INF/IFD/R/4  
 
15 July 2019  
(19-4696) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
 
 
WTO STRUCTURED DISCU SSIONS ON INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DE VELOPMENT  
MEETING OF 25 JUNE 2019 
OTHER CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
Summary of discussions  by the Coordinator1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  On 25 June 2019, the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development held 
an open -ended meeting, coordinated by H.E. Mr. Juan Carlos González (Colombia). Following the 
guidance of the 2017 Joint Ministerial Statement2 and as per the  "Schedule o f Meetings January – 
July 2019" ,3 the main purpose of the meeting was to continue the example -based Structured 
Discussion s with a view to developing the possible elements of a multilateral framework on 
investment facilitatio n for development  – this time focusing on a range of "other cross -cutting 
issues" , namely : 
a. Domestic institutional arrangements to enhance communication and coordination 
among relevant authorities at different levels of government ; 
b. Scope of the multilateral framework; non -discrimination ; best -endeavours language; 
challenges faced by MSMEs; relationship between the framework and current 
investment commitments among Members; role of the investment facilitation 
framework in combating corruption, promoting corporate social responsibility and  
promoting women empowerment ; and   
c. Any other investment facilitation -related issues . 
1.2.  Ahead of the meeting , ten written  submissions with concrete , text-based examples and 
suggestions regarding  the topics under consideration were circulated to all WTO Member s by the 
following 38 Members : Brazil; Canada; China; European Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; the 
Republic of Korea; Mauritius; the Russian Federation; and Switzerland .4 The examples submitted 
drew from these Members' bilateral and regional free trade  agreements, international investment 
agreements, and domestic legislation , as well as from WTO text  and other specific text suggestions . 
In addition, at the meeting, as an example under  the element of "domestic institutional 
arrangements to favour domestic coordination ", the delegation  of Colombia  presented its System 
for the Facilitation of Investment (SIFAI) – a public -private system  notably aimed at identif ying 
priority areas to improve the national investment climate.5  
1.3.  Discussions at the meetin g focused on the concrete text examples and suggestions submitted 
by Members . Where appropriate, these were complemented by "Examples by the Coordinator " 
submitted under his responsibility  drawing from WTO text.6 As per usual practice, all the text-based 
                                                
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 Document WT/MIN(17)/59 dated 13 December 2017.  
3 Document INF/IFD/W/3/Rev.1 dated 22 May 2019 . 
4 The submissions were circulated in room documents INF/IFD/RD/24 -28 and 30 -34. They are also 
available on the dedicated investment facilitation website . 
5 The presentation was circulated in room document INF/IFD/RD/35.  It is also available on the dedicated 
investment facilitation website.  
6 The Coordinator's examples were circulated in room docume nt INF/IFD/RD/29.  INF/IFD/R/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  examples  and suggestions  were submitted  and/or presented at the meeting , on a "no prejudice " 
basis.  
2  OTHER CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  – EXAMPLE -BASED DIS CUSSIONS  
2.1.  The presentations of examples by the Members and the Coordinator, as well as the ensuing 
discussions,  proceeded thematically, element -by-element , in the order in which the y appear in the 
"Schedule of Meetings January – July 2019" . The open-ended, transparent and interactive 
discussions on the different topics allowed participating Members to enhance their  understanding of 
the different issues under consideration, and to better visualize the areas of common interest a s well 
as those matters where further reflection and discussions were needed . 
2.1  Domestic institutional arrangements to enhance communication and  coordination 
among relevant authorities at different levels of government  (issue 68 of the checklist)  
2.2.  As throughout the discussions on the different elements of the framework  thus far , participating 
Members re-iterat ed the importance of a well -functioning  and effective multi-level communication 
and coordination among relevant competent authorities  responsible for facilitating investment . The 
latter constituted a key element of the framework, and was important to foster  regulatory coherence 
at all stages fr om rule design to implementation . Effective domestic institutional arrangements were 
also deemed essential to promote transparency in the formulation of investment policies, and to 
improve the efficiency of procedures and requirements for investors .  
2.3.  One e xample approached the issue from the wider perspective of "regulatory coherence " – 
underscoring the need to ensure good regulatory practices in the process of planning, designing, 
issuing, implementing and reviewing regulatory measures  to promote internati onal investment. 
Other examples referred to the establish ment or designation of  a body, authority  or some other type 
of mechanism responsible for ensuring  domestic coordination and implementation . For instance, 
drawing from the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement  (TFA) , one example  referred to the  obligation 
to "establish and/or maintain a national committee on investment facilitation or designate an existing 
mechanism to facilitate both domestic coordination and implementation  of the provisions of [the] 
Agreement ". Another  example presented  orally  at the meeting explained the designation of a n inter-
agency body – termed "joint technical committee " – with representatives from  the highest political 
level, mandated to  coordinate among competent authorities a nd to follow -up upon policy advocacy 
recommendations to improve the national investment climate.  Other examples foresaw the creation 
or designation of a lead agency, body or other types of mechanism s – such as a national focal/contact 
point or an ombudsper son – mandated to enhance communication and coordination among relevant 
authorities at different levels of government , facilitate access to information and reply to requests 
for information regarding procedures , receive complaints from investors and/or hel p them solve 
difficulties , and carry out policy advocacy to improve the national investment climate.  
2.4.  Members engaged in an interactive discussion , sharing information  and experiences regarding 
their different domestic institutional arrangements at the central/federal as well as sub -federal level.  
A delegation underscored the key role of national focal points and single (electronic) windows to 
enhance communication and coordination among relevant authorities at the federal level, and also 
at the sub -federal level if applicable. Following the  presentation  of examples by delegation s, a 
substantive exchange took place on the different functions carried out by a designated "lead investor 
facilitator " (such as the ombudsperson or focal point) , namely to t rack and take timely action to 
prevent, manage and resolve disputes ; address suggestions or complaints by investors and their 
home stat es; p romote greater awareness of and transparency in investment legislation and 
procedures ; and inform relevant government ins titutions about recurrent problems faced by 
investors which m ight require changes in investment legislation or procedures. A delegation 
expressed the view  that the obligation for domestic authorities to cooperate should not be subject 
to dispute settlement .  
2.2  Scope of the multilateral framework (issue 74 of the checklist ) 
2.5.  The text examples and suggestions submitted outlin ed the possible scope of the framework  
with varying degrees of detail . All views expressed converged on the fact that, p ursuant to the 2017  
Joint Ministerial Statement, the framework shall not deal with market access, investment protection 
and investor -State dispute settlement . However, further reflection and discussions appeared  
necessary to define the scope  of the framework .  INF/IFD/R/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.6.  Drawing inter alia from the  TFA experience, several participating  Members favoured a  
"bottom -up" (i.e., provision -based ) approach  to scope  starting from the different investment 
facilitation elements  and issues , as identified in the "Checklist of Issues raised by Members " and 
illustrated in the Compendium . Finally, t he need to clearly distinguish between investment facilitation  
and promotion  was also mentioned.  
2.7.  Based on the examples  and suggestions submitted, and following  the guiding questions by the 
Coordinator,7 the following broad views were expressed . First, t he elements and issues covered in 
Members' text examples and inputs, as identified in the Checklist and illustrated in the Compendium, 
provided a good delineation of the possible covered provisions , and th us of the scope of the 
framework . Second,  consideration should be given to the framework 's application throughout the 
investment  life-cycle (including the admission, establishment, acquisition  and expansion  of 
investments ) since  investment facilitation was seen to play a role at each of these stage s. Third, to 
make use of the full potential of investment facilitation, a framework should in principle  cover  all 
sectors and economic activities . However, this was without prejudice to any specific  
exceptions /exemptions  or exclusions (of specific sectors, activities  or measures) that Members might  
wish to carve out from the framework . The level of government to which the framework  should apply  
was also mentioned as an issue calling for further reflection and analysis .  
2.3  Non-discrimination (issue 75 of the checklist ) 
2.8.  Some of the examples submitted addressed the question of non -discrimination , approaching it 
from different angles and  with varying degrees  of detail . While two examples referred to 
non-discriminatio n specifically in the context of Members' procedures for appeal or review , another 
example drew from  a provision in an investment agreement precluding contracting parties  from 
applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures in relation to the management, maintenance, 
use, enjoyment, sale or other disposal of investments in relation to investors from the other part ies. 
Finally, other examples addressed non -discrimination in the sense of Most-Favoured -Nation  (MFN) 
and national treatment , respectively. More in-depth discussions on this issue would  be needed.   
2.4  Use of b est-endeavours language for more far -reaching disciplines (issue 76 of the 
checklist ) 
2.9.  A few examples submitted by Members illustrate d how best -endeavours language could be 
used in the framework for more far -reaching disciplines.  One submission provided specific examples 
on how flexibility language could be used to address the implementation of certain disciplines at 
sub-federal  level (provision of information on investment measures at the sub-national level) as well 
as to promot e the compliance with  corporate social responsibility  standards . Another example 
instead referred to Members being "guided" by certain " principles" to foster compliance with 
international regulatory best practices . 
2.5  Challeng es faced by micro, small and medium -sized enterprises  (issue 77 o f the 
checklist ) 
2.10.   Participating Members converged around the view that a multilateral framework on 
investment facilitation would, as such, be beneficial for micro, small and medium -sized enter prises 
(MSMEs ) – notably through one-stop-shop and business facilitation measures  – and foster  their 
participation in global value chains. It was suggested to include a reference in the preamble to the 
framework referring to the objective to increase investment , and notably investment in and by 
MSMEs . Some Members reported that their bilateral free trade agreements included a chapter 
specifically dedicated to small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs). Participating Members 
generally expressed the view that it was important to help MSMEs benefit from the framework.  
                                                
7 See paragraph 1.4. of the Annotated Agenda prepared for the meeting, in document INF/IFD/W/5. The 
three questions were:  
a. Should the framework take into consideration the whole "investment life -cycle" (e.g. admission, 
establishment, acqu isition, expansion, sale or other disposition of investments in a Member's 
territory)?  
b. Should Members address the scope of measures to be covered (e.g. types of measures; levels of 
government involved) based on the different elements/issues included in the  framework, or should 
Members consider a more general approach (e.g. a general provision on scope) ? 
c. Should the investment facilitation framework apply to all sectors?  INF/IFD/R/4  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.11.   A number of text examples illustrate d how the framework could help tackle the specific 
challenges faced by MSMEs when accessing international trade and investment opportunities. The 
examples showcased different , and potentially complementary  approaches to address  the particular 
situation of, and challenges faced by MSMEs. The following  main ideas emerged from the examples  
presented  and ensuing discussion s: 1) to includ e provisions aimed at promoting international 
cooperation among Members in favour of MSMEs, such as capacity building , information  sharing on 
investment opportunities, or the identification of best practices  relating to MSMEs , respectively of 
SMEs -friendly l egislation ; and 2) to provid e access to information useful for MSMEs  – for instance, 
a description of domestic procedures or provisions of the framework consider ed to be particularly  
relevant for SMEs .  
2.12.   Furthermore, a delegation explained that pursuant to one of its regional FTAs, MSMEs did not 
need to pay certain registration fees and were exempted from some minimum capital requirements. 
Finally, o ne submission suggested  that, in the interest of efficiency and consistency, the discussion 
on this matter tak e into account the work carried out in the informal WTO Working Group on MSMEs.  
2.6  Relationship between the framework and current investment commitments among 
Members (issue 78 of the checklist ) 
2.13.   A couple of examples submitted addressed the relationship betwee n the framework and 
current investment commitments among Members. One submission addressed the issue as part of 
its example on MFN  treatment . Under its example on "final provisions ", it also referred to the 
relationship between the framework and WTO Agreements, in particular  the TRIMs Agreement . While 
another example dealt with the issue through a specific ad-hoc provision , excluding the application 
of the MFN obligation to treatment accorded under specif ied existing bilateral or multilateral  
agreements , as well as under specifi ed existing or future ones . Further discussions on, and a better 
understanding of the possible interplay between the framework and Members' rights and obligations 
under other intern ational agreements seemed to be warranted.  
2.7  Role of the investment facilitation framework in combating corruption, promoting 
corporate social responsibility and promoting women empowerment  (issue s 79, 80 and  
81 of the checklist ) 
2.14.   Many of  examples and suggest ions submitted  aimed at illustrating the type of provisions that 
could be included in the future framework with the view to promoting corporate social responsibility 
(CSR), fighting against corruption and /or promoting women empowerment. Examples submitted 
under these issues converged around the idea that the framework c ould play a role in promoting 
these objectives  and that, notably through the se, investment facilitation could make a positive 
contribut ion to sustainable development and wider development al and societal goals .  
2.15.   In some cases, the examples referred to voluntary principles or standards – for instance in 
the case of CSR.  Some encouraged enterprises to incorporate on a voluntary basis internationally 
recognized CSR  standards, guidelines and principles in their internal policies, while others included 
specific provisions requiring investors to protect the environment, abstain from seeking exceptions 
other than those established by law, or provide information on the conduct of their businesses.  Some 
examples drew from internationally agreed instruments, such as guidelines or declarations, which 
they deemed could be used as a reference in the framework. Some Members also shared examples 
from their own domestic and regional frameworks pursuing  related objectives.  
2.16.   Several participating Members stated their openness to consider the inclusion of related 
articles, notably on CSR and anti -corruption, in a future framework , and that  existing international 
standards could serve as a basis  in this respect . Finally, the examples as well as the ensuing 
discussion highlighted the relationship between some of these issues and other previously discussed 
elements of the framework – such as the linkage between transparency and the promotion of 
responsible business  conduct or the fight against corruption .  
3  ANY OTHER INVESTMENT -FACILITATION RELATE D ISSUE S 
3.1.  No issue was raised under this agenda item .   INF/IFD/R/4  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4  COMPENDIUM  OF EXAMPLES  
4.1.  As agreed at the previous meeting, the Coordinator had prepared under his responsibility a n 
updated version of the  "Compendium of Text-Based Examples " (INF/IFD/RD /5/Rev. 2) for discussion  
at the meeting . The Coordinator recalled that t he Compendium  aimed at organizing the examples 
submitted in a coherent and user -friendly manner. It was a tool int ended to facilitate open, 
transparent and inclusive discussions. The content, structure, and wording of the Compendium d id 
not, in any way, prejudge the position or views of Members on any of the elements and issues under 
discussion.  
4.2.  A key group of propon ents thank ed the Coordinator for the excellent work in updating the 
Compendium . They saw value in making  the best use of the discussions to date, and the 
well-designed Compendium. Pursuant to the objective defined in the 2017 Joint Ministerial 
Statement aiming at the development of a multilateral framework, the group wished the discussions 
to enter into a more result -oriented phase  – in which participating Members would focus on a single 
text, and start crafting a potential outcome on investment facilitation for the WTO Twelfth Ministerial 
Conference ( MC12 ). The group encourage d the Coordinator to consult Members and reflect on how 
to best structure and steer the discussions after the summer break. They hoped that by the 
stocktaking meeting to be h eld on 18 July , Members would have a clear picture and would be able 
to set the directions for the work ahead . 
4.3.  Many participating d elegations reiterated their support to the Compendium, which was deemed 
a very useful tool to organize the issues under the d ifferent elements and show the areas of 
convergence  – considering it to provide a solid basis to take stock at the July meeting and to advanc e 
towards a new phase in the second half of the year.  It was stressed that the process should continue 
to be open -ended, transparent and inclusive  – and that it was important to foster the widest possible 
participation, notably from developing countries, in the Structured Discussions .  
4.4.  The Coordinator indicated that a n updated version  of the Compendium , including the e lements 
discussed  at this meeting, would be prepared and circulated ahead of the next meeting.  In reply to 
the statements made, he undertook to organize bilateral consultations with  all interested delegations  
to receive their feedback on their assessment o f the example -based Structured Discussion in the 
first half of 2019 and on how to make progress on investment facilitation towards MC12. He 
announced his intention to prepare and circulate a "stock-taking and next steps " document prior to 
the 18 July meeti ng to serve as the basis for the discussion s. The document  would reflect Members' 
comments and suggestions , including those from the bilateral consultations to be held . Finally, he 
encouraged Members to participate in the July meeting , at the highest possible level of 
representation , so as to provide further direction to the Structured Discussions .  
5  OTHER  BUSINESS  
5.1.  Representatives of the OECD  and the ITC made statement s under this agenda item.8 These 
were circulated to all Members in room documents INF/ IFD/RD/3 6 and 3 7, respectively.9 The 
representative from  the ITC provide d participating Members with a preview of the ITC's flagship 
report  known as the "Small and Medium -sized Enterprise Competitiveness Outlook ". He underscored 
that, in order to contribut e fully to the SDGs, SMEs need better access to finance, and in particular 
to foreign investment . The OECD  representative notably emphasized that  investment facilitation 
needed a whole -of-government approach , and that policymakers, regulators, investment promotion 
agencies all had a key role to play to streamline and speed up administrative procedures and 
requirements for investors. Both representatives highlighted  that their organisations stood ready to 
support the WT O and its Members as the initiative progressed towards developing a possible 
multilateral framework on investment facilitation  for development , notably by contributing analytical 
work.   
_________  
                                                
8 The following organizations were invited to attend the meetings as observers: IMF, ITC,  OECD, 
UNCTAD and the World Bank Group.  
9 The statements are also available on the dedicated investment facilitation website.