarding the text of the MFN proposal, many participants  considered  that the drafting  was 
going in the right direction, although further clarification and modification of some terms used in the 
proposal were deemed necessary . The proponent replied to questions that had been raised at the 
 
5 Document INF/IFD/RD/75 dated 29 April 2021.  INF/IFD/R/ 23 
 
- 3 - 
 
  last meeting regarding some of the terms employed  in the 'chape au' ("immediately and 
unconditionally "; "like situations " versus  "like circumstances "); as well as the meaning of some terms 
qualifying the exceptions to the MFN obligation "abolish substantially all barriers " or "approximation 
of legislation "), as well as  the exclusion of recognition measures from the MFN application . On the 
chapeau  of the proposal , several participants expressed a preference for using the phrase 'like 
circumstances' (in lieu of 'like situations'). Regarding the proposed exception to the M FN treatment 
for recognition  measures , a participant pointed to differences compared with Article VII of GATS , 
which address es the same type of exception s. Finally,  on the non-importation clause , participating 
Members shared the view that it was necessary to include such clause and widely supported its 
formulation in the proposal , which was based on the text contribution submitted by the 'Discussion 
group on scope -firewall' to the plenary meeting on 9 February 2021 . 
3.5.  At the end of the discussion, the  Coordinator announced that he would reflect further and 
possibly prepare  text on a possible MFN treatment provision based on text proposals submitted by 
Members  as well as comments made by participants at this , as well as earlier meetings . 
4  DISCUSS ION ON 'TRANSFER S AND PAYMENTS'  
4.1.  Under this agenda item, participants discussed a Member's revised proposal on 'Transfers and 
Payments',6 replacing its former  proposal on 'Transfers and Subrogation' contained in Section III 
TER of the 'Easter Text' . The proponent explained that  its revised proposal  took into consider ation 
comments made by Members  on the previous text proposal . The revised proposal  aimed to ensure 
that measures relating to transfers and payments were based on objective and transparent criteria.  
Several participants considered that this  provision  was relate d to investment protection, which is 
explicitly excluded from the negotiations . While others  held the view  that the proposal was already 
covered by provision 13.2(a) in Section III of the 'Easter Text' , and therefore, saw no  need to  includ e 
it.  
5  REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF  PROVISION S IN THE 'EASTER TEXT ' 
5.1  Section IV (Focal points, Domestic supplier databases, Domestic Regulatory Coherence 
and Cross-border Cooperation ) 
5.1.  Under this agenda item, participating Members conducted a review of the 'plain text' in 
Section  IV as a whole.  Participants overall supported the Easter T ext, with som e of them making 
specific suggestions . Regarding provision 21 on 'Focal Points' , participating Members largely 
supported  the text  as contained in the Easter Text , while some reiterated their concerns particularly 
on the possible additional functions  that M embers may decide to assign to focal points , such as to 
seek resolve problems of investors o r persons seeking to invest or recommend measures to improve 
the investment envi ronment . 
5.2.  Regarding provision 22 on 'Domestic Regulatory Coherence' , participating Members supported 
the provision  (encouragement to carry out prior impact assessments) and further discussed the 
bracketed language contained in paragraphs 22.2 and 22.3. Regarding paragraph 22.3 on 
cooperation between competent authorities re sponsible for investment -related procedures, 
participating Members' views differed on the need to include the  bracketed language "in accordance 
with its legal system ". 
5.3.  Participants also discussed provision 23 on 'Domestic supplier databases' , including the  track 
changes  contained therein. Most participants welcomed the modifications included in the Easter Text 
(in track changes) . Two Members reserved their positions, suggesting that domestic supplier 
databases might be better suited for inclusion in a future Work Programme.  
5.4.  Lastly, on provision 24  on 'Cross -border Co -operation on Investment Facilitation' , several 
participants saw value in including such  provision in the IFD Agreement while suggesting  some 
modifications to the text . Some participants question ed the need to list the specific areas of 
cooperation , while others  expressed concerns  regarding the multiplicity of contact points  in the IFD 
Agreement.  
 
6 Document INF/IFD/RD/76 dated 10 May 2021.  INF/IFD/R/ 23 
 
- 4 - 
 
  5.2  Provision 30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct' contained in Section V  of the Easter 
Text 
5.5.  Participants discussed in detail provision 30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct ' (RBC)  including 
the track  changes contained therein . All participating Members who intervened but one expressed 
their support for including a provision on RBC in the IFD Agreement  – including the reference to 
internationally recognised principles, policies and guidelines – considering that  it would contribute 
to the sustainable development goals  and promote sustainable investment . One delegation did not 
consider RBC as forming part of an Agreement on investment facilitation and  voiced concerns 
regarding the enforcement of such a  provision under the WTO dispute settlement  mechanism . 
5.6.  Overall, part icipating Members supported the draft text, although propos ing some 
modifications.  A Member  suggested reintroducing a paragraph it had previously proposed, pertaining 
to engagement and dialogue with Indigenous peoples and local communities.  Another Member 
suggested deleting the reference to  international principles and standards of RBC contained in the 
footnote to paragraph 30.1 , while many  other participants supported  referring to  leading instruments 
in this field . A Member reiterated  its propos al to also include  the UN Global Compact in footn ote 42 , 
and suggested that, in addition to indigenous people , also "traditional communities " be added in 
paragraph 30.1. Another Member raised concerns on the accuracy of the legal drafting of the 
provision  – asking how a Member could " encourage " investors  and enterprises to apply RBC 
principles wh en these were in essence voluntary , and private businesses had the discretion to 
voluntarily incorporate them, or not. Two participants raised similar concerns on the implementation 
of the RBC provision and pointed to potential conflicts with some participant s' domestic law s, which 
prohibit ed compan ies to pursue interests other than  purely  shareholders ' interests . 
5.7.  The Coordinator announced his intention to prepare a revised version of provision 30 on RBC 
in time for the meeting in mid -June, taking into consideration some of the comments made by 
Members at this meeting.  
6  NEXT MEETING  
6.1.  The Coordinator informed  participa ting Members that  a two-day intersessional meeting would 
be held on 31 May and 1 June  2021. Its main purpose would be to address certain provisions of the 
'Easter Text ' (with an overall review of Section II 'Transparency of investment measures', and a 
discussion on provision 31  on 'Measures against corruption' ) as well as  to hold conceptual discussion s 
on 'Definitions' and on a possible 'Future work program' . In addition, a n acade mic discussion on 
possible options to give legal effect to the outcome of the IFD negotiations  would take place in the 
afternoon of 31 May , in the margins of the intersessional meeting .  
__________