RESTRICTED  
  
G/TFA/M/16  
 
5 August 2021  
(21-6094) Page: 1/34 
Committee on Trade Facilitation   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION  
22-23 APRIL 2021  
CHAIRPERSON: MR CHRISTOPHER O'TOOLE (CANADA)  
Contents  
1   MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF  
THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
1.1   Notifications by Members ................................ ................................ ..............................  2 
A. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ........................  2 
B. Notifications under Article 17 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ................................ ..... 8 
Informal Small -Group Consultations to Explore Further the Submission of Notifications from  
Peru (G/TFA/N/PER/1/Add.1), Tonga (G/TFA/N/TON/1/Add.3) and Ukraine  
(G/TFA/N/UKR/1/Add.3) under Article 17 of the Trade Facilit ation Agreement –  
Report by the Chairperson  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 
C. Notification under Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 and 12:2:2 of the Trade Facilitatio n 
Agreement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 12 
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ................................ ....13 
Articles 22:1 and 22:2  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 
Article 22.1  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 
Article 22:3  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 14 
1.2   Status of Ratification and Notification Process  ................................ ................................ 14 
Update by the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...14 
2   ROLE  OF THE TRADE FACILITATION COMMITTEE IN THE TRADE FACILITATION 
AGREEMENT FACILITY – COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (  
G/TFA/W/36)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  15 
3   REVISITING THE NEED FOR GLOBAL ACTION TO ELIMINATE CONSULARIZATION 
REQUIREMENTS – COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (G/TFA/W/38)  ..........  25 
4   EXPERIENCE SHARING/THEMATIC DISCUSSIONS  ................................ .....................  30 
A. Implementing the WTO TFA: Cambodia's Experience – Presentation by Cambodia  ............. 30 
B. Outcomes of Turkey's Electronic Customs  Procedures in line with TFA on  
International Supply Chains during the COVID -19 Pandemic – Presentation by Turkey ................ 30 
C. The Trade Facilitation Agreement: A World of Opportunities for MSMEs –  
Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 
5   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23.1.6 OF THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT  ..........  30 
Informal Discussion on the Review – Report by the Chairperson  ................................ .............. 30 
6   RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ........  32 
Report by the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility (G/TFA/W /37) ................................ ....32 G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Building Trust Through Public -Private Partnerships for Trade Facilitation – Presentation  
by the Global Alliance for Trade F acilitation  ................................ ................................ ........... 33 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 
8   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ............................  34 
 
1  MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTA TION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEMENT  
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed delegations and recalled that the agenda for the meeting had been 
circulated in document WTO/AIR/TFA/16 and its revision in WTO/AIR/TFA/16/Rev.1.  
1.2.  The Trade Facilitation Committee (TFC, the Committee) agreed  to continue the practice of 
holding Item 2 of the agenda "Experience sharing/thematic discussions" in informal mode, to allow 
for frank and interactive exchanges.  
1.3.  The Committee also agreed  that o bservers to the meeting could remain throughout the informal 
session.  
1.4.  The delegate of the United States  requested to make two statements under "Other Business". 
The first statement concerned extending an invitation to the International Trade Centre (ITC) t o 
make a presentation at the June Committee meeting. The second statement previewed a webinar 
that the US would be hosting on the TFA from the perspective of a group of US companies.  
1.5.  The Chairperson  added two items: (1) the dates for the Committee's meetings in 2021;  and 
(2) inviting Annex D partners and the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation to the next meeting of 
the Committee.  
1.6.  The agenda was adopted  with the proposed changes.  
1.1  Notifications by Members  
1.7.  The Chair explained that subsequ ent to the circulation of the agenda, notifications had been 
received from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. These notifications would be included 
in the agenda for the next meeting.  
A. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilit ation Agreement  
1.8.  The first two notifications came from Burundi . The first concerned the definitive dates for 
category C provisions, contained in document G/TFA/N/BDI/1/Add.1. The second notification, 
circulated in document G/TFA/N/BDI/2, provided informatio n on arrangements and progress on 
technical assistance and capacity building.  
1.9.  The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.10.   We thank Burundi for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working with Burundi to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that this document helps Burundi identify partners for those remaining 
provisions where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need,  
and we hope are open to further discussions with you.  
1.11.   We note that Burundi has yet to submit transparency notifications per the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement (TFA, the Agreement) Articles 1:4, 10:6:2, and 12:2:2, which Burundi notified as 
category A. We urge you to make this information available to the Secretariat promptly. We look 
forward to reviewing Burundi's notifications in the future.  
1.12.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.13.   We welcome Burundi's notifications of its detailed arrangeme nts on assistance provided for 
certain category C commitments. On the gaps that still exist, we support the US statement and hope G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 3 - 
 
  that following donor coordination, Burundi could report by the dedicated session in October as to 
where any needs remain. We h ave had a programme in place with ITC that has been assisting 
Burundi since 2018 within the EUR 15 million SADC (Southern African Development Community)  
regional programme to streamline cross border processes among SADC Members.  
1.14.   The delegate of Burundi  indicated the following:  
1.15.   Burundi recognises the importance of this Agreement and we addressed UNCTAD and COMESA 
for assistance. We hope to implement it as soon as possible.  
1.16.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and the statements made.  
1.17.   The next notific ation came from Cambodia  in document G/TFA/N/KHM/4. It contained 
information on measures taken by Cambodia, and the progress made on technical assistance.  
1.18.   The delegate of Japan  indicated the following:  
1.19.   Japan appreciates Cambodia's notification of informati on on the arrangements and progress 
made in the provision of technical assistance and capacity building support of category C 
designations.  
1.20.   Japan Customs has been providing technical assistance to Cambodian Customs for some years 
now, especially regarding Article 7.7 of the TFA. Based on the needs of Cambodian Customs, we 
invited trainees from Cambodian Customs to Japan in 2017 and assigned our short -term experts to 
help with introducing the Authorized Economic Operators (AEO) program in Cambodia in 2020. J ICA 
(Japan International Cooperation Agency) experts have also been assigned from Japan Customs as 
long-term policy advisors in Cambodia.  
1.21.   Japan is committed to continuing its support for the introduction of the AEO program in 
Cambodia.  
1.22.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.23.   We thank Cambodia for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working with Cambodia to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that this docum ent helps Cambodia identify partners for those remaining 
provisions where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need , 
and we hope they are open to further discussions with you.  
1.24.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.25.   The EU welcomes Cambodia's notification on its arrangement with donors. The EU would like 
to note the following: Cambodia continues the implementation of the commitments in category C of 
Article 16:2 with the support of the EU funded ARISE+ Cambodia programme. This project, which is 
running between 2019 and 2023, with a budget of EUR 9.35 million, supports the improvement of 
customs and trade facilitation with a view to a better integration of Cambodia in the ASEAN Economic 
Community a nd an accelerated implementation of the TFA by the Cambodian Government.  
1.26.   Cambodia's latest TFA notification on capacity building and technical assistance arrangements 
fails to fully capture the support provided by the ARISE+ Cambodia programme under its tr ade 
facilitation component regarding the National Single Window, Authorised Economic Operators, pre -
arrival processing and product risk management (perishable goods).  
1.27.   ARISE+ Cambodia is also supporting the recently established National Committee on Trade 
Facilitation (NCTF) in drafting a roadmap for the implementation of the TFA commitments. The 
business sector is signalling that some of the new tools in place, such as the National Single Window, 
have not triggered a full digitalisation of customs procedure . Companies are still required to submit 
signed hard copies of the documents submitted to the single window.  
1.28.   The delegate of the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.29.   The UK would like to thank Cambodia for its detailed notification under Article 16 of the TFA 
and like others, we hope this notification serves as a useful basis for discussion with donors on the 
ground. We support Cambodia through UNCTAD's capacity building programme which supports 
Cambodia's NTFC. We take an active interest in the full sw eep of Cambodia's implementation of the 
TFA. 
1.30.   The delegate of Cambodia  indicated the following:  
1.31.   Our thanks go to Japan, the US, the EU and the UK for their comments and information on 
technical assistance in responding to Cambodia's notification.  
1.32.   I would like to take this opportunity to thank development partners and all stakeholders for 
providing technical assistance and support to the implementation of the category C commitments. 
Today, we are honoured to have two Deputy Directors G eneral from the General Department of 
Customs and Excise of Cambodia who will make two presentations under agenda item 4 to share 
Cambodia's experiences focused on the shifting from category C to B of Article 7:9 perishable goods 
and mitigating COVID -19, and Article 10:4 Single Window, as per requests of Members at the last 
TFC meeting.  
1.33.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.34.   The next notification came from Chad in document G/TFA/N/TCD/1/Add.1. This notification 
indicated the de finitive implementation date for category B measures, and the indicative date for 
category C measures.  
1.35.   The delegate of Japan  indicated the following:  
1.36.   Japan appreciates Chad's notification to the committee of definitive dates for implementing 
the provisions  it has designated in Category B within the extended notification deadline.  
1.37.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.38.   We thank Chad for your notifications.  
1.39.   We note that Chad has yet to submit transparency notifications per TFA Articles 1:4 , 10:6:2, 
and 12:2:2, which Chad notified as category A. We urge you to make this information available to 
the Secretariat promptly. We look forward to reviewing Chad's notifications in the future.  
1.40.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statem ents made.  
1.41.   The next notification was from Lao People's Democratic Republic  circulated in G/TFA/N/LAO/3, 
which provided information on arrangements and progress in the provision of technical assistance.  
1.42.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the follo wing:  
1.43.   We note and appreciate Lao People's Democratic Republic's notification. We see that there 
are many category C provisions notified. Currently the EU does not assist Lao PDR, although we 
have proposed several times to provide technical assistance. This  has been said at several very high -
level meetings. We repeat our availability to provide assistance if requested.  
1.44.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.45.   We thank Lao PDR for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of te chnical 
assistance providers already working with Lao PDR to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that this document helps Laos identify partners for those remaining provisions 
where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clea r signal where there is a need, and we 
hope are open to further discussions with you.  
1.46.   The delegate of Lao PDR  indicated the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.47.   I wanted to thank donors for providing assistance to Lao PDR to implement the TFA. With 
regard to the EU and US statements, we will coordinate with capital and get in touch soon.  
1.48.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.49.   The next notification was from Lesotho, and it had been circulated in document 
G/TFA/N/LSO/2. It provided information on  arrangements and progress in the provision of technical 
assistance.  
1.50.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.51.   We thank Lesotho for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working w ith Lesotho to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that this document helps Lesotho identify partners for those remaining 
provisions where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need, 
and we hope  are open to further discussions with you.  
1.52.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.53.   We are grateful that Lesotho has notified its needs for assistance and progress, particularly 
with regard to assistance. The EU has in place a programme of EUR 6 million, managed to some 
extent by GIZ1, which aims to contribute to Lesotho's sustainable integration into regional trade. We 
invite Lesotho to examine to what extent this programme could be used for TFA implementation, 
and to contact our delega tion. 
1.54.   The delegate of the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  
1.55.   The UK would like to thank Lesotho for its detailed notification under Article 16 and, in 
particular, its updates in relation to Article 7:8. The UK supports Lesotho through the WCO and 
UNCT AD capacity -building programmes.  
1.56.   This includes assistance through the WCO (World Customs Organization) for the streamlining 
of its air cargo requirements, an important aspect of meeting obligations under Article 7:8 of the 
TFA. The UK looks forward to cont inuing its work with Lesotho on its TFA implementation.  
1.57.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.58.   The Chair turned to the next notification which was from Madagascar  circulated in 
G/TFA/N/MDG/3 plus Corrigenda 1 and 2. Madagascar's notification provided information on 
arrangements and progress in the provision of technical assistance.  
1.59.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.60.   We thank Madagascar for y our notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working with Madagascar to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that this document helps Madagascar identify partners for those remaining 
provisions where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need,  
and we hope are open to further discussions with you.  
1.61.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.62.   I would like to thank Madagascar for thei r notification which is very complete and will be very 
useful to us in our bilateral discussions. We hope that the areas that remain to be determined in 
terms of its assistance will be solved very quickly.  
1.63.   The delegate of Madagascar  indicated the following : 
1.64.   As was said earlier by the EU and the US, there is already support and assistance provided 
by donors, and we would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to these donor 
 
1 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit . G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 6 - 
 
  agencies who have strongly helped us in the areas that we listed . There are still many areas in which 
we need support. We can say that at this stage Madagascar unfortunately is one of the Members 
that does not benefit from appropriate technical assistance. and We continue therefore to make 
contact with our partners and  for this we count on their support as well as the WTO Secretariat.  
1.65.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.66.   The Chair turned to the notification of Nepal  circulated in G/TFA/N/NPL/1/Add.2. This 
notification provided information  on several provisions that had been shifted from category C to 
category B, along with the definitive dates for those additional category B designations. The 
notification also included the indicative dates for their category C designations.  
1.67.   The delegate of  Japan  indicated the following:  
1.68.   Japan welcomes the notification from Nepal and the fact that Nepal is working on the 
acceleration of the implementation of the TFA provisions. We are interested to hear how Nepal was 
able to shift the provisions from categor y C to category B.  
1.69.   The delegate of the United States  the following:  
1.70.   We thank Nepal for your notification and note the commendable effort to shift your TFA 
commitments from category C to category B. We are interested in hearing Nepal's story regarding 
how y ou were able to accelerate implementation of the TFA amid the challenges of the pandemic. 
We encourage Nepal to share that experience with the Committee at a future meeting.  
1.71.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.72.   The EU associates itse lf with the comments made by Japan and the US. We would be 
interested in having more information as to how Nepal was able to shift several provisions from 
category C to B. The EU notes that it has a programme of assistance of EUR 5 million in place, 
manage d by ITC, to help Nepal to implement some of its Category C commitments.  
1.73.   The delegate of Nepal  indicated the following:  
1.74.   Thank you to EU, Japan and US for their kind words and interest in hearing how Nepal 
succeeded to shift various provisions from categor y C to B. Nepal will share its information in detail 
at the next meeting. We would also like to extend our thanks to all development partners, including 
the EU, for extending their continuous support in the area of the TFA. Nepal will share its experience 
in future meetings.  
1.75.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.76.   The next notification was from Niger  in document G/TFA/N/NER/4. The notification provides 
information on arrangements and progress in the provision of technical assist ance.  
1.77.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.78.   We thank Niger for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working with Niger to support implementation on a range of provisions. 
We hope that this document helps Niger identify partners for those remaining provisions where it 
seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need, and we hope are 
open to further discussions with you.  
1.79.   The delegate of the Europe an Union  indicated the following:  
1.80.   The EU would like to congratulate Niger for having informed the Committee of the state of 
progress in the supply of technical assistance from several donors for its commitments under 
category C. The EU would like to recall  that, together with other donors, it finances a EUR 20 million 
programme for TFA implementation in West Africa. The programme covers a number of activities in 
Niger.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.81.   The delegate of Niger  indicated the following:  
1.82.   Mr. Chairman, as this is the first time th at I take the floor in this meeting, let me first 
congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of this Committee and on the way  that you are 
conducting our work.  
1.83.   We would also like to thank Members for the interest in our notification. However, we woul d 
like to point out at this stage and in the light of the notification thus made, that very little progress 
has been made in the provision of technical assistance to our country.  
1.84.   Indeed, Niger has not benefited from the level of international support that it had hoped for 
in order to provide meaningful assistance in the implementation of this Agreement, despite the fact 
that it was the first LDC and 12th WTO Member to have ratified the TFA.  
1.85.   I would therefore like to conclude my remarks by saluting the partn ers, such as the World 
Bank Group and the International Trade Centre, who are accompanying us at this stage, and by 
reiterating the need for greater and more diversified support from the donor community for the full 
and effective implementation of the Agre ement by my country in accordance with our commitments.  
1.86.   We take note of the comments made by the delegation of the US as to the need to seek a 
diversity of donors.  
1.87.   The Committee took note  of the notification and the statements made.  
1.88.   The next notification was from Senegal and had been circulated in G/TFA/N/SEN/4. The 
notification provided information on Senegal's arrangements and progress in the provision of 
technical assistance.  
1.89.   The delega te of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.90.   We thank Senegal for your notification. We are encouraged to see the variety of technical 
assistance providers already working with Senegal to support implementation on a range of 
provisions. We hope that th is document helps Senegal identify partners for those remaining 
provisions where it seeks additional assistance. Providers have a clear signal where there is a need, 
and we hope are open to further discussions with you.  
1.91.   The delegate of Senegal  indicated th e following:  
1.92.   I want to thank the delegation of the US, particularly for USAID and their support, particularly 
in regard to category C. We hope that we will continue to be able to enjoy additional support for the 
implementation of the other measures from ou r trading partners.  
1.93.   The last notification in this category was from Tanzania  and had been circulated in 
G/TFA/N/TZA/2/Add.1. The notification provided the indicative implementation dates for category C 
designations.  
1.94.   The delegate of the United States  thanke d Tanzania for the notification.  
1.95.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.96.   We have in place several regional programmes of technical assistance for TFA implementation 
in the region, in which Tanzania can participate.  
1.97.   The delegate of Nepal  made a statement on behalf of the LDC Group : 
1.98.   The LDC Group wishes to take note of all the notifications mentioned in the agenda of today's 
meeting under the Articles 15 and 16 by LDC Members. LDC Members had put huge effort to make 
the submissions in time , despite many constraints our capitals faced during the COVID -19 pandemic. 
We commend our development partners stationed in LDCs which extended support to LDCs for G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 8 - 
 
  preparing our notifications. We also commend officials of the WTO Secretariat who supported  the 
process.  
1.99.   Some of our countries are still facing severe constraints in capital and we urge the Members 
to assist LDCs with the flexibilities available to adapt to the circumstances they face. Regarding the 
notifications from our Members listed in this agenda item, it is obvious that LDCs have been very 
precise and targeted in the dates they have chosen for implementation and with regard to provisions 
where challenges are most evident. Every LDC has been facing different problems in relation to the 
provisions and the corresponding implementation periods.  
1.100.   My country, in addition to our definitive dates, was able to avail itself of the shift of 
provisions, where our indicative provisions for category C could be shifted to category B. This is due 
to the high  level of commitment and hard work of our authorities, and the support of our 
development partners.  
1.101.   The delegate of Japan  indicated the following:  
1.102.   As stated in the previous meeting, Japan especially recognizes the fundamental importance 
of notifications un der Article 16 of the TFA and welcomes all the notifications made by Members to 
date. Japan continues to encourage Members whose notifications have been delayed, to submit their 
notifications as soon as possible, and to explain the current situation in the  Committee meeting.  
1.103.   We agree that support from developed country Members is important for some developing 
country and LDC Members to notify and implement category C provisions. In this regard, Japan is a 
donor of the Customs Co -operation Fund (CCF) and als o allocates its national budget to continue 
providing technical assistance to LDC and developing country Members.  
1.104.   Having said that, we would like to further consider how we could deal with the concerns 
raised in this Committee by the Members that have diff iculties with category C notifications.  
B. Notifications under Article 17 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
Informal Small -Group Consultations to Explore Further the Submission of Notifications 
from Peru (G/TFA/N/PER/1/Add.1), Tonga (G/TFA/N/TON/1/Add.3)  and Ukraine 
(G/TFA/N/UKR/1/Add.3) under Article 17 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement – Report 
by the Chairperson  
1.105.   The Chair  recalled that the notifications under Article 17 from Peru (G/TFA/N/PER/1/Add.1), 
Tonga (G/TFA/N/TON/1/Add.3) and Ukraine (G/TFA/N /UKR/1/Add.3) had been first considered by 
the Committee at its meeting of 26 January. There had been an exchange of views within the 
Committee. Some Members had expressed the view that the requests could not be considered as 
they had been notified outside  of the deadline stipulated in Article 17:1. Members had expressed 
appreciation for the transparency provided by the three requesting Members. There had also been 
expressions of interest and willingness amongst the Committee to help Members that were 
exper iencing implementation difficulties to move forward with their implementation. Other Members, 
while recognizing the importance of the deadline in Article 17:1, referred to the explanations 
provided by the requesting Members for why they had missed the noti fying deadline and taking 
those circumstances into account, expressed positive consideration for the requests.  
1.106.   The Committee had not been able to reach consensus on the requests and they had been 
reverted to the Committee's meeting in March. A second excha nge of views during the March 
meeting did not bring the Committee any closer to consensus on the matter. In an effort to reach a 
resolution of the situation, the Chair offered to hold consultations with interested Members.  
1.107.   The Chair had held two small -group informal consultation meetings with the participation of 
17 delegations which had expressed interest in taking part in the exchange. The meetings had 
focused on two aspects of the issue: looking to identify a way to move forward on the issue of the 
notifications submitted by Peru, Ukraine and Tonga; and secondly, exploring ways to avoid such 
situations from occurring in the future.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.108.   The Committee seemed to not only have a healthy interest in the matter, but also a great 
degree of willingness to help Member s that were experiencing implementation difficulties to move 
forward with their implementation processes. The question was how the Committee could support 
Members' efforts to track their implementation deadlines in order to avoid a repetition of the curren t 
situation.  
1.109.   Encouraged by the discussions in the Committee and in the consultations, the Chair put 
forward a number of steps, including some that had been raised by delegations during the 
consultations, on how to provide Members with additional support.  
1.110.   One suggestion for Members' consideration, and which the Chair had already circulated on 
Monday 19 April, was that the Committee annually circulate a reference document that identified 
Members that had implementation dates coming up over the coming two -year period. For example, 
a document could be circulated at the start of 2022, setting out the 2022 and 2023 implementation 
dates by relevant provision as submitted by those Members. The following year, a document could 
be circulated covering the 2023 and 2024  implementation process, and so on, on an annual basis. 
The Chair had asked the Secretariat to put together an example document that was proposed for 
Members' consideration. The information in the illustrative draft template had been drawn directly 
from th e TFA Database and covered the period from 1 May 2021 to 31 December 2022.  
1.111.   Another suggestion was that the Secretariat, in its regular updates to the Committee, would 
remind Members of any upcoming implementation dates within the immediate two -year period.  
1.112.   Two new functionalities would be added to the TFA Database in an effort to further support 
Members to keep track of their implementation dates. The first new functionality allowed Members 
to directly access their relevant information that would be contained in the reference document that 
was just mentioned. The second new functionality was the inclusion on each Member's page of a 
window that showed the measures that were scheduled for implementation within the coming two 
years. The window would only  appear if the Member had provisions to be implemented during the 
upcoming 2 -year period. For example, right now, only Members that had implementation dates 
occurring during 2021 and 2022 would see the window on their profile page.  
1.113.   The delegate of Japan  indicated the following:  
1.114.   Japan thanks the Chair for considering this issue and providing us with a concrete idea 
regarding measures for preventing a recurrence of overdue notifications under Article 17, which 
Japan expressed its interest in at the last forma l meeting.  
1.115.   The ideas of compiling the implementation dates, sending reminder letters to Members, and 
increasing functionality of the online database can all help Members recognize their respective 
implementation dates well in advance, and provide timely no tifications of any requests to extend 
the dates when needed.  
1.116.   Japan is ready to further discuss this matter with the Members to pursue practical solutions.  
1.117.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.118.   The United States would like to request th at the template would include a statement 
indicating this document is a courtesy generated by the Secretariat and has no legal standing.  
1.119.   The delegate of Nepal  indicated the following statement on behalf of the LDC Group : 
1.120.   The LDC group extends sincere appreciation to you Chair for updating on the outcomes of 
the informal consultations and sharing the draft template for annual reminders of implementation 
dates in upcoming period based on member -wide measures.  
1.121.   An early warning mechanism would be h elpful in reminding Members about the upcoming 
deadlines.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.122.   The LDC group found the possible template useful. It will support a timely implementation 
of the Agreement and also timely notification for extension of implementation dates as and when 
required.  
1.123.   While discussing the implementation of TFA, we may need to consider the provisions laid 
down in the Agreement in a more pragmatic manner.  
1.124.   Implementation may not only be limited to the letter but also to the spirit of the Agreement. 
Therefore, encouragement a nd motivation to LDCs require result -focused outcomes through 
effective implementation of the Agreement in a pragmatic manner.  
1.125.   Furthermore, such a situation may arise in the days ahead as many LDCs have notified their 
definitive dates for category B last y ear and indicative dates for category C this year.  
1.126.   LDCs facing various challenges even in notifying their dates of implementation will definitely 
face many more obstacles in implementation. Therefore, a mechanism to collaborate, facilitate and 
encourage Me mbers for implementation would be meaningful.  
1.127.   Furthermore, additional support from development partners to implement the provisions by 
engaging with the areas as notified by the LDCs in their technical assistance requirements would 
minimize the possibility  of such extensions.  
1.128.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.129.   Thanks to the Chair for his efforts and outreach to reach a consensus on the notifications 
that have been on the agenda of this Committee. We need to get out of this impasse a nd deploy all 
efforts to avoid repetition of such situations.  
1.130.   Indeed, we strongly believe that the US proposal on the agenda update (G/TFA/W/35) would 
help, as would a scoreboard presenting the deadlines related to all category B and C commitments. 
Members  will then be better equipped to monitor their situation.  
1.131.   In addition, we think that an issue that could be reviewed is the role of the NTFCs in ensuring 
that Members are alert when they have difficulties in implementation. We are looking forward to a 
constructive approach to implementation and we hope that the suggestions, including with the US 
remark, could be implemented.  
1.132.   TFA implementation is a key asset to better fight the COVID -19 pandemic. Even without 
useful databases, Members should take the monito ring of their commitments extremely seriously. 
We note that too many category A commitments remain to be implemented with deadlines exceeded 
by more than three years. We need to apply the rules strictly.  
1.133.   The representative of Sri Lanka  indicated the follow ing: 
1.134.   Firstly, thank you for that informal meeting where we were able to present ideas, taking us 
forward on this proposal where Members will know of their definitive implementing deadlines, if they 
wish to seek extension within the time limits enshrined in  the TFA. I think the document, subsequent 
to the EU circulated document, is very good and the efforts are commendable. My only concern is 
that some of the commitments are due to expire at the end of this year, so there are some Members 
who may really have  to seek extension to the definitive dates. How do you plan to address that 
situation? We really need to draw attention to those deadlines. Once that is clear, we can agree to 
your proposal regarding the annual notifications by the Secretariat, in an infor mal note, which will 
draw the attention of the Members to act promptly.  
1.135.   The Secretariat posting reminders on the web portal of the TFA was another way to inform 
the other Members of closing deadlines. We are favourable to have an array of ways to inform th e 
Members about the deadlines.  
1.136.   Coming to the EU proposal that NCTFs be entrusted with monitoring their implementation 
dates, I think that most of the NTFCs do monitor the dates as part and parcel of their functions. Last 
year had been challenging for most of the NTFCs. When I talk of Sri Lanka's NTFC, I think we have G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 11 - 
 
  a lot of members, including the Customs Central Agency, because the secretariat is located in Sri 
Lanka Customs. The officials made an effort to convene the meetings, but it was very difficult for us 
to even have a virtual meeting because of other constraints due to the pandemic. I think we had 
also taken into account the future situation which will cause difficulties in monitoring the progress 
and other deadlines as a result of unforeseen chall enges. We cannot solely rely on the process of 
circulating a reminder of upcoming implementation dates in view of any unexpected challenges.  
1.137.   The Chair indicated that the departure point was Members' own responsibility to monitor 
their situation. However, i t had been recognised that Members faced challenges and the discussion 
had focused on ways in which the Committee could support awareness of the information provided 
by Members regarding implementation dates for the category B and C items, and how to make use 
of electronic tools to maintain a line of sight of implementation dates that had been notified to the 
Committee. Therefore, the first item would be a template, which would be an evergreen document 
with a TF document symbol, issued once a year, that wou ld be on the agenda of the Committee 
meetings as part of the regular monitoring of notifications. On this basis, the Chair could call the 
attention to such deadlines and ensure that the Membership was aware of them, in particular those 
Member that had been  listed in the document. The Chair could also recall the availability of Article  17. 
1.138.   On the question relating to situations where Members considered that they were or would 
be experiencing difficulties to comply with a previously notified deadline, the TFA  already set out a 
procedure of notifications to that effect. The Secretariat had been circulating such notifications, 
almost on a regular basis, since last year and that was how the Committee had been operating.  
1.139.   In terms of a second supporting element, ev erything was intended to work together for the 
Committee to support Members' knowledge and awareness through the regular reporting that the 
Secretariat provided in Committee meetings. In this regard, the Secretariat could remind Members 
of the upcoming imp lementation dates in its regular updates to the Committee.  
1.140.   The option of letters sent out by the Chair had been considered but upon further reflection 
perhaps this would not be the best path to move forward. As was stated previously, the focus was 
on Membe rs' responsibility to monitor their own situation and how the Committee could highlight 
upcoming deadlines.  
1.141.   Lastly, in terms of the functionalities and electronic processes, they would be available on 
Members' pages on the TFA Database Website ( http://www.tfadatabase.org ). 
1.142.   It had not yet been determined how often this discussion would be raised at the Committee. 
Even though the document raised in the first point would only be issued once a year, there coul d be 
a recognition of it at each Committee during the review of notifications.  
1.143.   The Committee agreed  to request the Secretariat to produce a reference document that 
identified Members that had implementation dates coming up over the coming two -year period, 
circulate it, and place it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee, which would take 
place in June 2021.  
1.144.   The Chair turned to the requests from Peru, Uruguay and Tonga. The Committee had held 
an extensive exchange during its meetings in January and March. Additional exchanges of view had 
taken place during more than two hours of small group consultations. Based on these exchanges, 
and while acknowledging a significant willingness to help Members that were experiencing 
implementation difficulties to move forward with their implementation, unfortunately, the Committee 
had not reached consensus to agree to the requests, in spite of best efforts.  
1.145.   Positions had been stated clearly during the Committee's discussion on these requests, and 
there were no s igns of arriving at a different conclusion. Should any Member wish to return to the 
issue of these requests at a later time, they could request for it to be included in the agenda of a 
future Committee meeting. However, there was no consensus in the Commit tee to accept the 
requests for extension.  
1.146.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.147.   Regarding the Ukraine notification, can we receive an explanation why Article 11 is reported 
as not implemented, since the EU has actively assisted Ukrain e in its efforts to become a Member of 
the Common Transit Convention. Now that the pilot phase was over, could Ukraine further explain 
why it notified an extension of its definitive date for Article 11.  
1.148.   Regarding Tonga's notification, we take due note of T onga's statement during its trade policy 
review which took place very recently and where Tonga reported on its ongoing internal efforts to 
ratify the TFA. We think that the fact that Tonga has not yet ratified is an element that we take into 
account.  
1.149.   The C ommittee took note  of the notifications and the statements made.  
C. Notification under Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 and 12:2:2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  
1.150.   Transparency notifications were mandated by Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 and 12:2:2 of the 
TFA. They all had the objective of providing transparency, either in a broader context – providing 
information on publication sources – or providing information on the specific items, such as a single 
window operation, the use of customs brokers, and customs  cooperation.  
1.151.   Since the Committee's last meeting, 10 transparency notifications had been received.  
1.152.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the notification of Cambodia  
1.153.   The delegate of the United States  thanked Cambodia for its notification.  
1.154.   The deleg ate of Cambodia  indicated the following:  
1.155.   Cambodia wishes to thank the EU, Japan, UK and the US for their comments and information 
on the technical assistance and support for Cambodia in implementing category C commitments. 
Cambodia looks forward to working  closely with those Members and all development partners on 
this issue.  
1.156.   Cambodia also thanks the US for th e comments with regard to the notifications in response 
to Articles 1:4 and 10:4:3. As referred to in Article 10:4:3, the National Singe Window has be en 
implemented to allow traders to submit electronic license, permit, certificate and other (e -LPCO) 
documents for import/export since July 2019. The National Single Window is looking forward to 
improving the existing system and expanding to other regulato ry government agencies.  
1.157.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the notification of Canada.  
1.158.   The delegate of Canada  said that Canada was happy to fulfil its transparency obligations 
under the TFA. He invited Members to follow Canada's example.  
1.159.   The deleg ate of the United States  thanked Canada for its notification.  
1.160.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the notification of Eswatini.  
1.161.   The delegate of the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  
1.162.   The United Kingdom would like to thank Eswatini for its noti fication. The UK supports 
Eswatini through the WCO and UNCTAD capacity building programmes and takes an active interest 
in Lesotho's implementation of the TFA.  
1.163.   The delegate of the United States  thanked Eswatini for its notification.  
1.164.   The Chair  drew the Comm ittee's attention to the notification of Liberia.  
1.165.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.166.   We thank Liberia for your notification. We note that Liberia has yet to ratify the TFA. Can 
you provide the Committee with an update on the state o f that process?  
1.167.   The delegate of the United Kingdom  indicated the following:  
1.168.   The UK would like to thank Liberia for its detailed transparency notification. The UK supports 
Liberia through the WCO's capacity building programme and takes an active interest in Liberia's 
implementation of the TFA.  
1.169.   The delegate of the European Union  thanked Liberia for its notification, particularly as Liberia 
had not ratified the Agreement. The EU was following Liberia's efforts.  
1.170.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attenti on to the notification of Macao, China.  
1.171.   The delegate of the United States  thanked Macao, China for its notification.  
1.172.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the notification of Namibia.  
1.173.   The delegate of the European Union  thanked Namibia for its notification. There existed EU 
aid programmes that could be utilised by Namibia, if needed.  
1.174.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.175.   We thank Namibia for your notification. We noted that the weblinks listed under items 
Article  1:1 (a) -(h) lead to the same website, which is the Customs and Excise Act 20 of 1998 and 
other various regulations. It may be difficult for a trader or interested party to search for the exact 
location of items described in the notification. For example, at what web address could a trader find 
the information pertaining to Namibia's appeal procedures? Does Namibia have plans to update the 
information on this notification to provide direct weblinks to the specific information required by 
items 1:1 (a) -(h)? 
1.176.   The delegate of Namibia  indicated the following:  
1.177.   Thank you for the comments from the EU and US. With regard to the comment from the US, 
you might be right. That is caused by the fact that Namibia customs department is migrating from 
the Minist ry of Finance to the new entity to be known as Namibia Revenue Agency. Once this revenue 
agency is in place, then this information will be updated once again. Many thanks for picking that 
up. 
1.178.   The Chair drew the Committee's attention to the notifications of  the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and Togo.  
1.179.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
Articles 22:1 and 22:2  
1.180.   Notifications unde r Article 22 were of two types —Article 22:1 covered notifications by donor 
Members on their recent capacity building activities; Articles 22:2 and 22:3 provided information on 
contact points.  
Article 22.1  
1.181.   Since the Committee's last meeting on 3 – 4 March 2 021, a notification was received from 
Australia and circulated in document G/TFA/N/AUS/5.  
1.182.   The delegate of the United States  thanked Australia for its notification.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Article 22:3  
1.183.   Seven notifications under Article 22:3 since the Committee's meeting in March 2 021. 
1.184.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the notification of Chad. 
1.185.   The Chair drew the Committee's attention to the notification of the Democratic Republic of 
Congo .  
1.186.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.187.   We thank the Democratic  Republic of Congo for your notification. We note that the 
Democratic Republic of Congo has yet to submit its notifications per TFA Articles 10:6:2 and 12:2:2, 
which were designated as category A. We urge you to make this information available to the 
Secre tariat promptly. We look forward to reviewing that information in the future. We also 
understand the Democratic Republic of Congo has yet to ratify the TFA. Can you provide us with an 
update as to the status of the ratification process?  
1.188.   The Chair drew the  Committee's attention to the notification of  Lao People's Democratic 
Republic.  
1.189.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.190.   We welcome this information notified by Lao PDR. The EU has been informed of possible 
insufficient communication bet ween the TFC regional boards and the Headquarters, and therefore 
less aid for TFA implementation at regional level. We would appreciate information on this, and it 
could be on a bilateral basis if preferred.  
1.191.   The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to the final notifications – which were from Liberia, 
Morocco, Namibia and Niger.  
1.192.   The delegate of Paraguay  indicated the following:  
1.193.   Paraguay would like to inform Members on the progress on the implementation of the TFA 
in Paraguay. We are pleased to report that despite the challenges arising from the pandemic, we 
have achieved 80% implementation at this stage and hope to increase this presently. Our efforts 
are due to the inter -institutional dynamic work ethic that we have in  the country and we rely on 
cooperation, particularly with UNCTAD, the ITC and the development banks. We also rely on support 
from the US Department of Agriculture, and we have just signed a significant memorandum for the 
implementation of a project that w ould facilitate the implementation of measures on agricultural 
products. Paraguay is clearly showing the spirit of the Agreement in its efforts and particularly 
through the use of support on capacity building and technical assistance which is essential for  the 
implementation of category C commitments and full implementation of the Agreement in the 
country.  
1.194.   Therefore, we are pleased to share with the committee that our most recent progress with 
regards to implementation of commitments under Article 7:6, on d eadline publication, 7:7 on 
facilitation measures on authorised operators and 7:9 on perishable goods. In Paraguay, we have 
worked with our partners to strengthen our cooperation measures and to bring Members closer 
together to implement the TFA and to try  to achieve recovery post -pandemic.  
1.195.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
1.2  Status of Ratification and Notification Process  
Update by the Secretariat  
1.196.   The representative of the WTO Secretariat  presented an update since the last Com mittee 
meeting held in March 2021. All the information presented had been sourced from the TFA Database 
website and it is available at ( https://tfada tabase.org ). G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.197.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
1.198.   We would like to thank the Secretariat for the presentation, in particular for the presentation 
on the new functionalities of the database. It was very informative and provides us with  a summary 
of information in a way that is very user friendly. Its functionality seems to be that it is very intuitive.  
1.199.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
1.200.   Thank you to the Secretariat for the excellent presentation and the database  developments 
that they have been working on. These will no doubt be very useful. They look very user -friendly to 
us and will allow us to hold enriching discussions, complemented by easy access to information.  
1.201.   The delegate of Nepal expressed the LDC group' s appreciation to the Secretariat for the 
updates on the TFA database website.  
1.202.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation.  
1.203.   The delegate of Vanuatu  indicated the following:  
1.204.   Thank you to the Secretariat for the update and the demonstration. We commend the WTO 
for continuing to improve the accessibility on information on the TFA implementation. The 
information presented is really important for having access to the details, particularly for small 
delegations.  
1.205.   The Chair  encouraged  all delegates to access their specific Member Profile, as well as the 
database.  
1.206.   The representative of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
1.207.   This is a useful instrument. Would it be possible for the Secretariat to provide an information 
session with presenta tions particularly targeting the NTFC of developing and LDC Members? Our 
capital -based officials and members of NTFC may not be as familiar with the TFA database website.  
1.208.   The Chair encouraged interested delegations to reach out directly to the Secretariat in order 
to organize an information session.  
1.209.   The Committee took note  of the information and the statements made.  
2  ROLE OF THE TRADE FACILITATION COMMITTEE IN THE TRADE FACILITATION 
AGREEMENT FACILITY – COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (G/TFA/W/36)  
2.1.  The Chair drew the Committee's attention to a communication from the United States circulated 
in document G/TFA/W/36 entitled "Role of the Trade Facilitation Committee in the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement Facility".  
2.2.  The delegative of the United States  indicated the following:  
2.3.  Since the very first substantive Trade Facilitation (TF) Committee meeting in July 2017, the 
United States has been seeking a better understanding of the institutional and administration division 
between the WTO Secretariat and the Trade Fac ilitation Agreement Facility (TFAF). We would refer 
Members to the minutes of that meeting, in G/TFA/M/2 paragraph 4.16. We have continuously 
sought to better our understanding on a couple of key issues: (1) Under what circumstances can or 
should TFAF be a ble to exercise the prerogatives and privileges of the Secretariat? and (2) who 
directs the activities and functions of TFAF, to whom does TFAF report and answer to?  
2.4.  We have repeatedly stated over the last four years, most recently during the October 2020 
Trade Facilitation Committee (TFC) formal meeting, January 2021 TFC informal meeting, and March 
2021 formal TFC meeting, that the United States is flexible as to whether TFAF represents the 
interests of its donors or  represents the interests of the TF Comm ittee. In either case, the choice 
clarifies the role and function of TFAF staff.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.5.  In our efforts to seek out this clarity, the United States has met repeatedly with the Market 
Access Division Secretariat and has met with TFAF donors. We have raised this issue continually at 
the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration, where the role and growth of single -issue 
trust funds is being debated and rising institutionally across the WTO, and we are concerned that 
the lack of clarity we have seen in TFAF w ill become a systemic issue.  
2.6.  What we have heard from other Members, the Secretariat, and TFAF is that the answer lies 
within the TF Committee. It is up to the TF Committee to decide to whom TFAF is accountable and 
to define TFAF's scope, role, and responsi bilities: is it a fund at the direction of the TF Committee or 
a fund at the direction of its donors?  
2.7.  It has become clear to us that we are not going to reach any definitive conclusions about the 
role of TFAF by continuing to pursue a flexible approach in seeking direction from the Secretariat, 
TFAF, and donors. Instead, we believe that in order to reach an answer that provides clarity to TFAF 
and Members, as well as addresses our concerns, we need to choose an outcome and bring that 
position to the TF Comm ittee to debate and decide TFAF's role, as we have been directed.  
2.8.  We therefore propose that TFAF falls under the purview and direction of the WTO TF Committee. 
Any donor to TFAF will have the same rights to direct or object to TFAF activities as any other WTO 
TF Committee Member. We believe that TF Committee oversight, direction, and responsibility will 
ensure transparency as to the TFAF activities being undertaken, the funding of TFAF, and 
transparency as to a Member's assistance by TFAF.  
2.9.  We believe that t he TF Committee can be the place where TFAF provides transparency 
concerning proposed activities and grants, where Members can ask questions and debate the merits 
of any activity before coming to a recommendation for TFAF. This will ensure TFAF has TF Comm ittee 
support for its participation in activities. We could envisage treating TFAF's grant function differently 
from "other activities".  
2.10.   In the grant space, we could see TFAF working with its grant committee to fund certain 
activities consistent with the t erms provided to Members at its establishment. Those approved grants 
would then be brought to the TF Committee for transparency. We would like to ensure that every 
grant details how it enables implementation of the TFA, including identifying metrics that w ill be 
used to measure the effectiveness of the grant. Having this kind of detailed discussion in the TF 
Committee will allow for a robust exchange and provide visibility into the grant program.  
2.11.   In the "other activities" category, such as workshops, nation al seminars, TFAF staff 
participation in panels at the WTO and at other international organizations, all such proposed 
activities and invitations should be shared in writing ahead of a regular TF Committee so Members 
can discuss, take a decision on TFAF st aff's participation, and provide any necessary policy guidance.  
2.12.   In addition to the robust discussions and increased transparency inherent in the TF 
Committee's decision -making process, this formulation of responsibility will also allow Members ' 
visibility into the discussion of Annex D organizations. TFAF would now seek TF Committee direction 
prior to participating in Annex D discussions, resulting in Members having a clearer understanding 
of what is being planned for future Annex D activities.  
2.13.   We also see this formulation as allowing for discussion of metrics and outcomes in real time. 
The TF Committee will have a view into the budget of TFAF, the proposed costs of programs, metrics, 
and outcomes, which will in turn allow more informed decision -making and a ctivity planning.  
2.14.   Finally, we see this formulation as addressing any conflicts of interest or misallocation of 
Secretariat or Committee resources. TFAF activities will be debated and decided based on objective 
criteria, for the sake of implementing the Agr eement as a whole as well as for the benefit of Members. 
It is up to Members to ensure that TFAF activities are useful and provide meaningful outcomes.  
2.15.   We believe that for all of the reasons and benefits stated above, TFAF should operate, provide 
technical  assistance, and conduct activities at the direction of the TF Committee. The TF Committee 
is where debate among Members and consensus decision -making takes place. Ultimately, TFAF will 
implement the will of the TF Committee.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.16.   We look forward to hearing oth er Members positions on this topic and revising the TFAF 
operational guidelines to reflect the outcome of this Committee's decision.  
2.17.   The delegate of Norway  indicated the following:  
2.18.   We agree that TFAF should operate and provide technical assistance and capa city building at 
the overall guidance of the TFC. We believe a stronger, clearer link between TFAF and the TFC will 
strengthen TFAF and assist the TFAF staff in their work. In that respect, we do agree with the US.  
2.19.   Where we tend to diverge is that we belie ve that micro -management should be avoided. This 
is something that we have as a more general position when it comes to trust funds and assistance. 
There is a lot of micro -management in the US proposal. We question the necessity for the TFC to 
discuss detai ls of TFAF activities. We do not believe that that would be the best use of the 
Committee's meetings. Definitely, the challenge is to strike the right balance, but we trust that the 
TFAF staff will be eager to comply with the overall direction and prioriti es of the Committee.  
2.20.   The US also referred to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee at the WTO will be 
looking at the functioning of all of the WTO trust funds. They are starting that work now. We will 
need to see TFAF as part of a larger picture in th at respect. As well, I would like to note that we 
have an evaluation of the TFAF coming up. That evaluation of how the TFAF has worked will be 
important in looking further at this issue. It could usefully be initiated sooner rather than later even 
though, looking at how the TFC is working on our own review on the Committee, that might become 
burdensome, but it is something that we should think about.  
2.21.   The delegate of Saint Lucia  made the following statement on behalf of the WTO Members of 
the Caribbean Commu nity – CARICOM : 
2.22.    We would like to align ourselves with this statement to be delivered by Jamaica on behalf of 
the Africa Caribbean Pacific (ACP) Group. WTO Members of the Caribbean Community take note of 
the proposal tabled by the US which seems to give th e TFC oversight direction and responsibility for 
the operations of the TFAF.  
2.23.   CARICOM WTO Members support the establishment of the TFAF. The Facility is a tangible 
expression of the commitment of the WTO to support the efforts of developing and LDC Members to 
undertake full and effective implementation of the TFA through the provision of technical assistance 
and capacity building support. The TFAF has provided valuable support for regional and national 
capacity building initiatives in our member States. The TFAF advice and capacity building activities 
have helped our Members better understand TFA requirements and meet notification deadlines.  
2.24.   The TFAF supported the inauguration of the CARICOM regional committee on TF and  has 
facilitated contact and dialogue wi th international donors and Annex D organizations. Last year, the 
TFAF approved the first grant to support the preparation of a regional project on risk management 
for CARICOM countries. Project preparation grants were also awarded to three CARICOM Members . 
2.25.   CARICOM Members support the need to ensure accountability and full transparency of TFAF 
operations. We are keen to ensure that the Facility continues to operate in the interest of all 
Members. However, CARICOM Members are concerned that the proposal by t he United States would 
impede the TFAF and would impact negatively on the Facilities' ability to respond in a timely manner 
to requests for advice and capacity building support, which the US describes as other activities. Such 
actions can only intentionall y affect a Member's ability to meet its definitive dates for implementation 
notified to this Committee.  
2.26.   We are also concerned that the proposal could give a country the right to veto legitimate 
requests for support. This is against the spirit of the TFA an d the objectives for which the TFAF was 
established to achieve.  
2.27.   It will be recalled that the US and other WTO Members sponsored a communication 
(G/TFA/W/25/Rev.2) which calls on WTO Members to accelerate implementation of the TFA and to 
prioritize certain measures of the TFA as part of national toolkits to support the global economic 
recovery process. The communication asserts that there is strong technical assistance and capacity 
building available to developing countries to help them implement and to make  these critical G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 18 - 
 
  changes. In light of this, the proposal by the US would be significantly undermining an essential 
plank of the TA and CB architecture to support TFA implementation. This is not the time to be placing 
roadblocks in the way of TFA implementat ion. IF anything, the TFAF must be made more agile and 
its activities must be demand driven.  
2.28.   In closing, we request that the Chair solicits the views of all Members on this proposal and 
report to the next meeting of the TFC.  
2.29.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
2.30.   Firstly, I would like to echo the statement made by Saint Lucia on behalf of the Caribbean 
Members. The delegation flagged many aspects that my delegation wanted to present here.  
2.31.   At the outset, I would like to thank the United States fo r the views expressed on the utilization 
of TFAF and for their new proposal with regard to its future management.  
2.32.   The TFAF is a part and parcel of the TFA. When we signed onto this Agreement, we undertook 
the commitment bearing in mind this particular Faci lity is also a part and parcel of the Agreement. 
If you are going to dismantle it, it would weaken the functioning of the Facility, upsetting the legal 
balance of the TFA. That is the way that Sri Lanka sees this issue.  
2.33.   Also, today we listened to Norway's intervention which flagged a few things which my 
delegation would like to take on. The first is about the trust fund. The way I understand Norway's 
intervention was that all of the trust funds are evaluated as a whole so how do we isolate only this 
particu lar fund and give it due importance which we think could be detrimental to the functioning of 
the Facility.  
2.34.   We are not here to gauge the trust funds issues. As Saint Lucia stated, we are amenable to 
the offer of submitting reports to the TFC by the Secretariat on the functioning of this Facility. If 
there is a mandated requirement to review the functioning of this Facility, either through an internal 
or external evaluator, I think let us look for those opportunities and see. After such an evaluation 
there would certainly be an independent report which would give a lot of ideas to us as to how we 
should be shaping the Facility and its functioning. Therefore, as per our understanding, our current 
arrangements under the TFAF are quite independent and fle xible. This is indeed essential for the 
developing and least developed countries (LDCs) to approach this facility and get the benefit out of 
it. 
2.35.   We all know that TFAF has been reporting to the TF Committee on the activities carried out. 
As per the proposal  by the United States, the TFAF approval process could become quite burdensome 
for the developing countries and LDCs since they need to follow additional steps to get the actual 
benefit for which they have made requests. When we read the paragraphs 9 throu gh 13 of the United 
States ' proposal, we understand that the TFAF would have to present a written request to the TF 
Committee for permission before organizing or participating in any activity, including national and 
regional events requested by Members.  
2.36.   Is this the same scenario in respect to other workshop, seminars and different forums that 
the Secretariat is organising in other areas now that we have the technical cooperation division in 
the WTO Secretariat. They do have a lot of leverage and flexibility  on a request from a Member to 
facilitate such technical assistance, so are we to have the same measures regarding the Secretariat 
activities on the delivery of technical assistance? I do not see that is the case so therefore this is 
something that goes be yond the practise that we normally see with the WTO technical programmes. 
In simple words, the proposal requests the TF Committee to manage the TFAF.  
2.37.   Sri Lanka is of the view that arrangements under this new proposal would cause delays, 
require additional and/or longer TFC meetings. I think Norway also alluded to that. We may have to 
convene a meeting when a request is available. it would be an additional burden on small delegations 
like ours. Furthermore, we have the apprehension that this process may pave  the way for any 
Member to veto any activity, which was also flagged by the delegate of Saint Lucia.  
2.38.   Therefore, maintaining that current arrangements and resultant independence of the TFAF is 
important, as it provides adequately for the TFAF to respond to developing countries' requests as G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 19 - 
 
  expeditiously as possible. Since we have huge challenges of meeting our definitive dates, the 
technical assistance is the key to overcome many of the hurdles that are in our way. Subjecting 
TFAF to the TFC could reduce Mem bers' access to TFAF assistance due to additional administrative 
procedures and also due to possible vetoing by any Member.  
2.39.   Therefore, Si Lanka is of the view that the present status quo with regard to TFAF should be 
maintained.  
2.40.   The delegate of Mexico  indicated the following:  
2.41.   It is our view that transparency and good governance of technical assistance are central to 
enabling the implementation and reaping the benefits of the TFA. Therefore, we welcome this 
proposal from the United States. We think this is a  worthwhile debate to be had. Good governance 
should not mean micromanaging and as Norway mentioned we should avoid this. Mexico is ready to 
engage with the US and other Members in discussing the details in depth.  
2.42.   The delegate of Trinidad and Tobago  indica ted the following:  
2.43.   My delegation aligns with the CARICOM Group statement and with the ACP Group statement 
on this agenda item. While Members are well aware of this fact, it bears underscoring that the TFAF 
plays a key role in assisting Members with meeting  commitments under the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. This crucial assistance includes support in meeting notification deadlines and, most 
importantly, assistance with finding donors for implementation of category C commitments.  
2.44.   Trinidad and Tobago recognis e the need for transparency and acknowledges that a clear 
statement of the terms of operation of the TFAF would prove beneficial. However, we are concerned 
that the proposed measures related to this Committee's decision -making power on grant funding by 
the TFAF may stymie the efficient running of the Facility. We are also concerned that the approach 
outlined in the communication in question could impede access for developing country Members and 
LDCs to much needed technical assistance and support for capaci ty-building for TFA implementation.  
2.45.   Finally, Trinidad and Tobago urges WTO Members to remain mindful of the tenets underlying 
this multilateral agreement, as well as the ground -breaking special and differential treatment 
elements it provides for developing  and LDC Members. As such, we encourage Members to avoid 
actions that may inadvertently cause us to regress or may have the unwanted effect of stalling TFA 
implementation.  
2.46.   The delegate of Vanuatu  made the following statement on behalf of the Pacific Group,  which 
group also aligns with the ACP statement that will be delivered by Jamaica.  
2.47.   Our group also thanks the US for its proposal in document G/TFA/W/36. The proposal in our 
view is to gain strengthening of governance of the TFA. We are not opposed to impro ving 
accountability. However, this proposal would affectively mean that the TFAF would have to present 
a written request to the TFC for approval before organising or participating in any activity and this 
includes national and regional events that are requ ested by Members.  
2.48.   In our view this would cause delays in decision making on requests for assistance by Members 
and could also allow Members of the Committee to possibly block any activity of the TFAF.  
2.49.   Up to now, the TFAF has been operating somewhat flexibl y in responding to Members in a 
timely way. We understand that independence is important as it allows the TFAF to respond quickly 
to developing countries' requests for assistance on TFA implementation.  
2.50.   The Pacific Group has been utilising TFAF assistance, especially on what the US proposal states 
as other activities. There is the TFAF staff participating in our national and regional TFAF activities 
and workshops to help us better understand and facilitate the implementation of the TFA. TFAF is 
therefore an important Facility to assist a developing country in implementing the Agreement.  
2.51.   The Pacific Group is concerned that subjecting TFAF to the TFC would not only delay the 
receiving of assistance but could reduce our access to TFAF assistance is decisions are  delayed by 
the TFAF or if some Members of the TFC object to some of the activities of the TFAF. We tend to G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 20 - 
 
  align with Norway's view that the TFC could have oversight on the TFAF but not to be involved in 
the decisions on individual activities. We therefor e urge further reflection and discussions on the 
proposal.  
2.52.   The delegate of Jamaica  made the following statement on behalf of the Members of the ACP 
Group. The ACP Group also wished to align itself with the statement made earlier by Saint Lucia on 
behalf of  the CARICOM Group.  
2.53.   The Group takes note of the proposal tabled by the delegation of the United States in 
document G/TFA/W/36 dated 16 April, which puts forward several recommendations which are 
geared towards giving the Trade Facilitation Committee immedi ate direction and oversight for the 
operation and management of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility (TFAF).  
2.54.   There is no question that the landmark Trade Facilitation Agreement represented a major 
victory for the multilateral trading system overall, a nd for developing and LDCs, in particular. The 
ACP Group is honoured to have been among those actively engaged in the process which gave birth 
to this important Agreement. In 2013, and after Bali, the ACP Group played an instrumental role in 
devising texts  and building coalitions among developing countries, then with other Members to 
achieve the success that brought the Draft Trade Facilitation Agreement to Bali. We were responsible 
for introducing key elements in the Agreement, in particular under Section II, special and differential 
treatment provisions for developing countries and LDCs.  
2.55.   Members may further recall that, subsequently in 2014, the year the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement was opened for acceptance by the Members, it was the ACP Group Coordinatio n which 
prepared the original request and draft to the Director General (DG) for the creation of a Trust Fund 
in the WTO to supplement the expected bilateral and Annex D assistance available and provide a 
last resort facility. This Trust Fund is what has b ecome known as the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
Facility (TFAF). On this basis, the Coordinators of the African Group and LDC Group were asked to 
join the ACP Group and the Director General in the launch of the TFAF on 22 July 2014.  
2.56.   Against this backdrop, the ACP Group has always maintained an active interest in the TFAF 
which continues to do tremendous work to bolster the efforts of developing and LDC Members in 
their efforts to effectively implement the Trade Facilitation Agreement and related commitments , 
primarily through the provision of vital technical assistance and capacity building support.  
2.57.   Not only has the TFAF provided significant support to the members of our Group for the 
implementation of multiple regional and national projects over the years, but the technical advice 
and support provided through the Facility have greatly helped our Members in fulfilling their TFA -
related obligations, including notification deadlines.  
2.58.   The ACP Group wishes to underscore, that while its members support the need to  ensure 
accountability and full transparency in the operations of the TFAF, this should not in any way 
undermine the efficacy of the Facility nor its ability to respond in a prompt and effective manner to 
requests from Members for the provision of technica l and capacity building support, critical to the 
successful implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. This is even more so in the context 
of the current challenges faced by all Members, particularly developing and LDCs, as a result of the 
ongoing  COVID -19 pandemic.  
2.59.   The Group is strongly of the view that some elements of the draft US proposal would prove 
inimical to the achievement of the objectives of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which Members 
worked collectively to secure. It would further s erve to compromise and significantly diminish the 
effective operation of the Fund and its current outreach, which promote the interests of the 
membership at large, including developing and LDCs which were the demanders of the Agreement.  
2.60.   In conclusion, the Group is strongly of the view that the draft US proposal merits in -depth 
discussion and consideration by the membership prior to a decision being taken by the Committee. 
We foresee that the proposed changes will likely give rise to various inefficiencies, including lengthy 
and undue processing delays, the use of vetoes by developed country members which would create 
blockages and ultimately reduced access to needed technical and capacity building resources. Given 
the high degree of satisfaction of Members w ith the existing arrangements governing the G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 21 - 
 
  management and operation of the TFAF, every effort should be made to preserve and strengthen 
the mechanism.  
2.61.   The delegate of Guyana  indicated the following:  
2.62.   Guyana fully supports the statements made by Saint Lucia  on behalf of the Members of 
CARICOM on the US proposal. We support full transparency and accountability in the operations of 
the TFAF and we believe that transparency is already met under the Agreement. From our 
experience, TFAF has been very instrumental  in supporting our national implementation of the TFA. 
This is both in terms of meeting our notification requirements, as well as supporting ongoing TF 
reforms which are linked to our category C measures through the TFAF grant process.  
2.63.   In our view, developing countries like Guyana, and the rest of CARICOM, already subscribe 
to the stringent conditions to fulfil obligations under the Agreement and access to the TFAF support. 
We would therefore caution the TFC against imposing additional burdensome req uirements on our 
Members by default or otherwise.  
2.64.   The delegate of Brazil indicated the following:  
2.65.   Brazil supports the proposal made by the US that the TFAF should operate, provide technical 
assistance, and conduct TF activities at the direction of the TFC,  since the relationship between TFAF 
and the TFC it is not yet clearly defined, a situation which could give rise to possible debates in the 
future. Furthermore, the Committee's participation in the TFAF decision -making process will result 
in greater democ ratization and transparency, especially in the budget.  
2.66.   The delegate of Nepal  made the following statement on behalf of the LDC Group : 
2.67.    The LDC group acknowledges the efforts and contribution made by Trade Facilitation 
Agreement Facility as highlighted by T FAF. Over the years the TFAF activities have helped LDC 
Members to have a better understanding of the Agreement and in the process of ratification, 
notification and others. We believe its role would be further enriched to support us in effective 
implementa tion of the Agreement.  
2.68.   The concerns raised by the US regarding transparency of the activities being carried out under 
the TFAF are genuine and therefore, sharing past activities and activities in pipeline at the TF 
Committee meeting would be appreciated. T he LDC group perceives that overall guidance and 
discussion on the activities at the Committee meeting may contribute to enhancing ownership of the 
Committee.  
2.69.   However, seeking approval from the Committee on each and every activity at micro level of 
the TFA F before conducting such activities may be difficult. In our view, a certain level of autonomy 
is required to the Secretariat at operational level. Otherwise, this may be inconsistent with the 
practices of other Committees, as normally Committees do not in tervene in operational levels. This 
may add further steps in decision -making and may cause delays in conducting activities. 
Additionally, it will also take more time of the TF Committee, which may be burdensome for the 
Members having small delegations.  
2.70.   The Members of the LDC group are examining the proposal and we will share further updated 
views of the Group in the future meetings of the Committee. It might take time to conclude this 
matter, therefore the LDC would like to request for consideration to be g iven to resuming the 
activities of the TFAF as usual.  
2.71.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
2.72.   The EU thanks the US for their proposal. We appreciate that the governance of TFAF is to 
some extent unclear. We are still considering the pro posal and we will revert to it the next meeting 
after consulting with the EU Member States. The EU is ready to constructively consider proposals to 
improve governance of TFAF.  
2.73.   The delegate of China  indicated the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.74.   As a partner of TFAF, China donat ed USD 1 million to the TFAF, and we support the TFAF to 
carry out the capacity -building programs which are valuable for the developing and LDC Members. 
It is our opinion that TFAF shall conduct its work in accordance with the guideline, and also responded  
to the concerns of members, including continually improving transparency of its operation.  
2.75.   Regarding evaluation of the work of TFAF, the recipient, developing and LDC Members, should 
have more information about the operation of capacity building and techn ical assistance. According 
to the feedback from developing members and LDCs in our meeting, TFAF is conducive to 
strengthening the capacity building of developing and LDC Members, and so far, has been helpful in 
promoting the implementation of the Agreemen t. We appreciate the efforts of partners of TFAF, the 
secretariat and recipients for their efforts.  
2.76.   Given this, with regard to the US proposal, we suggest that Members discuss it in the principle 
of improving transparency, optimizing its procedures and giv ing enough consideration to efficiency. 
The Secretariat may analyse the feasibility of the procedures in the US proposal, including comparing 
it with the experience of other funds like STDF, for all members' reference in decision -making in the 
committee; o r, in conjunction with the review of the TFA, or valuation of the TFAF, a special working 
group may be established to assess the current procedures and find feasible solutions.  
2.77.   In the meantime, as the developing and LDC Members need the support of TFAF, es pecially 
during the current difficult time of pandemic, the TFAF shall continue its work in accordance with the 
current guideline before the committee reaches a conclusion.  
2.78.   The delegate of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
2.79.   We thank the US for their prop osal. We broadly align with the statement from Norway, in that 
we can support oversight by the TFC of the TFAF but at the same time would like to avoid the TFC 
micro -managing the operations of the fund.  
2.80.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the follo wing:  
2.81.   I could not be more thankful for the interventions from all the Members on our paper. We 
started this conversation; we even started the paper by saying that we have been trying to engage 
specifically on this topic for quite a few years. We have raise d it at a number of meetings, we have 
talked to delegates and Members, the Secretariat but we seem to just be spinning our wheels, so 
we went ahead and put out the paper. We had no expectation that there would be a decision taken 
right away and that's fine  with us. We really wanted to engage with the Membership. We wanted to 
hear other Member 's opinions. It is so important to the functioning of a Member driven organization 
to have this conversation. I am very thankful and appreciative of all the Members tha t showed 
support, that found pieces of interest to support within our paper and have shared some of the 
concerns and alternate ideas. I think this is a great way for us to begin this conversation.  
2.82.   There were a few things that I wanted to clear up and addre ss a little bit. We all created the 
fund, and the US was one of the original donors to the fund. TFAF is here and has been very helpful. 
The staff have been well received. They have helped with notifications and that is all great work. 
The creation of TFAF  was very unique and original because it is a single -issue trust fund that was 
created in the Market Access Division and unlike STDF which China just raised, how it was to operate,  
and its governance was unclear. If you recall we had STDF share their exper ience and operational 
guidelines with the Committee. STDF are not accountable to the SPS Committee. They are 
accountable to their donors. That is managed separately than the Committee. When the STDF staff 
speaks and puts programmes together, they do so on behalf of STDF and its donors, not the 
Secretariat. So, there was a clear line of understanding of how decisions are made,  and grants and 
decisions are made in that fund only by the donors. That would have been fine with us. As we have 
said over the years,  we were very flexible. TFAF could report to its donors, or TFAF could take 
direction from the Committee, and we would have been happy with either one, but we weren't 
getting traction for the conversation by just leaving it open. So, we put the paper in fo r others to 
react to.  
2.83.   We wanted to say that we would have been happy with the STDF model, but we are not sure 
if that will be where we end up because some of the speakers did not happen to put out their opinion 
about whether they supported a donor driven g overnance for TFAF or the Committee driven G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 23 - 
 
  responsibility for TFAF. I did hear Switzerland and I think Norway's view that TFAF would work at 
the direction of the Committee, not its donors, so that was a bit answering our question directly.  
2.84.   We would be inte rested if there are Members that think this should be a donor driven process. 
Quite frankly we all know that anyone that is given millions of dollars to do programmes is going to 
have to do so at the direction of somebody because there is no such world whe re a provider isn't 
responsible to someone, where it is not for their own organization to make decisions solely - it is 
just not the way it has ever worked for any donor organization, including all of us that are donors 
and have our own organizations. Ther e is always someone you are talking to who's direction you are 
taking.  
2.85.   What was interesting, yesterday, was Sri Lanka, who actually brought up a third way forward 
which we had not really considered, but we considered overnight. Both Sri Lanka and then Nepa l 
actually mentioned how does TFAF work, its governance, its structure, compared to other funds in 
the WTO. That has always been our point. Its unique because it is not in the TA directorate. It does 
not have clear governance rules like STDF, where it is a t the discretion only of donors - it existed in 
the ether a little bit.  
2.86.   With Sri Lanka's intervention yesterday, we thought about it and actually there is a third way 
forward. TFAF could simply be moved out of the Market Access Division and moved over to t he 
Training and Technical Assistance (ITTC) where they could be subject to the same rules as all of the 
other TA providers in the WTO. They have rules and clarity,  and it is clear how they operate in the 
institution.  
2.87.   I do thank all of the Members for inter vening yesterday because, like I said, maybe there are 
three ways forward. You represent the Committee, Donors or just moved to TA directorate. All three 
provide clarity and we don't see any reason why that would interfere with the function of TFAF. We 
want them to keep giving grants and be responsive. We just really want to understand how it 
operates and be a part of it. If I said yesterday, we said it ten times in response to notifications by 
Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Madagascar and then Niger – these are all LDCs and 
Members asking for additional assistance. We would like to know if TFAF can be part of the solution 
here. How do those conversations go on with other donor organizations? We would love to have this 
conversation in the Committ ee because we are committed to help bridge these gaps and bring them 
forward and have robust discussion in the Committee about how we bring all of these resources 
together to answer the needs of LDCs and developing countries. We just really would like to s ee a 
little bit more discussion in the Committee about this so that we know what is going on and what 
the conversations are.  
2.88.   We have been trying this four -year retrospective review. It is a great opportunity to have this 
conversation. It is a great way to think about how we want to operate in the future. We have put in 
proposals about the agenda, we have more coming. Then we think this whole conversation about 
TFAF and having robust discussion and transparency in the Committee so that we can answer the 
needs as they arrive and have a dialogue, would be great.  
2.89.   To reply to those Members that have talked about how do we move forward here? We would 
like to continue going forward with our last status quo and that would be our position that we are 
very happy for T FAF to continue the grant functions. We know Mongolia mentioned that they were 
very happy with their grant. We encourage TFAF to continue with the grant programme. We will just 
keep the moratorium on the other activities until we are able to resolve this i ssue. Like I said, I think 
2021 is the year that we can make some progress on this.  
2.90.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
2.91.    Thank you to the US for providing further clarity on the proposal and also trying to provide 
responses to some of the in terventions. I think when I listen to the US today, of course we do not 
have any conflict with your transparency suggestion because transparency and accountability, of 
course, are very important principals to be preserved and there should not be any except ion for the 
TFAF.  
2.92.   In my previous intervention, I said that we would like to see some harmonization with respect 
to the procedures that we need to adapt on the management and functioning of TFAF and different G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 24 - 
 
  trust funds and other technical assistance programmes. Sri Lanka l ooked at the procedures being 
adopted by the ITTC in approving and facilitating different technical assistance programmes, either 
demanded by the countries because it is a demand -driven process, and sometimes the Secretariat 
may have their regular programm es that are ear marked to be undertaken as per the budget 
approved for the Secretariat. We would like to see some commonality in processes but after listening 
to the US, I now understand that there are some specific functioning mechanisms that are unique 
to the TFAF.  
2.93.   For the benefit of everyone I would like to request the Chair to lay out the different procedures 
that exist for the STDF and TFAF, and also the general procedures that the ITTC uses in delivering 
technical assistance to Members. Then we have c larity regarding the differences between these 
different scenarios so that we can take a very informed and considered decision on what type of 
modifications are necessary for TFAF. We can look at the relevant mandates and functioning of these 
trust funds a nd see if the STDF model can be used for TFAF. We can certainly take a decision in that 
regard.  
2.94.   My delegation previously mentioned that the status quo should remain. I think the US today 
indicated that they are not going to object to the status quo but was  not very clear about it. We 
would like to hear from the US what is its standing on the project grants that are awarded to the 
developing countries for project formulation, and whether they can continue as usual.  
2.95.   The US also mentioned that all Members are ready to engage in discussion on that. I think 
we can continue discussion. However, there should be a possibility for the Secretariat to continue 
giving grants as a lot of countries are willing to benefit from them, especially during the pandemic 
which is causing financial difficulties and constraints. We urge the US not to really have any 
restriction on the provision of grants by the Secretariat.  
2.96.   The delegate of Norway  indicated the following:  
2.97.   I really think that it has been useful to have this conversatio n in the Committee. However, I 
would say that perhaps you could do some consultations on how we move froward and continue this 
conversation. Like I said in my first intervention, there are some parallel issues going on with the 
Budget Committee discussion on the one hand and the fact that we have an evaluation of the TFAF 
coming up. We have been with the TFAF from the start as a donor and have always been one of the 
largest supporters. We have always thought that it is important that it is demand driven. It  is 
important that it is based on the rules of procedure, which are long and detailed.  
2.98.   It has been important that the Secretariat has a certain amount of autonomy in the 
procedures, as our extended arm so to speak. It is important that the donors have a vo ice, not so 
much in the micromanagement but to make sure that assistance is given in an effective, efficient 
manner and so forth. I would definitely advise you that some consultations are needed on how to 
move this forward , but we do welcome the discussion  and we need to find a way around this. As the 
US said, there are various ways of doing this including putting the TFAF into the same pot as the 
ITTC, but there are also some issues regarding how the assistance and capacity building on the TFA 
is understoo d. These are also important elements to this issue that are extremely important to 
consider. It is not only assistance,  but it has very much to do with the substance of the TFA.  
2.99.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
2.100.   I want to be clear.  We 100% support TFAF continuing with its grant programme. We think 
that that is the function of TFAF , and we are more than welcome to see the grants projects continue 
until we come to a good resolution on some of the issues that we have raised in our paper and that 
we hope will come to light. When we talked a bit about where our concern was, and the morat orium, 
that was on the other activities. We 100% support the continuing work on the grants and the projects 
that come out of the grants.  
2.101.   The Chair  indicated the following:  
2.102.   From the exchange of views, it is clear to me that there is strong support from Memb ers on 
the work of the TFAF and what it has been doing to help in implementation efforts of the developing 
and least -developed country Members. In particular, I have heard Members emphasize the important G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 25 - 
 
  role that the Facility plays for them, as they work to provide not only notifications as required under 
the TFA, but also to follow up in terms of the needs identified.  
2.103.   I have also heard positive comments on the need for accountability and oversight for the 
work that TFAF performs, including transparency an d good governance issues, but also a strong 
sentiment not to micro -manage that work. In addition, I heard expression of concern that extensive 
oversight of the TFAF by the Committee might delay or impede the responsiveness of it to Members 
requests, regard ing their efforts to meet implementation deadlines and any extra effort they are 
making to speed up the implementation of the TFA provisions.  
2.104.   Essentially, there appears to be a tension between the desire for some oversight of the work 
of the TFAF and the d esire for it to maintain some flexibility in the way it operates. As more than a 
few Members have suggested that further reflection and discussion by the Membership on the 
question is required, I would propose that I hold open -ended informal consultations on the issue in 
the coming weeks. I would also intend to invite other funds to present on their procedures as was 
suggested by the Ambassador of Sri Lanka.  
2.105.   I believe that as part of these open -ended consultations we will be able to collectively come 
up wit h a way to respond to the comments from all Members here. I also note our earlier 
conversations about upcoming implementation deadlines as well as the calls to accelerate 
implementation of the TFA. I would encourage Members to continue to exchange and part icipate 
substantively and wholeheartedly in the open -ended informal consultations to find a solution as 
quickly as possible. I believe that the work of the TFAF is very important in achieving the objectives 
of all Members to meet the expectations within th e Agreement. So I encourage you to reflect and 
consider how best to meet your objectives and how the TFAF could help support those objectives 
that have been set out.  
2.106.   The Committee agreed  that the Chair would hold open -ended informal consultations.  
2.107.   That concluded  agenda item 2.  
3  REVISITING THE NEED FOR GLOBAL ACTION TO ELIMINATE CONSULARIZATION 
REQUIREMENTS – COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (G/TFA/W/38)  
3.1.  The Chair  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from Norway and the United 
states circulat ed in document G/TFA/W/38.  
3.2.  The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
3.3.  We are very pleased to work with Norway as a co -sponsor and notify to the Committee a new 
communication regarding revisiting the need for global action to eliminate consu larization 
requirements. We felt that this was the right time to revisit this question and to present it to the 
Committee for consideration of all Members.  
3.4.  As we take steps to support global and individual economic recovery, we encourage Members 
to take th is opportunity to review their current practices with a view to addressing unnecessary 
restrictions and bottlenecks. Members should specifically re -examine their formalities and 
documentation requirements to consider changes that can reduce the time and co sts for traders, 
especially MSMEs.  
3.5.  One practice long questioned as to its effectiveness and necessity are consular transactions. 
These consular transactions often require payment of a fee or charge that is sometimes a specific 
fee, sometimes a fee per docu ment, and other times an ad valorem fee based on the value of the 
shipment. Consularization requirements are additional costs and delays for traders without 
contributing to legitimate customs -related processes and are precisely the type of bureaucratic red -
tape that the TFA seeks to eliminate.  
3.6.  WTO Members should utilize the tools afforded to them in TFA Article 10.1 to review their trade 
requirements and minimize unnecessary and costly formalities, including consularization 
requirements. National Trade Faci litation Committees (NTFCs) can look to the private sector as a 
critical and important first step in identifying needless bottlenecks. The private sector and Members G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 26 - 
 
  have identified consularization requirements as one such bottleneck because it fails to co ntribute to 
legitimate customs -related processes. Therefore, during this time of economic global crisis, we call 
on Members to eliminate consularization requirements to fulfil their TFA Article 10.1 commitment to 
reduce and eliminated unnecessary and costl y formalities.  
3.7.  The delegate of Norway  indicated the following:  
3.8.  Norway is very pleased to be co -sponsor of this communication. We welcome the focus and 
further work on consularization. As we said in our January meeting, prohibition of consularization 
was an  important trade facilitative measure which was focused on long before the WTO trade 
negotiations started, as well as during those negotiations.  
3.9.  The description and examples in our communication are typical and the US pointed to some of 
them just now. Cons ular transactions or legalization basically increased costs and delays, not least 
for MSMEs, for little or no real purpose other than as income for those doing the consularization. 
With the pandemic, a new argument has risen to eliminate those kinds of mea sures. With the WTO 
focus on MSMEs an older argument has been reenforced. Continued work on this issue, identifying 
its effects on businesses and trade with a view to eliminate the practice will be an important and 
progressive step.  
3.10.   The delegate of Brazil  indicated the following:  
3.11.   Brazil supports the proposal by Norway and the US to eliminate consularization requirements. 
Brazil understands that consularization is an obstacle to trade due to the bureaucratic complexity, 
the time spent , and costs involved wit hout any corresponding gain in terms of inspection and 
compliance with customs rules.  
3.12.   Furthermore, MSMEs are especially affected due to the need for additional financial and 
human resources. Brazil has been working with regional and extra -regional partners to reduce and 
preferably eliminate consularization.  
3.13.   The delegate of Mexico  indicated the following:  
3.14.   We thank the United States for this initiative. In the last trade agreements signed by Mexico, 
we have promoted the elimination of consular transactions, including the rates and charges related 
to the importation of merchandise. We think it would be an important step to remove obstacles that 
are so burdensome, especially for MSMES. Therefore, we welcome this initiative and look forward to 
engaging with Members in the discussions of the topic.  
3.15.   The delegate of Costa Rica  indicated the following : 
3.16.   Costa Rica thanks the US and Norway for the submission of document G/TFA/W/38, which we 
are pleased to join as co -sponsors. We consider this document to be in line with the progress being 
made at the national level. The Government of Costa Rica, through the General Directorate of 
Customs and the Ministry of Foreign Trade, supports the process of simplification of procedures for 
the user. Consularization should be an exceptional event for very particular cases, it should not be 
present in the daily routine  of procedures. We therefore support efforts along these lines.  
3.17.   We consider that the following examples of some internal developments are consistent with 
this initiative: As of 1 May, the fourth revision of the Central American Uniform Customs Code, 
known  as CAUCA IV, will come into force in Costa Rica and this instrument provides for the non -
requirement of consularization in its Article 79. We also have the Decree Law No. 42799 -H called 
"Guidelines for the application of the provisions of international tr ade treaties and agreements in 
force in Costa Rica, relating to the importation of goods under tariff preferences". This also provides 
for the non -requirement of consularization for the procedures required in the framework of the 
application of tariff pref erences in its Article 7.  
3.18.   Likewise, in line with the structural reform process in which we find ourselves due to the 
pandemic, we have draft Law No. 22369 in the legislative stream as part of the regulatory package 
for the reform of the General Customs Law . This includes a particular provision on the non -
requirement of consularization.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.19.   Finally, we would like to reiterate our words of thanks to the US and Norway for their support 
and for preparing a revised version of the document in the coming days.  
3.20.   The del egate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
3.21.   We welcome the US and Norway proposal regarding the practise of consularization. We 
support also the statements made by previous speakers. However, we would be more radical than 
Costa Rica and rather ful ly support Norway and US. We should move towards the digitization of 
custom procedures, not least because of the COVID -19 pandemic, and because many Members are 
striving to establish electronic procedure single windows.  
3.22.   Consularization is a disproportionat ely burdensome procedure that unduly delays the 
clearance of goods and does not bring any efficiency to controls. The EU considers that during a 
health emergency this practice becomes even more problematic and should be suppressed without 
delay. The EU inv ites Members applying consularization to review their practice with the view to 
suppress it. The EU welcomes the Members who already moved in that direction and notified the 
Committee in the past.  
3.23.   The delegate of Switzerland  indicated the following:  
3.24.   Switze rland would like to support the communication by Norway and the US. We signalled 
that we support the communication and would be ready to co -sponsor the statement if it is open to 
co-sponsoring.  
3.25.   The delegate of Japan  indicated the following:  
3.26.   Japan thinks th at eliminating consularization requirements is in line with the purpose of Article 
10:1 of the TFA, which is one of the important provisions in the context of how to deal with the 
pandemic.  
3.27.   As a co -sponsor of the communication on supporting the timely and efficient release of global 
goods through accelerated implementation of the WTO trade facilitation agreement 
(G/TFA/W/25/Rev.4), we support the general idea of the proposal.  
3.28.   We have also heard from the private sector raising the issue of the consularizatio n 
requirements that increase the time and cost associated with international trade, and therefore hope 
that this requirement will be globally eliminated in the near term.  
3.29.   The delegate of Singapore  indicated the following:  
3.30.   Singapore welcomes the communicati on from Norway and the US. We agree that looking at 
the need for consularization requirements and seeing if they can be eliminated is one concrete way 
for Members to reduce formalities, improve trade facilitation and implement the Trade Facilitation 
Agreem ent. We support this initiative and look forward to further discussions on the topic.  
3.31.   The representative of Australia  indicated the following:  
3.32.   Australia supports the communication by the United States to eliminate consularization 
requirements. Consularizat ion places additional delays and costs on traders with little to no obvious 
benefit in terms of customs and border processes.  
3.33.   Australia agrees this is a potential area of reform under TFA Article 10:1 that will remove 
unnecessary bottlenecks and could deli ver meaningful outcomes to business to facilitate global trade 
and economic growth.  
3.34.   The delegate of Colombia  indicates the following:  
3.35.   Colombia considers it appropriate to support initiatives to eliminate formalities such as the 
consularization of documents . In our view, such formalities only add costs and delays to foreign 
trade operations. It is not easy to see the need or the importance of such formalities in foreign trade, 
or at least compelling reasons to justify them adequately.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.36.   Particularly at a time when trade in medical products and technologies is under stress, the 
elimination of formalities with little level of efficiency or convenience is of the utmost importance. 
Moreover, supporting the elimination is in line with our trade facilitation policy a nd with the overall 
Colombian red tape reduction programme led by the Minister of Trade called "Estado Simple 
Colombia Ágil" (Simple Colombia Agile State).  
3.37.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
3.38.   Firstly, I would like to thank the US and Norway for their proposal. Since this proposal was 
received by us only a few days ago we have referred it to our capital for consultation to give us a 
precise response to the proposal. What I am going to present today are very initial comments.  
3.39.   When it comes to c onsularization, we need to look at the reasons as to why the importing 
country generally requests the exporters to present the documents along with other custom 
documentation, for the purpose of expeditious customs clearance.  
3.40.   First is that the importing co untry cannot rely on the signatures that such documents are 
bearing. The second reason is sometimes it is the official seal. If the documents are not in the official 
languages of the importing country, then the importing country could request the exporter to provide 
an official translation of the documentation.  
3.41.   In certain situations, the exporter may be requested to certify the signature and the official 
seals that are contained in those documents. So the exporter would have to go to the importing 
country, the consular office, or Consulate General located in their exporting country and get the 
signatures certified because the procedure is normally that the exporter would have to go to the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the exporting country, get the  signature attested by the Ministry and 
then those documents should be forwarded to the consulate or the ambassador, or whatever the 
diplomatic representation of the importing country, to get those signature attested. That is called 
attestation. I think it  is a similar situation in many instances. Although I am a trade diplomat, I also 
have knowledge on consular activities in many parts of the world. Therefore, I have a lot of 
experience in attesting these documents and the procedures that Sri Lanka general ly adopts in 
relation to this.  
3.42.   When it comes to the invoices and the certificate of origin, we see that this certificate can be 
issued under a preferential scheme as well as under the non -preferential scheme. We see quite a lot 
of these certificates being forged. The signatures are being forced. Even when I was working in 
Rome, my signature was forged by many fraudulent actors, so it was even difficult for the authorities. 
They were sending these documents back to us to verify if my signature was authentic or not. As 
we come across these practices very often, we had to really send the certificates back to the 
appropriate authority in the exporting country to see whether those signatures and seals were 
authentic.  
3.43.   With the introduction of electronic certificat es of origin,  we are at the stage where we will be 
able to reduce such practices,  but we have also had to acknowledge that not all countries are geared 
to adopt the electronic issue on certificate of origin. We do have this electronic certificate,  but I th ink 
some countries are yet to adopt these measures. Until such time we may have to welcome the 
manual process where if we have doubts,  we will be referring such document to the exporting 
country for attestation. One method that we currently adopt is we sha re the signatures and seals of 
officials who are authorised to sign either certificate of origin or consular documents. I think many 
of you even would have shared your signatures with your consulate because sometimes you will be 
asked to sign certain consu lar documents, even if you are dealing with trade issues. I think that 
though we try to avoid such delays and backward referrals, until such time of the electronic 
certificates I see this practise of requesting document attestation consularization to conti nue further.  
3.44.   In Rome, where there is a huge Sri Landan community, the income generated per month is 
actually financing the maintenance of most of our other missions in Europe. We get a sizeable 
consular income that entails not only the consularization of t rade commercial documents but also 
other activities like passports and so on, for a daily income of nearly EUR 50,000. So , we have to 
look at all of those aspects as well. Those are some of the practical difficulties that I now present to 
the Members.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.45.   Looking at the legal aspects, I think the proposal says that under Article 10:1 of the TFA 
Members are required to look at the means as to how they can reduce documentation and the fees 
and other aspects. Equally, I draw their attention to Article 24:6, where it says "Notwithstanding the 
general interpretative note to Annex 1A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as diminishing the obligations of Members 
under the GATT 1994. In additi on, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as diminishing the 
rights and obligations of Members under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures."  
3.46.   The first part of this pa ragraph refers to Articles from the GATT 1994 where the most relevant 
is Article VIII of the GATT, where we talk of the Fees and Formalities Connected with Importation 
and Exportation, and I believe that the Trade Facilitation Agreement has a lot of things  to do with 
this Article.  
3.47.   When you look at paragraph 4 of Article VIII of the GATT, it says "The provisions of this Article 
shall extend to fees, charges, formalities and requirements imposed by governmental authorities in 
connexion with importation and ex portation, including those relating to: (a) consular transactions, 
such as consular invoices and certificates", so I presume that this is the right of the government. 
article would also have to be looked at from the point of view of Article I, II and III o f the GATT 
because this is an exception for the purpose of deviating from the non -discriminating principals, 
where the countries can levy the charges. Of course, I agree with the US and Norway when they say 
that it has to be commensurate with the services being rendered so those fees cannot be levied on 
an arbitrary basis.  
3.48.   We know that the legal jurisprudence has also given their opinion, particularly the Appellate 
Body in the Argentinian case. There, I think, they explicitly mentioned that such Article VII I GATT 
fees and charges have to be commensurate with the services rendered. We agree with that. But on 
the premise that we should be doing away with consularization and not charging the fees - there are 
two things: (i) not to adopt consularization procedur es and (ii) not to levy charges. These are very 
difficult measures to accept for my delegation in the current context, precisely for the reasons that 
I mentioned, practical reasons of loss of income, and another one of legal conflict. Unless we are 
very cl ear that this proposal is not going to conflict with Article 24:6 of the TFA, we would not be in 
a position to endorse this proposal.  
3.49.   The delegate of Indonesia  indicated the following:  
3.50.   Thanks to the US and other co -sponsors for presenting the proposal on e limination of 
consularization requirements. Indonesia just received the proposal few days ago, hence we need 
some time to consult with our capital to provide more detailed feedback to the proposal. At this 
stage, I would like to seek more information and c larification from the proponents including whether 
the elimination of consularization will only be extended during Covid -19 pandemic or it will it be for 
permanent purposes. We wish also for further clarification as to which relevant TFA provision is 
based  the requirement that consularization is to be eliminated. Finally, what kind of outcome is 
expected by the proponents from proposal?  
3.51.   Indonesia reserve its right to discuss the proposal further at the next meeting or discussion.  
3.52.   The delegate of the Russian  Federation  indicated the following:  
3.53.   We would like to thank the US and Norway for bringing this issue of consularization and its 
impact on trade to the attention of the Committee. From what was discussed today, we see this 
initiative can contribute to trad e and customs facilitation procedures. Given the time constraint to 
consider this initiative, we would like to express our interest in further discussion. However, we need 
more time to study this proposal.  
3.54.   The delegate of the United States  indicated the fo llowing:  
3.55.   I thank all the Members for their support and truly appreciate it. It means a lot that it is 
coming at this time, during a pandemic. This is a really good time to tackle this issue, so I am 
appreciative that others believe this is also the time. W e look forward and are thrilled that Costa 
Rica is also going to be a co -sponsor in our next revision of the paper. We are happy to continue G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 30 - 
 
  this dialogue. Maybe we can reach out specifically to Indonesia after this meeting so we can follow 
up on some of t he questions.  
3.56.   The delegate of Norway  indicated the following:  
3.57.   Thank you everyone for taking the floor and supporting the proposal, as well as posing some 
relevant questions and examples. Of course, we are not for any sort of counterfeiting examples that 
the Ambassador of Sri Lanka gave. Our experience has basically been that where consularization 
has taken place, it has basically been just to see someone's face in the door, and just stamp the 
papers and taking a fee on that. This is the sort of practice we really want to get rid of and make 
very clear that cannot go on. We welcome further consultations on this and welcome that Members 
address this when looking at how to make more commitments on trade facilitation. I would expect 
that we follow up on that.  
3.58.   The Committee took note  of the information and the statements made.  
3.59.   That concluded  agenda item 3.  
4  EXPERIENCE SHARING/THEMATIC DISCUSSIONS  
4.1.  This segment of the  meeting  was conducted in informal  mode , with the understanding  that 
information  Members were willing to share would be made available on a dedicated website 
(https://tfadatabase.org ) with related links also being included in the minutes of th e meeting. If a 
delegation requested it, their intervention would also be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.  
4.2.  Members  addressed the following  issues:  
A. Implementing the WTO TFA: Cambodia's Experience – Presentation by Cambodia  
4.3.  Information  on the prese ntation can be found under the following  link: https://tfadatabase.org . 
B. Outcomes of Turkey's Electronic Customs Procedures in line with TFA on 
International Supply Chains during the COVID -19 Pand emic – Presentation by Turkey  
4.4.  Information  on the presentation can be found under the following  link: https://tfadatabase.org . 
C. The Trade Facilitati on Agreement: A World of Opportunities for MSMEs – Statement 
by the United States  
4.5.  Information  on the presentation can be found under the following  link: https://tfadatabase.org . 
5  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23.1.6 OF THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT  
5.1.  The Chair recalled that Article 23:1:6 states that "The Committee shall review the operation 
and implementation of this Agreement four years from its entry into force, and periodically 
thereafter". The Trade Facilitation Agreement entered into force on 22 February 2017, therefore, the 
first review of the Agreement was required to be carried out in 2021.  
5.2.  At its meeting on 3 March 2021, the Committee approved a roadmap for the conduct of the 
review, which was circulated in document G/TFA/1. In accordance with the road map, the Committee 
held its first informal meeting dedicated to a discussion of proposals submitted by Members under 
the review on 22 April 2021.  
Informal Discussion on the Review – Report by the Chairperson  
5.3.  The agenda for the informal meeting was 1) to ho ld a first discussion of issues identified for 
consideration during the review; and 2) to identify any background information needed by 
delegations to support their contributions to the review.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 31 - 
 
  5.4.  Each agenda item was structured in relation to the how the Com mittee agreed to structure the 
resulting report on the review, i.e., Section I covering the TFA provisions, Section II dealing with the 
special flexibilities of the TFA, and Section III covering any proposals related to the institutional 
arrangements and f inal provisions.  
5.5.  Members first made some general proposals with regard to possible elements for inclusion in 
background factual report being prepared by the Secretariat.  
5.6.  There was a proposal that the factual report could provide a skeleton text upon which Members 
could add their own comments and additional information that they may wish to share regarding the 
domestic effect of implementation of the TFA.  
5.7.  The proposals included a number of elements for inclusion in the paper, for example: 
quantitative and qu alitive information on the effect of the implementation of the TFA in order to 
review the results of the implementation; the experience of developing country Members enhancing 
their exports as a result of the implementation of the TFA; looking at the proje cted gains in export 
value compared to the current reality especially for developing countries and LDCs; and a summary 
of best practices shared by Members.  
5.8.  Moving on to the discussion on proposals for consideration under Section 1 of the Agreement, 
proposa ls for consideration included: an update the WTO World Trade Report of 2015 which 
contained an analysis of the projected benefits and challenges of the implementation of the TFA 
including the impact on global trade of the implementation of the TFA; learnin g from Members that 
are implementing provisions especially the implementation of category C provisions, including 
members' experience in implementing provision for which they experience challenges with regard to 
financial and human resources and institutio nal challenges; and learning from innovations applied 
by Members in the implementation of the TFA.  
5.9.  Proposals raised for issues to be considered under Section 2 included: an analysis of the 
situation regarding provisions of technical assistance and capacity  building since the implementation 
of the TFA; learning from the experience of Members securing technical assistance and capacity 
building and  looking specifically at identifying the gaps Members have experienced in securing 
technical assistance and capaci ty building support. Such an exercise would assist in looking at how 
funds are being distributed and possible means by which they could be distributed in to address 
existing gaps; and how the COVID -19 pandemic has impacted LDCs.  
5.10.   Finally, under Section 3, t he following proposal were raised: remove Article 15 as a standing 
item as a regular part of future Committee agendas; create a standing agenda item that allow for 
Members to provide an update for any overdue or missing Section 1 and Section 2 notification s; It 
was also suggested to continue the remote participation from capitals in Committee meeting after 
the pandemic which would allow the Committee benefit from experts' input; that the Secretariat 
organize a pilot project on the development of an e -agenda  to see to what extent it could be useful 
for Committee meetings; and having input from business on TFA implementation.  
5.11.   On a positive note, a number of Members indicated that they are working on proposals, 
including a proposal from LLDCs, which they will s ubmit in writing to the Committee. I encourage all 
Members to give consideration to possible submissions they would like to add to the discussion and 
to submit them in writing.  
5.12.   Turning to the second item on the agenda, identifying any background informatio n needed by 
delegations to support their contributions to the review, there was support in the meeting to invite 
Annex D organizations to inform the Committee of the work that they have carried out to support 
the implementation of the TFA.  
5.13.   The Secretariat factual report, expected to be circulated in early May, will be based on the 
notifications that have been submitted over the four -year period of the review, as well as the 
activities of the Committee. The factual information will be based on the Committee annual reports, 
as well as the regular updates provided by the Secretariat at each Committee meeting.  
5.14.   The factual paper would provide a skeleton which could be enriched by the contributions of 
Members of any additional elements they wish to include.  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 32 - 
 
  5.15.   The de legate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
5.16.   Thank you for your presentation on our discussions yesterday which we support. Regarding 
gaps in aid that have to be provided for developing countries and LDCs to meet their category C 
commitments, we a re strongly of the view that such information has to be brought by the Members. 
We do not see how it could be done otherwise and this would go hand in hand with the commitments 
of the Members to provide such information regarding donor arrangements and ass istance already 
provided country by country, and where the gaps exist. We would welcome if such information, 
which has started to arrive and be notified to the Committee, be accelerated so that by October 
when we have the dedicated session on aid, we can r eally have a thorough view of where the gaps 
are and to prepare for the reporting in the review on this very crucial aspect. I hope this clarifies 
what we meant on this aspect.  
5.17.   The delegate of Brazil  informed Members that Brazil was thinking about submitti ng a written 
proposal regarding Article 12 Customs Cooperation, in order to increase transparency and 
cooperation.  
5.18.   The delegate of Turkey  indicated the following:  
5.19.   Turkey would like to congratulate the Chair on his initiative taken for the effective review of 
the TFA. In light of the importance of the private sector to the implementation of TFA measures and 
the role of the NTFC, Turkey would like to propose that the report must include specific measures 
and specific case studies for the involvement of the pr ivate sector, as well as how the NTFC has 
taken a role in the implementation reforms.  
5.20.   The Chair referred to the Committee's support for asking Annex D Members to provide their 
views in terms of their work supporting Members on the implementation of the TFA . Should the 
Annex Ds so wish, they would be included on the agenda for the next informal dedicated session.  
5.21.   The Committee took note  of the information and the statements made.  
5.22.   That concluded  agenda item 5.  
6  RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  
Report by the WTO  Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility (G/TFA/W/37)  
6.1.  The Chair drew the Committee's attention to two written reports which had been submitted for 
consideration: "Report of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Mechanism to the Trade Facilitation 
Committee" which  had been circulated in document G/TFA/W/37; and, "Report of the ITC and Annex 
D Partner Organisations to the Trade Facilitation Committee", which had been circulated in document 
G/TFA/W/39.  
6.2.  The delegate of the European Union  indicated the following:  
6.3.  The contributions provided were extremely useful. I simply wish to underscore that the EU and 
its Member States, at a bilateral level, participate in many of the ITC and World Bank Group activities, 
just to mention a couple.  
6.4.  The delegate of Nepal  on behalf  of the LDC Group  indicated the following:  
6.5.  We would like again to express our appreciation and support for the TFAF team. We have 
worked with the division and their delivery to us included a number of activities and tools that 
supported our Members over th e last few years. We appreciate the work of the Annex D organizations 
which provide in -country support to us and collaborate with the WTO on several activities for LDCs.  
6.6.  We would also like to see more programmes and support in the areas of supply -side capa city 
building and trade infrastructure including ICT infrastructure in the days ahead.  
6.7.  The delegate of Sri Lanka  indicate d the following:  G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 33 - 
 
  6.8.  I will be failing my duty if I do not appreciate the assistance that we have received from the 
donors who are recognis ed under Annex D. In particular, we wish to appreciate the funding 
assistance we received from the World Bank Group and the Australian Government, which enabled 
us to implement the trade information portal. In addition, the European Union had a very robust  
project which contributed a large amount of funds to a project that enabled us to introduce many 
additional features to our trade information portal. We are very happy to acknowledge that it is 
functioning well. Before I came here, I was part and parcel o f the project, so I realise how useful 
and valuable the EU support is.  
6.9.  In addition, I thank the US government and some other governments that have also given us 
funds and assistance to realize some of our TA requirements. If I do not name any country pleas e 
do not get offended, I am sharing this info from my recent memory. I think this kind of assistance 
demonstrates how valuable it is to developing countries in realising and fulfilling their commitments 
under the TFA.  
6.10.   We would encourage donors, recognising  Annex D organizations as well as other bilateral 
donors, to continue to support developing countries and LDCs in their efforts in implementing their 
commitments. This is particularly necessary after the pandemic. Developing countries and LDCs are 
running into financial difficulties and this assistance may be most certainly needed at this time 
because of the uncertain challenges they are facing and will continue to face in the years to come.  
Building Trust Through Public -Private Partnerships for Trade Facil itation – Presentation 
by the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation  
6.11.   Information  on the presentation can be found under the following  link: 
https://t fadatabase.org/trade -facilitation -committee/experience -sharing/meeting/2021 -04-22. 
6.12.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  indicated the following:  
6.13.   I thank the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation for the valuable presentation. GIZ, referred 
to in your presentation, is one of the institutions which have provided funding to develop and 
introduce additional features to our trade information portal. If your partners are individually making 
contributions and helping developing countries and LDCs, how does su ch assistance reflect on the 
overall performance of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation because I saw that your presentation 
did not capture any of the projects that GIZ has initiated in Sri Lanka. There are also a lot of projects 
in the pipeline in  Sri Lanka which will be funded by GIZ.  
6.14.   The representative of Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation  indicated the following:  
6.15.   GIZ is one of the partners of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation and so they participate 
in the organisation of the Allian ce and they implement some of the projects within the framework of 
the Alliance. Also , separately, GIZ would also be doing some of our own projects so perhaps that's 
why some of the activities you mentioned in Sri Lanka are not reflected in my presentation  because 
they were perhaps GIZ projects that were undertaken outside of the framework of the Alliance.  
6.16.   The delegate of the United States  said that the United States through USAID provides direct 
support to the Global Alliance on Trade Facilitation. The US thanked the Global Alliance for their 
presentation.  
6.17.   The Committee took note  of the information.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  The delegate of the United States  indicated the following:  
7.2.  The United States would like to invite the ITC to the 22 -23 June Trade Facilitation Co mmittee 
to make a presentation.  
7.3.  The US is happy to inform the Committee that the United States will soon be hosting a webinar 
on the Trade Facilitation Agreement. In this webinar, we will hear from some US companies about G/TFA/M/16  
 
- 34 - 
 
  their experiences with the Agreeme nt. We invite all delegations and capitals to attend this webinar. 
We will be sending out detailed information in the near future.  
7.4.  The Chair confirmed that the next meetings of the Committee would take place on 22 and 
23 June; 27 and 28 July; and 19 to 21 October. Each of the meetings would begin with an informal 
dedicated session on the review process. The dedicated session on technical assistance and capacity 
building support would take place on 21 October.  
7.5.  The Committee agreed  to invite the Annex D organ izations, as well as ITC and the Global 
Alliance on Trade Facilitation, to its next meeting.  
7.6.  That concluded  Agenda Item 7.  
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
8.1.  The Chair  recalled that the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the Trade Facilitation Committee 
established that  the Committee on Trade Facilitation shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice -Chairperson 
from among the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the first meeting of the 
year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting.  
8.2.  However, as the  Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was still holding 
consultations with Members on the slate of names to chair the CTG's subsidiary bodies, the 
appointment of officers for the TFC had not taken place.  
8.3.  As soon as there was consensus on a s late of names, the Secretariat would send an email with 
the name of the proposed Chairperson for the TFC. If no objection was received within the timeframe 
indicated in the email, the candidate would be deemed to have been elected by the Committee by 
acclamation.  
8.4.  That concluded  agenda item 8.  
8.5.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________