RESTRICTED  
  
WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
1 October  2021 
(21-7353) Page: 1/9 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance   
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING OF 23 SEPTEMBER  2021  
1.1.  The forty -fourth  meeting of the Working Group on Trade, Debt an d Finance (WGTDF) was held 
on 23  September  2021 and was chaired by H.E. Ambassado r Cheryl Spencer (Jamaica). The meeting 
had been convened under the cover of WTO/AIR/WGTDF/15, its revision 
(WTO/AIR/WGTDF/15/ Rev.1) and Corrigendum ( WTO/AIR/WGTDF/15/ Corr.1). Under point 2.A of 
the proposed agenda, it was suggested that the revised submission by Côte d'Ivoire (WTO Document 
WT/WGTDF/W/98 /Rev.1) be discussed. It was proposed under agenda item 2.B to have a discussion 
on the form and content of the  report that the Working Group had to deliver to the General Council 
before the 12th session of the Ministerial Conference  (MC12) , subject to the  outcome of the discussion 
on point 2.A. The Chair presented agenda item 2.C as offering the possibility of having an informal 
discussion on any of the topic that Members wished to discus in future  meeting. She indicated that 
this proposed agenda item was not aimed at pushing any substantive item or any new submission. 
That agenda item had been consistently proposed in recent years on the basis of a request made by 
Members that they should be informed in advance of any particular Member of such topics, in o rder 
to prepare for it.  
1.2.  The Representative of the United States  requested  the deletion of  proposed agenda item 2.C 
because  it had not been requested by a particular Member , it was too open -ended , and any topic to 
be raised would not leave enough  time for delegations to prepare . The Representative of Fiji, on 
behalf of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States  (ACP), requested that such an item 
remains  on the agenda , as it precisely allow ed Members to discuss issues  and ideas  that may arise 
in the course of the discussion. The Representative of Switzerland  suggested  that the proposed item  
be replaced by an "any other business " item, which was routinely included in many other WTO 
bodies . It was therefore agreed to replace the  proposed agenda item 2.C by an "any other business" 
item, at  this meeting and in future meeting s. With this modification, the agenda  was adopted . 
1  AGENDA ITEM 2.A:  DISCUSSION ON THE  REVISON  BY CÔTE D'IVOIRE 
WT/WGTDF/W /98/R EV.1 OF ITS INITIAL SUBMISSION  
1.3.  In her introduction to point 2.A of the agenda, the Chair provided a summary of open -ended 
informal consultations which had taken place on 21 June, for Members which had not attended it. 
The intent of the informal consultation was to see how Members aimed at talking the agenda forward, 
after the initial presentation by Côte d 'Ivoire of its submission and initial reactions from other 
Members at the Working Group 's formal meeting on 17 May. During that meeting , the Chair had 
sensed relatively good will regarding  the response to the request by Côte d 'Ivoire, particularly on 
the idea of an exchange of information and good practices among Members. Many Members which 
took the floor on  17 May had seemed to agree with this, and a  few themes have been proposed for 
such an exchange. The Least Developed Countries ( LDC), ACP and African Groups had shown support 
to the full extent  of Côte d'Ivoire 's proposal. Several other  Members could go along with one or the 
other points of Côte d 'Ivoire 's proposal , even though some point s looked premature. In any case, 
the exchange of information and good practices seemed to be regarded as a good starting point for 
that discussion by most Members , at that stage . Therefore , the consultation aimed at seeing what 
the Working Group was ready to consider and agree in substance, beyond such an exchange of 
information and good practice (for example by identifying what was already available in the WTO 
and elsewhere by way of support to trade finance). The consultation aimed also at looking at the 
process which might lead to some middle ground and way to organize the work.  
1.4.  It wa s difficult to summarize the who le discussion, but one could say that there was a 
divergence of views during the consultation on how one might be moving forward. Some delegations 
had shown their availability to help the process and find common ground. H owever, one Member 
indicated  that it would not support efforts to establish a road map or a work program on trade WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 2 - 
 
  finance at the WTO, and that it would not support a faci litator -led, chair -led or any other informal 
process to do so. A number of reasons in support of this view were given  during the meeting and  
were discussed with the proponent and other Members.  
1.5.  On the substance, the Chair had felt that there had been some support for "pillar one " (by 
reference to the three or four pillars of Côte d 'Ivoire 's proposal). Most delegations had indicated an 
interest in pillar one. Some delegations supported pillars one and two, some one and three. Members 
saw it as important to f inding a starting point  to this process. Without consensus on all aspects, and 
given the concerns raised by that one Members on some of the proposal,  the Chair had noted support 
on moving forward towards examining what the problems were, and on engaging on  some specific 
themes of such of an exchange of information. Some delegations had suggested to broaden the 
scope of discussion s under the Member -to-Member exchange in looking at the trade finance gaps, 
programs to address these gaps, existing instruments a nd market development, while other 
Members had suggested to organize information sessions  on certain trade finance topic with inputs 
from development finance organizations. The proponent indicated that it would incorporate in its 
proposal some of the eleme nts and comments it had heard on 17 May and 21 June. 
1.6.  In discussing the revised proposal, and generally in discussion how to go forward on discussion 
trade finance problems facing a significant part of the Membership in the context of this pandemic, 
the Chair suggested that Members looked at the next steps of the Working Group 's work and at what 
united them. If indeed positions were to remain that a Member -to-Member exchange of information 
and good practice was of interest to Members, and if this was  regarde d as a good  starting point, 
thus the next question that Members wished to consider was who and when would Members table 
submissions for such an exchange.  
1.7.  The Representation of Côte d'Ivoire  said that on the basis of input provided by Members at the 
43rd meeting of the Working Group, his delegation had revised its initial submission. It seemed that 
the vast majority of Members were in favour of Côte d'Ivoire's proposals under previous documents 
(WT/WGTDF/W/98 and WT/WGTDF /W/98/Add.1). Côte d'Ivoire wished to  see continued work on 
this document with a view to implementing its proposals. There were some reservations expressed 
by some delegations. Other delegations had questions about particular aspects of the proposal.  
Informal consultations have been held. This led the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire to present this 
revision (WT/WGTDF/W /98/Rev.1).  The revision had two parts . In part one, Côte d 'Ivoire  outlined 
the concerns of developing countries and LDCs with respect to access to trade finance. The difficulties  
of access to trade finance had  worsened in ACP countries during the C OVID -19 pandemic .  
1.8.  In the light of these concerns and difficulties, the document WT/WGTDF/W/98/Rev.1 outline d 
possible solutions. Four types of approaches have been identified with respe ct to collaboration. First, 
there was a request for collaboration involving WT O Members; in that category, there were seven  
types of proposed activities : exchange s of information on the role that trade finance plays for 
suppliers and buyers, and on how sup ply and demand for these products had evolved; the impact 
of advanced technology on trade finance ; the sharing of good practices and technical cooperation to 
facilitate access to trade finance in LDCs ; experience -sharing among Members and presentation of 
technical assistance and  capacity -building provided by Members ; experience -sharing among 
Members regarding what  could be done during the COVID -19 pandemic in terms of sharing and 
exchanging information and good practices;  the need also for developing countr ies and LDCs that 
have benefited from trade finance access programmes in the past to share their experiences, in 
particular those having led to good results ; sharing of information on how best to mobilize resources 
for trade finance in a country, including  on how to improve the conditions of supply, i.e. how could 
banks grant more letters of credit . Côte d'Ivoire reminded that during a TRIPS Council Meeting in 
June 2021, documents mentioned Members' collaboration regarding debt, including private sector 
debt, had been discussed . In the light of this, the req uest by Côte d'Ivoire fell  well within these types 
of issues  and within the p review of the WTO . 
1.9.  Thus,  there was the question  about what the Secretariat and other international organizations 
could do for Members. As far as the Secretariat was co ncerned, there were three areas in which the 
Secretariat c ould provide more systematic assistance . It already provided technical assistance 
support, for i nstance  in certain trade policy courses  (in advanced trade policies courses , for 
example) , through an e -learning module , and possibly in the context of national workshops . The 
Secretariat provided occasionally , on demand from Members, input on trade financ e into the updates 
of Diagno stic Trade Integration Studies, under the Enhanced Integration Framework. Without 
prejudice to the right of developing countries to request national workshops on trade finance -related WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 3 - 
 
  issues, Côte d'Ivoire  propose d that the Work ing Group envisage d a more systematic ap proach, within 
existing resources of these mechanisms and of the Secretariat . These were not new competences to 
be granted to the Secretariat, and it did not require any new budget or resources . 
1.10.   Regarding  the collabo ration between the WTO and  other international organizati ons, 
Côte d'Ivoire noted that, i n the COVID -19 context , the WTO had  been working in collaboration with 
the IMF , World Bank and World Health Organization in order to find solutions through trade 
measures. This was  not a new form of cooperation. It fell within established practice for the WTO to 
work with other organizations.  
1.11.   Finally, under the fourth pillar, Côte d 'Ivoire requested that the WTO  facilitate s, by means of 
additional information sessions, the dissemination of information on how exporters and importers 
and lo cal financial institutions financing  trade may obtain a legal entity identifier . This was not a new 
mission for the WTO , either. The intent was s imply to ensure the  dissemination of information, 
through the organization, which was  not widely available in low -income countries . This applied also 
to the  question of trade finance guides. This was not new either. Some countries have produce d 
trade finance guides. Such gui des could be helpful  for the information of other Members.  
1.12.   The Representative of Canada  appreciate d to receive a  summary of the state of discussions 
from the meetings in May and in the summer, and thanked C ôte d'Ivoire for the work to bring 
forward its rev ised proposal. Canada continued to support this committee examining the problem of 
trade finance, which was a challenge for many jurisdictions, particularly in the context of the global 
pandemic. Given previous discussions, Canada supported the Chair 's sug gestion that the starting 
point based on the consensus with prev ious discussions was the Member -to-Member exchange of 
information. Canada was open to countries volunteering to share best practices and information on 
bilateral technical assistance programs,  if they had the resources available to do so. Regarding the 
discussion about the assistance from the WTO Secretariat in this work, Canada supported the role 
of the WTO Secretariat maintaining links with other international organizations to ensure that WTO  
Members were kept informed of work of other international organizations on trade finance and 
available technical assistance resources. Key to this was linking up Members and supporting 
engagement with the multilateral development banks which played a cent ral role on trade finance, 
by providing trade finance, working on trade financing issues and delivering technical assistance.  
1.13.   The Representative of Fiji, speaking on behalf of the ACP Group of Members, said that the 
ACP Group wished  to recall the mandate of the Working Group on Trade , Debt, and Finance as 
informed by Ministers. This was for the WTO to study how trade can best contribute to solving the 
problems of debt and finance. A series of issues continue d to haunt t he development  and progress 
of many developing members , especially in  the case of the ACP economies,  such as external debt 
problems, existential threat of climate change and natural disasters, smallness in economic size, 
lack of economies of scale, limited productive ma rket and more so lack of access to financing 
mechanism s both to service debt as well as that of trade finance. For these  very reasons, the Working 
Group had  been tasked to look a t how trade -related measures could  contribute to finding a durable 
solution to  help alleviate these problems.  
1.14.   More recently, the COVID -19 pandemic had  exacerbated ACP economies particularly in the 
areas of international trade and trade finance which further  aggravated the situation of ACP 
Members. Trade finance was estimated to be involved in 80% or 90% world trade . It served  as the 
lifeblood of the day -to-day international trade in goods, a critical element for cross -border trade and 
in many cases the movemen t of goods across borders could not  proceed without it. Both  the global 
and local financial systems had  been impacted including those of the trade finance as well as debt 
servicing mechanisms.  
1.15.   As in trade finance, recent studies  by the International Financial Corporation (World Bank 
Group) and by the OECD had  shown that significant gaps ha d already persisted before the pandemic 
as global demand for trade finance outpaced supply. Research ha d also shown that the trade finance 
gap would  expand potentially , as the pandemic continues and certainly once C OVID -19 abates, 
businesses will need additional trade finance to emerge from the lockdown. T he Asian  Development 
Bank estimated the global trade finance gap to be in the order of US D 1.5 trillion, with developing 
countries and MSMEs being the most affected by the shortfall.  WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.16.   On the other hand, the OECD reported in March  2021 that governments in OECD countri es 
had turned to their Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) to fill any financing gaps left by the private market 
and to mitigate the impact of the crisis both in the s hort and medium -term. It was  reported however 
that s hort-term trade finance which was mostly for SMEs was  facing access problems and higher 
rates of rejections. Expo rt Credit Agencies therefore had  a critical role in the short-term trade finance 
by acting on liquidity and increasing capacity.  
1.17.   In order to mitigate the short -term liquidity pr oblems faced by exporters and  their supply 
chains, ECA 's had  been boosting their working capital support programme which included  insurance 
or guarantees to financial institutions on behalf of the exporters, provide d exporters with liquidity to 
finance cos ts incurred by the exporter to produce goods for export. According to the OECD, 64% of 
ECAs indicated that they took measures aimed at increasing working capital support. These 
measures included increasing the capacity or expanding the coverage of existing  working capital 
programmes and creating new working capital facilities.  
1.18.   In addition, ECAs filled in the gaps left by the private market in short term trade finance and 
increase its availability such as export trade insurance and guarantees, many ECAs have  further 
increased their capacity of existing programmes and created new facilities and even extended their 
limits of cover to include n ew risks. One example of this was  the European Commission which decided 
to make short term export credit insurance more widely available by temporarily removing all 
countries from the list of "marketable risk " countries which are normally ineligible for public support. 
Unfortunately for the European C ommission this support ended by the end of 2021. W hat was 
needed rather wa s a similar model that was  standard and sustainable to cater for countries in need 
for now and into the C OVID -19 recovery phase.  It was  also unfortunate that such kind of facil ities 
were mostly accessible only to the OECD members or developed members thus creating bigger gaps 
between developing and vulnerable members as in the ACP Group amidst the eco nomic impact posed 
by the C OVID -19 pandemic.  
1.19.   Learning from the 2008 -2009 economic crisis, in an attempt to avoid the potential serious 
impacts of a shrinkage o f trade finance on the real economy the G20 agreed to ensure the availability 
of support of trade finance at the tune of USD  250 billion in 2009.  Now with the significant effect of 
the C OVID -19, leading governments, multilateral group ings and public institutions were  reflect ing 
on possible responses. It was  therefore imperative that a similar approach as in the economic crisis 
could be envisaged by Ministers this year in MC12 to help drive and sustain trade finance and reduce 
the already expanding gap s globally. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) had 
conservatively estimate d that financing capacity ranging from a lower end estimate of USD  2 trillion 
to an upper end estimate of USD  5 trillion will be needed to meet this demand.  Timel y intervent ion 
in this regard was  vital.  
1.20.   Irrespective of constraints related to th e supply of trade finance, it was  also noted that the 
pandemic had  produced a shock on demand as well as production, thereby reducing exports and 
leading to disruptions  in the supply c hain. In such a circumstance ensuring that a sufficient amount 
of short -term financing was  available through export support programmes may not be sufficient to 
maintain trade flows because the availability of finance did not create a demand . However, it 
empowered and provided  incentives and opportunities to SMEs who need ed such support as and 
when demand arose .  
1.21.   Turning to the proposal for d iscussion, the ACP Group welcome d it and thank ed Côte d'Ivoire 
for its continued hard  work as noted in  its various submissions to the W orking Group. In the 
submission by C ôte d'Ivoire , the ACP Group had noted that the key challenges in trade finance 
include d the inability to access loans, a drop in demand for goods, excessive collateral requirements 
to sup port loans because of information asymmetries, rejection in the volume of letters of credit, 
rejection o f trade finance to SMEs (affecting  smaller enterprises) and increase d regulatory 
requirements related to anti -money laundering legislation. The proposed  solutions highlighted in the 
proposal include d collaboration amongst Members , such as the sharing of good practices, continued 
WTO Secretariat support, collaboration amongst international organisations and further  discussions 
on the Legal Entity Identifie r system for companies.  
1.22.   The Representative of the United States  wished to offer both general comments and 
comments specific to Côte d'Ivoire's revised proposal. The United States recognized the seriousness 
of the gap in trade finance to micro, small and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs) in developing 
countries during the pandemic. For example, his delegation was aware that about 60% of WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 5 - 
 
  respondents to the 2020 survey  by the International Finance Corporation (IFC)  on trade finance 
identified MSMEs as the hardest hit group by the pandemic shock, especially International 
Development Association (IDA)  - eligible  countries.  While the gap in trade finance to small 
busine sses in developing countries had  been exacerbated by the current crisis, that gap was not a 
new problem.  For example, an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) survey from 2014 found 
these businesses to lack access to trade finance.  Rather, th e trade finance  gap was  a product of 
deeper structural issues such as market risk and the transaction costs associated with lending to 
very small borrowers. It was important to acknowledge that the WTO did not have the tools 
necessary to bring liquidity to underserved ma rkets or address these long -term structural issues.  
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) were a more appropriate venue. Some already ha d short-
term trade finance facilities.  For example, in May 2021, IFC and Multilateral Investment Guarantee 
Agency  (MIGA)  extended a USD 500 million increase on top of the Global Trade Finance Program 's 
(GTFP) normal  USD 5 billion authorization.  There was no obvious COVID -specific fix for trade finance 
liquidity that would not replicate  what was being done in these MDB programs.  
1.23.   The Representative of the United States made  specific  comments on Côte d'Ivoire's revised 
proposal , starting with the "chapeau " and introductory paragraph s. A "work program " or "road map" 
for issues relating to "access to trade finance " fell within the scope of MDBs, not the WTO. His 
delegation was not able to support framing our discussions this way. It did not agree to recommend 
developing a work program or road map as envisioned so far.  Regarding paragraph 1.1, there was 
nothing preventing any governments from considering or proposing how to facilitate MSMEs ' access 
to trade finance, but this was an issue for MDBs, bilateral aid agencies, and DFIs to address, not for 
the WTO. Regarding p aragraph 1.3, he noted that the focus of this paragraph shifted from access to 
trade finance to access to finance. He noted that among all forms of finance, trade finance tended 
to be the least expensive because it tended to be short -term. In paragraph 1.4 , the statement that, 
"despite efforts to comply with the main banking standards, many SMEs are often denied access, " 
pointed back to structural issues that require d an MDB solution, not a WTO solution.  These structural 
issues include d a lack of credit inf ormation on borrowers, inability of a lender to recover collateral if 
a borrower defaults, and macroeconomic challenges such as inflation.  Paragraph 1.7 dealt with  
initiatives seek ing to reduce trade finance gaps and improv ing access to trade finance for f irms 
operating in developing countries . This was  a responsibility of the MDBs. T his was not work for the 
WTO. Regarding p aragraph 1.10 , given that much of the work in this proposal belong ed to MDBs 
and non -WTO forums, it did not seem ripe to consider a rol e for the Secretariat moving forward.  
1.24.   Moving on to section 1.1  of Côte d'Ivoire 's revised proposal , the Representative said  in 
general,  that the ideas of this section focused on information -sharing among WTO delegates. This 
was a ripe area for Members to explore. It would be important to ensure that any information -
sharing was voluntary. He asked that names of Members be removed from the ideas  offered.  For 
example, discussing how certain Members have integrated trade finance into their economic strategy 
was a hypothetical idea for exchange, not a U.S. position . Members would  need to discuss these 
information -sharing ideas further, and hone them. For example, he did not support a discussion in 
the WTO of how banks could grant more letters of credit.  Banking operations were not within the 
purview of the WTO.  That discussion belong ed elsewhere.  
1.25.   Regarding section 1.2 of Côte d'Ivoire's revised propo sal, about "assistance from the 
Secretariat", the Representative noted that that many of issues raised in this proposal were for MDBs  
and not the WTO, therefore he did not believe it was ripe to consider a role for the Secretariat. He 
did not support propo sing that the Secretariat worked with other international organizations "to 
examine the technical areas related to enhancing access to trade finance".  This was not an 
appropriate role for the WTO. However, he would support asking the Secretariat to identif y for 
Members all forms of technical support that it currently provided to Members concerning trade 
finance, and any such assistance it had provided since 2016. He believed this would help Members 
better understand the state of play.  
1.26.   Regarding section 1.3 of Côte d'Ivoire's revised proposal, about "other international 
organizations", he  was unsure about what was being proposed in that section. He did not wish to 
comment on what other international organizations were doing or should be doing. Nor would he 
wish to inject the WTO into their work. He  wished to respect their independent processes and 
mandates . If the idea was to invite other international organizations to the meetings of the WGTDF 
to present to Members their programs and initiatives, this seemed to be  a topic to explore further.  WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.27.   Regarding section 1.4, about "other development finance institutions", he noted th at the 
header for this section should read "development finance institutions ", given that the WTO was not 
a development finance institution. It appeared that this section contemplated Members inviting the 
institutions involved with the  Legal Entity Identif ier (LEI) to a meeting of the WGTDF and share 
information on the LEI.  If that was correct, this  was an idea that his delegation was willing to consider 
further.  However, he came back to a n earlier  point.  Difficulties in accessing trade finance stem med 
from long-run structural issues that would  not be solved by micro -level issues, such as LEI.  Rather, 
it was the issues that factor ed into how a creditor looks at a prospective borrower.  This was the 
work of MDBs, not the WTO.  
1.28.   Finally, he  could not respond to the detailed proposal by Fiji but ask ed that any proposa l for 
a Ministerial Declaration or other products stemming from this Working Group be  proposed by  
Member s and not tasked to the Secretariat or the Chair.  
1.29.   The Representative of Switzerland  reiterated that his de legation was open to the principle of 
elaborating a work program . His comments focused on form, process and outreach. The proposal by 
Côte d'Ivoire was a good basis  for work, incorporating some of the elements discussed during the 
previous meeting. However, Switzerland wished to have greater clarity regarding the type of actions 
envisaged in each of the three pillars of the in itial proposal. While this seemed  to come across the 
document, one could formulate this in introduction of each  of the pillars. Regarding pillar two, for 
example, this would involve wording that recognize d technical assistance work provided by the 
Secretariat, possibly listing what was being done.  For pillar three, this would mean that the proposal 
could recognize  upfront  that the listed international organizations had knowledge and skills in trade 
finance; and to encourage Members to invite these international organizations to come and present 
their actions and tools to the WGTDF. However, he stress ed that in order  to achieve a result, it 
seem ed necessary that a process be put in place. This could be straightforward, for example in the 
form of the Chairperson's consulta tions with delegations that had  expressed positions. These 
consultations would aim at  better under stand ing expectations relating to the possible areas of work, 
the content of these areas, and the type of action envisaged for each of such  areas . Consultations 
obviously d id not prevent Members  from starting to concretely share experiences. Switzerland was 
ready to contribute to such information sharing.  Finally, considering the proximity of the Ministerial 
Conference, one had to be mindful that delegations d id not have the necessary resources for an 
exercise of this type before the Conference. In addition , he encourage d delegations interested in 
seeing a work p rogram finalized , to start approaching other delegations, especially those having  
expressed reservations.  
1.30.   The Representative of the European Union  welcomed the efforts by the Chair and by Members 
to address the important question of trade finance. He expressed interest in the continued 
involvement of the Working Group in these discussions. He welcomed Members ' support for a 
collaboration between Members. He was open to involving international financial institutions and 
other international organisations, as appropriate, in the work of the Working Group. He had 
questions regarding the debate surrounding section 1 .2 of C ôte d'Ivoire's proposal, regarding  
assistance from the Secretariat. On the one hand , there was  a view opposing such assistance from 
the Secretariat, while requesting an overview of such activities since 2016. At the same time, he 
had heard from Côte  d'Ivoire that what was proposed was nothing new in this area. He wondered 
whether the objection was one related to an expansion of Secretariat activities going forward, or 
whether there was a basic questioning of the useful work that the WTO Secretariat h as already 
undertaken. He had heard some openness from other Members over sections 1.3. and 1.4 of 
Côte d'Ivoire 's proposal, which his delegation shared. Regarding the question as to whether his 
delegation supported work in the form of a "work program", he  reserved his position. It remained 
to be seen whether the December 2020 Declaration on Addressing the Trade -Related Aspect of 
MSMEs Access to Finance and Cross -border Payment (Annex 8 of the MSMEs group) was enough of 
a basis for trade finance  work. He sh ared the concerns of Member s who thought that time was  short 
to hammer out a  fresh document, whether this was  a work program or a Declaration, before the 
Ministerial Conference.  
1.31.   The Representative of Côte d'Ivoire  thanked all delegations for their comment s and wished to 
address som e of them. He indicated that his proposal under WT/WGTDF/W/98/Rev.1 was a 
multilateral proposal, tabled in a multilateral setting (the Working Group on Trade, Debt and 
Finance). Côte d'Ivoire was ready  to work with the delegation  of Fiji on clarifying this issue. Côte 
d'Ivoire had noted that many countries had provided financial support to traders, including for trade 
finance. Its proposal aimed at helping developing countries ' trade recover y as well. Côte d 'Ivoire WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 7 - 
 
  was concerned  by the position of the United States , particularly regarding its refusal to accept 
support by the Secretariat and collaboration with other international organizations.  Overtime, t he 
WTO had been working  jointly or in coll aboration  with many international or ganizations on different 
topics , including on trade finance . Lately, it has  worked with the World Customs  Organization (WCO) 
when it came to customs, with the World Health Organization on supply chain issues regarding the 
pandemic.  Côte d 'Ivoire itself was working with the W CO and the WTO on financing issues regarding 
trade facilitation.  Regarding Secretariat  support, Members ov ertime had requested many studies 
and received many  forms of assistance by the Secretariat.  
1.32.   He highlighted differences of treatment  with other committees  and group s. He  referred to 
document IP /C/W/679, which had been discussing  financing issues, borrowing  to banks , private 
funding  and debt issues  in the context of intellectual property.  His delegation had not questioned 
that particular  document, the themes or issues raised, as being irrelevant to the WTO. Côte d 'Ivoire 
did not understand why financing issu es in the conte xt of intellectual property was  relevant to the 
WTO, when this  was irrelevant  when i t came to trade finance in the context of the Working Group 
on Trade, Debt and Finance. Rather, one could argue the opposite. T rade finance was  better 
ground ed in the WTO than financing issues in the context of intellectual property. Still, financing 
issues in the intellectual property context were discussed at the WTO, not at World Intellectual 
Property Organization  (WIPO) .  
1.33.   Regarding collaboration between the Secretariat  and international organization s, there was 
nothing new in  WT/WGTDF/W/98/Rev.1. T his did not entail any new responsibilities , nor new practice  
and resources  for the Secretariat . He shared the views of Switzerl and and the European Union  
regarding process and timing. This was a matter of political will and choice. It could take no more 
than a week to find a solution on process, timing and ou treach, if there was good will.  Côte d 'Ivoire 
was ready to work with Swit zerland and other Members on process issues, and in general on moving 
forward on its proposal . Côte d 'Ivoire  asked the United States to reconsider its opposition to  the 
topics mentioned and  asked the Chair to hold co nsultations on both process and timing i ssues, 
helping narrow down differences in  positions.  Côte d 'Ivoire was ready to correct some of t he 
language in its proposal and take into the comment of other Members.  
1.34.   The Chair summed up the discussion. The discussion had been based on the brief presenta tion 
by Côte d 'Ivoire of its revised submission WT/WGTDF/W/98/Rev.1, seeking to incorporate the 
comments which were made at t he previous meeting of the Working Group. This proposal had  been 
the focus of work in the Working Group  this year . It emphasi zed a proposed  work program containing 
several pillars, notably exchange of information and experience sharing between Members, 
assistance from the Secretariat, assistance from other international organizations, and other 
development finance institutions. From t he discussion, some Members would still not endorse all 
elements of the proposal, though being comfortable with one and/or the other of the proposed 
elements. It seemed that most Members could go along with a Member -to-Member exchange of 
information based on Members ' submissions. At least one Member indicated its openness to go along 
with a  road map, while another Member  objected to suc h a road map. Some Members asked for 
more clarity on some elements of the proposal.  
1.35.   Some Members emphasized the impact of the  COVID -19 pandemic , the impact of the 
shrinkage of finance on supply chains ' disruptions , the impact on trade flows of limited trade finance. 
There was recognition of the s eriousness of the trade finance gap, perhaps of its increase, especially 
to SMEs, as well as issues related to capacity required. There was also a proposal for a Declaration 
to the 12th Ministerial Conference. One Member clarified that this should be  a Member-led, and not 
Secretariat or Chair -led proposal . There were concerns by some Members as to whether  these was 
enough time to treat with  a draft Declaration to MC12 with MC12 looming. Without a full consensus 
on a road map and all aspects of the submissio n, there seemed to be support for moving on 
examining what the problems are, engaging on specific themes, on an exchange of information on 
several issues including capacity -building . Colleagues suggested broadening the discussion under 
the Member -to-Member  exchange on looking at the gaps, program s to address these gaps. There 
was also a suggestion on recognizing the important role of the Secretariat in working with other 
international organizations in trade finance , and on leveraging that work.  There  were s uggestions 
for follow -up discussions and bilateral meeting between Members, and the need for more direct 
engagement  between Members  including with Members still having objections on part of the 
proposal.  WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2  AGENDA ITEM 2 .B: DISCUSSION  ON REPORTING  TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL, BEFORE 
THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
2.1.  The Chair  suggested that  it would be helpful for her, under this agenda item, to hear from 
Members about the report to the General Council. As any subsidiary body of the General Council, 
the Workin g Group had to report  annually. If Members thought it  was useful, she  could circulate a 
draft report  for Members to comment on. She asked for  guidance on both substance and form  before 
elaborating a draft, if this was agreeable to Members.  The timing was r elatively well defined. All 
reports of subsidiary bodies would have to be made available at least ten working days ahead of the 
last General Council preceding the Ministerial Conference. While such a date was not known yet, it 
was safe to assume  that repor ts would need to be ready  no later than in early November. Assuming 
also that the Working Group might have one more meeting prior to that last General Council, at 
least to adopt the draft report  (with a tentative date of November 1) , this meant that a draf t report 
should be circulated to members  of the Working Group in the course of October.  
2.2.  She sought comment on the substance and forma t of the draft report . Previous reports prior 
to Min isterial Conferences were  a collection of the annual reports of the Wo rking Group, with one 
paragraph at the end suggesting what to do after such Ministerial Conferences. She quoted the last 
paragraph contained in the report sent to the General Council prior to the 11th Session of the 
Ministerial Conference ( document WT/WGTDF/16) . The paragraph cites paragraph 36 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration and  ends up with the following sentence: "In doing so, Members showed 
interest in continuing the discussion on trade finance and SMEs, and are prepared to positively 
conside r any other topic presented by Members in the form of a specific contribution falling within 
the realm of the Working Group 's mandate ".  
2.3.  Since the Working Group did not have a Ministerial Conference for three years, following past 
practice could lead to a  long report, repetitious of previous year 's annual report. Instead,  the Chair 
suggested that  one option would be to simply make a reference the annual  report for 2018, 2019 
and 2020  with their respective document numbers, noting that the discussions of the Working Group 
had focused on trade finance. Thus, one could summarize Members ' discussions in 2021, which had 
not been reported to the General Council yet.  
2.4.  In their comments, t he Representative of Fiji, on behalf of the ACP Group, thought it important 
for delegation s to report  on the way forward. He suggested that the report have a short introduction 
on the mandate of the Working Group. The report should summarize what was on the table, and the 
state of the discussion, of progress. ACP countries, for the ir part, would consider whether to table 
something for Ministers. The Representative of Côte d'Ivoire said that the report should  not be a 
source of debate, but a factual report of what happened and what had been said. He asked about 
precedent reports and  asked that the mandate of the Working Group be reminded. He was also 
interested in the sentence quoted by the Chair.   
2.5.  The Chair  said that she leaned toward a  short report at this time.  There would be many reports 
and texts for the General Council. Perhaps was it best not to repeat previous year 's report, but to 
focus on what had not been reported yet, which was discussions held in 2021, since this was formally 
an annual report to the General Council. She would be inspired by the summing up of meetings held 
in 2021.  
3  ITEM 2.C:  ANY OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1.  The Chair asked M embers if they had an interest i n raising any other business . 
3.2.  The Representative of India, who could not join the mee ting earlier, wished to make general 
comments on the  topic discussed during the meeting . She said that trade finance was a critical 
element in re -igniting world -wide growth in imports and exports. Some 80 % to 90 % of world trade 
relied on trade finance (trade credit and insurance/guarantees), mostly of a short -term nature. Since 
the need for trade finance was estimated to be between USD 2 trillion and USD 5 trillion, meeting 
this demand and addressing the shortfall was expected to be challenging. There was serious concern 
that the growing gap between demand and sup ply will particularly affect micro, small and medium -
sized enterprises (MSMEs) and businesses in developing countries, with important implications for 
jobs and incomes.  WT/WGTDF/M/42  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.3.  The diminishing availability of trade finance and the existing gaps between trade finan ce supply 
and demand could seriously impede the ability of trade to support post COVID -19 economic 
recovery.  The WTO needed to play an active role, together with other international organisations for 
the revival of the complex links and networks involved i n the trade finance market in order to keep 
finance flowing for trade. In July 2020, the heads of the WTO and six multilateral development banks 
issued a joint statement promising to address shortages in trade finance, so that financial market 
stresses ari sing from the COVID -19 crisis did not prevent otherwise -viable trade transactions, 
including for essential goods such as food, drugs and medical equipment. Last year, Alan Wolf, 
former Deputy Director -General of the WTO, speaking at the G -20 Summit 2020, h ad highlighted 
that the G20 must work to secure trillions  of dollars in trade finance for developing countries to 
ensure the global economy recovers from the COVID -19 pandemic. He said : "trade finance for the 
developing world needs to be restored. The sum needed is very large, in the trillions of dollars. This 
step has been called for by business and by all the major international development banks along 
with the WTO. This is not just a development issue. When crops do not move and factories are idled 
throu ghout the developing world, the global recovery will be delayed for all. Close co -operation 
among the international financial institutions, the WTO and the large commercial banks will be 
needed. A trade finance initiative should be seen as an essential par t of improving the outlook for 
economic recovery".  
3.4.  The Chair thanked the delegation of India and took note of the statement.  
3.5.  With this, she closed  the meeting.  
__________