INF/IFD/R/19  
13 January 2021  
(21-0442) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 7 AND 8 DECEMBER 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 7 and 8 December 2020.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members 
ahead of the meeting2, the purpose of this mee ting was  two-fold: (i) for the Coordinator to debrief 
Members about the main take -aways from the two open -ended inter -sessional meeting s held on 23 
and 27 November 2020  respectively ; and (ii) for Members to complete, in negotiating mode, a first 
review of all the remaining sections and provisions of the future Agreement on Investment 
Facilitation for development ( "IFD") as framed in the latest version of the informal consolidated 
text.3  
The discussions focused on: definitions; MFN treatment; single portal; focal/enquiry 
point/investment facilitator; special and differential treatment ; institutional arrangements and final 
provisions; a s well as  the preamble and objectives. 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 INTER -SESSIONAL 
MEETING S HELD ON 23 AND 27 NOVEMBER 2020  
1.1.  The Coordinator summ arized  the main take-aways  of the two intersessional meeting s held 
on 23 and 27 November  2020 respectively . At the 23 November intersessional meeting, Members 
held a conceptual discussion on the insulation of the future Investment Facilitation Agreement from 
international investment agreements (IIAs) , and on how best to mitigate spill -over effects between 
the two – so-called "firewall" provisions. The discussion proved very useful and showed significant 
convergence amongst many participating Members  on the desirability  of a multi -pronged firewall 
approach , with appropriate provisions under different sections of the agreement ( notably under 
"scope", "MFN treatment" and "dispute settlement "). The discussion also revealed  the readiness of 
many Members participatin g in the negotiations  to constructively seek solutions to address these 
issues . 
1.2.  At the intersessional meeting  held on 27 November 2020 , participating Members had reviewed 
new drafting suggestions ( 'revised draft text' )4 prepared by the Coordinator on a number of  
provisions in sections III and IV of the informal consolidated text , on which  he had sensed significant 
collective interest and convergence. The newly added revised draft text  concerned elements 9 
("Multiple applications ") and 13 ( "Appeal or review ") in section III, as well as elements 16 ( "Domestic 
 
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/2 8 dated 2 December 2020.  
3 Document INF/IFD/R D/50/Rev.6 d ated 4 December 2020. T his document is being regularly updated to 
include the Members' latest  text proposals and contributions . 
4 Revised draft text by the Coordinator (restricted document without document symbol) dated 
23 November 2020 , which was circulated to all WTO Members . INF/IFD/R/ 19 
 
- 2 - 
 
  regulatory coherence ") and 18 ( "Cross -border cooperation on investment facilitation ") in section IV 
of the informal consolidated text.5  
1.3.  Thereafter, the Coordinator updated participating Members on the five new text proposals that 
had been submitted since the last regular meeting6: a text proposal regarding authorization fees in 
the financial sector ; a text proposal on the "firewall provis ions"; and three revised proposals on, 
respectively,  the single portal, domestic supplier database s and investment facilitator.7 The latter 
three proposals were addressed  in detail at the present meeting  (see discussion under the following 
agenda item ). 
2  NEGOTIATIONS ON INVESTMENT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
2.1.  Participating Members managed to complete  a first detailed review , in negotiating mode,  of all 
the remaining sections and provisions of the  future  IFD Agreement based on the latest version of 
the informal consolidated text (INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.6) , namely: definitions  and MFN treatment  
(section I) ; single portal  (section III);  focal/enquiry point/investment facilitator  (section IV) ; special 
and differential treatment ("SDT", section V); institutional arrangements and final provisions 
(section  VII); a s well as  the preamble and objectives.  
2.2.  On definitions  (section I  of the informal consolidated te xt), several participating Members 
reserved their more detai led comments to a later stage once the future Agreement 's rules and 
obligations would be further advanced . Participating Members discussed the pros and cons of 
includ ing a definition of  "investment " in the future Agreement. Several p articipating Members 
stressed  the importance  that definitions be in line with the GATS , as well as  the need to avoid any 
definition s that might create conflict s with IIAs . They express ed their opposition , in particular , to 
asset -based definitions of invest ment typically used in bilateral investment treaties and other IIAs.  
Whereas some  Members converged on the desirability for the Agreement to focus on foreign direct 
investment ( FDI), others preferred a coverage of 'investment ' more generally . Several participating 
Members expressed reservations regarding  the 10% equity  threshold  used as criterion to define FDI 
on the grounds that it was  difficult to implement in practice . Some Members expressed a preference 
for using , instead,  the definition of  ownership and control of a company . Yet others were unsure of 
the need to include any definition of investment/ investor/ FDI given the Agreement 's exclusion of  
market access and investment protection rights.  Several participating Members expressed interest  
in includ ing a definition of "measure " and "authorization ", taking the GATS  and services domestic 
regulation as a starting point .  
2.3.  On Most -Favoured -Nation  (MFN) treatment  (section I) , participating Members discussed 
the question of includ ing an MFN treatment obligation in the future Agreement. Many participating 
Members saw value in , and supported , the inclusion of  a carefully defined  MFN treatment obligation 
in order to avoid the inadvertent importation (or exportation) of treatment from (to ) other IIAs . 
They invoked, as an argument  in favour of including a n MFN provision , that many of the obligations 
envisaged under the future Agreement (notably transparency and good governance  standards ) in 
practice already applied without discrimination  among Members . Participating Members also 
discussed the question of includ ing an economic integration exception to preserve  the preferential 
treatment that the parties  to an economic integration agreement granted to each other. The MFN 
obligation was discussed also in relation to the scope of the Agreement and the "firewall provision ". 
Further discussions on the question of MFN treatment were deemed necessary , and the Coordinator 
encouraged Members to submit drafting proposals in this respect . 
2.4.  Regarding single portal  (section III ), participating Members welcomed the revised proposal8, 
which contained more flexible language. While the advantages of a single portal  for accessing 
relevant information , notably for investors,  were widely acknowledged , a number of participating 
Members expressed concerns notably about its function  as single -entry point for the submission and 
processing of all documents necessary for investment applications. This was deemed overly 
 
5 Document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.5 at the time. The document is regularly updated to include incoming 
Members' proposals.  
6 Regular meeting held on 9-10 November 2020.  
7 The five new text proposals are contained in do cuments INF/IFD/RD/59, INF/IFD/RD /61, 
INF/IFD/RD /60, INF/IFD/RD /62 and INF/IFD/RD /63 respectively . 
8 Contained in document INF/IFD/RD/60  dated 12 November 2020 . INF/IFD/R/ 19 
 
- 3 - 
 
  ambitious, as well as problematic in light  of the institutional arrangements and allocation of 
competence s in the investment field  in several participating Members .  
2.5.  The two revised proposals tabled by a Member  – a streamlined proposal on investment 
facilitator , and a revised proposal on domestic supplier databases  redrafted as an 
encouragement9 – were seen by participating Members as welcome steps in the right direction.  
Whereas a few participating Members stated they could accept the redrafted proposal on investmen t 
facilitator , several Members expressed concerns regarding a mandatory designation  or 
establishment of a (single)  investment facilitator  vested  with the wide-ranging competencies  as 
foreseen in the proposal . Notably the resolution of  problems  faced by investors , stipulated  in 
paragraph 18.1(c)  of the proposal, was considered as challenging  since many Members'  investment 
promotion agencies  (IPAs) did not have the mandate to perform any dispute resolution functions . 
Regarding domestic supplier databases , it was clarified that these  did not necessarily have to be 
established and managed by a government  but could also be run by the private sector. Participating 
Members acknowledged that such databases could be valuable both for foreign investors and 
domestic  producers.  
2.6.  Participating Members considered  special and differential treatment for developing and least 
developed country Members ( SDT, section V) to be a key pillar of any future "meaningful " Agreement  
on investment facilitation for development.  Technical assistance and capacity -building were also 
seen as key for its future implementation. The Trade Facilitation Agreement's flexible approach was 
seen as a good starting point  in this respect . While some participating Members stated that SDT 
should be needs -driven , evidence -based  and time -bound, others emphasized that the negotiation s 
on section V (SDT) of the future agreement needed to be guided by a full appreciation of the 
flexibilities featuring in the  TFA. A participating Member speaking on behalf of two Members 
suggested engaging in a process of national evaluation to determine what kinds of provisions were 
the likely candidates for categories A, B and C , and expressed the view that support needed to be 
made available to developing countries and LDCs to undertake such national assessments. Some 
Members announced their intention to submit proposals/text contributions on SDT in the future. A 
few p articipating Members suggested organizing an informal session  in 2021 to learn from the TFA 
experience on implementation and SDT  – regarding both challenges and things that worked well – 
possibly in presence of TFA experts.  
2.7.  On institutional and final provisions , all participating Membe rs saw value in establishing a 
WTO Committee on Investment Facilitation . Several Members stressed  that such a  Committee 
should  be given the necessary leeway to define its work program . Others advocated that its functions 
should be sufficiently well defined , to avoid lengthy debates on the Committee's rules of procedure  
in the future . Several participating Members advocated taking the institutional arrangements of the 
Committee on Trade Facilitation enshrined in TFA Article 23 as a starting point .  
2.8.  Regarding  general and security exceptions , many participating Members stressed the need 
for consistency with existing WTO agreements, advocating that the GATT/GATS' language for general 
and security exception s should apply mutatis mutandis to investment facilitatio n for development  –
making those adaptations strictly necessary to cater for the Agreement's specific scope . Other 
participating Member s called for more wide -ranging adaptations to be made , owing to the IFD 
Agreement 's specific  scope . Yet o ther Members signalled their flexib ility as to the approach to be 
taken.  
2.9.  Regarding the exceptions,  several participating Members saw value in including an exception 
for prudential measures  in the financial sector . Others saw no need to include such  an exception 
given that the Agreement did not cover market access and national treatment . The proponent of the 
provision on "Financial Exceptions " contained in the informal consolidated text stated its readiness 
to delete the footnote from its proposed text . Several Members raised questions with respect to 
paragraph 2.8 in that provision , arguing that the carve -out specified therein went beyond what was 
necessary for prudential reasons (and could, for instance, negatively affect transparency).  
2.10.   While there wa s significant  support in favour of including general and security  exceptions  as 
well as an exception for prudential measures in financial services  in the future Agreement , it was 
clear that further discussions would be needed on the ir specific wording s. 
 
9 Revised draft proposals INF/IFD/RD/ 63 and INF/IFD/RD/ 62. INF/IFD/R/ 19 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.11.   On dispute settlement,  several participating Members stated their support for the text 
proposal stipulat ing that Members shall have recourse  only to the WTO Dispute Settlement 
Understanding ( DSU). Such language was seen as key also from the perspective of the firewall 
provision  – with several  delegations reiterating their support to a multi-pronged approach to 
"firewall ", including a provision under dispute settlement . A few participating Members questi oned 
the need to subject the future Agreement to the DSU 's adjudicating  mechanisms, given the 
Agreement's  emphasis on facilitation and cooperation. Several participating Members highlighted 
the usefulness of alternative dispute settlement instruments, such  as those foreseen in Article 5 of 
the DSU. A few participating Members pleaded for non -violation complaints to be excluded from any 
form of dispute settlement proceedings under the future Agreement. Also, t he point was made that 
a separate article on "Consultations " needed to be added  to the Agreement , as was the case in other 
WTO agreements. A participating Member spoke  in favour of the inclusion of a provision stipulating 
that Article 22.3(c)  of the DSU  shall not apply to investment facilitation for deve lopment (to exclude  
cross-retaliation). Finally, a participating Member announced that it would present some technical 
modifications to its proposal on a firewall provision.  
2.12.   Participating Members had a constructive discussion on the preamble and objectives,  
showing a high degree of convergence notably on the Agreement's  main objectives and the role of 
investment as a driver to achieve sustainable development. It was agreed  that Members needed to 
revert to the preamble in more detail once the substantive provisions of the Agreement would have 
been finalized.  
3  NEXT STEPS IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2021 (INCLUDING NEXT MEETING)  
3.1.  In his concluding remarks , the Coordinator shared with Memb ers his assessment of the state -
of-play of the negotiations – including th ose areas on which participating Members need ed to focus 
their attention in 2021, as well as those provisions or sections on which further work amongst 
proponents was necessary . This overview by the Coordinator , in the form of a table entitled 
"Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement – State of play (as of 8  December  2020) ", was 
circulated to all WTO Members by e-mail after the meeting.10  
3.2.  Also, the Coordinator announced that he would circulate  further  'revised draft text' , including 
new areas where he had detected sufficient convergence of views , as well as revisions to the previous 
version of the revised draft text11 based on the discussions h eld at the intersessional meetings 
of 29 October and 27 November 2020 . The 'revised draft text'  by the Coordinator would be discussed 
at a meeting in January 2021.  
3.3.  The Coordinator informed Members that he would circulate a schedule of meetings for the fir st 
half of 2021  – propos ing to  hold 2 -day negotiating meetings  on a monthly basis, complemented by 
one-day intersessional meetings between them , as needed and appropriate .12 He also announced 
his plan to conduct informal bilateral consultations with any interested delegations  to discuss the 
way forward in the first half of 2021 . Details of the organization of those bilateral consultations, 
which would be scheduled to take place a round mid -January  2021, wou ld be communicated to all 
Members after the meeting . Participating Members supported the proposed frequency of meetings 
and thanked the Coordinator for the significant progress achieved in 2020  despite difficult 
circumstances due to the Covid -19 pandemic . 
3.4.  The Coordinator encouraged all Members wishing to do so to send their text proposals or 
contributions as early as possible before the next meeting.  
__________  
 
10 E-mail sent to all WTO Members on behalf of the Coordinator on 9 December 2020.  
11 Revised draft text by the Coordinator (restricted document without document symbol) dated 
23 November 2020 , which was circulated to all WTO Members . 
12 See d ocument INF/IFD/W/29 dated 15 Dece mber 2020.