INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
20 July 2020  
(20-4984) Page: 1/6 
  Original: English  
 
 
 
WTO STRUCTURED DISCU SSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT FACILITAT ION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
OPEN -ENDED INFORMAL VIRTUAL MEETING HELD  ON 10 JULY 2020  
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open -ended informal meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development was held on 10 July 2020, coordinated by Mr. Mathias Francke (Ambassador -designate, 
Chile).2  This was the third informal meeting foreseen in the " Sched ule of Open -Ended Informal 
Virtual Meetings, June -July 2020".3 As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated by the 
Coordinator to all WTO Members ,4 the main purpose of the meeting was to allow Members to 
introduce new text proposals submitted since the last meeting, as well as to continue the thematic 
discussion  on the basis of the informal consolidated text circulated by the Coordinator to all WTO 
Members.5 As also indicated in the annotated agenda, t he meeting was not meant to conduct any 
negotiations , nor to lead to any decision -taking or drafting suggestions by the Coordinator.  In 
keeping with the Joint Initiative ’s open, transparent and inclusive nature, all WTO Members were 
invited to attend .  
1  INTRODUCTION OF NEW TEXT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  SINCE THE LAST 
MEETING  
1.1.  A new text proposal was submitted prior to the meeting.6 The Member concerned introduced 
its comprehensive proposal, reiterating its aim of achieving a meaningful, comprehensive and 
ambitious Agreement on Investment Facilitat ion for Development. The delegation explained that, in 
preparing its text proposal, it took into consideration other proposals submitted by Members, as well 
as suggestions and concerns expressed by Members in the course of the discussions. The proposal 
aimed at creating a transparent, efficient and predictable regulatory framework for promoting further 
development to be endorsed by as many WTO Members as possible. The proposal was without 
prejudice to the Member's position with respect to the final negotiat ed outcome, and its right to 
submit additional text proposals in the course of the negotiations.  
1.2.  The Member provided a general overview of its proposal. The provision  on scope built on other 
proposals and aimed at responding to demands made by some  Members  to strengthen  the exclusion 
of market access. The provisions on  "Single Portal" , which was one of the main elements of the 
proposal,  built on this Member’s previous proposal and feedback received from  other  Members. The 
proposal on "National Investment Fa cilitator"  merged the functions of the national focal point s and 
the enquiry points, while providing  additional flexibility in terms of domestic institutional 
arrangements for implementation. He explained that the new ly proposed element of "Domestic 
Suppli er Databases", which was not yet covered in the consolidated text, aimed at promoting  the 
participation of local suppliers in global value chains. T he proposed provisions on "Technical 
Assistance and Capacity Building" aimed at reinforcing the development dimension of the framework , 
which in the  delegation's  view should go beyond the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) given  the 
different type s of procedures  concerned . Finally, the delegation stressed the importance of including 
 
1 This summary, prepared and circulated under the Coordinator ’s responsibility, is being shared with a 
view to providing delegations with a record of the discussions and assisting them in reporting back to their 
capitals. It provides a non -exhaustive, illustrative review of the issues addressed by Members at the me eting. 
2 The meeting was conducted o ver the Interprefy virtual platform.  
3 Document INF/IFD/W/18 /Rev.1, dated 15 June 2020.  
4 Document INF/IFD/W/ 22 dated 7 July 2020.  
5 Document INF/IFD/RD /50/Rev.1,  dated 2 July 2020.  
6 Document INF/IFD/ RD/53,  dated 7  July 2020 . INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
- 2 - 
 
  provisions on "Responsible Bu siness Conduct" at the global level and indicated that their proposa l 
encouraged investors to contribute to sustainable development.  
1.3.  A number of participating Members provided initial comments on the proposal, while 
emphasizing that they were still consulting internally on its different elements. Some Members who 
intervened indicated that they shared the proponent's aim of achieving a meaningful agreement. 
They also indicated that they appreciated the proponent's efforts in build ing upon other Members' 
proposals, and in taking into consideration comments expressed by delegations during  the 
discussions. One delegation commended such an approach particularly in relation to the provisions 
on single window and national focal point typ es of mechanisms. Three delegations indicated that 
they found the ideas behind the proposals on "National Investment Facilitator" and "Domestic 
Supplier Databases" interesting.  
1.4.  One Member stated that, while it saw merit in providing concrete ideas on some  of the issues 
discussed, it was important to find a balance between the level of detail and the nature of the 
provisions. In its view, it was important to provide enough guidance on implementation, while  
avoiding being overly prescriptive on institutional  arrangements in recognition of the different legal 
systems  and practices of Members. The delegation expressed the hope that the negotiations would 
resume soon.  
1.5.  Another delegation considered that the  propo sal reflected the aspirations of many developing 
Members. In the Member's view, it was important to highlight the framework's development 
objectives , as expressed in the  preamble and objectives of the proposal . This delegation requested 
Members to consider the challenges faced by many developing countries  in implementing 
obligations . He welcomed the proposal  on scope  and transparency of measures , which they 
considered added clarity  to the text . The delegation considered that the provisions on technical 
assistance and capacity building  contained in the prop osal were more precise and actionable than 
the ones contained in the informal consolidated text.   
2  THEMATIC DISCUSSION  
2.1.  The thematic discussions resumed where they had been adjourned  at the last meeting.   
2.1  Section II I: Streamlining and speeding -up administra tive procedures and 
requirements  
2.1.1   Element 12: Fees and charges   
2.2.  One participating Member briefly presented its text proposal  on authorization fees . The 
delegation indicated that the second paragraph was inspired from the TFA, in the understanding  that 
such provision could also contribute to facilitate investments.   
2.3.  Several Members considered  it unrealistic to require  making fees "commensurate with the cost  
incurred  to process the application " as indicated in the consolidated text since that depended on 
different factors , such as the nature of the activities involved  (e.g. whether they relate d to 
concessions or the extraction of natural resources ) or changing circums tances (e.g. effects of climate 
change on the use of natural resources). In that sense, one delegation supported the Member's text 
proposal, which provided as benchmark that fees "shall not in themselves restrict the investment".  
The same delegation indica ted that , in some cases, fees were also used for pension fund of agencies. 
In reply, the  proponent explained that the footnote already addressed s ome of  the issues  expressed 
by the Member.7  
2.4.  A Member sought clarification on the term "authorization" and the meaning of  "authorization 
fees". In reply, t he proponent indicated that it might be useful to clarify what "authorization" mean t 
for purposes of the entire framework.  
2.5.  Two delegations sought clarification on the second paragraph of the Member's proposal, a nd 
whether such provision  should be read together  with the relevant transparency provisions on 
 
7 The footnote states that "authorization fees do not include fees for the use of natural resources, 
payments for auction, tendering or other non -discriminatory means of awarding concessions, or mandated 
contributions to universal service provis ion." INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
- 3 - 
 
  publication and availability of measures  (like in the informal consolidated text) , which provided 
flexibility  language . The proponent explained that there was no reason  for omitting the reference to 
the provisions in the section on transparency of the informal consolidated text,  since the most 
important was to establish the principle.  
2.1.2   Element 13: Periodic Review  of administr ative procedures and requirements   
2.6.  One participating Member  presented its text proposal, which used best endeavours language 
in recognition of the fact that the period ic review of relevant measures of general application could 
be resource -intensive  for man y Members . The first paragraph of the proposal was based on the 
original text of the consolidated text, while adding a reference to the specific needs of MSMEs.  The 
second paragraph was based on Article 6  paragraph  1.4 of the TFA , albeit in a  softer language . 
2.7.  Participating Members who intervened largely saw value in this provision, while underlining at 
the same time the importance of including  soft language ("encouraged to"), as in the Member's text 
proposal.  In reply to a question on the consequences  of non -compliance given the best endeavours 
nature of the  provision , the proponent explained that the aim was to encourage good governance 
and that such periodic review s be carried out in an open and informed  manner .  
2.8.  A couple of Members shared their dome stic experiences with the review of specific measures 
on a regular basis and the consideration of feedback from users, as appropriate.  Replying to a 
question on the periodicity of the reviews, the proponent explained that such reviews could take 
place at r egular intervals, as deemed appropriate by each Member.  Also, i n response to Members' 
questions, the proponent clarified that it was up to each Member to identify what specific measures 
should be modified or streamlined . 
2.9.  Most participating Members also saw  value in p aragraph  3 of the proposal , which  encouraged 
the consideration of  stakeholder feedback and the use of relevant international performance 
indicators, such as the World Bank 's ease of doing business score , to guide Members in carrying out 
their domestic reforms . They also saw value in ensuring coherence with the work of other 
international organizations.  One Member, however, considered that the framework should be 
circumscribe d to WTO concepts .  
2.10.   Participating Members supported sharing exper iences on these matters in the Investment 
Facilitation Committee , as provided in paragraph 3 (last sentence) of the Member's proposal . One 
delegation considered that such sentence would be better placed in paragraph 28  of the framework, 
which dealt with th e Investment Facilitation  Committee . 
2.1.3   Element 14: Use of ICT / E -government including electronic applications  
2.11.   One participating Member introduced its text proposal on this element, which  recognized the 
increasing use of ICT for  streamlining and speeding up administrative procedures and requirements . 
He explained that the proposal aimed at taking due account of Members' resource constraints, as 
well as different authentication requirements.  
2.12.   A delegation enquired whether the proposal, which referred to "an authorization for an 
investment" (as opposed to " an authorization to invest " as stated in paragraph 14.1 of the informal 
consolidated text) would apply to any application that an investor mi ght submit regarding an 
investment. The Member  replied  that their proposal was broader  since it was intended to apply  
throughout the investment lifecycle , including the operation of an investment.  
2.13.   A delegation indicated that in some count ries, electronic applications were not allowed in some 
cases  and suggested the proponent to add “as applicable” to  paragraph 1.a. In response to a 
question, the proponent  clarified that the phrase "authenticated in accordance with the Member's 
domestic law" in paragraph 1. b alluded to the law of the "host country".  
2.14.   A couple of delegations sought clarification on the forms of electronic payments covered  in 
paragraph 2  of the proposal . Noting that the proposal was based on Article 7.2 of the TFA,  the 
proponent  replied that, following the understanding of the World Customs Organization,  the term 
"electronic payment" would cover all forms of transfers of information on payments made INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
- 4 - 
 
  electronically instead of physical exchange of paper (including credit cards or on line banking) , as in 
the TFA.  
2.15.   One delegation noted an overlap between paragraph  14.1.b  and para graph  10.2c) (on 
acceptance of copies) of the informal consolidated text.  
2.1.4   Element 15: One-stop Shop /Single Window Types of Mechanisms  
2.16.   One participating Member  introduced its new text proposal on "Single Portal" . The delegation 
explained that, compared to its previous proposal, the new one provided more flexibility for Members 
by including best endeavours language.  The main functions  of the mechanism included receiving 
documents on investment applications; provid ing information o f competent authorities involved in 
the authorization and operation of investments; and  consolidat ing relevant information in one single 
portal. With a view to facilitating investments, s pecially of MSMEs, Members were required to publish 
their measures, to the extent possible, in one of the official languages.   
2.17.   A Member sought clarification o n the scope of the investment procedures and the information 
covered by the single portal . He enquired whether the idea was to integrate "all procedures" under 
one single portal.  
2.18.   A Member stated that the framework shall aim at  includ ing obligations that all Members would 
be able to implement. This delegation  considered  that another Member's  proposal, which was based 
on the Reference Paper on services domestic regulation,  provided a possible "landing zone ", which 
would  need to be adapted to an investment facilitation context . Another delegation  indicated that 
investors might not feel comfortable about their information being shared by governmental agencies  
and cautioned against a too prescriptive  approach that would make it difficult  to accommodate 
different  legal systems , multiple - jurisdictions , types of procedures  and levels of development . In 
reply, t he proponent  of the Single Portal stressed again the best endeavours language of the proposal 
and highlighted  that several of its element s were already contained in other sections of the 
consolidated  text.  
2.19.   One Member sought clarification on how the provision s on technical assistance and capacity 
building would operate when putting in place this type of mechanisms . Another delegation requested 
the proponents to share their experiences in implementing the mechanisms  concerned . 
2.20.   In reply to a question , the proponent  concerned clarified that there was a clerical error in its 
proposal , which appeared below paragraph 15.1 of the informal consolidated text, as it should read 
"investment" , instead of "service" . 
2.1.5   Element 16: Independen ce of Competent Authorities  
2.21.   One participating Member introduced its text proposal on this element , which aimed at 
ensuring that decisions by the competent authority were taken in a manner independent from any 
enterprise carrying out the activity for which au thorization was required . Noting that the proposal 
was based on the Reference Paper on services d omestic regulation , one delegation  enquir ed whether 
the footnote  should be adapted to reflect  subsequent change s introduced in the context of those 
negotiations . 
2.1.6   Element 17: Appeal and Review  
2.22.   One participating Member introduced its text proposal , explaining that the first two 
paragraphs were based on Article VI:2 , paragraphs  (a) and (b), of the GATS . The aim was to extend 
the obligation s that already applied to services sectors  to the non-services sectors. The other two 
paragraph s of their proposal  laid down basic principles of due process  in appeal and review 
procedures . 
2.23.   A couple of delegations stated that they saw merit  in the proposal. Several Membe rs sought 
clarification on whether the proposal required creating new judicial, arbitral or administrative 
tribunals  for investment facilitation , or if those  already existing at the domestic level would suffice 
to meet the obligation in the first paragraph . One Member cit ed Article 41.5 of the TRIPS Agreement  
as an example of provision that made clear that there was no obligation to put in place a special INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
- 5 - 
 
  mechanism for implementation . In reply, the proponent stressed  that the proposal did not require 
settin g up a specific institution or tribunal.  
2.24.   In one Member's view, by stating in paragraph 3 that a decision shall be based, where required 
by law, on the record compiled by the administrative authority, the proposal  could deny 
consideration of a party's arguments . Therefore , the delegation  requested the proponent to review 
that phrase . Another Member sought clarification on the reasons for requiring the decision to be 
subject by the authority entrusted with administrative enforc ement  on paragraph 4 , as well as on 
the types of administrative enforcement  envisaged . In reply , the proponent indicated that the 
proposal did not impos e any enforcement  mechanism, as that depended on each Member's legal 
system.  
2.25.   As to paragraph 17.1 of the  consolidated text, one Member cautioned against the use of terms  
such as  "quasi -judicial", which differed from Article VI:2 (a) of GATS.  
2.26.   Finally, one delegation indicated that the proposal would benefit from clarifying certain key 
terms to avoid any conf usions, particularly given sensitiv ities surrounding ISDS. The proponent 
assured Members that the proposal was not related to ISDS.  
2.2  Section III bis – Temporary Entry for Investment Persons / Facilitation of Movement 
of Business Persons for Investment Purposes   
2.27.   Two participating Members  submitted text proposals  under this section .  
2.28.   One participating Member made a comprehensive present ation of  its text proposal on  the 
"Facilitation of Movement of Business  Persons for Investment Purposes" . She indicated that the 
proposal had to be read together with this Member’s proposal on scope of the framework, which 
provided among st others that " nothing in [this] framework shall be construed to confer any rights 
for market access and establishment ". According to the proposal, g overnments retained full 
sovereignty over whether to allow entry, or not , of foreign investments, investors or their employees 
into their countries.  Therefore, it was up to each government to approve or reject a visa, work 
permit, residency permit or any other permit that grant ed entry and temporary stay for a natural 
person. The disciplines contained in the proposal aimed at providing greater transparency and 
predictability for invest ors.  
2.29.   The proposal covered the "entry" and "temporary stay" of business persons. In the 
proponent’s view, the term "temporary entry"  related to  visas as they allowed a natural person into 
a country for a temporary stay , even if only for a very limite d time. In the  proponent's view, while 
visas were important , work permits were more important for investors as they needed executives 
or specialists to oversee the smooth operation of their investment s. The proposal included language 
based on paragraphs 2 and 4 of the GATS Annex on Movement of Natural Persons. It also included 
a provision based on Article VI:1 of the GATS , which requir ed all measures of general application to 
be administered in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner.  As to th e proposal's transparency  
component , the proponent  indicated that the aim was to make information accessible to all investors, 
regardless of their size. The other provision s in the proposal followed the order of a typical application 
procedure.  The delegation presented examples to illustrate how the different provisions would apply 
in a real case scenario .    
2.30.   Due to lack of time, Members' questions on the proposal had to be deferred to t he next 
meeting. Likewise, the other Member's presentation of its proposal under th is section had to be 
postponed to the following meeting.  
3  OTHER BUSINESS AND N EXT MEETING  
3.1.  The Coordinator announced that an additional  informal virtual meeting would be held before 
the summer break, in the afternoon of 24 July 2020 . At the meeting  on 24 July the thematic  
discussion s would resume starting from Section  III Bis of the informal consolidated text.  
 
3.2.  The Coordinator  also announced that a revised version of the informal non -consolidated text 
including the new proposal submitted prior to the meeting , as well as a non -attributable informal 
summary of the meeting , would be circulated to all WTO Members . The Coordinator  encouraged INF/IFD/R/ 14 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Members wishing to submit text propo sals or contributions to do so in advance of the next meeting.  
He also incited Members to exchange their questions and comments on the proposals and other 
submissions in writing. Such written questions, comments and answers could be circulated by the 
Coord inator to all Members.  
 
__________