INF/IFD/R/ 26 
7 December  2021 
(21-9189) Page: 1/4 
 Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 7 AND 8 SEPTEMBER  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  7 and 8  September 
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, respectively on 'Scope' and 'Facilitation of the Entry and Temporary Stay of Business Persons 
for Investment Purposes' (Movement of Business Persons – MBP);  (b) to d iscuss draft texts prepared 
by the Coordinator ;3 (c) to discuss Section V ('Special and Differential Treatment for Developing and 
Least -Developed Country Members' ); and ( d) to d iscuss Section IV BIS ('Home State Obligation s'). 
The Coordinator also debriefed the group on the latest development s since the last meeting.  Due to 
lack of time, the meeting did not address  provision s 31 'Measures Against Corruption' ; 30 
'Responsible Business Conduct' ; and 30 BIS on 'Establishment of Supplier -development 
Programmes' as stated in the annotated agenda . These issues will be discussed  at the following 
meeting.  
1  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The delegation of Peru announced that it had formally joined the Initiative , emphasiz ing that, 
in light of post pandemic recovery, investment facilitation  played an important role in attracting 
foreign investment and promoting sustainable development.  Participants  welcomed Peru as new 
(105th) participant in the negotiat ions. The Coordinator reminded the group that , since the last 
meeting  in mid -July, five communications  had been submitted  by Members , including  new text 
proposals on Section V  ('Special and Differential Treatment  (S&DT)  for Developing and Least -
Developed C ountry Members') ,4 a key focus for the coming months . In addition, t he Coordinator 
briefly introduced the 'Easter Text – Revision 1' ,5 which incorporate s the progress achieved by 
participants since April 2021 (including further 'convergence text'), as well as new proposals 
submitted by participants  since then . With the aim of organizing the work efficiently in the run -up 
to MC12,  the Coordinator presented an indicative table laying down the 'Priority Work Areas'6 for the 
second half of the year, based on priority topics identified by participants in the July stock -taking 
session .  
2  DISCUSSION OF THE TEXTS PREPARED BY THE COORDINATOR  
2.1.  The Coordinator introduced draft texts, prepared under his responsibility, respectively on the 
Preamble ; provision 1 on 'Objective' ; provision 2 on 'Scope' ; provision 24 on 'Cross -border 
cooperation on investment facilitation' ; and provision 35 on 'Dispute  settlement'.7 The draft text  for 
 
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/37 dated 27 August 2021.  
3 Texts by the Coordinator, restr icted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021.  
4 Document s INF/IFD/RD/8 0 dated 21 July 2021; INF/IFD/RD/8 1 dated 5 August 2021; and, 
INF/IFD/ RD/82 , dated 9 August 202 1.  
5 Document INF/IFD/RD/ 74/Rev.1  dated 23 July  2021.  
6 'Priority Work Areas' , circulated to all Members  on 27 August  2021.  
7 Texts by the Coordinator, restricted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021 .  INF/IFD/R/ 26 
 
- 2 - 
 
  the Preamble  was well received and  deemed to adequately reflect the main elements of the future 
IFD Agreement . The text includes twelve recitals addressing , among others,  the relationship  between 
trade and investment; the promotion of sustainable development; MSMEs;  support to developing 
and LDC Members for implementation of the Agreement through technical assistance and capacity 
building  (TACB) ; sustainable investment;  and the right to re gulate.  Participants also expressed the 
view that some elements could be further streamlined or consolidated . Some participants also 
provided concrete drafting suggestions  such as to replace the word 'reinforcing' by 'complementary' 
in the first recital on  trade and investment . Some delegations suggested to move the reference to 
the 'Sustainable Development Goals' (SDGs) upper (possibly merging it with the recital on the 
importance of investment for promoting  sustainable development ); but one delegation sta ted a 
preference for deleting the reference to SDGs. Another delegation suggested to add a reference to 
transparency in the third recital. While a few delegations suggested to mention dispute prevention 
in the Preamble, others considered that this notion w as already covered under domestic 
coordination. Regarding the recital on the right to regulate , it was suggested  to replicate the 
formulation used in the 2017 Joint Ministerial Statement. Some Members questioned whether the  
exclusions o n market access, investment protection and Investor -State dispute settlement should 
be mentioned here instead of solely in the  Scope provision . Finally, o ne delegation presented its text 
proposal  to add  in the Preamble elements linked to sustainable develo pment such as the participation  
of women, youth , minorities, indigenous peoples and underrepresented  groups.8 Delegations 
indicated their intention to revisit  the Preamble when the substantive provisions will be more 
advanced.  
2.2.  On 'Objective' , the Coordinator explained that  the text aimed at  reflect ing the ultimate goal 
of facilitating investment , which is to increase  the flow of investment among Members, particu larly 
to developing and LDC Members.9 Participants discussed the actual objective of  the future 
Agreement , expressing different views on whether facilitating investment was the objective, or only 
a means to the end of promoting the flow of investment  in order to foster sustainable development . 
Members  emphasized the need to read the 'Obje ctive' provision in conjunction with the Preamble 
and 'Scope' to ensure consistency and to  avoid unnecessary overlaps . While s ome participants 
questioned the need for a provision on 'Objective' , others  saw value in including this provision,  
stating that it would provide clarity on  what Members aim to achieve with this Agreement . Several 
participants suggested including the element of 'facilitation ' in the Objective  by stating that the 
purpose of the Agreement was to 'facilitate' (rather than increase) the flow of [foreign direct] 
investment . Some delegation s indicated a preference  for the term  'investment' , without specifying  
'foreign direct' .  
2.3.  The Participants welc omed the draft text on the scope of application of the future IFD 
Agreement (titled 'Scope' ), which was based on the text contribution submitted by the Discussion 
Group on 'Scope', adding at the beginning the phrase " with the aim of facilitating investments ".10 A 
participant s uggested to focus the  scope on measures 'affecting investment facilitati on'. On the 
relation between 'Scope ' and 'Objective ', and whether the former could incorporate the latter , some 
participants highlighted tha t the two provisions served different purposes, while others left open that 
possibility . 
2.4.  The revised draft text for provision 24 on 'Cross -border cooperation  on investment 
facilitation ' was overall supported by participants.11 While some participants requested to add new 
areas of cooperation, most delegations suggested to keep the list short and open. Regarding the 
possible areas for cooperation, s ome participants viewed that there was no need for paragraph 24.2  
(d) as the chapeau of this paragraph already include d language encouraging cooperation on  matters 
falling within the scope of the Agreement  and used the word 'may' . Participants also discussed a text 
proposal submitted by a Member  suggesting additional  areas of cooperation .12 The proponent 
explained that its proposal , listing examples of joint activities between investment authorities,  aimed 
at promoting facilitation agendas with a view to increasing investment for development . While some 
participants supported some of the areas in the list, most of them deemed it too specific, and 
caution ed about  including additional elements . Several delegation s indicated that they were still in 
the process of assessing th e proposa l. Regarding paragraph 24.3, several delegations advocated for 
 
8 Document INF/IFD/RD/83 dated 1 September 2021 , page 2 . 
9 Texts by the Coordinator, restricted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021 , page 3.  
10 Texts by the Coordinator, restricted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021, page 3.  
11 Texts by the Coordinator, restricted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021 , page 4.  
12 Document INF/IFD/RD/ 83 dated 1  Septembe r 2021, page 3 . INF/IFD/R/ 26 
 
- 3 - 
 
  an encouragement language , viewing that M embers should have flexibility to determine what types 
of cooperation activities they wish ed to inform the Committee . 
2.5.  Participating Members considered t hat the draft text for provision 35 on 'Dispute 
Settlement'13 was going  in the right direction and reflect ed comments previously expressed by 
participants.  Regarding the exclusion of non -violation complaints  in paragraph 35.2 , which contained 
a proposal in that sense , most delegations were still assessing the proposed text. Some Members 
viewed that  excluding non -violation complaints could have systemic implications . Many participants 
saw merit in including paragraph 35.3, encour aging Members to  resolv e their disputes by resort ing 
to good offices, conciliation, and mediation . Some participants suggested to exclud e the possibility 
for resorting to cross-retaliation under Article 22.3.(c) of the DSU , considering that the future IFD 
Agreement will not address market access. All participating Members who intervened, except one, 
supported p aragraph 35.4 , which excludes the application of the DSU  for matters arising under 
provisions 30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct' and 31 on 'Measure s Against Corruption' . 
3  DISCUSSION OF SECTION V ('SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR 
DEVELOPING AND LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS' ) 
3.1.  Participating Members discussed Section V  on 'Special and Differential Treatment for 
Developing and Least -Developed County Members  (S&DT)' based on two text proposals14 
recently submitted , including a comprehensive joint text proposal complemented by an Annex on a 
'Draft Indicative Investment Facilit ation Needs Assessment Template' . Participants welcomed the 
text proposals  as valuable inputs for the discussions on S&DT . The joint proponent s explained that 
their proposal largely borrowed from the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) , aiming at 
complementing Section V of the 'Easter Text' with additional provisions  as well as flexibilities, notably 
on notification of dates for implementation of categories B and C; early warning mechanism; expert 
group to support implementation of categories B and  C; shifting between categories B and C ; grace 
period for the application of the DSU; and Technical Assistance and Capacity  Building (TAC B).  
3.2.  The discussions focused on key differences between  the proposed provisions and those of the 
TFA such as  the inclus ion of an obligation  to assist developing and LDC Members with needs -
assessment s for categorization ; longer transitional periods  for notification and implementation , 
notably for category A measures  (the proponents view ed the future IFD Agreement  as includi ng a 
wider set of measures and , thus, requiring  longer transitional periods for implementation ); the 
different formulations used for the provision on TACB ("shall"  under the proposals vs. "should" as in 
the TFA ); possible areas for TACB; as well as needs -assessment template to guide developing and 
LDC Members with categorizatio n. Some questioned the need for longer implementation periods for 
category A measures , as well as the list of possible areas for cooperation, which in their view went 
beyond investment facilitation . On TACB, a number of participants questioned the language used in 
one of the recent proposals, which includes an obligation ("shall") to provide te chnical assistance 
and support for capacity building, while other participants supported the proposal. In this context, a  
number of participants suggested to keep the language as close as possible to the TFA.  The 
Coordinator urged  the proponents on S&DT to  work together with the aim of finding common 
language, particularly on TACB . 
3.3.  Besides,  several participants showed interest in the proposal for  a draft indicative  needs -
assessments  template . A number of participants emphasized the that needs -assessment was key 
for proper categorization  of provisions , while some of them highlighted the importance of TACB in 
this context . In the proponents' view, the 'Easter Text ' already provided a good indication of the 
provisions to be included in the future Agreement  and, therefore , the needs -assessment process 
should start as early as possible and before the conclusion of the IFD Agreement . While not referring 
specifically to needs -assessments, other  participants  stated the importance of providing an early 
indication  of the time needed to implement the different provisions  prior to the conclusion of  the 
future IFD Agreement.  A delegation r aised questions linked to 'institutional aspects' or how to 
operationalize TACB provisions.   
 
13 Texts by the Coordinator, restricted document without symbol, dated 6 August 2021 , page 5 . 
14 Documents INF/IFD/RD/80 , dated 21 July and INF/IFD/ RD/82 , dated 9 August 2021 ; as well as 
Document INF/IFD/RD/81, dated 5 August 2021 . INF/IFD/R/ 26 
 
- 4 - 
 
  4  REPORTS BY THE FACILITATORS OF THE DISCUSS ION GROUP ON 'SCOPE' AND THE 
DISCUSSION GROUP ON 'MOVEMENT OF BUSINESS PERSONS  FOR INVESTMENT 
PURPOSES ' 
4.1.  The facilitator of the Discussion Group on 'Scope'  reported that the Group, which  met for 
the eighth time on 7 September , continued to discuss  the 'Exclusions' on market access, investment 
protection, and Investor -State Dispute Settlement  from the scope of application  of the future IFD 
Agreement . The Group discussed two possible approach es to be employed in the drafting  of the 
exclusion provisio n, namely the "non -application/coverage" approach  (providing that the Agreement 
does not apply to/cover market access) or the "not conferring rights" approach  (the Agreement does 
not confer market access rights) . The facilitator reported  that a ll but one o f the intervening 
participants support ed the "not conferring rights" approach . In addition, the Group discussed the 
definitions of "investor of another Member"  and "Investment".  Regarding the first one , various 
aspects of this term were addressed (e.g., the inclusion of the concept of "permanent resident" , the 
possibility for Member s to be considered as investor s, and the reference to "applicable laws and 
regulations" when evaluating the nationality of an investor ). As for "investment" , discussions focused 
on the two possible approaches  to define this term: an  "enterprise -based" or "asset-based " 
approach . A delegation pointed out that the need for a definition on 'investment'  had to be considered 
in light of the scope of the future Agreem ent, which  excluded market access . Several participants 
stated that the focus should be on foreign direct investment  (FDI) , which is well reflected through 
the "enterprise -based" approach , while some others favoured a broader approach in order to take 
due account of the right of minority shareholders .  
4.2.  The facilitator of the Small Group on 'Movement of Business Persons for Investment 
Purposes'  (hereafter 'MBP')  reported  that the Group was focusing on a draft transparency provision 
to facilitate the entry and temporary stay of business persons for investment purposes  prepared by 
the facilitator  and incorporating views expressed by participants . The discussions on this text had 
been positive,  although  some Members had requested additional time to compl ete their internal 
consultations.  A delegation expressed concerns regarding the reference in the proposed 
transparency text to  "appeal and review" and "indicative timeframes". The facilitator announced that 
the Group's next meeting would  aim at continuing  the discussions on th is draft text with the aim of 
submitting a text contribution for discussion at the plenary .  
5  DISCUSSION ON SECTION IV BIS ('HOME STATE OBLIGATIONS ') 
5.1.  Participants discussed a recently submitted joint text proposal  on 'Home State Obligations' , 
included under Section IV BIS of the 'Easter Text (Rev.1)'.15 The proponent s explained that their 
proposal aim ed at recognizing the role of home States in facilitating outward sustainable investment , 
by encourag ing Members to adopt or maintai n, and make publicly available,  appropriate measures 
to facilitate outward investment in areas  such as  investment guarantees, insurance, investor support 
services and fiscal measures . The text also encourage d Members to share experiences and 
information on these matters in the Committee  on Investment Facilitation. While s ome considered  
that home States could p lay a role in facilitating investment , others  questioned whether the proposal 
was within the scope of the future Agreement , which  concerns inward inve stment . Other participants  
considered  that the adoption of  measures to facilit ate outward investment should be  at Members' 
discretion . Some Members saw value on some elements of the proposal linked to the transparency 
of measures aimed at facilitating outward investments , as well as on encouraging Members to share 
information on such measures in the Committee .  
6  NEXT MEETING  
6.1.  The Coordinator informed participating Members that , as foreseen in the 'Schedule of Meetings 
April – MC12 ,16 the next  intersessional  meeting would  take place on 23 September 2021  with the 
objective  to discuss  the following  issues : provision 3 1 on 'Measures Against Corruption' ; provision 
30 on 'Responsible Business Conduct' ; a proposed provision  30 BIS on 'Establishment of supplier -
development programmes '; and Section III ('Streamlining and Speeding Up Administrative 
Procedures') as a whole.  
__________  
 
15 Document  INF/IFD/RD/80 dated 21 July , pp. 1 -2. 
16 Document INF/IFD/W/29/Rev. 2 dated  22 April 2021.