INF/IFD/R/ 8 
 
21 Novem ber 2019  
(19-7972) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
 
 
STRUCTURED DISCUSSIO NS ON INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DE VELOPMENT  
MEETING OF 31 OCTOBER  2019 
Summary of discussions  by the Coordinator1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  An open -ended meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development was held on 31 October 2019, coordinated by H.E. Mr.  Eduardo Gálvez (C hile). As 
indicated in the annotated agenda circulated by the Coordinator to all Members ahead of the 
meeting ,2 its main purpose  was to address Section II I of the working document  (INF/IFD/RD/39) on 
"Streamlining and speeding up administrative procedures and requirements" . At the meeting  four 
Members announced that they were officially joining the Joint Initiative on Investment Facilitation 
for Development : Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Norway and Yemen. Many participating Members 
expressed their appreciation and welcomed the  four Members  to the process . 
1.2.  The meeting was well attended with a number of  Members represented by capital -based 
officials . The level of engagement and interaction was high, with many participating delegations 
expressing detailed  views , suggestions  and language preferen ces on the  different  elements and 
issues included in the working document . 
1.3.  On the same day, the World Economic Forum (WEF)  hosted  a luncheon information session for 
delegates on "Investment Facilitation for Development: Insights on Important Measures from 
Practitioners", to s hare the results of in -country work in Cambodia and Ghana, as well as the insights 
of a private sector consultative group regarding  the specific measures that were important to 
facilitate investment  as well as  to contribut e to sustainable development .3 
2  GENERAL COMMENTS  
2.1.  Participating  Members confirmed that the working document provided a sound and useful basis 
to make progress in developing the elements of a  future  investment facilitation framework. Many 
delegations who took  the floor stressed that they saw the streamlining  and simplification of 
administrative procedures and requirements as a central pillar – next to transparency – of the future 
framework, which could significantly contribute to facilitating investment.  
2.2.  As in  previous meetings, participating Members stressed the importance that the future 
investment facilitation framework be consistent , where relevant,  with existing WTO agreements, 
notably the GATS, as well as with ongoing negotiations on services domestic reg ulation . Ensuring 
such consistency was deemed particularly important with respect to  Section III  of the working 
document , and notably elements 8 to 12 thereof,  which delegations  identified as particularly 
dependent on the precise scope of the framework .  
                                                
1 This summary, prepared and circulated under the Coordinator's responsibility, is being shared with a 
view to providing delegations with a record of the discussions and assisting them in reporting back to their 
capitals. It provides a non -exhaustive, illust rative review of the issues addressed by Members at the me eting. 
2 The annotated agenda is contained in d ocument INF/IFD/W/ 10. 
3 More information on the luncheon discussion – including WEF's presentation – can be accessed at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/invfac_e/invfac_e.htm . 
 INF/IFD/R/ 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  As in preceding meeting s, participating Members highlighted the need  to ensure , notably  for 
developing and least -developed country Members , that the implement ation of  the provisi ons relating 
to certain  elements of the framework  took account of  their particular situation, drawing from the 
experience of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
3  STREAMLINING  AND SPEEDING UP ADMINIST RATIVE PROCEDURES AN D 
REQUIREMENTS   
3.1.  The discussions on Secti on III of the working document proceeded on an element -by-element 
basis, in the order in which the y appear in the "Schedule of Meetings September – December 2019" .4  
3.1  Consistent , reasonable, objective and impartial administration of measures  
(paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the working document)  
3.2.  Many participating Members expressed support for including commitments to ensure the 
"reasonable, objective and impartial" administration of measures of general application within the 
scope of the framework, along the lines of paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the  working document. Many 
delegations who spoke viewed these paragraphs as basic standards of good governance, and some 
said they had similar provisions in their regional trade agreements . Many  delegations stressed the 
importance to ensure  consistency  – regarding these provisions – with existing WTO agreements and 
notably with GATS Article VI:1.  A few Members, while supporting the inclusion of such provisions  in 
the framework, reserved their position on the detailed language to be used therein – pending the 
outcome of the discussion on the wider scope of the future framework.  
3.2  Reduction and simplification of administrative procedures and documentation 
requirements (paragraphs 8.1 to 8.3 of the working document)  
3.3.  Participating Members saw commitments on the reduc tion and simplification of administrative 
procedures and documentation requirements (hereafter 'APDRs') as contribut ing significantly to the 
objective of facilitating investment  and, therefore, supported their inclusion in the framework. 
The discussion rev olved around  the types of criteria  that may be needed to ensure that investment -
related APDRs did not unduly complicate or delay the investment . While supporting the general 
direction  to reduc e and simplify APDRs, some delegations stressed that  flexibility should be provided , 
especially  in case of major investments or investments in sectors deemed sensitive  by the host 
economy. Delegations considered  in general  that f urther streamlining of the p rovisions contained in 
the working document could be achieved  – notably by  resolving overlaps identified with othe r 
provisions therein .   
3.3  Clear criteria and requirements for administrative procedures  (paragraphs 9.1 to 9.5 
of the working document)   
3.4.  Partici pating Members saw value in includ ing commitments to ensure clear, objective and 
transparent criteria and requirements for investments . At the same time, it was felt that the 
provisions included in the working document needed some redrafting  – ideally comb ining those 
language elements in the two alternative formulations that attracted the most support . Some 
overlap s were identified between sub -paragraphs 9.1(a) and (b) on  the one hand, and paragraphs 
8.1 and 8.2 of the working document, on the other.    
3.4  Authorization/approval procedures  (paragraph 10.1, letters (a) to (j) of the working 
document)  
3.5.  Many participating Members who took the floor viewed this provision as a core element of the 
framework in that it provided clear standards and requirements for authorization procedures. It was 
noted that some of the paragraphs in the working document already included flexibility language 
that could accommodate Members' different domestic regimes. D elegations were generally 
supportive of including in a future  framework the introductory paragraph (paragraph 10.1) as well 
as sub -paragraphs 10.1(a) to (c).  Several delegations stressed the merit to have a s trong 
commitment on the acceptance of authenticated copies in lieu of original documents.  Several 
delegations suggested that sub-paragraphs 10.1(d) to (i)  be further streamlined, and overlaps with 
other elements in the working document resolved . The need to avoid overly prescriptive procedures 
                                                
4 The latest version o f the schedule  is contained in document INF/IFD/W/8.  INF/IFD/R/ 8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  and requirements and to allow some flexibility was emphasized in order to cater for major or more 
complex investments.     
3.5  Treatment of incomplete and rejection of applications (paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 of 
the workin g document)  
3.6.  Many participating delegations considered that informing an investor that the application was 
incomplete, and giving the applicant the opportunity to provide the additional information needed to 
complete the application was a basic element of g ood governance. Some Members highlighted that 
they were already  familiar with such provision s from their regional trade agreements ' practice and 
from ongoing negotiations on services domestic regulation  at the WTO . Others had not yet  
incorporated these  types of commitments with regard to investment in their RTAs. Participating 
Members were broadly support ive of including  paragraphs 11.1(a) to (c) – on the treatment of 
incomplete applications – in the future framework , with some clarifications to be made . Regarding 
paragraph 11.2, dealing with situations where applications had been rejected, a number of Members 
favoured alternative 1, deeming it to be more streamlined. Some delegations stressed the need for 
flexibility language in relation to any obligation  to provide an applicant  with the reasons  for rejection 
or termination of an investment authorization.  
3.6  Fees and charges (paragraphs 12.1 to 12.3 of the working document)  
3.7.  Many participating delegations saw value in , and supported , including a commitment on  rules 
for fees and charges in the future framework. A delegation stressed the particular importance of this 
provision for micro -, small and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs)  investing abroad . Many 
delegations who intervened supported the principle that fee s and charges be reasonable, 
transparent, and not in themselves a restriction to investment. Finally, several delegations  thought 
that the periodic review of fees and charges might instead  be addressed under element 13 ("Periodic 
review of administrative p rocedures and requirements") .   
3.7  Periodic  review of administrative procedures and requirements  (paragraphs 13.1 and 
13.2 of the working document)  
3.8.  Participating Members saw value in carrying out regular reviews  to evaluate regulatory 
measures in force. They  supported the inclusion of a corresponding provision in the framework 
worded as an encouragement  or best -endeavour language. They deemed however that a mandatory  
review would be too onerous and might not be compatible with some Members' legal or regulator y 
regimes . It was noted that periodic reviews could be an area for cooperation and exchange of 
experience s under the auspices of a future WTO Investment Facilitation Committee . 
3.8  Use of ICT/e -Government including electronic applications5 (paragraphs 14.1 and 
14.2 of the working document)  
3.9.  Many of the delegations who intervened stressed the value of commitments on the submission 
of applications  in electronic format, the use of electronic forms, and the acceptance of copies  by 
competent auth orities . Members acknowledged that the implementation of such commitments 
implied access to digital infrastructures and should,  thus, be considered in connection with capacity 
building and technical assistance for those Members who needed it . Delegations a lso supported 
including in the  future  framework a provision on the possibility to pay fees and charges electronically  
– sugges ting that its wording  be modelled mutatis mutandis  on article 7.2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement . 
3.9  One-stop shop/single window -types of mechanisms (paragraphs 15.1 to 15.9 of the 
working document)  
3.10.   While participating Members acknowledged that one -stop shops and single electronic windows 
(SEWs) could facilitate investment  in many ways, interventions at the meeting showed that ther e 
was no support  for a mandatory  obligation to establish a single window. Such a provision , as foreseen 
in alternative  1, was considered to be overly ambitious at this point in time. Several participating 
Members explained that they had electronic windows in place at national and sub -national level – 
thus not a single  window . Furthermore, it was highlighted that SEWs required not only an advanced 
                                                
5 Including submission of applications online, and use of electronic forms, documents and copies . INF/IFD/R/ 8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  information and communication technology  infrastructure , but also a high -level of coordination 
among many ministries and government  agencies. For the same reason s, endeavouring to make it 
possible for investors to pay all fees and taxes related to their investment through a SEW was 
deemed too difficult to implement  for many Members  at this stage .  Instead, participa ting Members 
suggested focusing on achieving the  best possible investment facilitation outcomes in a more flexible 
manner ; for example,  by encouraging Members to make use of digitalization, reduc ing 
admin istrative burden and improv ing their governance.  
3.11.   Against that backdrop, different suggestions were made to combine  either alternatives 3 and 
2, or 3 and 4. Some delegations suggested  building on alternative 3 , which  had the merit to apply 
at all levels of  government , federal and sub -federal . 
3.10  Independence of competent authorities (paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2 of the working 
document)  
3.12.   A number of delegations expressed a preference for paragraph 16.2, which was similar to the 
practice they followed in their regional trade agreements. However, some delegations still had 
difficulties visualizing how such an obligation could be implemented in the context of cross -border 
investment. A possible link between this paragraph and the provisions in paragraph 7.2 ("Cons istent, 
reasonable, objective and impartial administration of measures") was identified . 
3.11  Appeal and review (paragraphs 17.1 to 17.3 of the working document)  
3.13.   In their interventions, many participating  Members supported the inclusion in the future 
framework of provisions aim ed at ensuring the  objectivity and  impartiality of judicial and 
administrative appeal and review.  It was felt that such provisions would add significant value to the 
future framework. Alternative 1 , which was deemed closer to the GATS lan guage and to delegations' 
RTA practice , attracted most support . A delegation expressed its preference for alternative 2, which 
it deemed to be more concise, and which prescribed that the appeal and review procedures be 
carried -out in a non -discriminatory m anner.   
4  ANY OTHER INVESTMENT  FACILITATION -RELATE D ISSUES  
4.1.  Under this agenda item , a delegation introduced a submission on  the temporary entry of 
investment persons .6 The delegation explained that, in its view, this issue was of interest to 
investors, especially those from developing and least developed countries , and MSMEs. As the 
document was still being reviewed by Members, no  detailed discussion took place at the meeting . 
5  CONCLUDING REMARKS  
5.1.  The Coordinator thanked participating Members for their high level of engagement and for the 
thorough  views, language preferences and text suggestions they provided  at the meeting . These 
identified many areas where the provisions of Section III of the work ing document could be 
streamlined and improved . In line with the working methodology agreed at the organizational 
meeting  in September 2019 ,7 the Coordinator stated  that, based on participating Members' views 
and contributions , he would prepare a short sum mary of the meeting, as well as an assessment 
under his responsibility of the areas of convergence and common interest emerging from the 
discussions , as a way to better  visualiz e the possible development of the elements of the future 
framework . As per past  practice , the summary and assessment w ould be non -attributable and 
without prejudice to Members' positions . 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1.  Under this agenda item, a delegation responded to questions that had been raised at the 
previous meeting  regarding element 19 of the working document entitled "Domestic coordination"8. 
The delegation explained that the aim of this best -endeavour provision, which it had submitted as 
                                                
6 Room document INF/IFD/RD/41  dated 30 October 2019.  
7 See paragraph 5 of the Annex of the Annotated Agen da (document INF/IFD/W/7) entitled "Proposed 
Working Methodology September – December 2019".  
8 At the preceding meeting, held on 17 October 2019, participating Members had advocated that this 
element be renamed "Regulatory coherence".  INF/IFD/R/ 8 
 
- 5 - 
 
  an example  drawing from one of its bilateral RTAs, was to encourage the use o f good regulatory 
practices to facilitate the achievement of policy objectives and enhance regulatory cooperation. 
Thereby, domestic competent authorities  and agencies were encouraged to ensure that new 
measures were clear, easy to understand, available on line and subject to regular reviews. Another 
delegation returned to a question that had come up  at this meeting  regarding paragraph 16.1 of the 
working document on "Independence of competent authorities". It explained that the original 
language  included in the example  it had submitted  referred to the obligation , in those service sectors 
where a Member had undertaken specific commitments, to ensure that its relevant competent 
authorities were not accountable to  and were independent from  any service suppliers  that they 
regulated.  
7  NEXT MEETING  
7.1.  The Coordinator informed all participa ting Members that the next meeting would be held on 
25-26 November  2019. It w ould focus on  the following four s ection s of the working document:   
• Section V: Special and differential treatment for developing and least -developed country 
 Members;  
• Section VI: Cross -cutting issues;  
• Section I: Scope and general principles; and  
• Section VII: Institutional arrangements and final provisions  
7.2.  The Coordinator invited all Members to provide their concrete views , positions and text 
contributions on the working document relating to the above -mentioned  topics – kindly remin ding 
them to send any such contributions if possible 10 calendar days in advance of the meeting . As per 
usual practice, Members would also be able to raise , or revert to , any other investment facilitation -
related issue that they might wish.  
_________ __