RESTRICTED  
  
G/TFA/M/3  
 
30 January 2018  
(18-0691) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Trade Facilitation    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION  
3 NOVEMBER  2017  
CHAIRMAN : HE MR DANIEL BLOCKERT ( SWEDEN ) 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  1 
2   NOTIFICATIONS BY MEM BERS TO THE TRADE FA CILITATION COMMITTEE  .................  2 
2.1   Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ..........................  2 
2.2   Notifications under Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2, and 12:2:2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
2.3   Notifications under Article  22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ................................ ...... 7 
3   UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES  OF THE TRADE FACILIT ATION AGREEMENT FACI LITY  ...........  9 
4   RULES OF PROCEDURE O F THE TRADE FACILITA TION COMMITTEE: REPO RT 
BY THE CHAIR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  10 
5   REMINDER OF UPCOMING  DEADLINES FOR NOTIFI CATION OF DEFINITIVE  
IMPLEMENTATION DATES  ACCORDING TO ARTICLE  16:4 OF THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEME NT ................................ ................................ ...........................  11 
6   DRAFT REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION T O THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  GOODS (G/TFA/W/3/REV .1) ................................ ..................  13 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  The Chairman  welcomed delegations to the meeting of the Trade Facilitation Committee 
(TF Committee , Committee , or TFC). He recalled that the proposed agenda for the  session ha d 
been circulated in document  WTO/AIR/TFA/3/Rev.1  and that i t included a number of  items . First 
on the list were Members' notifications to the Committee, covering all submissions mandated 
under the Trade Facilitation Agreement  (TF Agreement, Agreement , or TFA ). The Committee would 
begin with category  A B C notifications and then  turn to transparency submissions and notifications 
of technical assi stance and capacity building support.  After that, Members would receive an  update 
from the WTO Secretariat of the  activities of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility  (TFAF) 
before turning to the Committee's rules of procedure, where he would report on the latest state of 
play. After that, the WTO Secretariat w ould remind Members of upcoming deadlines for notification 
of definitive implementation dates , as mandated by article  16:4 of the T rade Facilitation 
Agreement . Members w ould then be invited to cons ider the draft of the annual report that the TFC 
was required to submit  to the Goods Council , and which had been  circulated in 
document  G/TFA/W/3/Rev.1.  The final agenda item w ould be "Other Business" , under which  the 
Chair would say a few words about the Committee's subsequent meeting.  He proposed that 
Members adopt the agenda.  
1.2.  The agenda was adopted . G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  NOTIFICATIONS BY MEM BERS TO THE TRADE FA CILITATION COMMITTEE  
2.1  Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the Trade Facilitation Agreement mandated a series of 
notifications under different articles. Many Members had already provided input. The largest 
number of submi ssions had been provided under a rticles  15 and 16 of the TFA – the so -called 
"category A B C  notifications ". Since the Agreement had entered into force , on 22  February  2017, 
the TF  Committee had received notifications  from the following Members: Burkina Faso 
(G/TFA/N/BFA/1 ); Argentina (G/TFA/N/ARG/1 ); Brazil ( G/TFA/N/BRA/1 ); Mozambique 
(G/TFA/N/MOZ/1 ); Tonga (G/TFA/N/TON/1 ); Thailand (G/TFA/N/THA/1 ); Botswana 
(G/TFA/N/BWA/1 ); Montenegro ( G/TFA/N/MNE/1 ); China ( G/TFA/N/CHN/1 ); Nigeria 
(G/TFA/N/NGA/1 ); Pakistan (G/TFA/N/PAK/1 and G/TFA/N/PAK/1/ Corr.1); Seychelles 
(G/TFA/N/SYC/1 ); Nicaragua ( G/TFA/N/NIC/1 ); Guyana ( G/TFA/N/GUY/1 ); Swaziland 
(G/TFA/N/SWZ/1 ); Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/TFA/N/KNA/1 ); Armenia ( G/TFA/N/ARM/1 ); Cambodia 
(G/TFA/N/KHM/1 ); Brunei Darussalam (G/TFA/N/BRN/1  and G/TFA/N/BRN/1/Add.1 ); Jamaica 
(G/TFA/N/JAM/1) ; and Mali (G/TFA/N/MLI/1) . 
2.2.  It being the first Committee meeting where Members sought to address substantive matters 
(beyond discussions on procedural issues and Secretariat updates on certain areas of work) , and 
having been requested by one delegation to opt for a more Member -driven way of looking at 
notifications, he wanted to enable delegations to be even more fully involved. He underst ood that 
some Members wished to say a few words about their notification s and/or those  of other Member s, 
which was why he would open the floor to all wishing to intervene  under this item . He proposed to 
begin  with notifications under articles  15 and 16 of the TFA , before then turning to the submissions 
on transparency , technical assistance , and support for capacity building.  
2.3.  The representative of Montenegro  informed the Committee that Montenegro's  category  B and 
C notification had been  officially submitted on 31  May 2017. By taking a conservative, cautious 
approach , the competent authorities , coordinated by Montenegr o's National Trade Facilitation 
Committee , had determined the categor y B and C designations and their related deadlines for 
implementation.  
2.4.  In the process of defining technical assistance and capacity building needs for category  C 
commitments , Montenegro had referred to best practice examples, as it had set itself the 
ambitious goal of moderni zing its entire cross -border system. For all provisions marked as  
category  C, Montenegro's  starting point was already a good one but nevertheless its sit uation 
would  be further strengthened and improved in cooperation with donors, especially with regard to 
the building of the administrative and occupational capacities of border authorities. There were 
currently three  ongoing projects that had been undertak en with support from international donors  
and that directly target ed Montenegro's category  C commitments  in the following areas : 
pre-arrival processing ; establishment of average release times ; and transit procedures  and 
control . 
2.5.  In addition , an inter -agency working group, under the supervision of Montenegro's National 
Trade Facilitation Committee , and led by the ministry  of finance  along with  experts from the  World 
Bank Group , was preparing a first National Trade Facilitation Strategy . The strategy would address 
system bottlenecks in cross -border trade and would  define a 5 -year framework for implementation 
of concrete trade facilitation reforms to support Montenegro's  further economic development . The 
new strategy intended  to reinforce  Montenegro's f ull compliance with its commitments under the 
TFA and other relevant internationa l and regional trade agreements in the context of its accession 
to the European Union.  Montenegro wished to express its appreciation to the Secretar y of the 
TF Committee and  to the TFAF for their support . 
2.6.  The representative of  Costa Rica  informed the Committee that Costa Rica had just presented 
to the WTO  Secretariat its pending notifications under categories  B and C, relat ing to 
articles 10:1: 1 and 10:2:2 of the TFA, in compliance with a rticle 16 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. This input was currently being processed by the WTO  Secretariat and would shortly be 
circulated  to Members . Costa Rica remained available for any clarification . G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.7.  The representative of  China  recalled that China had submitted its notification under a rticle 16 
of the TFA in May  2017, determining the indicative date s for the implementation of its category  B 
commitments . The provisions on outward processing ha d already been implemented in 
November  2016, ahead of schedule. China  called upon other Members also to notify the ir 
implementation dates for their category  B and C commitments.  
2.8.  The representative of the United States  appreciated the opportunity presented by this  
first substantive working session of the Trade Facilitation Committee . The United States had 
specific questions  with regard to the notifications received . 
2.9.  As a general comment , the United States  wished  to express its appreciation of the work and 
quite ambitious outcomes that Member s had demonstrated in their notifications. The U S believed 
that the format provided by the WTO Secretariat ha d greatly assisted Members to understand and 
process the notification s in a streamlined manner.  
2.10.   A few notifications  were of outstanding  quality , such as that from  Tonga. Seeing Tonga's 
categor y designations and the related implementation timelines was commendable  and 
noteworthy. The United States  also felt this way about Cambodia's notification – another 
least-developed country (LDC) w hose notification was v ery ambitious and reflected the country's  
ambitions regarding the TFA. It also provided a very helpful roadmap for donors  and was useful 
when thinking about sequencing.  
2.11.   A few notifications had been received from Members that had not yet complet ed their 
respective ratification process. The US was wondering if any such Member wanted to share their 
plans in that regard and to inform the Committee of their current status with regard to ratification. 
Having that information would provide an understa nding of where everybody stood.  
2.12.   The representative of the European Union  was pleased to see that Members were beginning  
to work on issues of  substance such that the actual state  of play began to emerge with regard to 
implementation of the Trade Facilitation  Agreement . She re called that the TFA was a novel 
Agreement , both in terms of the type of commitment s it set out and also regarding its overall 
architectu re. Th ose new features require d a special effort from all Members  to understand how 
best to work t ogether in the Trade Facilitation Committee . They required an in-depth analysis of 
the preparations  undertaken . 
2.13.   While keeping track of notifications was certainly very important , and one of the agenda 
items of the current Committee meeting , one should not lose  sight, as the US had just mentioned , 
of the overall situation and the fact that quite a few ratifications – roughly 25 % of the entire 
WTO Membership  – were still missing . The E U strongly encourage d Members who ha d not yet 
completed their ratification proc edures to do so and believe d that the Eleventh Ministerial 
Conference would provide  a good target date and incentive for achieving  the goal of having the full  
WTO Membership apply the TFA.  
2.14.   The European Union  commend ed those Members that ha d submitted their notifications and 
had invested a lot of work in putting together their commitments, working out the different 
categories of commitments and detailing their assistance needs for category  C. This work was 
helpful and necessary as Members  move d forward with their implementation of the TFA. The  EU 
looked at matching  technical assistance programmes with the concrete needs that ha d been 
identified in the ir notifications.  
2.15.   The European Union wished especially to commend those  LDCs that ha d submitted their 
category  B and C commitments ahead of the deadline. The European Union ha d also noted the 
high level of ambition in certain  LDC notifications , and commend ed that development.  
2.16.   Based on the notifications on the meeting's agenda, the European Union further observed 
with satisfaction that, in general, Members ha d put forward reasonable indicative implementation 
dates and hope d that the definitive dates would be close to th ose indicative dates. The  EU had also 
register ed, however , that s everal  developing count ries, some of which boasted  significant shares in 
world trade, ha d not yet submitted their notifications  and were somewhat  lagging behind  in that 
regard . The EU  encourage d Members to make additional  efforts to submit their notifications as G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 4 - 
 
  February  2018 approach ed, making it one year that the Trade Facilitation Agreement  had entered 
into force.  
2.17.   The representative of Cameroon  wished to focus on what had just been discussed  in terms 
of notifications under Articles  15 and 16  of the TFA.  
2.18.   Cameroon  congratulate d those Members that had already submitted their notifications . 
Reacting to the statements which had just been made, he wished to understand the logic of the 
analysis presented . He recalled that o ne delegation had stated  that the indicated  implementation 
timelines were " reasonable ". He wondered whether the principle of self -determination would be 
respected in th e Trade Facilitation  Committee or whether certain  Members would try to police  
others when it came to determining their implementation  time-frames.  
2.19.   A second  question related to the fact that many speakers had indicated that they were 
willing to adapt to evolving needs . It seemed to him that the Secretariat ha d not provided any 
figures in that regard. WTO publication s only mention ed figures with regard to benefits. They did 
not offer any analysis of the costs of the TFA's  implementati on. He would like to see this gap 
bridged to avoid asymmetrical information  and to ensure that the information available was not 
being used against those countries that most needed assistance in implementing th e 
TF Agreement. S ubstantive work h ad been carried out in evaluating  the cost of 
TFA implementation and that should  not be ignored in  the discussion. The Secretariat held data on 
implementation costs  from the self -assessments carried out by WTO Members in the framework of 
their needs assessment s. The void that ha d been created must be looked at and addressed . 
Cameroon  would  continue to study  the notifications submitted  and would probably revert to the 
Committee with additional comments at its next  meeting.  
2.20.   The representative of  the Republic of  Moldova  informed the Committee that Moldova would 
soon present its categor y B and C  notification s. The Moldovan government had recently adopted 
an action plan for the implementation of the T rade Facilitation Agreement  and a N ational Council 
on Trade Facilitation had been created in February of the current year under the office of the Prime 
Minister . Moldova looked forward to sharing with the Committee details of the reforms undertaken 
by the Moldovan government in designing a national action plan on trade facilitation ; these 
reforms were expected to be adopted soon. 
2.2  Notifications under Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 , and 12:2:2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  
2.21.   The Chairman  recalled that notifications under articles  1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 , and 12:2:2 of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement  all ha d transparency objectives, either in a broader context or in 
relation to a particular area , such as the operation of single window s, the  use of customs brokers , 
and customs cooperation.  
2.22.   Since the TF Agreement had entered into force, notifications had been received from the 
following Members under these articles : Brazil  (G/TFA/N/ BRA/2); Hong Kong, China  
(G/TFA/N/ HKG/1); United States (G/TFA/N/ USA/1); New Zealand (G/TFA/N/ NZL/1); Canada 
(G/TFA/N/CAN /1); Switzerland (G/TFA/N/ CHE/2 ); European Union (G/TFA/N/ EU/1); Republic of 
Korea  (G/TFA/N/ KOR/1); Japan  (G/TFA/N/J PN/2); the former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
(G/TFA/N/MKD /1); and China (G/TFA/N/ CHN/2). 
2.23.   The representative  of Canada  shared information on Canada's notification , which had been 
submitted in July  2017. The notification covered  all of the notification requirements under 
articles  1, 10 , and 12 of the TFA. It provide d information on and links to online resources of the 
government of Canada regarding import and export procedures, the operation of  Canada's single 
window , and the use of customs brokers for trade with Canada, as well as the contact point for an 
exchange of  information. It was essentially a list of internet links for various government 
departments and agencies . 
2.24.   The preparation of the  notification had required a high degree of interdepartmental 
consultation and cooperation so as to ensure that all aspects of Canada's trade measures and 
regulations  were covered ; it had therefore taken some time to  develop the notification but all of 
the relevant information could now be found in one place. Canada  saw it as a future resource  for G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 5 - 
 
  both Canadian as well as foreign firms interested in exporting or importing goods out of or into 
Canada.  
2.25.   Canada was pleased with the outcome of the work but did not view th e notification as a 
once only exercise. Canada would continue to update its notification  so as to reflect developments 
in national  measures as well as any feedback received from trading partners . The Canadian 
delegation encourage d other  Members to do the same.  
2.26.   The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  wished  to share 
information on its trade facilitation situation , and informed Members that its notification did not 
reflect all of the activities and results that had been achieved  to date . 
2.27.   The single w indow had been functional in his country since 2008 . It cover ed the issuing of 
export-import licences, in volving sixteen  government agencies, transport licences,  and the 
distribution of tariff quota s. It produced detailed statistical information on the time of issuance  of 
each of tho se licences,  in minutes , and function ed very efficiently. However, this in itself was  not 
sufficient. What was especially important to his country , as well as to other developing countries 
and LDCs, was inward processing, which occurred everywhere. And there existed , in its own case,  
a special application for sub mitting the requirements for inward processing a s well as for 
discharging imports and exports of raw materials and the final product s under inward processing.  
2.28.   There were three  global groups of companies : the first group comprise d businesses that 
knew the requirements and the legislation and wish ed to comply  with them; the second  group 
consisted of enterprises that wished to  compl y, but did not have the capacity ; and the third group 
was made up of companies that were not inclined to comply with  the regulation s – they were 
created for special purposes . The government  aimed to help the second  group  of compa nies. 
2.29.   Communication between companies and government agencies  needed to  focus on what was 
necessary. It was also important to reduce costs and , to that end, the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia ha d reduced or eliminated almost all fees at its borders for special licences, customs 
terminals, freight forwarders,  and 24/7 customs clearance . That included very different types  of 
operations , bearing in mind that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have sea 
ports.  
2.30.   An element that required  further  discussion , together with the World Customs Organization, 
was local customs clearance , whereby  companies that could be trusted were allo wed to do their 
import and export -related customs clearance on their own premises , without having to come to 
the official customs terminals  or the terminals of other agencies. This was a possibility that existed 
in his country.  
2.31.   Another issue of importance, especially for devel oping countries , was small consignments , 
which  helped companies reduce their costs and ma de customs clearance  more efficient. In the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there existed a computerized system  that allowed for 
repeatedly required licences to be  made available electronically.  
2.32.   Finally , there was the subject of  authorized economic oper ators, which was likewise 
important to  trade  facilitation . A similar system operate d in the former Yugoslav Republ ic of 
Macedonia,  where the first of several authorizations  had been issued , even if more work was still 
required. It was very important for these authorizations to receive international recog nition.  There 
existed some bilateral agreements addressing th e issue but more still needed to be done. His 
delegation was willing to continue sharing its experience with other WTO  Members.  
2.33.   The representative of Norway  informed the Committee that his delegation had prepared 
notifications under articles  1 and 12 of the TFA . He apologi zed for th e somewhat late action , 
emphasizing that Norway remained an enthusiastic  advocate  of transparency . 
2.34.   The representative of China  informed  the Committee that, earlier that week, China had 
submitted a notification under article 1:4 of the TFA. China had offered information on enquiry 
points  and thank ed the WTO Secretariat for its efficient work so as to permit inclusion of China's 
latest notification in the agenda of the current meeting at such  short notice. China would  submit 
further notifications  in due course . G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.35.   As far as notification s under articles 10:4: 3 and 12:2: 2 of the TFA were concerned , relating 
to the operation of the single window and to customs cooperation , China had designated its 
measures under category  B and would  inform the TF Committee about when they would be 
implemented . 
2.36.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  remarked that information on transparency 
notifications was  very useful to the business sector, in particular for small and medium -sized 
enterprises ( SMEs ). Companies were attracted to conduct ing business in places that maintain ed a 
high level of  transparency with respect to import and export procedures. Hong Kong, China ha d 
been enjoying the benefits of a free and transparent regime and encourage d other Members also 
to turn this opportunity to their  advantage by submitting  their transparency notifications as soon 
as possible . 
2.37.   There was  much flexibility in the presentation of notific ations under S ection  I of the TFA. 
Hong Kong, China had chose n to group the information according to types of goods , as they 
believed  that to be the most user-friendly for their clients. Members were at liberty  to select  the 
optimal  way of presenting the relevant information so as to facilitate the operations of their 
traders. The  WTO Secretariat had set out the information regarding Members ' transparency 
notifications on the website of the  TFA database  in a very useful way, which allowed traders to 
search for it easily. Hong Kong , China wished to th ank the WTO  Secretariat for having done an 
excellent job . 
2.38.   For Hong Kong, China,  trade facilitation did not simply imply compliance with the TFA . 
Rather, it was an attitude, which allowed for  many possibilities in the effort to facilita te trade. 
Hong Kong, China had  recently s et up a dedicated TFA  webpage to promote the TFA to the general 
public, to collect suggestions on trade facilitation matters , and to offer a  link to the 
WTO TFA database, which was a gateway to information on each WTO Member.  Hong Kong, China  
looked forward to hea ring other Members' experience s and ideas for enrich ing the pool of 
possibilities for making the TFA as relevant as possible to the trading community . 
2.39.   The representative of Japan  informed  Members that Japan' s notification cover ed all of the 
information mandated  by the  relevant articles  of the Trade Facilitation Agreement . Japan' s 
domestic import -export system involved many m inistries i n each field . That made the system 
somewhat  compl ex, which was why Japan had attempted to present it in a manner that maximized 
simplicity while at the same time providing sufficient information . The goal was to make it easier 
for Members to access the information they need ed. Japan's interest was  to ensure high 
transparency based on the ob ligation regarding publication set out by a rticle 1 of the TFA. Japan  
believed  that transparency provided  benefits not only to Members , but also to trader s, including to 
micro, small and medium -sized enterprises ( MSMEs ). Japan was prepared  to share its experience s 
and practice s regarding the implementation of Section  I of the T rade Facilitation Agreement  in 
future meetings , if needed.  
2.40.   The representative of the European Union  mentioned that , like others , the EU believed  that 
the notifications under S ection  I of the TFA were  important for al l Members as they provide d the 
necessary transparency and easily accessible information that traders and interested partie s 
needed for trade purpos es. 
2.41.   The EU had provided the requested info rmation before the summer break. While  the setting 
out and listing of the various publication  sources was  generally  available online , via Internet , the 
EU was certainly  aware that the q uality of the  tools and content were important. Like others , the 
EU would be happy to provide additional information and updates in the fu ture. In addition, they  
wished to  flag that all relevant EU -level information had been notified before the summer break. 
However , the publication requirements under a rticle 1 of the TFA also include d matters in relation 
to which additional  detail needed st ill to be provided , notably in relation to measures that were 
applied at the level of individual EU  member States . The EU  was currently  in the process of 
compiling and completing this notification and would  be submitting this updated information in due 
course . 
2.42.   The representative of the United States  introduce d the US  notification  on articles  1:4, 10:4, 
10:6, and 12: 2 of the TFA. As required by the TF Agreement , the United States  wished to notify a 
complete list of all published locations for  procedures, regulations , and requirements necessary for G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 7 - 
 
  importing, exporting , and transiting through the United States,  the location of US  enquiry points 
and information on their single window portal , as well as the information on customs brokers and a 
contact point for cus toms cooperation and for the TF  commi ttee. 
2.43.   The US  had prepared the document with input from numerous US  government agencies, 
working through its National Trade Facilitation Committee . Bey ond the requirements of  the TFA, 
the US had wished to  include all additional information available to them and that they had made 
available on their  website. Some of the additional information would be very useful to Members 
and to Membe rs' traders, w ho were its real beneficiaries . It included such items  as trade fact 
sheets and handbooks, informed compliance publications, product specific trade guidance , and 
online resources f or trade enforcement efforts. T he notification was extensive and  would be easy 
for the trade community to navigate. The US  wished to give traders the possibility  to access the 
relevant information and hyperlinks directly from t he document . 
2.44.    Like Hong Kong, China, the US wished to thank  the WTO Secretariat for the presentation of  
the pertinent information on the TFA database website . Its reformulation and presentation  made  it 
easy for interested parties  to find the specific information and links that would be  most helpful to 
them. The intention was to create a comprehensive and us er-friendly resource to guide traders 
through the process as they learn ed to import into and to trade with the United States. The  US 
hoped that it would be of value also to other Members and s aw it as a useful tool. The US would 
continue to update its information  as necessary and was more than willing to share its  experience 
of compiling such  information . 
2.3  Notifications under Article  22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
2.45.   The Chairman moved the meeting to the next group of notifications, which were manda ted 
under article  22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and deal t with information on assistance an d 
support for capacity building . Since the TFA's entry into force, notifications had been received from 
the following Members: Norway  (G/TFA/N/N OR/1); United States  (G/TFA/N/USA/ 2); Japan  
(G/TFA/N/JPN/ 1 and G/TFA/N/JPN/1/Rev.1 ); Switzerland  (G/TFA/N/CHE/ 1); Canada  
(G/TFA/N/CAN/ 2); European Union  (G/TFA/N/EU/ 2); and New Zealand  (G/TFA/N/NZL/ 2). 
2.46.   The representative of Cameroon  said that his delegation was still giving its consideration to 
these  notifications in capital . As a preliminary remark , he expressed  the view that  there was little 
disaggregation  of data in  the notifications and that, in some cases , the technical assistance 
notifications d id not conc ern WTO  Members. Sometime s they we re of interest to international 
organizatio ns, but  counted as support for developing countries.  Sometimes the n otified activities 
were good for  consultants or lobbyists  but not directly for the countries that were  supposed ly the 
beneficiaries. Cameroon  wished this  aspect to be improved so that notifications  would be more 
readable . It was necessary to know how much money had been invested and for what it had been 
used. Sometimes a considerable amount of resources was spent but without any real acquisition of  
capacity building for implementation. For Cameroon  and African countries in general , capacity 
building for implementation had been at the ver y heart of the negotiations of S ection  II of the TFA , 
but this aspect  had not been  fully addressed in the  notifications . Cameroon would revert to the 
matter with additional comments in due course.  
2.47.   The representative of the United States  informed the Committee that, as required by the 
TFA, the United States had submitte d an a rticle 22 notification. The  US delegation was pleased to 
see this item  on the agenda of the current meeting.  
2.48.   As required by the TFA, the notification looked  back to actions already taken . The United 
States had disbursed over US$100  million in support for t echnical assistance and capacity building. 
They had supported over 128  projects, covering  47 indivi dual countries and five  regions. The US  
looked forward to continuing the se projects an d to engaging with the countries  benefitting from 
them. The United Stat es looked at the notifications from developing and least -developed  countries 
as the start ing point  for consultations on capacity building. The category  B and C  notifications 
began  a conversation  on delivering aid and support and allowed for an understand ing of priorities 
and of sequencing  issues . 
2.49.   The representative of  Canada  present ed the notification  that Canada had submitted in July 
in accordance with article 22 of the TFA . The notification  contained  information regarding the G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 8 - 
 
  assistance and support for capacity building for TFA implementation that Canada ha d provided in 
the past , as well as contact po ints for further information. The submission outlined  a variety of 
projects that directly and indirectly support ed the implementation of the TFA in a  range of partner 
countries , and included  contributions to multi -donor funds as well as bilateral and regional 
programmes. 
2.50.   The notification contained  a brief description of each project, the total budget for all years , a 
historical picture, disbursements for the most recent calendar year available  (which , for Canada,  
was 2015), information on the beneficiary country or region, the  implementing agency , and also a 
link to a department al database containing further information regarding the projects. The 
notification  had been  compiled on the basis of the relevant information from the OECD  creditor 
reporting system  and it  used the most recent data available , which was  that from 2015. Canada 
would  endeavour to update that  information once  more recent figu res were availa ble. 
2.51.   The representative of  the European Union  commented on the EU's notifications under 
article 22 of the TFA , which had been presented in July  2017. In that notification, the EU had gone 
to great  lengths in coordinating effectively with its member States in order to provid e a picture 
that was as comprehensive as possible. Without go ing into too much detail on how th e information 
had been compiled , it could be said that the y had compl ied with both the text of a rticle 22 and its 
spirit. The EU saw these noti fications, above all , as a transparency tool for Members who were 
looking to find partners and funding for their needs . 
2.52.   It was worth highlighting that t he EU  notification contained one  element that was forward 
looking . It showed commitments for 2017 and 2018 – funding that was in the pipeline . Having this 
information was particularly helpful for Members who were looking to find partners for their 
category  C commitments. The EU was looking at the category  C commitment s in that light  and had 
tried to respon d by putting together information on program mes at both EU level and regarding 
EU member S tates with the goal of matching these to the needs of other WTO Members. The EU 
was very open to helping with the matchmaking work. The EU was well aware that this wa s a 
priority and invite d Members looking for partners to help them with the implementation of their 
commitments  to contact the EU  and other delegations . 
2.53.   The representative of Japan  mentioned that Japan had already ful filled its notification 
requirement regarding a rticle 22 of the TFA. To allow for a  better understanding , Japan took the  
opportunity briefly to introduce what Japan's technical assistance (TA)  activities look ed like and 
how they work ed. 
2.54.   There were three  types of implementation : bilateral coo peration ; program mes put in place 
by Japan's International Cooperation Agency (JICA) ; and those overseen by the World Customs 
Organization (W CO). As far as bilateral cooperation  was concerned, Japan had p rovide d a variety 
of short-term training program mes in order to mee t the needs of assistance -requesting countries. 
JICA program mes were designed for long -term project s, mainly from Japan's customs agency. A 
noteworthy characteristic was the embed ding of customs experts in the customs authorities  of 
differen t countries.  
2.55.   WCO program mes were very useful tools . One of the major activities under that umbrella 
involved a scholarship program me that Japan provided in collaboration with the WCO. The 
scholarship was granted for customs officials from developing countries to obtain a master 's 
degree in Japan.  In addition, Japan  support ed WCO activities , such as training program mes, in a 
variety of areas. To strengthen such activities, Japan had doubled its contributio n to the WCO in 
2015.  
2.56.   This report offered a brief snapshot  of Japan's TA  activities. Japan wished to continue  its 
effort s in the area in order to achieve full implementation of the TFA . It was important for 
Members to wor k together in the TF  Committee.  
2.57.   The representative of New Zealand  provided information on New Zealand's technical 
assistance and support for capacity building . She considered it useful to join other s in illustrating 
New Zealand's ongoing work.  G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.58.   New Zealand provide d trade facilitation -related capacity building and technical assistance 
through  bilateral joint commitments for development and through support for regional 
organizations, in particular the Oceania Customs Organization. While t heir geographic focus was 
their pacific neighbourh ood, New Zealand also funded an assistance program me for 
ASEAN  countries unde r thei r regional trade agreeme nt. 
2.59.   In 2016, activities  had ranged from enabling trade officials from LDCs to engage in regional 
trade discussions and to participate in capacity bui lding, to more substantive partnerships for 
specific customs authorities and to the encouragement of efficient and effective border 
management sys tems and leadership program mes. New Zealand  hoped that Members had found 
its notification helpful  in showing how such projects support ed the implementation of the TFA . New 
Zealand encou raged other donor Members also to notify their technical assistance and ca pacity 
building activities.  
2.60.   The Chairman  noted that the notification issue was an item that in all likelih ood would  be on 
the TF Committee 's agenda for the foreseeable future. The discussions had been a very valuable 
first exchange and he hoped that Members would take advantage o f them in order to access the 
information that they needed. 
2.61.   The Committee took not e of the statements made.  
3  UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES  OF THE TRADE FACILIT ATION AGREEMENT FACI LITY  
3.1.  The Secretariat  gave a report on TFAF  activities. As far as the Facility website was concerned , 
information had been collected on eLearning program mes that were being offered by partner 
organizations on trade facilitation . The information c ould now be found on the website , and the  
Secretariat colleague running the website could show delegates where the information was to be 
found. Currently  the information was on ly available in English although there existed several 
program mes in Spanish offered by the I nter-America n Development Bank.  
3.2.  As far as the grant program me was concerned, the Facility w ould offer grants for project 
preparation and project implementation . It was in the process of hiring some body to oversee th e 
program me. As soon as the Facility would be ready to launch the grant program me, it would 
provide the relevant details. Information, including application forms, would be posted on the 
TFAF website  once it was ready.  
3.3.  As far as technical assistance and capacity building  were concerned, the Facility and other 
donors and organizations were available to help Members that were still working on their 
ratification or on the preparation of their category  A B C notifications . 
3.4.  The F acility ha d taken part in  several events, many of which had been  coordinated with other 
agencies and partners. At the end of July , the Facility had conducted a national workshop in El 
Salvador.  It had  also provided a half-day workshop at the WTO for eight officials fr om the 
Shanghai Customs College. In September  2017, the Facility had funded 20  participants from 
16 countries to participate in a conference entitled  "Trade Facilitation Innovations for Sustainable 
Development in Asia and the Pacific ". This event was co -organized by the Asian Development 
Bank, UNESCAP, the TFAF , and the g overnment  of Indonesia. In 2016, a case study competition 
had been conducted. Jamaica and Zambia had been the joint winners. They had been funded to 
visit Indonesia to present their case studies . 
3.5.  The Facility had also participated in a conference on coordinated border management 
organized by the World Bank , in Montenegro,  and with the support of the government of 
Montenegro. The aim of th e event had been to improve collaboration between different border 
agencies and between the border agencies and the  private sector. In October  2017, a national 
needs assessment had been conducted in the Kingdom of Bahrain with the help of facilitators from 
the International Trade Centre (ITC). The Facility had also participated in an event in Ghana, one 
in Paraguay,  and a UNECE  "single window" conference in Geneva . 
3.6.  2017 was the year of TF and plant health . The Facility and the STDF had participated in a 
workshop at  the Food and Agriculture Organization to raise awareness among experts dealing with 
the International Plant Protection Convention about the importance of the TFA, synergies with the G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS  Agreement) , and opportunities to 
strengthen coordination between SPS  agencies and other border agencies.  
3.7.  The Facility had also participated in the eighth  meeting of the WCO  Trade Facilitation 
Agreement Working Group. The meeting had featured a presentation by the TFC  Chair, 
experience -sharing sessions on post clearance audit, as well as sessions on the single window and 
border agency cooperation . There had also been some break -out sessions in which WCO  members , 
private sector and other organizations  had been present. T he new chair of the WCO  Working 
Group came from Sweden. The vice-chair from India. The following year, India would be the chair. 
The ou tgoing chair was Carlos Enriquez , a Mexican delegate . It had been his last meeting and 
Sweden w ould take over in the spring.  
3.8.  Another upcoming event was a  national workshop in Ecuador that would be conduct ed in 
collaboration with the World Bank.  The Facility would also participate in an event organ ized by 
Korean Customs. There would also be an event in Argentina in December. The Facility, together 
with other organizations, including some private sector associations , would take part in a  2-hour 
event with the title "Trade Facilitation on Track". It w ould be similar to the event held in Nairobi . It 
was scheduled for 12 December  2017, but might be moved depending on what other events were 
happening. The venue was in one of the meeting rooms in the Hilton Hotel  that did not have  high 
security so that everyone who had registered for the conference  could attend. The event would 
consist o f two  sessions . The first  session w ould be a panel of government officials and private 
sector representatives that would take an overall look at the TFA. The second  half would be 
dedicated to case studies on the implementation of specific provisions . Closer to the time of the 
event , the Facility would make information available through its website  and through other 
channels. There would also be a table in the atrium o f the hotel where all the main events w ould 
take place . The Facility would not only distribute its own materials but also materials from o ther 
organizations and donors . She recalled that the Facility website advertised events relating to the 
TFA even if the Facility was not taking part in them.  
3.9.  The Committee took note  of the statement s made. 
4  RULES OF PROCEDURE O F THE TRADE FACILITA TION  COMMITTEE: REPORT BY  THE 
CHAIR  
4.1.  The Chairman reported that  work on the TFC's rules of procedure had continued since the 
previous  Committee meeting , in July  2017 – both among delegations and in consultations held by 
the Chair. All Members had been invited to an open -ended session on 13  October, which had been 
exclusively dedicated to th e issue.  
4.2.  What had emerged from that session was that, while progress had been made , in that 
Members had been able to build add itional elements  and common ground, there were still a few 
areas where a small number of delegations sought additional clarifications or had divergent 
opinions. As a result, it had not yet been possible to agree on a set of rules, even tho ugh there 
was a l argely shared common understanding of the proposal put forward by Argentina, Norway,  
and Japan ( G/TFA/W/2  and G/TFA/W/2 /Add.1 ), which remain ed the only written proposal on the 
table.  
4.3.  In light of th at development, concerns had been raised about work on th e issue taking up a 
disproportionate amount of time, at the expense of the time otherwise available for other, more 
substantive matters. He share d the wish that the Committee's efforts to adopt its rules of 
procedure should not overshadow its work on the oth er matters mandated under the Trade 
Facilitation  Agreement , and believe d that spending the majority of the time available on procedural 
matters would not be time well spent. He had therefore suggested that the Committee revert to 
the issue whe n there was a possibility  to reach consensus , and Members seemed to agree  with 
that assessment.  
4.4.  He had been informed that there ha d been some additional progress s ince th at last meeting 
but that there was as yet still no consensus . He therefore believ ed that it would not be meaningful 
to go through another round of exchanges on the matter as such an approach risked a repetit ion 
of what had already been said. This was not to suggest that the Committee should abandon their 
work on th e matter ; to the contrary , he urged all Members to continue their consultation s and to G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 11 - 
 
  reach out to each other. He remain ed available to anybody wishing to consult him and intended to 
reach out himself to Members ahead of the next Committee meeting. The a mbition shoul d be to 
adopt a set of rules of procedure as soon as possible. At the same time, it seemed advisable to set 
the issue aside for the moment , since there did not yet appear to be any consensus , and there 
were many other issues that the Committee had to addre ss. He invited delegations to react to or 
report on new developments on this issue . 
4.5.  The representative of Argentina  inform ed the Committee that the proponents had held 
bilateral consultations with other delegations , which had led to meaningful  progress . They were 
continuing to work on a wording that would address  the concerns held by a few Members . 
4.6.  The Chairman  thanked Argentina for the update. He expressed his appreciation for the effort 
that was being made to reach  consensus on this issue and he encoura ged Members to continue 
their work.  
4.7.  The Committee took note  of the Chair's report  and of the statements made.  
5  REMINDER OF UPCOMING  DEADLINES FOR NOTIFI CATION OF DEFINITIVE  
IMPLEMENTATION DATES  ACCORDING TO ARTICLE  16:4 OF THE TRADE FA CILITATION 
AGREEMENT  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that arti cle 16:4 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement mandat ed the 
WTO Secretariat to remind Members of upcoming deadlines for the notifications of definitive 
implementation dates for category  B and C designations. The Secretariat would therefore now 
provide such a reminder in order to meet this requirement.  
5.2.  The Secretariat  informed that, when reflecting upon the best way to meet this obligation 
under the Trade Facilitation A greement, it had seemed most useful to embed the reminder within a 
broader update on the various time -frames and deadlines for notifications  so that Members could 
place it within  a larger context.  
5.3.  To facilitate this task, the Secretariat would break down the various elements of the TFA's 
implementation architecture into different parts and focus on the main milestone events and 
related action s required by developing and least -developed Members . Additional action required by 
other stakeholders had not been focused on, for the purpose of the exercise , as including them 
would have added an additional layer of complexity  - and because that was not covered by 
article  16:4 of the TFA . 
5.4.  A first major milesto ne had been reached on 22  February  2017 when the TF  Agreement had 
entered into force . That had been the time of the first  deadline for action in the 
category  A B C notification area. It was a deadline for developing countries  only as LDCs had not 
yet been required to notify anything related to categor ies A B or C. Developing Memb ers wishing 
to make use of the S ection  II flexibilities were obliged to provide their category designations as 
well as indicative dates for the implementation of category  B and C  commitments . In addition, 
they were required  to submit  information on the technical assistance and capacity building they 
required for the implementation of all provisions designated as falling under category  C. 
5.5.  The next major deadline would fall on 22  February  2018, and  applied to both developing 
countries and LDCs. For LDCs , it would be the first time they would have to take action in the 
category  A B C area. In specific terms, they would be expected to notify the ir category  A B C 
designations . As far as category  B commitments were concerned, t he TFA further state d that LDCs 
"may notify their corresponding indicative dates for implementation of these provisions". 
Developing countries were therefore required to provide definitive implementation dates for  their 
category  B commitments , – which was the aspect where the reminder under a rticle 16:4 of the 
TFA came in. In addition , developing countries (as well as relevant donor Members ) were also 
meant to provide information "on the arrangements maintained or entered into that are necessary 
to provide assistance and support for capacity building to enable implementation of C ategory  C" 
commitments.  G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.6.  One year later, 22 February  2019, was the date by when LDCs were required to provide 
information on the assistance and support for capacity building that they considered necessary  for 
the implement ation of  their category  C commitments.  
5.7.  The next deadline would approach  on 22  August  2019 when developing countries were 
required to provide definitive implemen tation dates for their category  C commitments and  - 
together with donor Members  - to inform of progress in the provision of assistance and support for 
capacity building.  
5.8.  No later than 22  February  2020, each least -developed Member was required to  confirm its 
category designations and notify its dates for the implementation of its category  B commitments. 
If any such Member, before this deadline, believe d that it require d additional time to notify its 
definitive dates for category  B commitments, it could request that the TFC extend the reporting 
period sufficiently to noti fy its dates.  
5.9.  By 22  February  2021, least-developed  country Members and relevant donor Members were 
meant to provide information on the arrangements maintained or entered into that ar e necessary 
to provide assistance and support for capacity building to enable implementat ion of category  C 
commitments. At the same time, least -developed countries should notify their indicative dates for 
the implementation of corresponding category  C comm itments covered by the assis tance and 
support arrangements.  
5.10.   By 22  August  2022, which was the last ma jor milestone date foreseen by S ection  II of the 
TF Agreement, LDCs were required  to provide definitive dates for category  C commitments  and to 
inform the Committee – together with relevant donor Members – of progress made in the provision 
of technical assistance and capacity building support . 
5.11.   The art icle 16:4 obligation  that the C hair had mentioned oblige d the WTO Secretariat to 
remind a developing coun try – and, at a later stage , also an LDC – that had not yet notified a 
definitive date for the implementation of those provisions that it had designated under category  B 
or C, of the approaching deadline  for doing so. The first such deadline was 22  February  2018. This 
was the date  by when developing countries were required to notify their definitive implementation 
dates for their category  B commitments . 
5.12.   At the time of reporting, the following developing Members had provided indicative 
implementation dates  but had not yet notified their definitive dates : Albania ; Argentina ; Armenia ; 
Botswana ; Brazil ; Brunei Darussalam ; China ; Fiji; Georgia ; Guyana ; India; Jamaica ; Mauritius ; 
Montenegro ; Nicaragua ; Nigeria ; Pakistan ; Seychelles ; Swaziland ; Thailand;  and Tonga . Two of 
these countries, Argentina and Tonga , had not yet completed their domestic ratification process es, 
which implied  that the TFA had not yet taken effect for them.  There were also a few developing 
Members that had not yet provided indicativ e implementation dates . One Member, St  Kitts and 
Nevis, had already provided both  their indicative and their definitive implementation dates for 
categories  B and C . The WTO  Secretariat remained at Members ' disposal for anybody seeking 
assistance with their  notifications.  
5.13.   The representative of China  thank ed the S ecretariat for the presentation and for the 
reminder. She re iterated that China w ould notify its definitive implementation date s for category  B 
measures  within the timelines stipulated by the TF Agreement. 
5.14.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the WTO Secretariat for a useful overview of the 
upcoming deadlines for notification commitments. Switzerland also appreciated the efforts  that had 
been made in the area of technical assistance and welcom ed the Members ' notifications and the 
related presentations. Switzerland  congratulate d those Members , LDCs in particular , which  had 
already succeeded in  notify ing their implementation dates.  While it was encourag ing to see these  
notifications,  it was also important to recall the significant  shortfall that remain ed with regard to 
the overall goal of receiving all those notifications required under the TF  Agreement.  
5.15.   The notifications provided i mportant indicators and contribute d towards  the target ed 
provision of technical  assistance in accordance with S ection  II of the  TFA. About half of the 
implementation commitme nts had still to be designated, s ome of which were already due as of the 
date the TFA had entered into force . Switzerland  welcome d Membe rs' sharing the state of play on G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 13 - 
 
  their notification processes and invite d them to equally share if the y faced challenges related to 
fulfilling their notification commitments so that one could help them  to notify as requested by the 
Agreement.  
5.16.   The Committee  took note  of the reminder by the Secretariat and of the statements made.  
6  DRAFT REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION T O THE 
COUNCI L FOR TRADE IN GOODS  (G/TFA/W/3/REV.1 ) 
6.1.  The Chairman  noted that , according to the "Procedures for an annual overview of 
WTO Activities and for reporting under the WTO" , which had been adopted by the General Council 
on 15  November  1995, all B odies constituted under Agreements in Annex  1A of the 
WTO Agreement were required to submit an annual factual report to the  Council for Trade in 
Goods, which was then to take note of tho se reports.  
6.2.  In line with th at requirement, a draft report had been circulated on 20  October  2017, in 
document  G/TFA/W/3 , for the consideration of th e TF Committee. The draft had been  updated on 
2 November  2017, the only change being the inclusion of additional notifications that had not been 
listed in the first draft. He asked if any  Member wished to share  reactions to the report.  
6.3.  There being no  request for the floor, he suggest ed tha t the TF  Committee adopt  the report.  
6.4.  The Committee adopted  the report.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  The Chairma n informed the Committee that the current meeting would be its last for that 
year. He proposed that Members meet again during the first quarter of 2018, although the final 
approval for and date of such meeting was still to be decided. Members would also have to decide 
on the issues that they wish ed to address at that meeting. There were a few obvious items  for 
inclusion , such as the issue of notifications , but there were surely also  other issues. Members 
would also have to agree on a date on which  to hold the dedicated session on technical assistance 
and support for capacity building that article  21:4 of the TFA require d the Committee to undertake 
at least once a year. 
7.2.  There were several possible ways of structuring that meeting, and Members would also have 
to address the issue of the involvement of  aid providers and partners from other organi zations . It 
was therefore  his intention to consult with Members on these matters ahead of th e next  meeting of 
the Committee . He hoped for a constructive dialogue . 
7.3.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairman for the very useful 
indications as to how he  propose d to proceed . There was a small , but nevert heless relevant 
organizational issue  that the EU wanted to raise. T he EU  encourage d the Secretariat and the 
Chairman  to give ample notice when schedul ing the next Trade Facilitation Committee meeting. 
They wished  to receive at least one  month 's notice  and to have a sense of the agenda 
approximately three  weeks ahead of the session. The EU required time to coordinate internally 
between  many different stakeholders.  
7.4.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that several delegations had invoked the need for 
advance planning and preparation. He did not want to say anything about specific dates at the 
moment as this was something that the Committee would have to decide upon in the following 
year and was an issue on which he wished to consult with Members. But the EU's request had 
been heard and note had been taken.  
7.5.  The representative of the United States  said that it was time for the TF Committee to begin  
thinking about addi tional work going forward . The US would participate  in that process  and 
welcome d the views of oth ers on the matter. Given the current challenges with respect to timing , 
one could perhaps consider circulat ing proposals that brought forward  ideas as a wa y to get people 
thinking.  From the M inisterial until Davos , things would be fairly dormant and then it would almost  
be February.  G/TFA/M/3  
 
- 14 - 
 
  7.6.  The US would like to see a greater focus in  the Committee o n Section  I elements, looking at 
individual provisions and perhaps approaching them from an experience -sharing angle. One could 
explore matters v is-à-vis capacity building  projects that were specific to individual articles of the 
TFA and bring in particular institutions that m ight have relevant expertise to share and/or to offer 
technical assistance  in those areas . There were a number of  items in S ection  I of the TFA that 
would be usefu l to bring forward and to discuss, including experience sharing on institutional 
issues such as  the formation of national TF committee s and the establishment of enquiry points. 
The US  envision ed a Member -driven, proposal -based approach wher e Members c ould put forward 
ideas that c ould be discuss ed if there were a  consensus  to do so . If Members were to come to a 
meeting prepared to share an experience in relation to an agreed upon topic , the resulting 
discussion could be very useful. He suggested that the Committee might wish to adopt a thematic 
approach , which  would require some forward planning . It would  therefore be useful to discuss  
what the TF Committee  might wish to do in the future.  
7.7.  With regard  to the Chairman's  reference to the dedicated session on assistance , the 
US considered it important that the Committee  hold a conversation about what such a session 
would be  intended to achieve. There were a number of el ements set out in the TF Agreement 
itself, but drafted  in the context of the post -notification phase. The dedicated session was to 
address  problems in implementation. What the US expect ed at th e current phase was that, 
through the agenda item on notifications, c ountries that ha d put forward a  category  B and 
C notification , and that faced challenges with their  category  C provisions , could voice those 
difficulties , enabling others to help. If there were assistance issues that need ed to be addressed , 
the time had come to address them so that the countries concern ed could comply with their 
requirements within the d eadlines stipulated by the TFA.  
7.8.  Consequently, when thinking about how the TF Committee  might wish to use th e dedicated 
session, it was useful to plan in advance . Members had just review ed the donor notifications on 
Article 22 of the TFA . There  had not been many  questions , causing the US to wonder if Members 
needed to rush into doing that exercise again. The dedicated session was meant to deal with 
problems that had arisen in the context of implementa tion and to review progress in the provision 
of assistance . If there were problems with the provision of assistance in the process of formulating 
notification s, it was important to hear about them immediately.  The US  would not want to collect 
them up and then wait for a once-a-year event  in which to address such problems . Article 21:4 of 
the TFA intended the  dedicated session to give Members  a better sense of how to approach the 
exercise . And it was not necessary to wait for that event to hear about any problems that Members 
may have encountered with regard to their implementation of the TFA.  
7.9.  The representative of  Norway  support ed the thoughts expressed by t he Chair with regard to 
the way ahead. He encouraged Members to build on the  positive atmosphere of the current 
meeting  when planning future work . Norway especially commend ed those Memb ers that ha d 
contributed to the discussion on the Committee's rules of procedure . He felt that consensus was  
close to being achieved , and wished to thank Members  for their efforts in that regard . 
7.10.   The Chairman recalled that he would invite Members to participate in consultations in the 
first quarter of 2018. Members could further rely on the fact that his door was always open. He 
invited all delegations wishing to share ideas on how to continue the work of the TFC to cont act 
him and/or the WTO  Secretariat.  
7.11.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  
7.12.   The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________