INF/IFD/R/ 24 
14 July 2021 
(21-5571) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 15 AND 16 JUNE 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  15 and 16 
June 2021.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members ahead of the 
meeting2, the objectives  of the meetin g were: (a) to hear the reports of the facilitators of the 
Small/Discussion Groups; (b) to discuss a revised version of Section II ('Transparency of investment 
measures' ) of the 'Easter Text ' prepared by the Coordinator; (c) to discuss a revised version of 
provision 30  on 'Responsible Business Conduct' under  Section VI ('Sustainable investment' ) of the 
'Easter Text ' prepared by the Coordinator ; (d) to discuss text prepared by the Coordinator o n a 
possible Most -Favoured Nation (MFN) Treatment  provision ; and (e) to continue the discussions on a  
proposed  revised 'Transfers and Payments' provision . A dedicated session on implementation, 
technical assistance and capacity building was held  in the afternoon of 15 June 2021 . 
1  TEXT CONTRIBUTION FROM THE DISCUSSION GROUP ON 'SCOPE' AND REPORT BY THE 
FACILITATOR OF THE SMALL GROUP ON 'MOVEMENT OF BUSINESS PERSONS'  
1.1.  The facilitators of the Discussion Group on 'Scope' and of the Small Group on  'Movement of 
business persons for investment purposes' informed the plenary about their on -going work and 
future steps.   
1.2.  Since the last intersessional meeting, the Group on 'Scope' held one meeting , on 14 June 2021, 
which was well attended (more than 40 delegations attended – including some non-participants ). 
After six rounds of discussions on issues related to the overall scope of the future IFD Agreement, 
the facilitator presented the Group's  text contribution on the first paragraph , or 'chapeau ', of the 
'Scope' provision .3 The text contribution contain ed brackets, as participants could not agree at this 
stage on the verb to best capture the measures to which the future IFD Agreement w ould apply 
(i.e., measures "affecting", "relating to", or "governing" investmen t activities). The facilitator 
explained that  the text contribution on 'Scope' had to be drafted  broadly  enough in order to cover 
all the provisions of the future IFD Agreement , including for instance those related to transparency 
and sustainable investment. The facilitator also explained that, g iven the nature and objectiv e of the 
future agreement , the text contribution aimed at cover ing the whole  investment  lifecycle , as 
reflected by the term "investment activities ". Finally, t he faci litator explained that the Group w ould 
continue its work  on the other two important components of the scope, namely key definitions , and 
possible exclusions  from the scope .4 Participating Members widely welcomed the  Group's 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 4 dated 9 June  2021.  
3 Discussion Group's text contributi on for discussion at the plenary negotiating meeting on 15 -16 
June 2021, sent to all Members on 14 June 2021.  
4 At the negotiating meeting on 11 -12 May, the facilitator had reported to the plenary that participants 
identified three components of the Scope  namely a "chapeau" containing the central scope provision, key 
definitions used in that provision, and exceptions to the scope. INF/IFD/R/ 24 
 
- 2 - 
 
  contribution and expressed their appreciation to the facilitator for his  dedication  and the progress 
achieved .  
1.3.  Discussions ensued, notably on whether the scope should reflect the concept of "facilitation" , 
or not – and on the need for two separate article s (on 'Scope' and 'Objectives' ) or on whether to 
combine the two provisions  into the same article . Regarding 'Scope', most participating Members 
favour ed a broad scope  by using  the term  'affecting' or 'relating to'; while others favoured a narrower 
scope. Several delegations suggested deferring this discussion to a later stage of the negotiations – 
when the substantive obligations of the Agreement w ould be further developed. Most partici pants 
advocated that the future Agreement covered the entire investment  lifecycle ; while a delegation 
favoured cover ing the post-establishment  phase  only.  
1.4.  The facilitator of the Small Group on 'Movement of business persons for investment purposes' 
(hereafter ' MBP'), which met for the second time on 3 June 2021 , informed the plenary that the 
discussion had focused on the different options to include  MBP elements into the text of the future 
IFD Agreement  (stand -alone section versus  incorporation in existing relevant section(s)  of the 
'Easter Text ', particularly Section II on Transparency ). The discussion  had contributed to a  better 
understanding of participants' positions  and revealed  that further work was needed to determine 
which  MBP elements participating Members could envisage to possibly include – before deciding 
where  to include them . The next meeting of the Small G roup w ould take place on 24 June  2021. 
2  DISCUSSION S OF TEXTS PREPARED BY THE COORDINATOR   
2.1  Discussion of a revised version of Section II of the 'Easter Text ' prepared by the 
Coordinator  
2.1.  The Coordinator  presented a revised version of Section II ('Transparency of Investment 
Measures') of the 'Easter Text ',5 which was updated based on comments/suggestions made by 
participating Members during previous meetings, as well as on a proposal from a Member on specific 
transparency provisions discussed notably at the meeting on 11 -12 May  2021. The revised text, 
which was overall well supported by participating Members , contains only  a few remaining brackets , 
notably in provision 7 on 'Single Information Portal'.   
2.2.  Regarding provision  7, which is drafted as an encouragement, while most participating 
Members support ed the revised text and expressed flexibility on the remaining open issues , a 
Member suggested additional flexibility language to be included  therein  (notably to make the list of 
measures and information indicative) . Regarding the alternative terms referring to a single 
information portal at the end of paragraph  7.1, most Members  advocated  a pragmatic solution, 
namely,  to end the sentence after the term "electronic publications" ; while  the same Member as 
above  favoured the inclusion of the language "a website or series of websites ".  
2.3.  Two Members reserved their positions on provision 8 ( 'No Fees Imposed for Access to 
Information ') pending further consultations . On pro vision 10 ('Notification to the WTO'), participants 
approved to notify to the future Committee on Investment Facilitation only 'significant' changes to 
laws or regulations of general application.  A Member suggested for Section II to have more of a 
"best-endeavour" approach . 
2.2  Discussion of a revised version of provision 30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct' 
prepared by the Coordinator  
2.4.  During the discussion on a revised version of provision 30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct'  
(RBC) ,6 many participating Members reiterated their support for a meaningful RBC provision in the 
future IFD Agreement , which they considered of central importance to attract and retain sustainable 
investments.  Overall , participating Members  welcomed  and supporte d the revised text  by the 
Coordinator . Two Members supported  the inclusion of a text proposal by  a Member  whereby "each 
Member should encourag e investors/enterprises operating within its territory to undertake 
meaningful engagement and dialogue with Indigenous peoples and local communities " – expressing 
 
5 Revised version of Section II of the 'Easter Text ' circulated to all Members on 8 June 2021 (document 
without document symbol).  
6 The revised version of provision 30 ('Responsible Business Conduct') has been circulated to all 
Members on 11 June 2021 (document without document symbol).  INF/IFD/R/ 24 
 
- 3 - 
 
  their prefer ence to have  this provision as a stand -alone paragraph rather than in a footnote . Other 
delegations indicated that they were still considering this text proposal . A delegation reiterated it s 
opposition to the inclusion of an RBC provision  in the future Agreement , stating that such provision  
placed obligation s on investors rather than on Members. Another  delegation presented a text 
suggestion at the meeting aimed at significantly softening th e language of the RBC provision – by 
deleting the (indicative) list that identifies some of the principles, standards and guidelines on RBC 
as well as the reference to existing international instruments on RBC , which currently appears in a 
footnote  (such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the ILO Tripartite 
Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises).  
2.3  Discussion of text on 'Most -Favoured Nation' (MFN) treatment prepared by the 
Coordinator   
2.5.  Participating Members discussed the text suggestion on  a possible MFN Treatment provision 
prepared by the Coordinator7 aimed at facilitat ing the discussion , based on text proposals submitted 
by participating Members8 as well as detailed comments made by participants at previous meetings 
held in April and May 2021 . The discussi on showed a high level of engagement , both on the part of 
those delegation s support ing the inclusion of an MFN provision in the IFD Agreement, and those who 
expressed  doubts about the value -added of such a provision .  
2.6.  Participants discussed the concept of 'likeness' and the distinction between "like situations" and 
"like circumstances". Most delegations saw no fundamental difference between the two terms, but 
the majority favoured " in like circumstances", as it was more familiar in their treaty practice , further 
clarified  by jurisprudence , and  also used in the GATS Annex on Telecommunications .9 A few 
delegations suggested adding a footnote to clarify the meaning of "like circumstances"  – with a 
couple of them  pointing to the "Drafters’ Note on the interpretation of "In Like Circumstances" under 
Article 9.4 (National Treatment) and Article 9.5 (MFN Treatment) " in the CPTPP .10 Among those 
delegations who questioned the need for an MFN provision in the future Agre ement, two sought for 
clarification on the application of MFN treatment in relation to sub -federal  levels. A delegation asked  
to clarify that the MFN obligation related to discrimination based on nationality  (whereby just a 
simple difference of treatment b etween investors did not, in and on itself, constitute a breach) . 
Another  delegation  suggested using a non -discrimination provision in the future IFD Agreement 
instead of an MFN provision, and announced that it would present language in this respect . Some  
delegation s stated that they did not support the inclusion of an MFN clause because they did not see 
much added value to it, while it could pose risks in the context of  dispute settlement.  
2.7.  Regarding  possible  exceptions to an MFN obligation, participants discussed the distinction and 
interplay between paragraphs 4.2(a) of the text prepared by the Coordinator (exception for 
treatment provided under International Investment Agreements) and 4.3 (firewall paragraph) . 
Several  participants explained that, in their view,  the two paragraphs  had different objectives and 
function s. Paragraph 4.2(a)  would allow Members to provide 'preferential treatment' to an investor 
from certain partner countries  based on  an International Investme nt Agreement11, without being 
required to extend such benefits to investors from other WTO Members/ Parties  to the IFD 
Agreement . Thus, p aragraph 4.2 concern ed the factual treatment granted to an investor stemming 
from an International Investment Agreement , whereas  paragraph 4.3 was a 'non-importation' 
clause , which preclude d the importation of provisions from International Investment Agreements 
into the IFD Agreement  by st ipulating that  those provisions d id not constitute 'treatment' for 
purposes of assessing a breach of the MFN provision  contained in the IFD Agreement . In relation to 
the firewall paragraph, a participant favoured a provision referring in gen eral to 'international 
agreements' , as contained in the original proposal , in order to cover all IFD provisions.  Participating 
 
7 The text on MFN tr eatment prepared by the Coordinator  was circulated to all WTO Members on 11 
June 2021 (document without document symbol).  
8 Proposals as contained in the 'text boxes' in document INF/IFD/RD/74 (Consolidated Document by the 
Coordinator – 'Easter Text') date d 12 April 2021 – pages 11 and 12, as well as in document INF/IFD/RD/75 
dated 29 April 2021.  
9 GATS Annex on Telecommunications , paragraph 5(a) , footnote 15 . 
10 The Drafters' Note inter alia  clarifies that : "the phrase 'in like circumstances ' ensures that 
comparisons are made only with respect to investors or investments on the basis of relevant characteristics. 
This is a fact -specific inquiry requiring consideration of the totality of the circumstance s". 
11 Whether a separate agreement or an i nvestment chapter in an agreement forming a free trade area 
or a customs union pursuant to Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 or the Enabling Clause, or an economic 
integration agreement pursuant to Article V of GATS.  INF/IFD/R/ 24 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Members also touched upon the criteria to be applied to exclude International  Investment 
Agreements , particularly bilateral inves tment treaties,  from the MFN obligation under 4.2(a).  
2.8.  Finally, participants discussed the exception for 'recognition' measures  based upon an 
agreement or arrangement or accorded autonomously,  and the lack of conditionality for such 
measures under the  original proposal submitted by a Member in light of the absence of any reference 
to GATS Article VII therein . The proponent of th e exception clarified that some 'mutual recognition' 
measures might take place outside the context of an international agreement  (e.g., be granted 
autonomously) , and thus, that there was a need for a separate exception clause . A Member 
reiterated its request for an exception from the MFN treatment obligation for  reciproci ty measures 
concerning authorization fees. 
3  CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON A 'TRANSFERS AND PAYMENTS' PROVISION  
3.1.  Participating Members continued discuss ing a 'Transfers and Payments' provision based on the 
revised proposal by a Member ,12 which had been first presented at the 11 -12 May 2021 negotiating 
meeting.  The proponent explained that its revised  proposal  pertain ed to the formulation / 
development of measures relating to transfers and payments  and was thus related to paragraph 
13.2(a) ('General principles for authorization procedures ') in Section III of the 'Easter Text '. The 
proponent reiterated that its proposed text did not contain any element related to investment 
protection.  
3.2.  Two participa ting Members supported the revised p roposal . Another  participant asked the 
proponent why a separate provision specifically addressing transfers and payments would be needed 
given that the proponent  considered its propos ed provision  as already covered by provision 13.2(a) 
in Section III of th e 'Easter Text'. Another participant reiterated its concern that the proposed 
provision pertained to investment protection  – owing to the inclusion of language referring to 
"indemnity, guarantee or insurance contract" which, in its view, pertained to subro gation  and 
investment protection.   
4  DEDICATED SESSION ON IMPLEMENTATION, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY 
BUILDING  
4.1.  A dedicated session on implementation, technical assistance and capacity building, was held in 
the afternoon of 15 June  (the programme of the dedicated session, including relevant background 
materials and  hyperlinks to presentations made , is available on the dedicated IFD portal here). The 
session comprised two successive and complementary discussion panels.  
4.2.  The first panel focused on  lessons learnt from the implementation of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement (TFA) , with r epresentatives from recipient and donor Members , as well 
as the W orld Bank Group and the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation. The two recipient Members 
shared their key 'lessons learnt' from the TFA implementation – stressing the need for high -level 
political commitment and governance to support ratification and impl ementation, and for the 
framework to involve both public and private actors in its implementation. Allowing for regional  
implementation for developing countries and LDCs , which were members of regional economic 
integration unions , and allowing countries th e flexibility to move measures from Category B to C to 
account for exogenous shocks such as the current COVID -19 pandemic or natural disasters, were 
highlighted . The importance of technical assistance and capacity building (TACB) at early, 
organisational s tages – in order to carry out accurate needs  assessments  identify ing implementation 
gaps, as well as to formulate precise  requests for donors' TACB support  – was stressed by speakers 
from both recipient and donor countries . Also, it was essential to create and support an 'ecosystem' 
of agencies and partners ready to support developing countries and LDCs to implement the future 
agreement.  Speakers deemed the TFA provisions to constitute useful guidelines for prospective TACB 
beneficiary and donor count ries. The TFA was seen as very successful in leveraging interest and 
funding from international organizations and donor countries.  
4.3.  The second panel focused on lessons learnt from international organizations  (IOs)  
active in the implementation of investment facilitation  reforms/measures , with the 
participation of representatives from the WBG, UNCTAD, ITC, OECD, IDB, and WEF, sharing their 
 
12 See d ocument INF/IFD/RD/76 dated 10 May 2 021. INF/IFD/R/ 24 
 
- 5 - 
 
  on-the-ground experience in helping developing countries and least -developed countries. Ahead of 
the session, e ach IO  representative  had been asked to 'rank' twelve concrete investment facilitation 
areas/ measures discussed in the IFD negotiations and to select three, which he/she considered as 
having the strong est development impact while being challenging to implement . The rankings 
provided by the speakers are hyperlinked in the programme . Transparency of investment measures 
was considered as having a high impact on sust ainable investments inflows  while being a relatively 
"low hanging fruit". UNCTAD and ITC stressed the importance of simplifying procedures  and domestic 
supplier databases . Simplifying procedures first required a comprehensive mapping of all the 
administrat ive procedures that foreign investors had to go through for setting up a business – 
collecting information from all the competent authorities  involved in those procedures.  The 
importance of policy coherence , stakeholder consultations  and a whole -of-governm ent approach to 
investment facilitation was emphasized by the OECD , IDB and WEF . Finally, the WEF representative 
propose d to launch a new Global Alliance to Enable Action on Sustainable Investment , or "EASI 
Alliance", building on how the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation had helped implement the TFA.  
4.4.  At the end of the dedicated session, the Coordinator encouraged participa ting Memb ers to 
submit text proposals regarding implementation, S&DT and TACB . 
5  NEXT MEETING  
5.1.  The Coordinator informed participating Members that , as foreseen in the 'Schedule of Meetings 
April – MC12 ,13 an intersessional meeting would be held on 2 July  2021 with a view to address ing 
the following  issues : to conduct an overall review of Section II I on 'Streamlining and Speeding Up 
Administrative Procedures' ; to discuss provision 3 5 on 'Dispute Settlement'  contained in Section VII 
of the 'Easter Text '; and to discuss Section V on 'Special and Differential Treatment for Developing 
and Least -Developed Country Members' . 
 
__________  
 
13 Document INF/IFD/W/29/Rev. 2 dated  22 April 2021.