INF/IFD/R/18  
 
9 December 2020  
(20-8881) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 9 AND 10 NOVEM BER 2020 
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open -ended negotiating meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development, coordinated by Mr. Mathias Francke (Ambassador -designate, Chile), was held on 9 
and 10 Novem ber 2020.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members ahead  
of the meeting2, the purpose of this meeting was to continue the negotiations on a multilateral 
framework on investment facilitation for development  – based on the latest version of the informal 
consolidated text3 and any other available text proposals by Members not yet incorporated into it . 
In keeping with the Joint Initiative's open, transparent and inclusive nature, all WTO Members had 
been invited to attend the meeting.  
1  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS  AND COORDINATOR REPORT ON THE RECENT 
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING  
1.1.  At the meeting, Chinese Taipei informed delegations  about its decision to formally join the 
initiative  and participate in the text -based negotiations  on an investment facilitation framework . Its 
representative stressed its delegation's support for a comprehensive set of high -quality investment -
facilitation rules  to enhance foreign investments for development . The Coordinator welcomed  the 
new participant, highlighting that the initiative now counte d with the support of 106 WTO Members.  
1.2.  The Coordinator summed up the main outcomes of the open -ended intersessional meeting held 
on 29 October 2020 dedicated to the review of the 'Revised Draft Text' circulated under his 
responsibility .4 The latter covere d most elements  in Section II as well as seven elements  in 
Section  III of the informal consolidated text , based on Members' text proposals and discussions held 
at the September and October  2020 meetings .5 The meeting was very productive and revealed a n 
important degree of convergence among participating Members, who considered the Revised Draft 
Text to provide a good foundation for moving to the next phase of the negotiations.  
2  INTRODUCTION OF NEW TEXT PROPOSALS SUB MITTED BY MEMBERS SINCE THE LAST 
MEETING  
2.1.  Two Members presented their recent ly circulated  text proposals ; both were well received by 
participating Members . The first  Member who spoke presented its proposal6 contain ing preliminary 
views on the disciplines they wish ed to achieve in the negotiations  as well as three concrete drafting 
proposals to insulate the future Agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development ( hereafter 
'IFD Agreement ') from obligations in international investment agreements ('IIAs'). In the Me mber's 
view, in addition to the exclusion of market access, ISDS and investment protection, the future IFD 
 
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/27  dated 3 November 2020.  
3 Document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.5  dated 6 November 2020.  
4 Document without symbol , dated 22 October 2020.  
5 In Section II: elements 3. 'Publication and Availability of Measures and Information'; 4. 'Notification to 
the WTO'; and 5. [Specific Exceptions applicable to Transparency Requiremen ts]; 
In Section III: elements 6. Reasonable, objective and impartial administration of measures; 7. General 
Principles for authorization procedures; 8. Authorization procedures; 10. Periodic review; 11 Use of ICT/e -
Government; and 12. Independence of Compe tent Authorities.  
6 Document INF/IFD/RD/57  dated 12 October 2020.  INF/IFD/R/ 18 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Agreement  should include a provision banning the interpretation of its provisions as a basis of claims 
under IIAs. Furthermore, it should separate th e scope of its obligations from other IIAs' obligations 
so that a breac h under it  could not be considered as a breach of any provisions  under IIAs. Finally, 
in the context of MFN, the IFD Agreement  should provide  that it would not allow an importation of 
obligations from any other IIA  into the IFD Agreement , and vice versa .  
2.2.  The second Member explained  that its proposal7 had be en developed with a focus on investors' 
concrete needs , notably the need to reduc e uncertainty  and red tape , and to be able to start 
operations  in a timely fashion . Its communication proposed introducing three new tools into the IFD 
Agreement: the adoption of risk management techniques in investment authorisation processes ; the 
'silence is consent' principle ; and a 'business obstacle alert mechanism '. A number of delegations 
viewed the proposed provisions , in particular the first two,  as elements that could possibly be 
included under a future work programme  rather than as obligations binding upon all Members .  
3  TEXT -BASED  NEGOTIATIONS ON INVESTMENT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  Participating Members continued their negotiations based on the latest revision of the informal 
consolidated text8, alongside any other available text proposals by Members not yet incorporated 
into it.  Unless otherwise specified, references to paragraphs hereafter refer to the informal 
consolidated text ('ICT') . 
3.1  Section III: Streamlining and Speeding up Administrative Procedures  
3.2.  Negotiations resumed where they had been  adjourned at the 8-9 October 2020  meeting .9 
Participating Members completed the review of the two remaining provisions in Section III  of the 
ICT: appeal and review, and one -stop shop/single window types of mechanisms/single portal.   
3.3.  Participating Members re -affirmed t he importance of  provisions on appeal and review of 
administrative decisions , based on Article VI:2 of the GATS. They converged on the four-paragraph 
text proposal contained in the ICT – adding to it t he second sentence of the first paragraph  of the 
ICT, which  was deemed a useful  addition . The title of the element was changed to 'Appeal or Review' 
in recognition of the fact that Members did not necessarily maintain both procedures. From the  
discussion , 'appeal or review' emerged as an area  of significant convergence , allowing the 
Coordinator to submit draft revised text.   
3.4.  Participating Members discussed the topic of one -stop shop/single window types of 
mechanisms/single portal with several report ing that they had established , or were in the process 
of establishing , a single portal with different functionalities. However, Members generally deemed a 
single -entry point for the submission and processing of applications as too sophisticated and 
challenging to make it a binding obligation under the IFD Agreement  – even if they recognized, in 
principle, its merits for investors . Towards the end of that discussion, a  Member presented a revised 
proposal on 'single portal', emphasising that it took into account its extensive consultations with a 
number of delegations. Many participating Members welcomed the revised proposal as more realistic 
and an important step towards finding possible common ground on this matter.  
3.2  Section IV : Contact/focal point/Ombudsperson types of mechan isms, arrangements 
to enhance domestic coordination and cross -border cooperation on investment facilitation  
3.5.  The negotiation  on the mechanisms such as contact/focal point, ombudsperson and investor 
facilitator (element 18 of the ICT) was preceded by a conce ptual discussion on the information  and 
investor assistance mechanisms that appear ed in the different sections of the ICT .10 Indeed, d uring 
past discussions, participating Members had noted an overlap between the functions of enquiry 
points (in Section II  of the ICT ) and some of the potential functions of the focal/contact 
 
7 Document INF/IFD/RD/58 dated 23 October 2020.  
8 Document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.5  dated 6 November 2020 . 
9 See summary in document INF/IFD/R/17 dated 23 October 2020.  
10 The conceptual discussion was based on guiding questions and a comparative table of the 
mechanisms  and functions  foreseen in Members' current proposals sent in advance of the meeting . As 
announced in the Annotated Agenda for the 8 -9 October meeting (document INF/IFD/W/26, paragraph 2.6), 
the provisions on Enquiry Points in Section II were addressed together with the different types of mechanisms 
in element 18  in Section IV.  INF/IFD/R/ 18 
 
- 3 - 
 
  point/Ombudsperson types of mechanisms (in Section IV  of the ICT ). The proposals submitted by 
Members under these two elements included a range of different obligation s/functions  (such as  
provid ing information , assist ing investors  and resolv ing their difficulties) a s well as  beneficiaries of 
the different mechanisms (investors  and persons seeking to invest;  other interested parties ; 
governments ). Thus, the  conceptual discussion aimed at clarifying the objectives, functions and 
beneficiaries of these various mechanisms – so as to better devise  the necessary institutional 
flexibilities to eventually implement them , as well as  the drafting and placement of specific provisions 
in the  IFD agreement .  
3.6.  In that regard, Members distinguished between three  main functions  and associated 
mechanisms : firstly , the assistance of investors and persons seeking to invest  including support  with 
problem -solving  – e.g., responding to questions investo rs might have regarding any matters  or 
measures  covered by the Agreement ; assisting  them in contact ing the right competent authorities 
and go ing through the necessary procedures to carry out their project . These were  deemed to be  
the main objectives  and functions of the types  normally performed by focal points/ an investor 
facilitator . A second  function was that carried out by the more traditional WTO enquiry point s11, 
which focused on replying to enquiries from Members  including those channelled through Members' 
enquiry point(s)  on matter s regarding the functioning and implementation of the IFD Agreement  
(and potentially also replying to enquiries from investors and other interested parties on these 
matters ). A third function concerned contacts between Members (including their agencies) notably 
to coordinate their cooperation on technical assistance and capacity building under the Agreement , 
which was generally carried out through contact points.  The discussion made it clear that element 
18 in section IV of the ICT focused mainly on the first function mentioned above  – while o ther 
functions could possibly be addressed under other relevant se ctions of the agreement.  
3.7.  Thereafter, participating Members reviewed the  text proposals included under element  18 of 
the ICT. Several Members voiced concerns about a mandatory  obligation  to designate a single  
agenc y entrusted with so many different functions and responsibilities . They emphasized that it was 
up to Members to make the ultimate designation of the competent authorities(s) and/or agencies 
entrusted with defined enquiry and assistance functions – in accordance with their legal sy stem and 
current practices. Placing undue institutional burden on Members should be avoided.  Following the 
discussion, the Member concerned announced that it would table a revised proposal on 'investment 
facilitator'.  
3.8.  Turning to the provisions on domestic regulatory coherence, m any participating Members 
deemed it useful and beneficial to include into the Agreement a provision encouraging  Members to 
carry out, in accordance with their respective rules and procedures, an impact assessment when 
preparing major  regulatory measures – along the lines of the text proposal by a Member under 
element 19, with some adaptations to  be made to  its language.  
3.9.  Turning to element 20 of the ICT, p articipating Members discussed the text proposal submitted 
by a Member , which  encourag es (best-endeavour language)  Member s to promote the establishment 
of one or more  domestic suppliers database(s) with the aim of helping investors . The proponent 
explained that the proposal stemmed directly from a request from SMEs in its country , and that such 
'matchmaking' between investors and local firms was one of the service s most  widely provided by 
investment promotion agencies  (IPAs) . He further clarified that government s would not be liable for 
the content shared through these databases, and that these could be managed  by the State, the 
IPA, the private sector or through a public -private partnership.  Participating Members showed 
interest in the proposal albeit  also voicing some concerns regarding  its implementation  in practice . 
Several Members stated that they did not maintain such databases. It was advocated th at the text 
of the proposal be revised  to make it clear : (a) that such database s did not imply any governmental 
'stamp of approval' regarding  the local firms included in them; and (b) that the  list of features in the 
proposed provision  was indicative.  The proponent stated that it would submit  a revised proposal.  
3.10.   Addressing the provisi ons on cross -border cooperation on investment facilitation , participating 
Members discussed the text proposal requesting Members to designate a contact point to facilitate 
the (bilateral) cooperation between Members on matters covered by the Agreement, inc luding 
technical guidance or assistance and support for capacity building. The proponent explained that the 
proposed contact points were aimed at promoting Member -to-Member cooperation , among others,  
on technical assistance and support for capacity buildin g. Several participating Members expressed 
 
11 Such as, e.g., the enquiry point foreseen in GATS Article III:4 on "Transparency".  INF/IFD/R/ 18 
 
- 4 - 
 
  concerns about the mandatory character of the proposed provision ("shall designate") and 
questioned the need to designate a single contact point for that purpose. Instead, they advocated 
the adoption of  a more fle xible approach letting governments decide how , and at what level , they 
wished to  cooperate  (e.g., between different government agencies, different national IPAs ). It was 
also noted that , unlike in the context of the TFA,  cooperation on investment issues was more multi -
dimensional involv ing many different actors. Mandating such bilateral cooperation to be channeled 
through a single  contact point was not necessarily  deemed as  facilitat ing communication between 
governments a nd agencies. Finally, several participating Members advocated that all provisions on 
technical assistance and capacity building be, as far as possible, clustered in one single section of 
the Agreement .  
3.3  Section III bis: Temporary entry for investment persons/ Facilitation of movement of 
business persons for investment purposes  
3.11.   Participating Members engaged in a constructive discussion based on the two text proposals  
contained in Section III bis of the ICT . While the proposals attracted suppo rt from some Members , 
many delegations stated that the IFD Agreement shall not address immigration issues.  At the same 
time, s ome delegations stated that the discussions could focus on the transparency aspects of the 
proposals.  In response to calls from se veral Members, the two proponents said they would work 
towards a common text proposal to facilitate future discussions.  
3.4  Section III ter: Transfers and subrogation  
3.12.   Following an introduction by the proponent, participating Members discussed the two 
proposed elements. While it was acknowledged that the rules apply ing to transfers of funds by 
investors should be clear and transparent , participating Members generally questioned the merit o f 
includ ing a free transfer  rule into the IFD Agreement . Several Members considered transfers and 
subrogation as pertaining to investment protection.  The proponent stated that it would revert back 
to Members.  
3.5  Section VI, element 26: Resp onsible business  conduct  
3.13.   Participating Members discussed the different text proposals promoting the uptake by 
enterprises and investors of responsible business practices and due diligence . Several participating 
Members expressed their preference for using the term 'responsible business conduct' (instead of 
'corporate social responsibility', which  was used more for philanthropic purposes).  The discussion 
addressed, inter alia, whether and how to make explicit reference to relevant international 
instruments endorsed by each Member in this area.   
4  NEXT MEETING  
4.1.  In his concluding remarks , the Coordinator  announced that he  would prepare revised draft text 
under his respon sibility  covering those elements discussed at th is meeting , on which he detected 
sufficient collective interest and convergence . An intersessional  meeting would be convened on 23 
November 2020 to have a conceptual discussion in informal mode on the 'firewall' provisions and, 
thereafter, to continue the negotiation s on responsible business conduct and measures against 
corruption (Section V I of the informal consolidated text ). 
4.2.  Another intersessional meeting  would be organiz ed on 27 November  to discuss the revised 
draft text referred to in the previous paragraph and c ontinue the negotiations on other  provisions of 
the informal consolidated text . Following that, as foreseen in the schedule of meetings, the next  
regular  negotiating meeting w ould be held on 7-8 December 2020 .  
4.3.  The Coordinator encouraged all Members wishing to do so to send their text proposals and/or 
contributions as early as possible before the December meeting. A revision of the informal 
consolidated text incorporating the latest written proposals would  be cir culated ahead of th at 
meeting.  
__________