RESTRICTED  
  
G/TFA/M/5  
 
21 December 2018  
(18-8097) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Trade Facilitation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATIO N 
26 JUNE 2018  
CHAIR: HE MS DALIA KADIŠIENE  (LITHUANIA)  
Table of contents                     Pages   
 
1   MATTERS RELATING  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON AND ADMINISTRATIO N OF THE 
TRADE FACILITATION A GREEMENT  ................................ ................................ .................  2 
A. Organization of the Agenda – Inclusion of previously raised notifications: Proposal by the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
B. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  .......................  5 
C. Notifications u nder Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 and 12:2:2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade  Facilitation Agreement  ................................ .... 8 
E. Status of ratification and notification process  ................................ ................................  9 
2   EXPERIENCE SHARI NG/THEMATIC DISCUSSI ONS ................................ ....................  12 
A. Regional approaches to trade facilitation  ................................ ................................ .... 12 
B. Article 2 of the TFA (Opportunity to comment, information before entry into force, and 
consultations)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  13 
C. Other  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  13 
3   RECENT AND UPCOM ING ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ....... 13 
A. Report on OECD/WTO/G -20 Event on Trade Facilitation and Future Trade Cooperation  ..... 13 
B. Update by the WTO Secretariat on Activities of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility  .. 13 
4   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
 
  G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION A ND ADMINISTRATION OF  THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEME NT 
1.1.  The Chair welcomed delegations to the meeting of the Trade Facilitation Committee 
(TF Committee, Committee, or TFC ). She recalled that the proposed agenda had been circulated in 
WTO/AIR/TFA/5/Rev.1 and that it contained three main items to be discussed during the meeting: 
First, matters relating to the implementation and administration of the Trade Facilitation Agreem ent 
(TF Agreement, Agreement, or TFA) , starting with notifications presented since the last meeting, 
followed by an update on the state of the ratificat ion and notification processes. The second item 
referred to experience sharing and thematic discussions,  where delegations were invited to  share 
their experi ences with a thematic focus on  (i) regional approach es to trade facilitation and  (ii) 
article  2 of the TFA. Under this agenda item, Members  would also have  the opportunity to reflect on 
approaches to the  planning for future experience sharing sessions.  Following that, Members would 
be updated on recent and upcoming activities   
1.2.  The agenda was adopted . 
NOTIFICATIONS BY MEMBERS  
A. Organization of the Agenda – Inclusion of previously raised notifications: Propos al 
by the United States  
1.3.  The Chair recalled that the United States wished to present a proposal on the organisation of 
the agenda, in particular the inclusion of notifications that had already been addressed in the past.  
1.4.  The representative of the United S tates appreciated the opportunity to continue the 
conversation on how to better organize the work of the Committee, especially on how Members 
could shape an agenda that supported the implementation of the TF Agreement and contributed to 
a greater understan ding of trade facilitation practices among Members. The United States was of 
the view that the success of the TFA depended, in large part, on how Members approached the 
notification commitments included in the Agreement, both in Section I and Section II . The 
United  States was very pleased with the engagement on notifications during the last meeting. The 
US believed that notifications were the bedrock of the Committee, and were critical tools for 
implementation as well as the basis for information sharing am ong Members and with interested 
traders.  
1.5.  To make  best u se of notifications , it was  important to have a dynamic C ommitte e process that 
supported  an exchange of information , allowed for questions, and provided  for updates.  In reflecting 
upon the regular sessions of the Committee, the US had come to the conclusion that the agenda did 
not yet provide space for previously discussed notifications to appear on subsequent agendas in the 
event that Members did not conclude discuss ions of a notification or if responses to questions 
remained outstanding. A dedicated space on the agenda for carrying forward such items would 
provide continuity and predictability to the Committee process and would establish a routine process 
in line wit h how most other committees handle d tho se kinds of discussions.  The United States 
believed that the Committee would benefit from establishing an agenda item for previously discussed 
notifications  were discussions had not been concluded in an earlier meetin g. Th at was of course 
without prejudice to other items being added to an agenda or to other Members adding their ideas 
and thoughts . It was merely  one distinct area that the US considered  to help the Committee move 
forward.  
1.6.  The representative of Norway  supported the proposal by the United States and considered that 
a dedicated space on the agenda for the TFC would be useful.  
1.7.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the United States for the clarification of 
their proposal. She noted that, since the  first meeting of the Committee, about sixty notifications 
had been reviewed under articles 15 and 16 of the TFA. Out of those notifications, thirteen pertained 
to least developed country (LDC) Members. In addition, close to forty notifications had been re viewed 
under the so -called transparency notifications related to articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 10.6.2 and 12.2.2 of 
the TFA. The EU agreed that certain types of notifications could be reviewed even if they had already 
been addressed in a previous meeting. It seeme d to be natural for transparency notifications and G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 3 - 
 
  for the annual notifications on technical assistance if a Member failed to update a previous 
notification in those two areas.  
1.8.  The EU would appreciate if there were a means of having a view not only of the  notifications 
that had been made between meetings, but also of the notifications that were due. Given that 
Members were still at an early stage of implementation, the EU was of the view that the current 
priority was to have a comprehensive picture of the situation, not merely of the notifications that 
had been submitted. Consequently, the priority for the EU was to focus on notifications that were 
due. The EU also supported the proposal to revert to certain notifications, especially on transparency 
matters  in case of there having been updates. If a website or a contact point had been updated, 
Members should have the possibility to take note of that situation and to request another review of 
the related notification.   
1.9.  The representative of  Brazil  had some q uestions with respect to the US proposal and wished 
to convey a note of caution. It was not clear what was at stake even after the clarifications by the 
US. Brazil was of the view that the TF Committee should focus on more substantive issues, which 
were th e origin of meetings of the Committee. This included matters such as single window, the 
economic operators programme, risk management and other issues that were dealt with in the 
context of the TFA. Brazil would be interested in hearing, possibly from the WTO Secretariat, how 
notifications had been dealt with in TF bodies before.  
1.10.   As far as the so -called "category ABC notifications" were concerned, it was important to recall 
that the TFA set out for them to be made on the basis of the principle of self -designation. According 
to article 14.2 of the TFA, each developing country and LDC Member shall self -designate, on an 
individual basis, the provisions it wished to include in each category. Consequently, one had to 
wonder about the added value of having a syst ematic discussion on such a great number of 
notifications. Brazil reserved its right to revisit this subject when they had more details on what was 
at stake.  
1.11.   The representative of Korea  appreciated the suggestion by the United States on how to shape 
this agenda item of TFC meetings, specifically with regard to previously discussed notifications. In 
principle, Korea found it useful to have the opportunity to revisit notifications if the discussions had 
not concluded. They considered it to be normal practice  in WTO committees, unless there was a 
specific reason to object.  
1.12.   The representative of Nigeria  thanked the United States for having explained the rationale 
behind their initiative. He recalled that debates on notifications had been a recurrent topic in W TO 
committees. It was too early for the TFC to be overwhelmed with the issue of notifications. Nigeria 
would not object to looking at notifications at the appropriate time, but before examining 
notifications, Members should have discussions. The WTO Secret ariat usually gave an overview of 
the status of notifications, which was very useful and appropriate in that context. It was not for 
Members to begin such discussions. It was too early for that. Nigeria was mindful of the fact that 
the Committee had respon sibilities relating to the implementation of the TFA. However, as Brazil 
had already recalled, there were many issues. One had to consider matters relating to technical 
assistance and capacity building, for instance, which should be reflected. Nigeria was not against 
transparency as it provided benefits to both developed and developing Members, but it was too early 
in the day to focus on notifications and Members should not be overwhelmed by having to deal with 
that.  The challenge of implementation was the re and could not be overlooked, but all Members had 
obligations and one should opt for a cautious approach. Members should discuss the matter further. 
More time was needed to prepare and to ensure that the proposal would not in any way diminish 
the benefit s accruable from the implementation of the TFA.  
1.13.   The representative of China  hoped that the United States could clarify whether the proposed 
approach would cause unnecessary burdens to Members. Members who had concerns about 
notifications which had already  been discussed could make a request to include them in the agenda 
for the next meeting, on condition that there was no objection from another Member. There could 
be no automatic inclusion of already addressed notifications. It was recommended that the pra ctice 
of the TF Committee was consistent with that of other Committees.   G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.14.   The representative of  India said that it was not desirable to automatically carry forward earlier 
notifications. This would not prevent any interested Member seeking the inclusion of  a notification 
in the agenda for a subsequent Committee meeting.  
1.15.   The representative of Canada  viewed the TFC as an important venue for discussing the 
progress towards full implementation of the TFA , as well as the areas wh ere further assistance or 
work was needed.  All Members could probably agree that transparency was paramount if they wished 
to unlock the full potential of the TFA. Consequently, Canada believed that all Members would benefit 
from the opportunity to deepen the  dialogue on notifications t o the TFC.  
1.16.     Canada  appreciate d the robust dialogue that had taken place i n the previous meeting in May 
and believed that that approach serve d as a useful foundation upon which Members could  fulfil the 
work of the C ommittee going forward.  They also considered that, as a relatively new Committee, 
Members should be open to new ideas and seek continuous improvement in how they operated. 
Canada welcomed the suggestion by the United States to include space in the agenda to revisit 
notifications . They remained flexible as to how such idea would be operationalised but suggested 
two guiding principles to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. First, prior notice was essential to the 
extent that a Member responsible for a notification that would be su bject to discussion should be 
notified prior to the meeting, and with sufficient time to prepare in consultation with capital, as 
necessary. The second element referred to the fact that dialogues on notifications should take place, 
to the greatest extent, within the Committee. While bilateral communications were often helpful to 
obtain a deeper understanding, a robust exchange in the Committee would help ensure that 
Members shared the same information and had an equal understanding of the progress on 
notifications being made and the further work required.  
1.17.   During the course of the last meeting, a number of questions had been posed about several 
notifications and in certain cases, the delegation concerned had not been able to respond. In several 
cases, the re levant delegation had not even been present at the meeting and questions were left 
outstanding. It would be appropriate for the Committee to have a space or process in the future to 
revert to questions that were posed and not answered.  
1.18.   The representative of the United States  said that they did not propose that any topic be 
automatically included in the agenda. Rather, if there were outstanding questions on the floor, the 
Committee would revert to them at the next meeting before closing the notification, as  was practice 
in other committees. Nothing would be automatic. Instead, it would be a question of deciding if the 
notification could be considered thoroughly reviewed, if the appropriate responses had been 
provided, and, if that was not the case, it would be included in the agenda for the next meeting. The 
United States considered this to be the practice in other WTO committees.  At the last meeting, 
some Members had not been present in the room, the US had had a concern relating to a notification 
in catego ry A of article 1.4 where the information had not been made available. It was necessary to 
address the situation. Their initiative would ensure that there were no outstanding questions or 
responses. Regarding the question from China, the US did not conside r that their proposal would 
overwhelm Members. If questions remained outstanding regarding notifications from the United 
States, the item would be included in the agenda for the next meeting, where they would be ready 
to respond. The United States remained  eager to participate in these examinations and would not 
consider that following up with Members would necessarily be overwhelming.  
1.19.   The Chair  asked whether, following the clarifications provided by the US, Members were ready 
to agree with the proposed by  the United States so that it could be incorporated in the agenda for 
the next Committee meeting, or whether more time for discussions or reflection was needed.  
1.20.   The representative of China  said that China needed further discussions.   
1.21.   The Chair  concluded that there were different views and different visions on the matter. She 
encouraged Members to further discuss the topic and to find a compromise that would be acceptable 
to all delegations.   G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 5 - 
 
  B. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitatio n Agreement  
1.22.   The Chair informed that the so-called "category AB C notifications " once again made for the 
largest group of submissions presented by Members. A total of nine new notifications had been 
issued as documents under the G/TFA/N series since the last  meeting.  
1.23.   They originated from the following Members: Ukraine (G/TFA/N/UKR/1/ADD.1); Mauritius 
(G/TFA/N/MUS/1); Indonesia (G/TFA/N/IDN/1); Macao, China (G/TFA/N/MAC/1/ADD.1); St. Vincent 
and the Grenadines (G/TFA/N/VCT/1); Lesotho (G/TFA/N/LSO/1); Rwanda (G/TFA/N/RWA/1); Fiji 
(G/TFA/N/FJI/1); and Jordan (G/TFA/N/JOR/1).  
1.24.   Members would be invited to take the floor on those notifications sequentially, starting with 
reactions to the notification submitted by the Ukraine (G/TFA/N/UKR/1/ADD.1).  
1.25.   The representativ e of the European Union  informed that the EU had several cooperation 
activities with the Ukraine, which  cover ed many provisions of the TFA such as advance rulings, time 
release, transit, single window, risk management, post clearance control, customs audit , and 
separation of release from payment of duties . The EU would appreciate clarification on the rationale 
for the categorization of a rticles 6.1 and 6.2  of the TFA  under category C, and for article 6.3 under 
category B with an implementation timeframe of December 2020.  In addition, the EU would welcome 
an explanation on the remaining areas that the Ukraine might consider proble matic such as a rticle 
7.4.3  of the TFA (risk management) .  
1.26.   The EU had a public finance managem ent support program for the Ukraine  amounting to over 
€55 million that had been adopted last November . It was financed under the European 
Neighbourhood  Instrument , which include d, among st other  elements, a priority action to harmoniz e 
the Ukraine's customs legislation with the EU, particularly  for advance rulings provisions.  There was 
also a financing agreement related to another program called "Public Finance Management Support 
Programme" (EU4PFM), which would  be finalized and sign ed shortly.  
1.27.   The representative of the Ukraine  indicated that they would discuss the issues with their 
capital.   
1.28.   The Chair  noted that there were no further requests for the floor on the notification from the 
Ukraine and therefore turned to a notification that had been received from Mauritius 
(G/TFA/N/MUS/1 ).   
1.29.   The representative of the United States  thanked Mauritius for their submission, especially for 
the notification of definitive implementation dates for category B commitments. She noted that 
Mauritius had included article 1.4 in that list and urged the m to make the relevant information 
available to the WTO Secretariat promptly.  
1.30.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed Mauritius' active involvement in the 
implementation of the TFA and commended their detailed needs assessment, which they consid ered 
to be a good example for other Members, particularly in terms of the notification of category C  
commitments . The EU would welcome if Mauritius could share its experience at some point regarding 
their National Trade Facilitation Committee, which involv ed the private sector.  
1.31.   The Chair  turned the Committee's attention to a notification submitted by Indonesia 
(G/TFA/N/IDN/1 ).  
1.32.   The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for their notification, particularly 
the increase in category A provisio ns. Initially, eight % of commitments were allocated in category 
A; however, the revised notification increased that percentage to 88.7 %. That was a remarkable 
increase and the US appreciated the efforts Indonesia had put in place to implement the TFA. Th ey 
also noted that Indonesia had included article 1.4 of the TFA in category A, and urged them to make 
the relevant information available to the Secretariat as promptly as possible.  
1.33.   The representative of the European Union  supported the intervention by th e United States.  G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.34.   The representative of Nigeria  observed that several comments had been made regarding 
notifications by Members who were not present at the meeting. There should be prior notice, ideally 
in writing, if a delegation wished to pose a question  to another Member regarding their notification 
so that the delegation concerned could transmit those questions to capital ahead of the meeting and 
receive feedback and instructions. That would make the work of the Committee both more efficient 
and effecti ve. In the absence of such prior information, responses by concerned Members would 
have to remain limited to a referral of questions to capital, due to the lack of preparation for a 
response. That was also the practice in other WTO committees, such as the Committee on 
Agriculture. Questions could also be submitted bilaterally ahead of a Committee meeting. Members 
would then be better prepared to provide responses during Committee meetings. That would not 
preclude the possibility to raise spontaneous questio ns and to provide ad hoc answers.  
1.35.   The representative of Indonesia  informed that there would be consultations with capital.  
1.36.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to a notification from Macao, China 
(G/TFA/N/MAC/1/ADD.1 ).   
1.37.   The representative of the European Union  commended Macao, China and Norway for their 
notifications of transparency measures, and seized opportunity to urge Members who had included 
such articles in their category A designations to provide their related transparency notifications 
without delay. S he noted that more than ten major economies had not notified their transparency 
measures.  
1.38.   Article 12.2.2 was an important provision for the EU because it provided the possibility to 
have customs cooperation on specific matters, which was needed by specifi c departments of the 
European Commission and its Member States. There was a high number of countries that included 
this article in their category A commitments but had not yet notified the contact details. This 
information was needed for customs cooperatio n and the exchange of customs information.  
1.39.   The Chair recalled that notifications on transparency matters (articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 
and 12:2:2 of the TFA) would be addressed under a later agenda item. At the moment, Members 
were invited to take the flo or on notifications under articles 15 and 16 of the TFA. She then turned 
to a notification from St. Vincent and the Grenadines ( G/TFA/N/VCT/1 ).  
1.40.   The representative of Dominica  commended St. Vincent and the Grenadines for their 
notification, which was fairl y comprehensive in terms of the information provided, both in terms of 
the indicative dates for category C, the indicative and definitive dates for category B, as well as the 
assistance and support for capacity building that St. Vincent and the Grenadines had identified that 
they would need to implement the measures under category C.  
1.41.   The United States  joined Dominica in thanking St. Vincent and the Grenadines for submitting 
their notification and their definitive dates, which were very helpful. They noted that St. Vincent and 
the Grenadines had included articles 10.6.2 and 12.2.2 of the TFA in category A and urged them to 
make the relevant information availa ble to the WTO Secretariat promptly.  
1.42.   The Chair  turned the Committee’s attention to a notification from Lesotho (G/TFA/N/LSO/1) .  
1.43.   The representative of the United States  thanked Lesotho for their notification and encouraged 
them to further specify where capacity building was requested for category C so  that it was possible 
to continue the dialogue with Lesotho. Lesotho participate d in the Southern Africa Trade Hub  
supported by USAID, in p articular the component specific to support ing an enabling environment for 
regional and national partners  and to develop transparent, reliable, efficient and cost -effective 
conditions for trader s. The program promoted awareness of the TFA among government agencies 
and the private sector and of best practice solutions for trade facilitative measures in Lesotho. That 
suppo rt had let to road maps for increased private sector involvement in TFA implementation.   
1.44.   The Chair  turned the Committee's attention to a notification from Rwanda (G/TFA/N/RWA/1).    
1.45.   The representative of the United States  thanked Rwanda for submitting its  notification and 
noted that Rwand a had included Article 1.4 of the TFA under category A . They looked forward to 
them also making the related  information available to the WTO Secretariat.  The United States had G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 7 - 
 
  interest in working with Rwanda. Any additiona l information on category C commitments would be 
appreciated.  
1.46.   Rwanda was an active participant in Trade Mark East Africa and Rwanda was working closely 
with their programmes on its implementation plans. The US was pleased to see that impressive 
strides ha d been made in improving border processes and that Rwanda was harvesting the results 
of investments in systems to facilitate the electronic submission and processing for imports, such as 
an electronic single window and the removal of mandatory pre -shipment  inspection for imported 
products. Rwanda’s work on an one -stop border post resulted in a 62 % reduction in clearance time 
at key crossings by eliminating duplication of processes and by simplifying procedures which had 
brought informal sector traders into  the formal system.  
1.47.   Rwanda had invested in electronic systems, which reduced costs to traders. In some cases, 
costs for transactions had dropped significantly. The United States congratulated Rwanda on those 
achievements and remained interested in support ing continued reforms.  
1.48.   In the absence of any requests for the floor on a notification by Fiji (G/TFA/N/FJI/1) , the Chair 
moved to a notification by Jordan (G/TFA/N/JOR/1) .  
1.49.   The representative of the United States  thanked Jordan for its notification and noted that over 
81 % of the TFA provisions had been allocated in category A, which was a very strong showing. The 
US also noted that Jordan had designated a rticle 1.4 of the TFA as a category A commitment and 
urged Jordan to notify the relevant information  promptly  to the WTO Secretariat.  
1.50.   The representative of the European Union  supported the statement by the United States and 
reported on their cooperation efforts with Jordan. The partnership between the European Uni on and 
Jordan for social and economic development had been deemed to be one of three partnership 
priorities in 2016. It addressed market access challenges that hindered Jordan from fully benefiting 
from the opportunities arising from an already existing as sociation agreement. They also provided 
assistance through the European Neighbourhood Instrument and were able to support activities 
notified by Jordan as representing a category C need, in particular through alliances with EU 
members states, with customs authorities and the Jordan Metrology and Standards Organization to 
align their TBT requirements. The EU was in the process of designing a programme on integrated 
border management, which aimed to start in 2019. It could, in the future, include support for 
Jordanian customs as well as for other agencies and organizations involved in border management.  
1.51.   The representative of China  wished to make a general comment. China appreciated  the 
notifications by Ukraine; Mau ritius; India; Macao, China; St.  Vincent  and the Grenadines ; Lesotho; 
Rwanda; Fiji and Jordan. Overall, there were now 113 category A notifications , 37 Members had  
submitted  their category B notification s and 56 Members ha d presented  their category C 
notification s. At the moment of reporting, China ac counted for 12 Members that had  not yet made 
any notification.  China called on Members to comply with articles 15 and 16 of the TFA and the 
related notification obligations as soon as possible.  
1.52.   The representative of Jordan  indicated that the reactions to J ordan's notification would be 
forwarded to capital for feedback.  
C. Notifications under Articles 1:4, 10:4:3, 10:6:2 and 12:2:2 of the T rade Facilitation 
Agreement  
1.53.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to the second group of notifications, relating to 
articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 1 0.6.2 and 12.2 of the TFA. They all pursued  transparency objectives, either in 
a broader context , such as by calling for information on publication sources, or in relation to 
particular areas such as single window , use of customs brokers and customs cooperation. T he 
agenda contained reference to the two submissions provided by Members since the Committee’s last 
meeting, which had been circulated in the G/TFA/N series . They had been submitted by Macao,  China 
(G/TFA/N/MAC/2)  and Norw ay (G/TFA/N/NOR/2).    
1.54.   The representative of Norway  remarked that Norway was pleased to contribute to the strong 
ambitions of the TFA on transparency through their notification on articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 10.6.2, 11.17 
and 12.2.2.  Although it was not a mandat ory requirement in the Agreement to have a National G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Transit Coordinator or to notify it if one was in place, Norway had decided to include information on 
this topic for enhanced transparency and hoped other Members would follow their example.  
1.55.   On the topic  of single window, Norway had received questions during their recent Trade Policy 
Review regarding their experience with implementing it. Norway had provided written answers and 
made a presentation but was also happy to provide information in the context o f the current meeting.   
1.56.   Norway operated  a system which ha d most of the characteristics of a single window, though 
based on two electronic portals called "TVINN" and "AltInn". Both had been notified under 
article 10.4.3  of the TFA . The necessary applicatio ns to border agencies than customs we re done 
more and more through AltInn. All of the necessary permits were later evaluated in the TVINN 
customs portals , the moment that the declaration wa s sent, based on the references in the  
declaration. That usually to ok less than three minutes.  
1.57.   Traders, importers and exporters need ed to have a Norwegian official o rganisation number 
which allowed them to have access to the electronic portals. Norway was working on a new 
digitalisation strategy for the interaction betwe en border agencies and traders, importers and 
exporters, and would revert with additional information at a later strange.  
1.58.   The representative of the United States  thanked Norway for their notification and noted that 
a robust document had been submitted, whi ch provided traders with a clear understanding on how 
to find the rules, requirements and documents necessary to trade with Norway.  
1.59.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Norway and Macao, China for their 
notifications and clarifications. She also  wished to make a general point on transparency 
notifications. At the moment, about 60 Members designated article 1.4 of the TFA as a category A 
commitment. At the same time, only 14 had presented the corresponding transparency notification. 
She urged Memb ers to promptly submit the required notifications, as information on import and 
export procedures was crucial for international business. Notifications under article 1.4 could be 
made in any format and organised in any way that suited the circumstances of individual Members. 
It basically required  a list of border agencies responsible for different areas of work. 
Hong Kong,  China encourage d Members to discuss their challenges and to share their experiences 
regarding the preparation of notifications with a view to speeding up the submission of notifications.  
1.60.   The representative of the European Union  supported the statements made under the agenda 
item and commended Members that had submitted their notifications. The EU recognised the 
complex work that this had  involved. The EU hoped that there would be more notifications on 
transparency in the future.  
1.61.   The representative of Canada  supported the statement made by Hong Kong, China.  
1.62.   The representative of China  appreciate d the notifications made by Norway and Macao , China 
under articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 10.6.2 and 12.2.2 of the TFA. As a result of recent changes in government 
and of the adjustments of government institutions in China, the official place for publishing 
information and the contact information for the enqu iry points provided in China's earlier notification 
was being adjusted. China would update its notification once the adjustment was completed.  
1.63.   The representative of Nigeria  commended Members who had submitted their notifications and 
took note of the fact t hat there were some outstanding notifications. However, Nigeria observed that 
there were some notifications that were not easy to deal with, such as notifications under articles  1.4 
and 12.2 of the TFA. He wished to ascertain the role of the Secretariat. W as there a possibility that, 
rather than coming to a Committee meeting when issues were still pending, the Secretariat could 
assist with direct contact with the respective Member and assist if there were routine questions that 
could easily be obtained? Tha t would avoid the exam of notifications with pending issues, or 
inaccurate or incomplete notifications. Nigeria did not want to overburden the Secretariat but 
perhaps some of the existing problems could be overcome, at least with respect to routine issues.   
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
1.64.   The Chair  turned the Committee's attention to notifications under article 22 of the TFA, which 
related to technical assistance and support for capacity building. She informed that the Un ited States G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 9 - 
 
  had submitted a notification that complemented an earlier notification and provided additional input 
and updated information (G/TFA/N/USA/2/Add.1).  
1.65.   The representative of the United States  introduced their updated notification regarding 
support  for technical assistance and capacity building projects, which she believed would continue 
to strengthen the global ability to implement the TFA. The United States wanted to update the 
information given that data for reporting year 2016 was now available.   
1.66.   In 2016, the United States  had supported 130 projects in 50 individual countries and seven 
different regions. In that year, they had dispersed over US$ 68 million in support and looked forward 
to continuing to support the full implementation of the TFA t hrough capacity building and technical 
assistance.  
1.67.   The representative of Nigeria  thank ed the United States for their update and their support , 
which Nigeria  believe d to be important as far as implementation of th e Trade Facilitation Agreement 
was concerned. They would  continue to review the status and would  come back appropriately . 
1.68.   The representative of the Ukraine  remarked that the assistance and support demonstrated in 
the notification was impressive . The Ukraine particularly wished to thank the United States for the 
useful links provided in the recent notification. They would be interested in hearing from the 
United  States if they might be a position to provide more detailed information on their experience 
with providing sustainable capacity buil ding. 
1.69.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that, d uring the dedicated session on 
technical assistance and support for capacity building held in May, the EU  had clarified that a 
document detailing new funding opportunities could not be expected from the EU as EU programming 
happened on a multi-annual basis. In the information notified last year , the EU had informed  on 
multi-annual plans and commitments. In their next notification, the EU would try to provide 
information based on the last document . It would contain data on new funding opportunities and  
novel programs . It was quite a challenging task and the EU was still working on it. She expected 
that such a notification would be presented in July, and added that the EU would  also inform when 
EU Member States had  new programs to notify to the WTO Secretariat.  
1.70.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Ukraine for their intervention and noted 
that the US would follow up with them to further understand how they could be  helpful and gather 
further information.  
1.71.   The representative of Senegal  informed that Senegal had launched its trading information in 
June with the support of USAID. The portal was electronic and complied with all regulatory demands 
and requirements and ke pt step with the various practices by ministries. It was an important 
milestone with respect to information of relevance in the context of the TFA. Senegal thanked the 
United States and appreciated their technical assistance and capacity building.  
1.72.   The Chair observed that Members seemed to have concluded their discussions under the 
current agenda item and turned to the status of the ratification and notification process.  
E. Status of ratification and notification process  
1.73.   The Chair  recalled that the WTO Secreta riat had received a request to upd ate Members on 
the latest state -of-play. 
1.74.   The WTO Secretariat  updated delegates on developments with respect to notifications and 
ratifications since the last Committee meeting during the previous month. The focus would be on 
issues that Members were expected to be especially interested in.  
1.75.   As far as the ratification process was concerned, the Secretariat had so far received 136 valid 
acceptance instruments, which roughly corresponded to 83 % the overall number to be deposi ted. 
An analysis of a regional breakdown of their origin showed that all areas were represented. Europe 
currently took the lead, followed by Africa and Asia and the Pacific with equal numbers. 
Twenty -seven instruments were yet to come in.  G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.76.   With respect to n otifications, the analysis would cover all three main types, starting with the 
implementation notifications. At the moment of reporting, 113 category A submissions had been 
received; 67 for category B and 56 relating to category C. Notification numbers in the area of 
category B and C were catching up with those for category C. The mere fact that nine additional 
ones had been received since the last meeting, which had taken place only one month earlier, 
supported the assessment.  
1.77.   Detailed information on whic h part of the TFA had been notified by what Member and to what 
degree was contained in a presentation that would be made available to the membership and could 
now been seen on the screen.  
1.78.   In terms of breaking down the number of measures notified under eac h category, the biggest 
segment was currently composed of category A  commitments. At the moment of reporting, roughly 
50 % of all relevant provisions of the A greement had been notified as representing a category A 
commitment, accompanied by smaller, but gr owing category B and C shares. From a regional 
perspective, Europe currently took the lead in the number of comm itments notified under 
Category  A. However, th at number should be evaluated against the background of the fact that 
there w as only a limited num ber of European Members who were entitled to make use of Section II 
of the Agreement. A comparison between developing countries and LDCs showed that developing 
countries had a higher share of commitments in category A, which did not come as a surprise give n 
the difference in development levels, wh ereas the category B and C share was larger on the LDC 
side.  
1.79.   Overall, the Agreement currently had a 60 % rate of implementation  commitments. That 
number was based on the assumption of full implementation by developed countries , to which all 
category A commitments  by developing countries and LDCs had been added as well as their 
category  B and C commitments where the self -selected implementation dates had already been 
reached. Broken down by levels of developme nt, this currently amounted to a 100  % rate of 
implementation commitments for developed countries, 60  % for developing countries and 22  % for 
LDCs. The overall implementation rate was slowly , but steadily growing over time.  
1.80.   In terms of the areas had been notified most frequently in each category, the numbers 
seemed to remain rather stable, except that article 1.3 of the TFA had recently appeared among the 
articles that had been least frequently notified.  
1.81.   An assessment of outstanding notifications faced tw o main challenges.  First, there was no 
official classification of developing countries , as Members would be well aware of. Second, the TFA 
provided that implementation through its section II was an option , as opposed to an obligation. 
Consequently,  it was not possible to determine whether a Member , who might qualify as having 
developing status and wh o had  not provided an implementation n otification had done so because it 
chose not to make use of Section II , or because its  notification was still outstanding .  
1.82.   What could be evaluated  without facing any problems were  the notifications that had been 
presented, and that assessment could also be used to get an indication of what remained  due. T he 
data showed that there was a considerable number of developing Membe rs that had already 
submitted all  commitment designations. A bout a third of them had presented some but not all 
designations, and a small number had not yet provided the information. When looking at the 
situations with respect to LDCs, the share of Members  that had already fully notified their category 
designations was relatively smaller . It had to be kept in mind,  however, that LDCs had  longer 
timeline s for submitting that information. When further considering whether a Member had not yet 
completed its ratification process, the data showed that 68  % of Members had provided all 
designations,  32 % had some outstanding work and there were no Members who had not yet at 
least provided some input.  
1.83.   Another area  of interest was the  self-selected implementation periods. While there were 
technical issues to consider when using averages, the data showed that some of the average 
implementation periods had already been reached and surpassed. Even when foc using on LDCs, the 
selected time periods were not too distant, such as August 2019. Concentrating on the category B 
and C area, the dates did not differ between developing Members and LDCs. In both cases, they 
pointed to a time between spring and July of 2 021. The time periods for category C periods alone G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 11 - 
 
  varied between development groups (sometime in 2021 for developing countries and mid -2022 for 
LDCs). The longest average was 2022.  
1.84.   On the issue of technical assistance and support for capacity building, t here was now 
information that could be aggregated to analyse the type of assistance most frequently requested. 
At the moment, the biggest part was yet to be determined, which was a reflection of the fact that 
the deadline for providing that information had  not yet been reached for LDCs, which had more time 
to notify it. From the notifications that had already been submitted, the largest segment related to 
human resources and training. Additional requests had been received for support with drafting 
legislati on or activities relating to support with information and communication, followed by 
assistance for institutional procedures. Requests for infrastructure support and equipment were on 
the lower end of the chart. There was also a small part related to aid f or raising awareness.  
1.85.   As far as notifications on technical assistance needs were concerned, the Secretariat had 
received almost all submissions from developing countries that presented their designations, leaving 
only a very small part outstanding. For LD Cs it was almost the reverse. It had to be considered, 
however, that the deadline for providing that information had not yet been reached.  
1.86.   The Secretariat then updated Members on the situation regarding the transparency 
notifications and the notifications  related to technical assistance and capacity building.  
1.87.   This information was then followed by a presentation on updates made to the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement notification database (TFAD) where several new features had been 
introduced.  Members could ac cess information on four core areas: the status of ratifications, the 
status of notifications, Member profiles and the status of implementation commitments. These four 
areas were available at the top of the webpage and were also clearly defined in the body  of the 
homepage.  
1.88.   On the section relating to ratifications, the homepage showed a chart indicating the number 
of Members that had ratified so far and the percentage that represented in relation to the full 
membership. Upon selecting the "View more" link, Members could access a page to perform further 
searches. They could also obtain a full list of Members that had ratified the Agreement, as well as of 
Members that had not yet ratified. All lists could also be exported to Excel and PDF.  
1.89.   The homepage also di splayed an area dedicated to notification requirements for WTO 
Members, providing information on if Members were required to notify, what, by when and how. It 
also provided explanations for each type of notification. For implementation notifications, Membe rs 
could also access a template that could be used for the presentation of the notifications, and a 
timeline of those notifications was available as well.  
1.90.   At the heart of the database was the "notification tracker", which presented a quick glance at 
the nu mber of Members that had presented implementation, transparency and assistance for 
capacity building notifications, with the latest submissions received. For further information on this 
topic, Members could follow the "View more" link, which opened that "i mplementation notifications 
dashboard". The page showed the number of Members that had presented designations under each 
category, with links to populate lists of Members that presented their notification for each category, 
as well as those that had not ye t notified any designation. The lists provided the possibility to add 
more filters, such as a measure or a region, for ease of research. In addition, the "notification 
tracker" provided a table with the status of the submission of indicative and definitive  dates for 
categories B and C. For each, the table showed the number of Members who had presented all, 
some, or no indicative or definitive dates, accordingly. This information could also be downloaded 
on lists, with information on regions and groupings.  
1.91.   With respect to notifications of technical assistance and capacity building needs for the 
implementation of category C commitments, the website provided a new area to analyse the number 
of Members that had presented their requirements to implement their ca tegory C designations.  
1.92.   A considerable amount of information was further contained in the Member profiles, which 
showed the notification status, the percentage of commitments notified in each category, indicative 
and definitive dates for implementation, an d the notification on the technical assistance required. 
The website also aggregated the category A commitments with definitive implementation dates for G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 12 - 
 
  categories B and C which had already elapsed. That allowed for a calculation of the rate of 
implementat ion commitments to date, including detailed information by categories. Furthermore, 
Members could find a breakdown by measure and a timeline for implementation. An additional chart 
showed the type of assistance requested in category C designation and the p age gave access to the 
original notifications in the three languages. The Member profile also showed notifications related to 
article 22.1, the capacity building support provided by the Member, and gave access to the original 
notification.  
1.93.   The homepage fur ther provided information on the transparency notifications and displayed 
the links to facilitate access. Contact information of enquiry points and contact points for customs 
cooperation had also been included.   
1.94.   The database also contained data on the status of implementation commitments by all WTO 
Members. Here, the website showed the figure of the rate of implementation to date, the timeline 
of implementation commitments and the top measures with the highest implementation rate and 
the bottom measures  with the lowest implementation rate.  
1.95.   Finally, the website contained additional tabs where Members could analyse the methodology 
that had been used to calculate the figures and link to the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility 
website. It was also possible  to subscribe to Newsbytes – a newsletter by the TF team. A section on 
frequently asked questions was equally available.  
1.96.   The Chair thanked the WTO Secretariat for their presentations and informed that the United 
States had requested the inclusion of an ag enda item for Members to inform about progress with 
respect to their domestic ratification process. Delegations wishing to intervene would be invited to 
do that.  
1.97.   With there not being any requests for the floor, the Committee took note  of the statements 
made under agenda item 1.  
2  EXPERIENCE SHARING/T HEMATIC DISCUSSIONS  
2.1.  The meeting was moved into informal mode , with the understanding that information Members 
are willing to share would be made available on a dedicated website 
(https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_tradfa_e.htm ) with related links being 
included in the minutes of the meeting.  
2.2.  Members addressed the following issues:  
A. Regional approaches to trade facilitati on 
2.3.  Discussions under this item included the following issue:  
Presentation by Guatemala on regional approaches to trade facilitation  
2.4.  Information on the presentation can be found under the following link:  
2.5.  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_debora_ponce_e.pdf  
2.6.  Comments by the United States on the presentation by Guatemala can be found under the 
following link:  
2.7.  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_presentation_usa_e.pd
f 
Contribution by El Salvador on Central America's strategy for trade facilitation and 
compet itiveness with a focus on coordinated border management  
2.8.  Information on the intervention can be found under the following link:  G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.9.  https://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_salvador_intervention
_e.pdf  
B. Article 2 of the TFA (Opportunity to comment, information before entry into force, 
and consultations)  
2.10.   Discussions under this item included the following issues:  
Communication from the United States (G/TFA/W/6)  
2.11.   The United States presented a paper on the role of "notice and comment" and related 
administrative procedures in trade facilitation implementation (G/TFA/W/6).  The statement from 
the US can be found following this link:  
2.12.   https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_usa_statementArticle
2_e.pdf  
2.13.   The paper can be found following this link:  
2.14.   https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_tradfa_e.htm  
Non-paper from the European Union  
2.15.   The European Union presented a non -paper on EU implementation of article 2 of the TFA.  The 
non-paper can be found following this link:  
2.16.   https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_eu_nonpaper_e.pdf  
C. Other  
Approaches t o planning for future experience sharing among Me mbers  
2.17.   China made a statement that can be found following this link:  
2.18.   https://www.wto.org/english/trato p_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_china_intervention_e
.pdf 
2.19.   The Committee took note  of the statements made under agenda item 2.  
3  RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  
A. Report on OECD/WTO/G -20 Event on Trade Facilitation and Future Trade 
Cooperation  
3.1.  A summary of the ev ent can be found following this link:  
3.2.  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet26june_g20_oecd_wto_summ
ary_e.pdf  
B. Update by the WTO S ecretariat on Activities of the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
Facility  
3.3.  The Secretariat  updated Members on activities of the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility 
(TFAF). She thanked everyone who had attended the Trade Facilitation event at the LDC Global 
Forum. Most of the presentations from the event were on the Facility's website 
(http://www.tfafacility.org ). The event currently featured on the Facility's home page.  
3.4.  The TFAF 2017 Annual Report would be posted on line in the coming days under the tab "About 
the Facility". The Secretariat would also post the operational rules for the grant program there. 
Thanks were due to everyone who had provide input on those rules. The Secretariat would begin G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 14 - 
 
  work on creating ex planatory materials and application forms and would create a new tab for the 
grant program before the program would be launched in the fall.   
3.5.  Letters of invitation had gone out the week before to invite capital -based officials to the October 
meeting of th e TF Committee as well as to two additional days of workshops. The Facility would fund 
participation by developing and LDC Members. The invitation letters had been sent to all missions 
for transparency reasons. Applicants must send their completed registra tion forms through their 
respective mission to the WTO Secretariat. The registration deadline was 4 July 2018. Priority would 
be given to applicants from LDCs if demand exceeded the number available hotel rooms. Not all 
topics for the workshops had been de termined yet but transit was already foreseen as one issue to 
be addressed.  It was also planned to take up notification requirements and to introduce the Facility's 
grant programme.  
3.6.  The Facility was in the process of organizing several other events, such  as an African Forum 
on Trade Facilitation with UNCTAD and other Annex D partners. As soon as final dates had been set, 
references to the events would be posted on the Facility website on its calendar of events and also 
under "events" on the homepage.   
3.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made under agenda item 3.  
4  OTHER BUSINESS  
4.1.  The Chair recalled that, at the May meeting, Members had agreed to set the date for the 
subsequent Committee session for 9 October. She further reminded delegations that Paraguay had 
requested the organiz ation of additional activities , such as seminars and workshop s, at the margins 
of that Committee meeting, for which the two subsequent days ha d been reserved. To make best 
use of the available time, and to avoid any overlaps with other Committees  meetings (in particular 
with the session of the Committee on Market Ac cess, which was scheduled to meet in the morning 
of 9 October), she proposed that the TFC started its session i n the afternoon of 9  October and 
continue d in the morning of 10  October. That would keep the same overall amount of time agreed 
on at May while a voiding an overlap with other Committee meetings that several delegations wished 
to attend.  
4.2.  The representative of the United States  sought a clarification on the dates of the next meeting, 
especially on why it was proposed to limit the available time by ha ving the session start in the 
afternoon of 9 October.  
4.3.  The Chair clarified that the overall amount of time Members had agreed on in May would remain 
the same (i.e. one full day). The only proposed change was to have that time spread over the course 
of two days (in the sense of having two half days as opposed to one full day) to allow delegations to 
also attend the meeting of the Committee on Market Access, which was scheduled to take place in 
the morning of 9 October.  
4.4.  The representative of the United States  cautioned that one day might not be enough to cover 
all items to be included in the agenda.  
4.5.  The Chair  clarified that her proposal was based on what Members had agreed on at the 
Committee session in May. If Members wanted to have more time and to ad d another day to the 
allocated time for the October session, she was open to the idea.  
4.6.  The representative of the United States  sought a clarification on what had been agreed upon 
in May in terms of dates for the next Committee meeting. Had it been 9 Octob er only or 9 and 10 
October?  
4.7.  The Chair informed that Members had agreed on 9 October only. If delegations felt that more 
time was needed, one could always add another day.  
4.8.  The representative of the United States  expressed interest in that suggestion. One day would 
not suffice. It was necessary to give the Committee sufficient time.  G/TFA/M/5  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.9.  The Chair proposed to add another day to the October session so that the Committee would 
meet for two full days. Details on room and time allocations would be communicated to d elegations 
in due course. She further raised the issue of participation of partners from the Annex D 
organisations and asked if Members were prepared to invite them to attend the October session.  
4.10.   It was so agreed . 
4.11.   The meeting wa s adjourned . 
 
__________