INF/IFD/R/ 28 
10 December 2021 
(21-9272) Page: 1/4 
 Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 2 AND 3 NOVEMBER  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  2 and 3 November  
2021.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members ahead of the meeting2, 
the objectives  of the meetin g were to: (a) have a conversation on participating Members' plans and 
expectations for MC12 ; (b) discuss provision 31 on 'Measures Against Corruption' based on 'Draft 
Text' prepared by the Coordinator; ( c) continue discussing p rovision 4 ('Most -Favoured Nation  (MFN)  
Treatment' ) based on 'Text' prepared by the Coordinator , previously discussed at the meeting on 
15-16 June  2021, an alternative text proposal by a Member  on 'Non -Discrimination' , and the 
proposals contain ed in the 'Easter Text (Rev.2)' ; (d) discuss paragraph 2 regarding  'non-violation 
complaint s' of provision 35 on 'Dispute Settlement' based on  a proposal by a Member discussed at 
the meeting on 7 -8 September 2021 ; (e) continue discussing a text contributio n submitted jointly 
by six Members  on provisions 29 ( 'Provision of  Assistance and Support for Capacity Building ') and 
30 ('I nformation on Assistance and Support for Capacity Building to be submitted to the Committee '), 
as well as a joint communication subm itted by two Members on Investment Facilitation Needs 
Assessments; and (f) hear the report of the Facilitator of the Discussion Group  on 'Scope'.  In 
addition, a Member presented a table regarding the Movement of Business Persons ( MBP) comparing  
provisions in this Member's text proposal on this matter, the GATS and a  select ion of regional trade 
agreements . 
1  PARTICIPATING MEMBERS' PLANS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR MC12  
1.1.  The Coordinator informed the plenary about his recent informal bilateral consultations with 
interested Members on their plans and expectations for MC12 , more specifically on the type of 
ministerial meeting participants would favour , the format of  the text to be presented to ministers , 
and the present ation of  those proposals that have  not gained traction. He reported that p articipants 
saw MC12 as an important oppo rtunity for Ministers to take stock  and welcome the progress achieved 
in the negotiations and to provide political guidance for a timely conclusion of the text negotiations, 
at the latest by the end of 2022. Participants did not consider useful to have ministers discuss ing 
the substance of certa in issues .  
1.2.  Participating Members concurred  to present an 'as clean as possible text' to Ministers based on 
a revised and updated version of the 'Easter Text' that would incorporate the many areas where  
convergence text could be achieved while highlight ing areas where further discussion  was needed  – 
on the understanding that 'plain' unbracketed text did not indicate agreement to, or conclusion of , 
such text. Participants expressed diverging views on how to proceed with  the text proposals that are 
still in 'text boxes '. Members  also discussed the possibility for the Joint Ministerial Statement  (JMS)  
to refer to the latest revision of the 'Easter Text' , which would  not be physically attached to the Joint 
Ministerial Statement , nor be made public ly available  given that the text was still under negotiation . 
Participating Members  highlighted that many provisions and even sections  of the text were fairly 
'stabilized' . At the same time,  some participants wished to revert to specific i ssues or provisions  
after MC12 . In this regard, the Coordinator indicated that the whole text remained under negotiation 
or as negotiato rs liked to say, 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed '. The Coordinator 
 
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 /39 dated 2 9 October  2021.  INF/IFD/R/ 28 
 
- 2 - 
 
  announced that he would circulate the third revi sion of th e 'Easter Text' ahead of the next plenary 
meeting, scheduled for 16 -17 November.  
1.3.  China, on behalf of the 'Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development' (FIFD)3, presented 
a proposed draft Joint Ministerial Statement (JMS) on IFD . The draft included end-2022 as 
target date to conclude the text negotiations , and reaffirmed participants' determination to continue 
and further intensify their outreach efforts , notably towards non -participa ting Members. The 
proponents underlined that the draft statement reiterated the importance of developing and least-
developed country  Members' participation in global investment flows and stressed the need of 
technical assistance and capacity building to he lp them implement the future IFD Agreement. The 
draft JMS was overall well received by participating Members, while some made specific draft ing 
suggestions. Participants also highlighted the importance of transparency in the drafting process. 
The Coordinator invited delegations to send their comments on the draft to China as soon as possible. 
On the basis of this discussion, China informed that it would furthe r consult with interested 
participants with a view to presenting a revised draft JMS for discuss ion at the next plenary meeting  
on 16-17 November.  
2  DISCUSSION ON PROVISION 31 ON 'MEASURES AGAINST CORRUPTION ' 
2.1.  At the outset of the discussion, th e proponent of  a text proposal on 'Measures Against 
Corruption'  following the ' detailed  approach' withdrew its proposal  to allow the discussion to move 
forward , indicating that he expected similar flexibility from other delegations on issues  without much 
support.  Partic ipants acknowledged and welcomed the flexibility shown .  
2.2.  The Coordinator introduced 'Draft Text' on provision 31 ('Measures Against Corruption') , 
streamlin ing existing proposals following the 'general approach' (i.e., a general provision referring 
to inter nationally recognized instruments) and incorporat ing views previously expressed by 
participants , which  was well received by participating Members . A participant questioned the value -
added of such provision , arguing that this topic was usually not covered  in the WTO and such a 
provision would not be enforceable under the DSU. While s ome questioned the inclusion of 'money 
laundering' in this provision , others supported addressing this matter, considering it particularly 
linked to anti -corruption.  
3  DISCUSSION ON PROVISION 4 ON 'MOST -FAVOURED NATION (MFN) TREATMENT'  
3.1.  Participants discussed two alternative approaches for provision 4 on 'Most -Favoured Nation 
Treatment' : on the one hand, a 'traditional' MFN treatment provision based on a proposal by a 
Member  and 'Text' proposed by the Coordinator  and, on the other,  an alternative 'Non-
discrimination ' provision based on a text proposal by another Member . Most participants supported 
the inclusion of an MFN provision in the future IFD Agreement , many seeing  an explicit MFN 
obligation as important for the Agreement's incorporation in the WTO legal structure , including some 
initially reluctant to including such provision . Although some  reiterated their position against 
including an MFN provision, they nevertheless constructively engaged in the discussions on this 
topic.  A few participating Members  considered the 'Non -discrimination' proposal to be a good basis 
for continu ing discussions on this matter . However, most participants favoured the inclusion of a 
'traditional' MFN provision, considering  that the text by the Coordinator provide d a good basis in this 
regard. The proponent of the 'N on-discrimination' text proposal indicated its flexibility and readiness 
to continue discuss ions on the basis of either of the two alternatives.  
4  DISCUSSION ON PARAGRAPH 2 REGARDING 'NON -VIOLATION COMPLAINT S' OF 
PROVISION 35 ON 'DISPUTE SETTLEMENT'   
4.1.  Participants discussed paragraph 2 of provision 35 on 'Dispute Settlement'  propose d by 
a Member, which would exclude non-violation complaints from the future IFD Agreement  (Articles 
XXIII:1(b) and (c) of the GATT 1994 and Article 26 of the DSU) . Several delegations questioned the 
need for such exclusion , although some mentioned that the y were still analysing it . In addition , a 
participant suggest ed to exclude Article 22.3 c) of the DSU , which allows for  cross-retaliation 
between other sectors within the same agreement, or alternatively under other WTO covered 
agreements , arguing that  the future IFD Agreement did not cover market access. A number of 
 
3 A group constituted by 18 deve loping Members, namely Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, 
Gambia, Guatemala, Hong Kong China, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Liberia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nigeria, 
Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey and Uruguay .  INF/IFD/R/ 28 
 
- 3 - 
 
  participating Members advocated caution in 'cherry -picking' elements of the DSU to apply, or not, 
to the future IFD Agreement as it could set a precedent and have systemic implications.  
5  DISCUSSION ON COMMUNICATIONS UNDER SECTION V ON 'SPECIAL AND 
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR DEV ELOPING AND LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRY 
MEMBERS'  
5.1.   Participants discussed a revised text contribution on provisions 29  ('Provision of 
Assistance and Support for Capacity Building') and 30  ('Information on Assistance and Support for 
Capacity Building to be submi tted to the Committee') submitted jointly by the six proponents of text 
proposals under Section V ('Special and Differential Treatment for Developing and Least -Developed 
Country Members' ), including both developed and developing country Members . Participat ing 
Members overall welcomed t his revised  joint contribution . Some participants reiterat ed their 
preference to keep the text formulation as close as possible to the  Trade Facilitation Agreement 
(TFA). On provision 29 , participants considered  that the text contribution  could be further 
streamlined , notably regarding two distinct paragraphs addressing potential areas for  technical 
assistance . In relation to one of those two provisions, a few participants sought clarification on the 
meaning of the term 'regulatory feasibility studies'. Provision 30 did not give rise to many comments, 
with most participants noting that it was derived from the TFA . Based on this discussion, t he 
proponents stated that they would circ ulate a revised version of th eir joint text contribution before 
the next plenary meeting  on 16 -17 November , taking into account the comments and suggestions 
expressed  by Members .  
5.2.  Participat ing Members  also discussed a Communication on Investment Facilitat ion Needs 
Assessments submitted jointly by two Members , with some supporting the call for holding a 
dedicated session on needs assessment ideally early next year.  
6  THE REPORT OF THE FACILITATOR OF THE DISCUSSION GROUP ON 'SCOPE'  
6.1.  The Facilitator of the Discussion Group on 'Scope'  (Colombia) informed participants that the 
Group met on 2 November to continue the discussion on the definition of 'investor of another 
Member ' but had not been able  to agree on a landing zone yet . Particularly , the group discussed the 
approach to adopt in this context , namely either incorporating the relevant concepts from the GATS 
mutatis mutandis  ('incorporation by reference' approach) or including those concepts directly into 
the text  of the IFD Agreement , adjusting the provisions as needed ('textual ' approach). The 
facilitator reported that the discussion notably focused on whether to include in the definition of 
'investor of another Member' a person who "seeks to make (…) an investment ". In this context , two 
participating Members consider ed that the scope of the future IFD Agreement  should cover only the 
post-establishment phase .  
7  DISCUSSION ON THE MOVEMENT OF BUSINESS PERSONS FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES 
(MBP)  
7.1.  One of the  two proponents of a joint  text proposa l on Movement of Business Persons (MBP)  
for investment purposes presented a table comparing provisions concerning MPB -related aspects of 
administrative procedures as included in : the joint text proposal ; Section III  ('Streamlining and 
Speeding up Administr ative Procedures')  of the  'Easter Text '; GATS ; Services Domestic Regulation 
Reference Paper ; and some regional trade agreements (i.e., the Comprehensive and Progressive 
Agreement for Trans -Pacific Partnership  (CPTPP);  and the Regional Comprehensive Economic 
Partnership (RCEP)). This Member explained that this comparative table was submitted with a view 
to better understand Members' sensitivities on this issue. Several participants reiterated their 
reluctance to discuss anything  beyond the transparency aspect of MBP measures , highlighting that 
regional trade agreements were of a different nature and that provisions agreed among a limited  
number of partners as part of a broader negotiation and cooperation process could not be tran sposed 
into a multilateral agreement  on investment facilitation . Some others however stated that they were 
open to discuss other  aspect s of the joint proposal . 
8  NEXT MEETING  
8.1.  The Coordinator informed participating Members that, as foreseen in the 'Schedule o f Meetings 
April – MC12,4 the next intersessional meeting w ould take place on 16 -17 November 2021 . At that 
 
4 Document INF/IFD/W/29/Rev. 2 dated  22 April 20 21. INF/IFD/R/ 28 
 
- 4 - 
 
  meeting, participants will  review the third revision of the 'Easter Text (Rev.3)' as a whole, with a 
view to prepar ing an 'as clean as possible' tex t ahead of MC12.  
 
__________