RESTRICTED  
  
G/TFA/M/6  
 
13 February 2019  
(19-0838) Page: 1/24 
Committee on Trade Facilitation    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATIO N 
9-11 OCTOBER 2018  
CHAIR: HE MS DALIA KADIŠIENE  (LITHUANIA)  
Contents  
 
1   MATTERS RELATING  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON AND ADMINISTRATIO N OF THE 
TRADE FACILITATION A GREEMENT (TFA)  ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
NOTIFICATIONS BY MEM BERS  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
A. Organization of the Agenda – inclusion of previously raised notifications: request by the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
B. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  .......................  5 
C. Notifications under Articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 10.6.2 and 12.2.2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  ................................ .... 9 
E. Status of ratification and notification process  ................................ ..............................  10 
2   ADMINISTRATIVE S EPARATION BETWEEN TH E TRADE FACILITATION  AGREEMENT 
FACILITY AND THE COM MITTEE ON TRADE  FACI LITATION - REQUEST B Y THE  UNITED 
STATES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
3   EXPERIENCE SHARI NG/THEMATIC DISCUSSI ONS ................................ ....................  16 
A. Authorized Economic Operators (AEO)  ................................ ................................ ....... 16 
Implementation of the AEO programme in Hong  Kong,  China: communication by 
Hong Kong,  China (G/TFA/W/8)  ................................ ................................ .........................  16 
Presentation by the European  Union on the EU AEO Programme  ................................ ............  16 
Australia's AEO Programme: Communication from Australia (G/TFA/W/9)  ...............................  16 
Zambia's Customs Accredited Client Programme  ................................ ................................ .. 16 
China's AEO Programme  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
Guatemala's AEO Programme  ................................ ................................ ............................  16 
Brazil's AEO Progr amme  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
B. Transit  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  17 
C. Single Window  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  17 
Presentation by Korea on the Korean Single Window  ................................ ............................  17 
Contribution by Malaysia on initiatives undertaken by ASEAN  ................................ ................  17 
Presentation by Saudi Arabia: Overview of TF Initiatives by Saudi Customs  .............................  17 
Presentation by Brazil: Single Window Implementation in Brazil  ................................ .............  17 
D. Advance rulings  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 
Advance rulings at the A PEC circuit – contribution by Singapore  ................................ ............  17 G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  The role of advance rulings and administrative procedures in TFA implementation: communication 
by the United  States (G/TFA/W/7)  ................................ ................................ .....................  17 
E. Other  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  19 
Presentation by the Dominican Republic on its National Trade Facilitation Committee  ...............  19 
4   RECENT AND UPCOM ING ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ....... 20 
A. Implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement – Works hop for ASEAN officials jointly 
sponsored by the United States and Singapore  ................................ ................................ .... 20 
B. Update by the WTO Secretariat on activities of the Trade  Facilitation Agreement Facility  .. 20 
C. Update on the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation  ................................ .....................  21 
D. Other  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  23 
5   DRAFT ANNUAL REP ORT (2018) OF THE TR ADE FACILITATION COMMITT EE TO THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  GOODS (G/TFA/W/10)  ................................ ..........................  23 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 
 
1  MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION A ND ADMINISTRATION OF  THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEMENT ( TFA)  
 
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/6/Rev.2 and that the following items would be addressed during the meeting:  first, 
matters relating to the implementation and administration of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TF 
Agreement, Agreement, or TFA), starting with notifications presented since the last meeting, 
followed by an update on the state of the ratification an d notification processes. Discussions would 
then turn to the issue of the administrative separation between the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
Facility and the Committee on Trade Facilitation, in response to a request by the United States. The 
third item ref erred to experience sharing  and thematic discussions, where delegations were invited 
to share their experiences with a thematic focus on (a) transit, (b)  authorized economic operators , 
(c) single window, and (d) advance rulings. Following that, Members wou ld be updated on recent 
and upcoming activities before taking up the Draft Annual Report of the Trade Facilitation Committee 
to the Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG) . The final item of the regular session would be "Other 
Business", under which the date of t he next meeting  would be raised . 
1.2.  The agenda was adopted . 
NOTIFICATIONS BY MEM BERS  
A. Organization of the Agenda – inclusion of previously raised notifications: request by 
the United States  
1.3.  The Chair  recalled t hat the United States had made a proposal at the last meeting of the TFC 
regarding the scope of Committee work in the area of notifications , requesting the possibility to 
include notifications that had  already been addressed  previously . At that meeting, it had become 
clear that more discussions would be needed, which was why the Chair had urged delegations to 
reach out to one  other . She had made herself  available for consultations as well. Several delegations 
had expressed their views  and it  had emerged that additional exchanges would be useful. The United 
States had then requested that the item be placed  on the agenda of  the current meeting. She 
therefore wanted to start discussions on the matter by inviting th e United States to explain its  
request in more detail.  
 
1.4.  The representa tive of the United States  recalled that , at the June 2018 meeting of the TFC, the 
United States had shared its views regarding possible ways in which the Committee agenda could 
be shaped  better to support Members' ongoing efforts to wards  achieving  the TF A greement 's full 
implementation . At that meeting, the United States had indicated its intention to use the agenda to 
focus attention on the important issue of notification obligations and to establish a  process whereby 
notifications we re discussed in th e Committee in a timely manner.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 3 - 
 
   
1.5.  Part of that discussion would include those instances  where  discussions remain ed ongoing or 
where answers to questions raised from the floor were  outstanding. According to the US proposal, 
such notifications wou ld remain on t he agenda so that  discussion s could resume in future meetings , 
and so that all Members would clearly understand that the discussion s had not yet concluded. This 
practice would mirror the current pra ctice maintained in many other WTO C ommittees.  
1.6.  To further advance the establishment of Committee practices that support ed implementation 
of the TF Agreement, the United States dr ew Members' attention to the need to establish a practice 
to address overdue or outstanding implementation of already notified and exist ing commitments.  In 
accordance with article 14:1 of Section II of the TFA, category A commitments were to be 
implemented upon entry into force (EIF) of the Agreement for developing  Members, and within one 
year from EIF for least -developed country Members. Article 15 of the TFA further clarifie d 
expectations regarding implement ation of category A provisions. Since the TFA had entered in to 
force on 22 February 2017, EIF plus one year had occurred on 22 February 2018. Article 24 , 
paragraphs 3 and 4 , further clarif ied the relationship between EIF of the Agreement and s ection II  
of the Agreement . 
1.7.  The TFA included a number of transparency provisions, which  many developing and least -
developed Members had  designated a s category A, B, or C commitments. In reviewing existing 
notifications, the United States had  focused on four important transparency commitment s, namely 
articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 10.6.2,  and 12.2.2 . Particular attention had been paid to  notifications  where 
one or more of tho se articles had been designated under category A , and where th e relevant 
information should have been notified at EIF (or within one year from EIF for LDCs)  without s uch 
information ha ving been submitted to the WTO Secretariat.  
1.8.  Implementation of a rticle 1.4 wa s closely linked to  the implementation of a rticle 1.1 regarding  
publication and availa bility of informa tion. S everal M embers ha d notified a rticle 1.4 as a category A 
commitment and a rticle 1.1 as a category B or C  commitment . The United States was puzzled by 
this approach, and did not understand why a Member would designate  article 1.4 as  a category A 
commitment if the substance wa s not yet available. The US wished to review this approach , and that 
Members consider ed the importance of linking implem entation of  these two articles.  
1.9.  At the moment,  the United States had identified over 80 Members that ha d scheduled at least 
one of the four transparency provisions as a category A  commitment without making a transparency 
notification to the WTO Secretariat.  In the vi ew of t he United States, this indicated  that 
implementation of obligatio ns notified via section II  of the TFA  needed  to be closely and actively 
monitored by the TF Committee. Significant gaps in implementation could signal potential challenges 
in the section II approach . It was therefore relevant for the Committee to examine and address 
them in a  transparent manner . 
1.10.   The United States again rais ed its concerns regarding overdue implementation and w ould 
continue to seek ways to  work with other Members to impr ove the Committee's role in monitoring 
notifications and implementation of the TFA. The United States hope d that Members with outstanding 
obligations would  take note and provide the neces sary information expeditiously.  The United States 
might offer specific references to outstanding obligations in future meeting agendas of the Trade 
Facilitation Committee as part of their ongoing effort to obtain updates on implementation  efforts . 
 
1.11.   The representative  of the European Union  stated that the  EU strongly believed that ensuring 
transparency was of systemic value to the TFC, as well as  to other WTO Committees. Means and 
efforts should be  deployed by Members , with the support of the Secretariat, so that notifications 
could be explained by a notifying Member, questions could be put to that Member in advance of a 
meeting, and , if there w ere an  issue outstanding , notifications could also be reviewed. It was good 
committee practice t hat a Member whose notification wa s on the agenda or who had received an 
advance question did  their best to reply to questions during  the meeting  or, if that w ere not possible, 
after the meeting , and possibly in writing . The EU had raised a few questions regarding a notification 
at the last TFC meeting , and, following a bilateral exchange in writing  with the Member  concerned , 
had since received promising replies . As far as  transparency notifications under articles 1.4, 10.4.3, 
10.6.2 , and 12.2.2 of the TFA were concerned , the EU  believed that the spirit of th e TFA called for 
their swift submission  and encouraged Members to do so.  
 G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.   The representative  of Nigeria  appreciated the opportunities provided for capital -based officials 
to be part of the meeting and to benefit from the ongoing workshops. As far as the pr oposal by the 
United States was concerned, Nigeria believe d that transparency  was the key element in  all WTO 
Agreements . Nigeria took transparency seriously: t here was no  belittl ing the importance attached 
to transparency  or of the obligations  that arose  from it.  
 
1.13.   The issue of notifications was linked. They were equally intended to promote transparency  
and nobody wished  to undermine their  usefulness . Notifying information formed  part of the best 
practice that Members  aspire d to achieve. At the same time, there was a d elicate balance to be 
struck between  obligations to notify and the challenge of actually fulfilling them. There was further 
a link to the Trade Policy Review M echanism  where  trade and economic policies were reviewed from 
time to time and where  related  questions were raised when ever Members  observe d practices that 
were not consistent with a Member' s WTO commitments and obligations. This could also be a role 
for the TF Committee , although  Members had to be cautious giv en that the Committee was st ill 
relatively new and was still evolving .  
1.14.   If the need existed for additional scrutiny , from Members or the Secretariat, regarding 
possible br eaches or inadequacies in Members ' notifications, this need had to be met  in a very 
responsibl e manner. The Commi ttee should not be policing Members. If there were issues or 
observations that a Member wished to convey with respect to the notification of another Member, 
such issues should be communicated in advance. That way, they could then be addressed. Some of 
those issues could be the result of oversight, or from of technical inaccuracies  that could easily be 
resolved . Members  should seek  a careful way of managing  the fulfilment  of their obligations,  
including notifications.  
1.15.   Delayed notifications were not a new issue, and nor were they unique to the TFC . It was 
important to ensure that efforts we re made to make notifications up to date , and that the information 
provided was consistent with th e obligations  contained in  relevant provisions of the Trade Facilitation  
Agreement.  Nigeria encourage d dialogue and hope d that  Members would  find a creative way to 
address  the challenges faced by developing countries and LDC s in implementing  their notification 
obligations  under the TFA . 
 
1.16.   The representative  of China  thanked the United States for the explanation of their suggestion 
to include previously raised no tifications  on the agenda . However, China had  a different view  of the 
matter.  
 
1.17.   First, China could not agree  automatically to include previously discus sed not ifications on  the 
agenda of subsequent Committee meetings. As was the practice in other WTO Committees, a 
Member could request t he inclusion of a previous ly discussed notification on the agenda of an 
upcoming meeting  before the agenda was adopted and, if t here was no objection from another 
Member , this could then be incorporated. China was unaware of any WTO Committee that had a 
separate agenda item for previously discussed notifications , and wanted the TFC be consistent  with 
that practice.  
 
1.18.   Second, it was also very important to utili ze communication  channels other than the TFC to 
discuss matters relating to previously raised  notifications.  
 
1.19.   China supported the suggestion that the Secretariat should collect updated information o n 
notification s, especially on those notifications that were due but had  not yet been submitted , and 
likewise to compile  any information provided on problems and challenges faced by Members during 
the process of implementing the TFA . This would keep  Members fully informed on the state of 
notifications . In addition, s pecific sessions could be held for finding solutions to any  problems that 
might have arisen. 
 
1.20.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thank ed the  United States for raising  the issue. 
Korea agree d that transparency and the sharing of information on Members ' policies was the 
foundation upon which the  Trade Facilitation Agreement ha d built upon. Notification s were a crucial 
tool and a requirement for achiev ing the goal s of the TFA.  
 
1.21.   In Korea' s view, a n appropriate review m echanism was necessary to monitor and encourage 
notifications . Revisiting notifications on which discu ssion had  not been completed  should be allowed , 
without putting an unnecessary burden on Members. This could also contribute to identify ing and G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 5 - 
 
  resolv ing difficulties that Members faced. Korea was willing to engage in future discussion s with a 
view to establish ing a good practice in the TFC . 
 
1.22.   The representative of Brazil  suggested that the TFC should focus its efforts on issues  such as 
cooperation and exchange of experiences regarding the implementation of the TFA. If any delegation 
considered that a notification could be improved, it should raise the issue directly with the Member 
concerned . The objective of transparency, impor tant as it was, should not become a barrier  to the 
principle of self -designation as set out in a rticle 14.2  of the TFA . That principle was a cornerstone of 
the TFA and should prevent developing countries  from being pressured.  
 
1.23.   The representative  of Canada  wished to comment on the issue of unanswered questions with 
respect to notifications. D uring a review of quantitative restriction notifications in the  Market Access 
Committee , certain  questi ons had remained unanswered . The Chair had closed their discussion  by 
reverting to the subsequent meeting. There had been an expectation for the notification to be 
included in the agenda of that meeting. In the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade ( TBT), 
Members were required to place specific trade conc erns on the agenda if they wish ed to bring them 
up at a subsequent meeting . There were different approaches. Canada considered it to be the 
practice of other WTO Committees  at least to reserve the possibility of including items on the agenda  
of subsequent meetings if Members still had questions that had remained unanswered . 
 
1.24.   Canada fully supported Brazil's point about u sing the TF  Committee  for coop eration and 
experience sharing.  
 
1.25.   The representative of the United States  thanked those Members  that had voiced their suppo rt 
for the issues  raised.  The U nited States  was happy to continue the conversation and remained open 
to a Committee discussion on whether Members  would  revert  to previously reviewed notifications , 
or whether they would  affirmatively take them forward . Either way would be a good plan forward. 
The US wished to once again stress the importance of the transparency notifications . 
1.26.   The Chair noted that Members had different views on the matter. She encouraged delegations 
to discuss  it further amongst themsel ves. 
1.27.   The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  
B. Notifications under Articles 15 and 16 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
1.28.   The Chair informed Members that the so -called "category A, B and C notifications" represented  
once again the largest group of su bmissions presented by the M embership. A total of 10 documents 
had been issued under the G/TFA/N series since the last Committee meeting. Of tho se, eight were 
new notifications and two were corrections to previously submitted notifications. These notificat ions 
had been received from the following Members: Rwanda (G/TFA/N/RWA/1/Corr.1 ); Indonesia 
(G/TFA/N/IDN/1/Corr.1 ); Kazakhstan (G/TFA/N/KAZ/2 ); the Central African Republic 
(G/TFA/N/CAF/1 ); Nicaragua (G/TFA/N/ NIC/1/Add.1); Jamaica (G/TFA/N/ JAM/1/Add.1); Samoa 
(G/TFA/N/ WSM/1 ); Saint Lucia ( G/TFA/N/LCA/1 ); the Kyrgyz Republic ( G/TFA/N/KGZ/2 ); and 
Trinidad and Tobago ( G/TFA/N/TTO/2 ). 
1.29.   The first of them, a document submitted by Rwanda ( G/TFA/N/RWA/1/Corr.1 ) was a 
corrigendum to a previously issued notification . Due to a clerical  error, the capacity building column 
of Rwanda's category B commitments had previously been listed as "to be determined" , instead of 
showing a dash, which would have been the appropriate reference, given that it was not possible to 
notify an assistance need for a category B commitment. This had been  corrected, with the adjusted 
notification being issued as G/TFA/N/RWA/1/C orr.1. 
1.30.   The next notification equally was a correction of a notification that had already been submitted 
in June. It originated from Indonesia ( G/TFA/N/IDN/1/Corr.1 ), which  now contained  the correct title 
headings for the provisions in question.  
1.31.   The Chair  proceeded  to the next notifica tion, which had been submitted by  Kazakhstan 
(G/TFA/N/KAZ/2 ). G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.   The representative of the European Union  registered their appreciation for the notification of 
definitive  implementation dates from Kazakhstan . The  EU had also t aken note of the capacity 
buildin g needs expressed for category C  commitments . 
1.33.   The Chair turned  the Committee' s attention to a notification from the Central African Republic 
(G/TFA/N/CAF/1 ). 
1.34.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Central African Republic for submitting 
its no tification  to the Secretariat. They appreciate d the effort  and encourage d the  Central African 
Republic to notify its category B and C commitments , so that donors c ould identify  the areas where 
capacity building was requested for category C commitments.  
1.35.   The Chair  proceeded to a notification from Nicaragua ( G/TFA/N/NIC/1/A dd.1). 
1.36.   The representative  of Nicaragua  appreciated the opportunity  to participate in the meeting. 
Nicaragua' s notification had been drafted by its  National Trade Facilitation  Committee , comprised of  
all government institut ions related to foreign trade  and the private sector , which had all been 
consulted on the determination of definitive implementation dates.  
 
1.37.   The notification was based o n the capacities of each stakeholder  to comply effectively with 
the requirements. Nicaragua had been able to detect  certain weaknesses , and, with the capacit ies 
acquired through the support of donors , such as the European Union, the Inter-American 
Development Bank  (IADB) , and the World Bank  (WB), it had been possible to address th em and to 
redefine the definitive list with an addendum , which had been submitted following  the first 
notification of category B and C measures.  
 
1.38.   The notification was very close to the r ealities of Nicaragua' s national institutions in charge of 
the implementation of  the TFA . Progress had been made on compl iance with the  measures , even 
though  certain  deficiencies remained . In order to overcome them, Nicaragua made efforts to have a 
better information  system that involved all  institutions , and had concluded the third phase of the 
implementation of the single window, which would allow it to begin operations. The Central American 
Strategy for Trade Facilitation, of which Nicaragua was part, ha d contributed to ensuring compliance 
with other trade facilitation measures, particularly regarding border coordination and customs  
cooperation . 
 
1.39.   The representative  of the United States  appreciated the notification submitted by Nicaragua, 
as well as the  experience shared with the Committee. Nicaragua 's notification was very robust  with 
almost 77  per cent  of the pr ovisions designated as a  category A  commitment. Nicaragua had included 
articles 1.4, 10.6.2 and  12.2.2 of the TFA in category A , and the US loo ked forward to Nicaragua 
making that  information available to the Secretariat promptly. The US Foreign Agricultural Service 
had been providing training on documentation practices and preventative controls in Nicaragua to 
help the ir agricultural services co mply with different requirements in the US , and was certifying 
instructors in Nicaragua.  
1.40.   The Chair directed Members ' attention to a  notification submitted by Jamaica 
(G/TFA/N/JAM/1/A dd.1). 
 
1.41.   The representative  of the European Union  appreciated  the notificat ion, which contained 
definitive implementation dates for category B  commitments . 
1.42.   The Chair  proceeded to a  notification from Samoa ( G/TFA/N/WSM/1 ). 
1.43.   The representative  of the United States  appreciated Samoa' s efforts. The US had noted that 
Samoa had included  articles 10.6.2 and 12.2.2 of the TFA in category A , and looked forward to 
Samoa making that information available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.44.   The Chair moved to a  notification from Trinidad and Tobago ( G/TFA/N/TTO/2 ) in light of the 
absence of requests for the floor regarding  notifications from Saint Lucia ( G/TFA/N/LCA/1 ) and the 
Kyrgyz Republic ( G/TFA/N/KGZ/2 ). 
 G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.45.   The representative  of Trinidad and Tobago  appreciated the opportunity for capital -based 
officials  to attend the meeting. Trinidad and Tobago wa s pleased to submit its notification of the 
definitive timelines for category B and C commitments , as contained in document G/TFA/N/TTO/2. 
The notification was the outcome of  deliberation s of the National Trade Facilitation Committee and 
had received the approval of the cabinet.  
 
1.46.   Since the second needs assessment exercise in 2013, Trin idad and Tobago had reviewed its  
categoriz ation and developed  a trade facilitation roadmap , which identified the current status and 
what was needed to comply  with the TFA. Based on  that exercise , Trinidad and Tobago had been 
able to create a national implementation plan and had notified its category B and C commitments 
with indicative timeframes in November 2017.  
1.47.   Key considerations for th e notification  had included declining government revenues  that had 
increased both the need for donor assistance and the capacity of the relevant ministries and agencies 
to undertake the required work. Further to its  notification in November 2017, Trinidad and Tobago 
had review ed its experience with implementing key changes to the  single window called TTBizLink . 
Trinidad and Tob ago acknowledged that there had remained  significant time lapse s in executing 
projects set out in their national implementation plan. Definitive timefram es had since been 
determined accordingly  to allow sufficient time to procure donor funding and relevant consultancies , 
and to improve institutional bottlenecks.  
 
1.48.   Trinidad and Tobago  was currently engaged in several project s relative  to the improvement 
of its single window, risk management and business process re -engineering, with assistance and 
funding from the IADB. Trinidad and Tobago was actively seeking donors for other aspects of i ts 
implementation plan , and look ed forward to the information to be shar ed. 
 
1.49.   The representative  of China  thanked  the delegations of  Rwanda, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, 
Nicaragua, Jamaica, the Central African Republic, Samoa, Saint Lucia, the Kyrgyz Republic and 
Trinidad and Tobago for their efforts and their updated notification s. At the same time , China  noted 
that, although 114 Members ha d notified their category A  provisions, 71 Members had  notified their 
category B provisions , and 60 Members ha d notified their category C  provisions . In addition, there  
were still 11 Members that  had not presented any  notifications.  
 
1.50.   In this regard, China encourage d Members to implement their notification obligations un der 
articles 15 and 16 of the TFA. China encouraged Me mbers that  had encountered difficulties to come 
forward and to share their rea sons with the Committee  in order to  discuss them and to find a 
solution.  
 
1.51.   The representative  of the European Union  expressed the EU's  appreciation of Trinidad and 
Tobago 's presentation and the update on the ir national strategy . The EU had also noted the detailed 
needs expressed in the notification . As a donor, the EU stood ready to engage and to discuss the 
matter further.  
 
1.52.   The representative  of El Salvador  indicate d that El Salvador had completed a draft of the 
notification of the provisions indicate d for inclusion in categories B and C , which w ould be official ly 
conveyed to the Secretariat at the end of the current week. 
 
1.53.   The representative  of the United States  thank ed Trinidad and Tobago for sharing their 
experience and for putting their notification together , as well as  for the work of the ir National Trade 
Facilitation Committee. T he United States,  through its Department of State's Export Control and 
Border S ecurity  Program and the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Prot ection 
had provided state -of-the-art radiation detection equipment to the Customs and Excise Division  of 
Trinidad and Tobago  in order to help customs officials implement a risk management  system  and to 
secure the country's port and borders , as well as to combat transnational crime. The US would be 
interested in understanding what the needs of Trinidad and Tobago were and in engaging thro ugh 
the Committee.  
 
1.54.   As part of working with other border agencies in the National Trade Facilitation Committee , 
the US Dep artment of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service ha d also provided training and 
certified instructors in preventative controls for human foods.  
 G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.55.   The representative  of Canada  support ed the comments made by  China in relation to  improving  
the submission of notifications . He enquired if  the Secretariat kept track of information regarding 
notification numbers. The Market Access Committee prepared information on the s ituation  of 
schedules  of WTO Members  and there was also a "Statement on I mplementation and Administration 
of the TBT Agreement ", which listed all related notification s in accordance with Article 15.2 of the 
TBT Agreement . The information presented in the current meeting  was helpful and would contribute 
to a better understanding of  the TFA, and to how it was being implemented.  
 
1.56.   The Chair informed that additional  information on the status of notifications would be provided 
by the Secretariat under a subsequent agenda  item.  
C. Notification s under Articles 1 .4, 10 .4.3, 10 .6.2 and 12 .2.2 of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement  
1.57.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to a second group of notifications, relating to 
article s 1.4, 10.4.3, 1 0.6.2 and 12.2 of the TFA. These obligations all pursued  transparency 
objectives, either in a broader cont ext by, for instance , calling for information on publication sources, 
or in relation to particular areas , such as a single window , use of customs brokers , and customs 
cooperation. T he agenda made  reference to six submissions that had been provided by Membe rs 
since the Committee' s last meeting  and circulated in the G/TFA/N series . 
1.58.   The first such notification on the agenda had been submitted by the Republic of Moldova  
(G/TFA/N/MDA/2 ). 
1.59.   The representative of the United  States  commend ed Moldova for having submitt ed a robust 
transparency notification . The notification was an example of a high sta ndard document that 
demonstrated  the spirit o f transparency commitments  under the TFA . Furthermore, the  notification 
provide d direct links for each item required by the TFA, which would  serve as  a useful tool for the 
trade commu nity by enabling it to better navigate Moldova' s import, ex port, and transit 
requirements. The United States  considered this notification  a model to be emulated by all Members . 
1.60.   The US  Commer cial Law Development Program had  undertaken several  trade facilitation 
activities in Moldova, including  the establishment of a Working Group to connect customs off icials 
from Ukraine and Moldova , which  first met in April 2018, in Kiev, Ukraine. The Moldovan  Customs 
Service had also participated in a joint workshop on simplified procedures, guarantees, and 
authorized economic operators. There would  be another mission  in spring  2019.  The United States' 
aid organization had also provided work in the  High Value Agricultural Activities Program s in Moldova , 
and had delivered trade facilitation capacity building to key industry players working in high value, 
demand -driven agricultural sect ions, so that they could  become competitive in European and global  
markets.  
1.61.   The Chair  turned to the next notification , tabled  by Georgia ( G/TFA/N/GEO/2).  
 
1.62.   The representative  of the United States  thank ed Georgia for having submitt ed the notification , 
which was a very  useful tool for the trade community by enabling it to better navigate Georgia' s 
import, ex port, and transit requirements.  
 
1.63.   Since 2014 , and continuing until August 2019, the United States, through their private sector 
implementing partners,  had been  funding  the Governing for Growth in Georgia  (G4G) activity, w hose 
purpose wa s to improve Georgia 's economic governance and leadership in the areas of the business -
enabling environment, water resource management, and the energy  trading mechanism  in the 
framework of Georgia' s Electricity Market Model of 2015. The Unit ed States  believe d that th e 
program would  strengthen the capacity of Georgia' s institutions , the private sector , and civil society 
to enable  development, implementation, and the enforcement of reforms.  
1.64.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed Georg ia and Moldova for their notification s 
and the comprehensive information provided . The EU supported Moldova with two projects : first, a 
jointly operated border crossing point project , and second, a twinning project  in support for the  
moderni zation of the customs service.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.65.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to a notification presented by the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  (G/TFA/N/TPKM/1 ). 
 
1.66.   The representative of the United States  appreciated the effort s made by th e delegation of 
Chinese Taipei.  
 
1.67.   With there not being interventions  in regard to the notifications from Saint Lucia 
(G/TFA/N/LCA/2 ), and Brazil ( G/TFA/N/BRA/2/Add.1 ), the Chair directed Members' attention to a 
notification from Mexico ( G/TFA/N/MEX/1).  
 
1.68.   The representative of the United States  thanked Mexico for what the US considered to be a 
robust notification.  
 
1.69.   The representative of the European Union  also thanked Mexico for their notification, which 
the EU considered to be very detailed.  
 
1.70.   The representative  of China  appreciating the detailed information regarding single window s, 
customs brokers and contact points , provided by  Moldova, Georgia, Saint Lucia, Brazil, Mexico and 
Chinese Taipei , and encouraged Members that  had implemented th ese articles to presen t their 
corresponding  notifications as soon as possible.  
1.71.   Due to a recent change and re organisation in th e Chinese government, the info rmation 
previously notified on official contact and enquiry points , was currently being adjusted. China would 
notify the l atest information after the se adjustments had been  completed.  
D. Notifications under Article 22 of the Trade Facilitation Agreement  
1.72.   The Chair  turned to  notifications under article 22, which relate d to technical assistance and 
support for capacity building. There were  a greater number  of notifications available compared to 
previous meetings because  several donor Members had provided updated information on their 
capacity building activities.  
1.73.   In the absence of interventions on t he notifications presented by Can ada ( G/TFA/N/CAN/3 ), 
the Republic of Moldova ( G/TFA/N/MDA/3 ) and Japan ( G/TFA/N/JPN/3 ), the Chair proceeded to the 
notification presented by  Norway ( G/TFA/N/NOR/1/Add.1 ). 
 
1.74.   The representative  of Norway  was pleased to contribute to the joint efforts on  transparency 
provided for under the TFA . As was clear from  the meeting , all notifications were valuable to the 
Membership, not least in the early stages of implementat ion. 
1.75.   In Norway's updated notification relative to a rticle 22, Norway had  provide d inform ation on 
their support for the implementation of the Agreement through the World Bank's Trade Facilitation 
Support Program and the Trade Facilitatio n Agreement Facilit y. 
1.76.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to  a notification from the European Union 
(G/TFA/N/EU/2/Add.1) , which update d an earlier notification from the previous  year and provided 
more recent information on assistance by the EU and a number of its member States.  
 
1.77.   The representative  of the European Union  indicated that the current  notification contained 
information on the EU and some of its member States . Other EU m ember States would  provide 
information  in the future  and the  notification would then be  updated accordingly.  
 
1.78.   The current notification had been based  on the principle of  transparency. T he EU had  included 
programmes and projects that  were subject to  approval, already committed, or already under 
implementation . In those three cases , there were opportunities for potential beneficiary countries to 
indicate projects for which they would request support.  
1.79.   In terms of monetary value , the notification showed  that the EU was stepping up its efforts 
to comply with  expectations  in line with indications provided at the time of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement negotiation s. While noting  the difference in deadlines between developing countries and 
LDCs, t he EU  expect ed those Members to systemi ze their notification efforts . G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.80.   The EU was very interested in seeing National Trade Facilitatio n Committees established in all 
potential beneficiary countries. They already existed  in many  countries , but there we re stil l some 
where progress had to be made to put the structures  in place . National Trade Facilitation Committees 
were crucial not only in terms of coordinating a country's p riorities but also  in terms of  coordinating 
the efforts of  donors . The EU  relied on indications from Members'  National Trade Facilitation 
Committees to organi ze support.  
1.81.   In terms of  the notification  at hand , the EU had stepped up its efforts and its  volume of trade 
facilitation programmes was substantial . Now was the moment for beneficiary  countries to provide 
details of  their needs . The EU urged countries that still ha d some ground to cover in th is respect to 
do so  without delay . 
 
1.82.   The notification p rovided  information  country -by-country, region -by-region, and the EU 
remained available for further details.  One important element to underline was that the EU had put 
in efforts, for the sake  of transparency , to provide  details of organizations which ha d to be 
approached if beneficiary countries wished  to take advantage of the programmes and projects 
feature d in the  notification.  
 
1.83.   The representative  of Afghanistan  appreciat ed the EU's assistance for the implementation of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement . Afghanistan enjoyed EU support through an International Trade 
Centre (ITC) project . Afghanistan  had ratified the TFA as part of  the process of accession to the 
WTO, and had been the ninth LDC to ratify the Agreement . As a landlocked developing country, 
Afghanistan attached great value to the implementation of the TFA, especially in developing 
countries and LDCs, as it played a maj or role in boost ing trade, transit ties , and facilities. There  was 
a need for addressing the shortcomings  and the lack of proper capacity for implementation of  the 
TFA, which require d greater attention from donors. Afghanistan encouraged all donors to step in and  
to provide support to LDC countries by getting their capacities on track to properly implement the 
TFA. 
 
1.84.   The representative  of the United States  referred to an earlier mentioned notification  from 
Moldova, which had been presented under article 22.3 , rather than article 22.1 . It was the first 
article 22.3 notification that the Committee ha d received. The US wished  to separate th at item in 
the agenda, because the TFC  would now be expecting Article 22.3 notifications from all LDC and 
developing Members . The US wondered what the Secretariat thought about preparing information 
that detailed which Member had presented a  notification under article 22.3 , and wh ich had not. 
 
1.85.   The Chair  indicated that the Secretariat would be ready  to reflect this in the agenda  of future 
meetings , as appropriate . 
1.86.   The Committee took note  of the notifications addressed under items B to D , and of the  
information contained therein.  
E. Status of ratification and notification process  
1.87.   The Chair turned the Committee's attention to the next item on the agenda, consisting of an 
update by the WTO Secretariat on the latest state -of-play with respect to  the ratification and 
notification  processes . 
1.88.   The representative of the WTO Secretariat  first reported on developments relative  to the 
ratification process, informing that new acceptance instruments  continued to be deposited. To date , 
138 out of 164 Member s had already completed their respective process, whi ch corresponded  to 
slightly over 84  per cent  of the overall acceptance instruments expect ed to come in. Twenty -five 
instruments were still pending. Some ratifications were expected  to be completed soon, all of them 
from developing countries and LDCs . Currently, 80 per cent of all developing countries and LDCs 
had deposited their acceptance instrument - 85 per cent  of developing countries and two thirds of 
LDCs.  Members interested in  further information on submitted and pending ratifications  were invited 
to consult the TFA notifications  database  (www.tfadatabase.org) , which  had been updated and 
expanded to  include  new features. I t allowed delegations to perform detailed queries concer ning 
ratifications based on region, country grouping , development status and other such criteria . 
1.89.   As far as notifications  were concerned , Members had provided additional input on all types. 
The greatest number of submissions had been  received on implementation -related matters, the so -G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 11 - 
 
  called " ABC notifications ", where 114 Members had provided input on category A, 71 on category B , 
and 60 on category C. Those calculations referred to the number of Members  that provided input as 
opposed to the number  of documents , which was higher , as some  delegations had presented more 
than one notification. The difference in category numbers remained , but grew successively smaller . 
1.90.   Close to 50 per cent  of the Agreement was expected to have already be en implemented  at 
the time of reporting , based on Members' commitments. B roken down regionally, the data showed 
that developing countries had a higher rate of category A commitments than LDCs, which had higher 
category B and C ratios (and a longer time period in which to hand in their input compared to  their 
developing counterparts). In terms of designations, close to 70  per cent  of developing countries had 
provided all category designations, while a portion of them (29 per cent ) had submitted partial 
information, and a  small number  (3 per cent ) had not provided any designations  at all . Least -
developed countries,  on the other hand,  had relatively lower percentages  of comple te information 
and higher percentages  of partial o r no information on category designations. When f actoring in the 
element of ratification, the numbers showed that the rate had increased to 75 per cent  for both  
developing country and LDC Members when looking at the provision of category designations.  
1.91.   An analysis of  implementation dates for al l three ca tegories (A, B and C) revealed that  the 
average time -frames developing countries selected for themselves had already passed . The average 
implementation dates that LDCs had chosen for the se categories fell into 2019.  No difference could 
be discerned  when focussing on average implementation dates for categor ies B and C  alone. It was 
June 2021 for both developing countries and LDCs  (2020 for category B commitments , and 2022 for 
commi tments relating to category C).  
 
1.92.   Notifications of technical assistance  and capacity building  (TACB)  showed that th e Secretariat 
had received almost all of the information required from developing countries, with only a small 
fraction (3 per cent ) still outstanding . Those figures were almost inversed for LDCs, but it had to b e 
recalled that LDCs were not yet obliged to present th is information.  
 
1.93.   The notifications that had already been submitted showed that human resources and training 
topped the list of requested areas for support, followed by calls for support with legislati ve and 
regulatory framework endeavours , and support for information and communication technology . 
Infrastructure came up further down the list, and did not seem to represent a priority.  
 
1.94.   Turning to  transparency notifications  (that is,  notifications under a rticles 1.4, 10: 4:3, 10: 6:2, 
and 12:2: 2 of the TFA), the overall numbers showed a continued upward trend . Detailed  information 
on the se notifications could be found on the TFA d atabase, which allowed for a wide range of queries.  
 
1.95.   An upward trend was likewise  recorded with regard  to notifications from  donor countries . In 
total, 13 notifications had been received at the time of reporting under article 22.1  of the TFA , eight 
notifications under article 22.2  and one under  article 22.3.  
 
1.96.   A related feature  had been added recently to the notifications database, show ing a map with 
detailed statistics per Member. In developing this new functionality, the Secretariat had  benefitted  
greatly  from Members'  suggestions . 
 
1.97.   The representative  of Nigeria  thanked the Se cretariat for an insightful presentation . He 
wondered about the r elationship between ratifications and category A commitment s, as well as the 
implementation rate for developed and developing countries. What was meant by a 100 per cent 
implementation commitment rate for developed countries? He also enquired if a relationship between 
the notified  TACB needs and the previously conducted needs assessment was identifiable , and asked 
for further clarification on what was being referred to as 'legislative and regulatory frameworks' . 
 
1.98.   The representative of the Secretariat  recalled that the TF Agreement had entered into force 
on 22 February 2017  in line with the requirements set out in the protocol amending the Ma rrakesh 
Agreement (WTO Agreement) , which had been  adopted in November 2014 . Paragraph 4 had set out 
that the protocol "shall enter into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of article X of the WTO 
Agreement " which determined that amendments – such as the T rade Facilitation Agreement, in the 
particular case – "shall take effect for the Members that have accepted them  upon acceptance by 
two thirds of the Members and thereafter for each other  Member upon acceptance by it".  
 G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.99.   As far as the 100  per cent  implement ation commitment rate for developed countries  was 
concerned, it was a reflection of the fact t hat developed countries we re not entitled to the flexibilities  
set out in s ection II of the TFA. Consequently, they we re not allowed to request any kind of delay in 
terms of implementing or any kind of technical assistance. Rather, developed Members were obliged 
to implement the entire Agreement  as of 22 February 2017 . This  was the basis for the reference to 
a full implementation  commitment rate.  
1.100.   On the relationship between  notified technical assistance requirements  and needs 
assessments, many Members had been guided by their needs assessments – at least to a certain 
degree - when drawing up the TACB lists for their category C commitments. There had never  been 
a requirement to conduct a needs assessment prior to submitting a category C support requirement, 
but many Members had decided to make use of the possibility, and had found it very useful in 
facilitating the later preparation of their category C noti fications.  
1.101.   As far as the last question was concerned, most Members had not specified their 
requirements further , but often seemed to request assistance relative to the process of drafting 
relevant laws and regulations. Additional informa tion on the precise  meaning of " legislative and 
regulatory frameworks"  could in some cases be found when considering the particular provision for 
which the support had been requested.  
1.102.   The representative  of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for  an excellent report 
and for the work on the TFA database. As mentioned at the previous Trade Facilitation Committee 
meeting, the EU attached importance to keeping a good overview o f the state -of-play of the various 
notifications from Members in different areas. The EU would con sider it useful if th e Secretariat could 
prepare a factual table that  would summarize  the state -of-play with respect to notifications. This 
could, for example, include columns for the ABC categorizations, the notifications of category B  
commitments  (includ ing indicative and definitive dates, as well as the breakdown of the different 
timelines for developing countries and LDCs), notified category C assistance a s well as  transparency 
and a rticle 22 notifications. Perhaps such a table could be prepared for the next meeting in 
collaboration with interested Members. Having such a factual table could greatly facilitate follow up 
and bilateral exchanges among Members, including outreach on capacity building needs.  
1.103.   The representative  of Angola  thank ed the Secretariat for the presentation and informed  that 
Angola' s ratification process had been concluded at the National Assembly level , authori zing the 
head of state to deposit a valid acceptance instrument. T he Republic of Angola would  therefore be 
submitting its instrument to the WTO as early as possible . 
1.104.   The representative  of Chad intervened on behalf of the LDC Group. The LDCs wished to 
thank the WTO Secretariat for having provided relevant information  regarding the state of the 
ratification and notification processes , as well as for the technical assistance and capacity building 
support provided . 
1.105.   The LDC Group appreciated  the TFA, which they hoped would help them to promot e their 
export capacit ies, increase their  integration in to world trade , and to have an important social impact . 
The G roup also recogni zed the importance of streamlining customs procedures. However , LDCs faced 
considerable supply -side constraints that limited their ability to participat e in world trade , and to 
effectively implement the TFA, and for which they  required  the full support of Members and other 
partners. Mobilizing resource s to remedy the constraints linked to trade was therefore of paramount  
importance to LDCs in order to help them fully participate in global trade.  
1.106.   As far as the implementation process of the TFA was concerned, some LDCs had not yet  
completed their ratification process  and/or were still in the process of  preparing their category ABC 
notifications . In th is regard, they considered very important that support was provided to them , 
covering guidance, assistance in drafting technical assistance programmes relating to category C  
commitments , and other forms of support . This had already been expressed by LDCs  previously . 
1.107.   LDCs had limited institutional capacities and needed assistance with the ratification process 
and to determin e the definitive dates for the implementation of provisions, as well as the technical 
assistance needs. In addition , they needed guidance support for the identification of donor partners 
that could assist with the implementation process. Such assistance should  particular ly consider the  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 13 - 
 
  development priorities of LDCs and the ir need to have the ability to implement targeted provisions. 
The acqu isition of implementation capacity was extremely important for LDCs.  
1.108.   The LDC Group call ed upon mutual responsibility and resource mobilization , which had to be 
consist ent and harmonious , to enable the best possible implementation of the TFA , but without 
question ing the development priorities  of LDCs . They also encourage d a continued sharing of 
information and experiences concerning good practice s to facilitate  the implementation  process.  The 
Group reiterate d its appreciation to  the Secretariat fo r its support , and hope d that there w ould be 
strength and coordination to ensure effective guidance for the implementation of the Agreement. 
They were also grateful  for the organi zation of a workshop for LDCs that would host capital -based 
officials.  
1.109.   The representative  of Hong Kong, China  thanked the Secretariat for an excellent 
presentation  and report . 
1.110.   Hong Kong, China ha d noticed that, almost two years after the entry into force of the TFA , 
fewer than 60 Members had submitted  their transparency notifications. Th e number was far below 
the number of Members that had presented their category A  notification s. She urged Members to 
accelerate  their work in submitting the required notifications, bearing in mind that a transparent 
import and export system would attract business and benefit the country, and that Members'  
collective efforts in enhancing the transparency of trading systems  would lead to the growth of world 
trade.  
1.111.   Section II of the  TFA had a unique and innovative design, and its effective implementation 
would hinge on timely notification s in accordan ce with the various timelines. At present , although 
new notifications were being submitted , there was no clear picture on the actua l progress on the 
ground under each timeline.  More targeted  information management would be essenti al to facilitate 
the TF Committee' s wor k in monitoring notifications. Hong Kong, China stood  ready to work with 
interested Members on possible reports that could serve the purpose.  Notification was separ ate from 
implementation , and the challenges were not always the same.  
1.112.   Questions and responses on notifications would enhance transparenc y and benefit the  
Member  concerned . At present, various tools, tables , or even computer systems , were being used 
to follow up on such questions a nd responses . The TFC should explore the best approach to ensure 
an effective review of notifications  and consider questions raised and respo nses made so far , as 
appropriate and  taking into accou nt Members'  capacit y. 
1.113.   The representative  of the United States  thank ed Angola for the update on the ratification 
process, which  was helpful . The US supported the EU 's request for the creation of a table document 
by the Secretariat  and associated itself  with the comments made the Hong Kong, China in terms of 
looking at best practices to move forward . Following up on the intervention by Nigeria, the US wished 
to express its view that a rticle 24 :3:4 of the TFA  set out how the Agreement should be interpreted 
in respect of its entry into force . Articles 14 and 15 of the TFA set out how Section II operated. She 
recalled the negotiation process of th ese provisions , and how efforts had been made to resolv e any 
confusion between entry into force of the Agreement  itself, and Members ' individual acceptance of 
the Agreement later in time . There had been a number of discussions and the matter had been 
resolved.  
1.114.   The representative of Gabon  expressed appreciation for  the work undertaken by the WTO 
Secretariat. Gabon  was making  best ef forts to implement the Agreement , but experienced difficulties 
in the area of notifications. Challenges arose  in particular  due to the  lack of donors and lacking 
technical assistance that would support the validation of  the notification s for measures under 
categories B and C. Gabon needed a commitment from donors that would enable Gabon  to move 
forward  with its notification obligations under the Agreement . 
1.115.   Gabon was thankful to UNCTAD  which , with the EU's support , had enabled Gabon to gain a 
better understanding of the Agreement and to fine -tune its categorization process. The African 
Development Bank had also provided support to the Central African Region to undertake th at 
exercise. Gabon sought  further commitment fro m the developed world to assisting it with reaching  
a complete and comprehensive understanding  of the Agreement  and for th e notification process . In 
this regard, the table on notifications requested by th e EU would be useful.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.116.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for a very good presentation . It 
significantly helped Members in terms of their understanding of  TFA implementation and of the 
information involved. Canada also support ed the EU suggestion with regard  to a table with 
information on n otifications. Having such factual information would be very helpful to  Members to 
move forward . 
1.117.   The Chair noted that , since there were no objections to the EU's request for a table on 
notifications, t he Secretariat would proceed in preparing  it. 
1.118.   The Commit tee took note  of the statements made . 
2  ADMINISTRATIVE SEPAR ATION BETWEEN THE TRADE FACILITATI ON AGREEMENT 
FACILITY AND THE COM MITTEE ON TRADE  FACILITATION - REQUE ST BY THE UNITED 
STATES  
2.1.  The Chair  turned the Committee 's attention to the next agenda item, which was the 
administrative separation between the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility and the Committee on 
Trade  Facilitation . It had been included at the request of the United States, following up on earlier 
discussions of the ma tter. 
2.2.  The representative of the United States  explained that the US had requested for this item to 
be placed on the agenda in order to return to some fundamental questions the US  delegation that 
had raised at the very first substantive Trade Facilitation C ommittee meeting , in July 2017. As 
recorded in the minutes of that meeting, which c ould be found in document G/TFA/M /2, particularly 
paragraph 4.16, the United States had indicated at that early meeting that it was seeking a better 
understanding of the ins titutional and administrative division between the WTO Secretariat and the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility. The US  sought clarity on who was doing what and how 
conflicting i nterests would be addressed. The se questions m ay have seemed remote or abstra ct in 
2017, but in the past year both the TF Committee and the TFAF ha d evolved and it was  appropriate 
to return to that  discussion.  
2.3.  The United States remain ed supportive of the mission and technical work undertaken by the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement Faci lity, and recognize d the im portant and unique partnership that 
existed b etween the TF Committee and the TFA F. The desire  of the US was  to ensure that Members  
continue d to build up on this partnership in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration , which included  
a clear understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities.  
2.4.  First, as a starting point, it had to be clear what exactly the Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility  
was as an organizational entity.  The operational guidelines state d that the F acility wa s operated, 
managed, and monitored by the WTO Secr etariat. However, the Facility wa s funded through 
contributions from about eight WTO Members. This raised the  question of whether the TFAF operate d 
as the Secretariat , i.e. representing all Member s based on consensus, or whether it was  an 
independent multi -donor trust fund . 
2.5.  There were two key questions that might help Members  better develop a common 
understanding of the c hallenges going forward : first, under what circumstances could or should the 
Facility  be able to exerci se the prerogatives an d privileges of the WTO Secretariat ? Members ha d 
the ability to give instructions to the Secretariat by consensus to carry out specific work, but the 
situation where  Members were being asked to step aside and to allow a multi -donor driven body to 
carry out specific work , according to its own priorities set by its own donors , was concerning . At the 
minimum,  Members needed to find a way to avoid duplication, or worse  - conflict - in terms of 
priorities.  
2.6.  The actual urgency of the question had co me into a much clearer focus  upon examination of  
the TFAF 's recent and on -going activities . There were almost two separate Committees taking place 
in parallel, triggering questions as to why Members were  not more  unified in their approach in the 
TF Committee. The US did not disagree with the sessions undertaken by the Facility  per se , but s aw 
it as a lost opportunity that those discussions were taken out of the TF Committee , where  Members 
could collectively offer view s and opinions and seek to improve the understanding of the TF 
Agreement by all Members. That created a  risk of hollowing out the Committee 's work if Members  
continue d to work in parallel tracks.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.7.  This issue had real implications going forward. The United States and other Members had 
worked extremely hard to organize and fully participate in the dedicated Committee session on 
technical assistance earlier in 2018 . That session had been  specifically provided for by  the TFA, and 
the US had been  pleased to carry out that responsibility with all other Members. That was the 
opportunity for Members to bring forward questions, concerns or problems regarding technical 
assistance and capacity building. It was had been the first attempt, and Members would need to 
work together as a Committee to strengthen this aspect over time. Likewise, Members  as a 
Committee , needed also to discuss and to debate questions relati ve to how notification obligations 
were to be interpreted and f ulfilled.  
2.8.  However, if th ese discussions were to take  place in alternative venues, the Committee would 
become  less relevant. It would become more diminished or a little obscured. It could  also diminish 
the Committee's ability to constructively address issu es under its responsibility under  section II  of 
the TFA , such as responding to re quests under the Early Warning Me chanism. It was unclear how 
Members  could work as a Committee to resolve their problem s, such as with implementation of the 
Agreement , or with finding donor support, if the WTO was offering  up an alternative venue for tho se 
discussions. If the TFAF were in fact the Secretariat, then such conversations should be supported 
within the Committee , so that all Members c ould participate  in them . If, instead , the TFAF were a 
multi-donor trust fund, then it should not be using the WTO Secretariat as a platform to organize 
and sometimes convey, at least optically, the legitimacy of a Committee process.  
2.9.  The s econd  important question  was how Members  could  be assured that technical assistance 
and advice given by the Facility on how to implement the TFA represented  an independent view and 
not an endorsement by the WTO Secretariat . 
2.10.   The Facility was in a unique position . Secretariat -driven assistance and advic e provided for in 
other WTO Agreements was supported by years of Member -based Committee discussions, decisions 
and recommendations. In such situations, Members c ould be assured that the Secretariat 's 
representation of WTO -consistent implementation was guided by what Members ha d said, or 
decided , or debated , over the course of many years. In the case of the TFA, there was as yet no 
such record of Members ' interpretations. Members  were currently in the process of working that out 
through their discussions in the TF Committee. When a technical assistance provider support ed the 
implementation of an obligation, it was easy to understand that such involvement d id not necessarily 
convey a WTO endorsement. However, th e present  situation  was much less clear , when and if the 
WTO Secretariat were actually the provider of that assistance.  
2.11.   Members  should ensure that the administrative boundaries were clear and well understood to 
avoid putting the Secretariat staff in the middle of any potential conflict between Members ' 
respective interpretations of the TFA.  
2.12.   The purpose of posing those two questions was  for Members to begin to consider  how they 
wished to see the  described  issues going forward with a view to ensuring greater coordination 
between the Facility and the TF C ommittee , as well as to provid e some administrative delineation 
that would help to avoid confusion about the neutral interpretive role played by the Secretariat , and 
the role of technical assistance provider and advisor played by the TFAF . 
2.13.   The representati ve of Norway  said that the United States had made many good points. It had 
been very interesting to listen to the ir reflections. The US had raised a couple of basic questions 
regarding the nature of TFAF that Members would need some time to reflect upon. T hey were 
certainly interesting. When it came to practical aspects, he did not for the moment see t he more 
dangerous implications  described . But the Committee should certainly  have a clear understanding 
of its role and ta sks which, as could be seen in a rticle 23 of the Agreement, were t o consult on any 
matters relative  to the operation of the TFA, including on how Members could best meet the 
Agreement 's objectives. Th at role could remain unimpaired even if the TFAF w ere organi zing 
workshops on topics tha t were similar to those discussed in the Committee , but Members should 
make sure that there was no impairment . The TFAF could give  more hands -on support to developing 
Members in their implementation of the Agreement than what Members could do in the contex t of 
the Committee , based on what was mentioned in the operational guidelines of the  TFAF in 
paragraph s 15 and 16, as well as  in Annex 2.  Norway was open to  discussing the matter further.  
2.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made under agenda item 2.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3  EXPERIENCE SHARING /THEMATIC DISCUSSION S 
3.1.  The Chair recalled that, as in previous  meetings, Members' experience sharing would be 
conducted in informal mode , with the understand ing that information Members were  willing to share 
would be made available on a de dicated 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. It was also possible for a Member  to request the recording 
of a particular statement  in the minutes of the meeting . 
3.2.  Members addressed the following issues:  
A. Authorized  Economic O perators (AEO)  
3.3.  Discussions under this item included the following:  
Implementation of the A EO programme in Hong  Kong , China: communication by 
Hong  Kong,  China (G/TFA/W/8)  
3.4.  Information on the presentation can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_hkg_e.pdf  
3.5.  The communication can be found under the following link:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e /comm_tradfa_e.htm  
Presentation by the European  Union on the EU AEO Programme  
3.6.  Information on the presentation can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.o rg/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_eec_e.pdf  
Australia's AEO Programme: Communication from Australia (G/TFA/W/9)  
3.7.  Information on the presentation can be found under the following link s: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_aus_e.pdf  and 
https://www.abf.g ov.au/about -us/what -we-do/trustedtrader  
3.8.  The communication can be found under the following link:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_tradfa_e.htm  
Zambia's Custom s Accredited Client Programme  
3.9.  Information on the contribution  can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_z mb_e.pdf  
China 's AEO Programme  
3.10.   Information on the presentation can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_ chn_e.pdf  
Guatemala 's AEO Programme  
3.11.   Information on the presentation can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_gtm_e.pdf  
Brazil 's AEO Programme  
3.12.   Information on the presentation can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_bra_e.pdf  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 17 - 
 
  B. Transit  
3.13.   Switzerland made a presentation on the subject that can be found under the fo llowing link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_che_e.pdf  
C. Single Window  
3.14.   Discussions under this item included the following:  
Presentation by K orea on the Korean  Single W indow  
3.15.   Information on the presentation as well as on a related statement can be found under the 
following links:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_korwind_e.pdf  and 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_kor_e.pdf  
Contribution  by Malaysia  on initiatives undertaken by  ASEAN  
3.16.    Information on the contribution  can be found under the following link : 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_asean_e.pdf  
Presentation by Saudi Arabia: Overview of TF Ini tiatives by  Saudi Customs  
3.17.   Information on the presentation can be  found under the following link : 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_sau_e .pdf 
Presentation by Brazil: Single Window Implementation in Brazil  
3.18.   Information on the contribution  can be found under the following links: 
https://www.wto.org/eng lish/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_bra_sw_e.pdf  
D. Advance rulings  
Advance rulings at the APEC circuit – contribution by Singapore  
3.19.   Information on the contribution can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_sgp_e.pdf  
The role of advance rulings and administrative procedures in TFA implementation: 
communication by the United  States (G/TFA/W/7)  
3.20.   This segment wa s fully recorded in response to a related request.  
3.21.   The representative of the United States  thanked  the Committee for considering the US 
communication regarding the role of advance rulings and administrative procedures in implementing 
the TFA.  
3.22.   The US s ubmitted th e communication to share the best practices that the Unite d States had 
learned from its experience in developing, implementing, and maintain ing an advance ruling 
program. The Unite d States  wanted to share its experience as other Members beg an implementing 
article 3  of the TFA . They believed that advance rulings promote d transparency, certainty , and 
uniformity for traders and customs services alike . 
3.23.   An advance rulings regime further foster ed openness, efficiency, and transparency. It was a 
key asp ect of a modern customs administration and provide d a vital service to the trade community 
in the form of predictability, certainty, and fairness.  
3.24.   In accordance with the TF A and its own experience, the US  consider ed that an effective 
advance rulings regime  had the following characteristics:  (i) rulings were simple to obtain and issued G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 18 - 
 
  in a timely manner;  (ii) rulings were legally binding;  (iii) rulings were published and the rulings 
process transparent;  (iv) confidential information was protected;  (v) rulings set the customs practice 
throughout the country for that good for all traders;  (vi) there was effective communication 
externally with the public concerning rulings matters;  (vii) there was effective communication 
internally - within customs  - to support  a rulings regime;  (viii) the advance rulings system promote d 
uniformity and fairness.  
3.25.   The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issue d rulings and other decisions 
that importers could  use for guidance for the merchandise described in the rulin g, whether or not 
the ruling was issued to them. The CBP publishe d its information so that any member of the public 
could  access them in print or read them online. The CBP had clear regulations that were also freely 
available online and that govern ed every  aspect of its rulings program. All these aspects of the CBP's 
rulings program ma de it uniform in application.  
3.26.   The system provide d a process under which rulings were simple to obtain, legally binding, 
provided  in a timely manner , and made publicly availabl e while prote cting confidential information.  
3.27.   The United States encourage d all Members to share their views and experiences concerning 
advance rulings, including the different scale and practices in their advance rulings programs and 
the use of adva nce ruli ngs by their exporters.  The United States further encourage d Members to 
share th ose views with a view toward s full TFA implementation and achieving the TFA's aims of 
further expediting the movement, release , and clearance of goods, including goods in trans it. The 
United  States looked  forward to working with Members seeking further information about  
establishing an advance rulings regime or expanding an existing advance rulings program.  
3.28.   The communication of the United States can be found under the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_comm_usa_e.pdf  
3.29.   The representative of  Ukraine  said that the importance of this issue was eviden t from the 
analytic data available on the TFA database. Only 45 Members had notified  article  3 of the TFA as a 
category A commitment, 47 Members had notified it as category B and C, and 37 Members had not  
yet notified the provision. The US advance ru lings programme demonstrated transparency, openness 
and predictability, especially for small and medium enterprises. It stood out as  a good example to 
many Members, in particular for  Ukraine, of how to improve or expand an exis ting advance rulings 
programm e. 
3.30.   Ukraine had notified article 3 of the TFA under category C and still needed to implement 
mechanisms for advance rulings on the appropriate measures to be used for determining the 
customs value and advance rulings for relief exemptions of customs duties.  There were many 
questions on how to implement such  types of advance rulings in the best way and a lot of work still 
needed to b e done. Existing advance rulings programme s would provide significant benefits to all 
traders – especially for MSMEs . 
3.31.   The US pap er mentioned that the most common advance ruling request was about tariff 
classification . What was the situation regarding advance rulings on customs value and exemption 
from duties ? Was th ere a wide -spread practice , and what were the main challenges in th at cont ext? 
Ukraine was further interested to receive more detailed information regarding rulings on origin 
matters.  
3.32.   The representative of Sri Lanka  thanked  the United States for its support to Sri Lanka customs 
and for the promotion of an advance rulings  project . Sri Lanka was interested in hearing more about 
the challenges encountered in the process of setting up an advance rulings system , as well as in the 
way that the US published its rulings.  
3.33.   The representative of the United States  said that the vast number of rulings requested from 
the United States were indeed on tariff classification, amounting to over 80 per cent of all requests 
received in a typical year. In 2017, 4500 classification rulings had been issued, representing the 
vast majority of overall rulings. Th is did not diminish the importance rulings on valuation, on duty 
deferral, or of quan titative rulings that the United  States equally provided. Even if the volume of 
such requests was lesser, the se rulings were still importa nt to th ose traders that had requested 
them. Some of the issues involved complex questions on valuation and the treatment of goods and G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 19 - 
 
  application of US law for valuation, which were necessary to achieve uniformity and which provided 
certainty to traders.  
3.34.   The Unite d States made rulings available online. There existed a customs ruling s online search 
system and a website which showed how a ruling could be requested and where to find all published 
rulings, which also set out the US customs' position on issues  such as valuation and quantitative 
duty deferral, country of origin and tariff classification. Th is information was available online for 
anyone to read globally and set the customs position for the entire United States, which provided 
certainty to traders .  
3.35.   The US paper provided links to the customs ruling online search system and to the area which 
showed how to request  a ruling. T he volume of ruling requests had increased and stayed steady 
over a number of years. The United  States received requests from a ll over the world about 
classification , valuation , and country of origin. Quick questions on classification first went to the New 
York office , staffed by some 80-100 commodity specialists that ruled on classification matters all 
day. They were divided into  commodity groupings. It was possible to request a ruling electronically 
and a response would then be received within 20 -30 days, allowing for a quick turnaround. When 
the request involved multiple questions on different areas , or when it touched upon comp lex issues, 
they were often directed to an office in Washington. The re were therefore two parallel systems 
operating at the same time.  
3.36.   The representative of Ecuador  asked the United States whether the rulings were binding. 
What was the practice regarding valuation rulings, given that there was a concurrent assessment at 
the clearance stage? Ecuador also wondered about the waiting period for the applicant.  
3.37.   The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  wondered whether a company could query an 
advance ruling. W ere there any instances where an importer had received an advance ruling with it 
however being queried by another importer o r producer of the same product?  
3.38.   The representative of the United States  confirmed that the rulings were indeed binding. They 
were binding on th e importer that had requested the ruling  and it was the same at every port of 
entry for every customs officer, no matter how many times the question was posed. Valuation rul ings 
were n ot about valuation of  a particular item but on how to apply the valuation law. For instance, if 
the United  States knew that the Customs Valuation Agreement state d that the primary method of 
valuation was transaction value but that , in certain instances , the transaction value might not be 
allowed because it was a question of a related party or because there was no transaction, th is could 
be the basis of the valuation.  
3.39.   Companies came forward and asked if they could use transaction value. There were also 
questions on other issues such as royalties or how to use deductive value or computed value. The se 
did not represent the majority of advanced rulings but the questi ons were nevertheless valid. Every 
day there w ere a customs officer making a decision at the bor der about a tariff classification and the 
value of a good - every second of everyday. Advance rulings allowed for decisions to be made ahead 
of time, which provided certainty, as well as for some degree of uniformity.  
3.40.   The advance ruling was binding on the customs service and on the person that had requested 
the ruling. In the United States, there was also a domestic requirement for all goods to be treated 
equally. This implied that, even if the advance ruling was not issued to a particular importer, the 
customs service had to follow what had been  set out as the US position. They could not give a 
different decision to two different importers. If the ruling lacked uniformity , or was not applied 
correctly, the issue could be raised. The online publication meant  that anyone could see how customs 
had determined the way in which a good in question would be treated.  
E. Other  
Presentation by the Dominican Republic on its National Trade Facilitation Committee  
3.41.   Information on the presentation delivered by the representativ e of the Dominican Republic 
can be found under the followi ng link : 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/comm_e/meet_oct18_dom_e.pdf  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.42.   The Committee took note  of the statements made under agenda item 3.  
4  RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES  
A. Implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement – Workshop for ASEAN officials 
jointly sponsored by the United States and Singapore  
4.1.  The representative of Singapore  informed Members that a w orkshop for ASEAN officials had 
been conducted in Singapore from 24 -28 September  2018, jointly sponsored by the United States 
and Singapore . It was a programme under the Singapore – US Third Country Training Programme 
(TCTP) and was a follo w up to a similar course conducted in September 2017. Under the TCTP, 41 
training courses ha d been conducted in Singapore on diverse subjects for more than 1000 
participa nts. In the past six years, five of tho se courses ha d focused on trade facilitation. This 
reflect ed the importance Members  placed on the full implementation of the TFA in an effort to  make 
trade between their economies more seamless ly for all businesses.   
4.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that d uring the week of 25 September  2018, the 
United States and Singapore had hosted 28 experts  from nine Members  in the ASEAN region , 
including from one Member - Timor -Leste  – that was in the process of acceding to the WTO. Five 
individuals from the United States, including from the US Agency for  International Development 
(USAID) , and from Customs and Border Protection , had provide d a five -day training . The theme s of 
the workshop had been  transparency in decision -making , transparency to the public and 
transparency amongst the government , with a  focus on  article 4  of the TFA ( Procedures for Appeal 
or Review ); article 3  of the TFA (Advanced Rulings ); and a rticle 6.3 of the TFA (Penalt y Disciplines ). 
The US hoped to continue such activities in the future and looked forward to continued opport unities 
to promote the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
B. Update by the WTO Secretariat on activities of the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
Facility  
4.3.  The representative of the Secretariat  provide d an update on the Facility 's activities since the 
last Committee meeting in June, as well as  information on upcoming events.   
4.4.  First, she thank ed the Facility' s donors : Australia, China, the EU, Finland, France, New Zealand, 
Norway,  and the UK. She mention ed a few events that the Facility ha d participated in since the last 
Committee meeting , namely : an African Union Trade Facilitation workshop in Cote d'Ivoire , the first 
International Forum for the Trade Facilitation Agreement organized by the Chamber of Comm erce 
of Lima, the Ministry of Foreign Trade of Peru and the Comisión de Promoción del Perú para la 
Exportación y el Turismo (PromPerú) ; and an event on ports organiz ed by  the International Maritime 
Organization  in London .  
4.5.  The Facility had also  participate d in an ITTC-funded workshop for Central  and Eastern Europe, 
Central Asia and the Caucasus held at the Vienna Training Inst itute. The Facility had  also helped 
with a WTO ITTC -funded TF workshop in Abu Dhabi for Arabic and Middle East Countries. The Facilit y 
had further participated in the WCO Knowledge Academy for Customs and Trade , which was an 
annual training program me offered by the WCO on various topics , includ ing trade facilitation. In the 
near future , the Facility would participate in the upcoming WCO TFA Working Group meeting on 
22-23 October  2018, where the  Chair of the TFC would be making a speech.  
4.6.  The Facility had  used the WTO Public Forum  as an  opportunity to distribute brochures from the 
Facility  and all of its partner organizations, donors and representatives from the  private sector . The 
Facility was thankful to everybody who had provided brochures. A session had also been moderated 
of an event organiz ed by TradeMark East Africa on the use of SMS text messages that traders and 
truck drivers c ould send to government s when they were facing trade barriers. It focused on how 
the government could deal with such trade barriers. Recordings of all Public Forum sessions were 
available on the WTO Public Forum website.  
4.7.  Since  many Annex D+ partners had been present  in Geneva for the Forum , the Facility had 
taken advantage of the opportunit y to share information and discuss upcoming events.  For the 
current meeting of the Committee, t he TFAF had funded officials from 65 WTO Member s and 
Observers. Several Members had also self-funded additional capital -based  officials to be at the G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 21 - 
 
  meeting. For this  reason , the Facility had organized additional workshops to provide further 
opportunities for Members  to share experiences and to meet donors and partner organizations.  All 
workshops were open to all capital -based and Geneva -based officials.  She urged Members to double -
check the exact meeting room for ea ch session. W ith the permission  of the workshop speakers , all 
presentations would be p osted online . There would also be a workshop for least -developed countries 
and a workshop for Pacific Island countries , the latter coinciding with the transit workshop. It w ould 
focus on the identification of gaps and on the complementarity of available re sources.  The workshop 
for the Pacific Island countries  had been  co-organized by the Facility with the World Bank Group and 
the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat. The Facility ha d funded five officials and the World Bank had 
funded an additional eight offici als from Pacific Island countries  to attend . The workshop for 20 
capital -based officials from LDC s, as well as their Geneva delegates , would be held on the afternoon  
of the Friday following the day of th e present meeting  and would  focus on the identification of gaps 
and resources.  
4.8.  Regarding upcoming activities , a workshop on border agency co -operation for Southern Africa n 
countries would be held in Cape Town in November  2018. The goal of the workshop was to improve 
border agency cooperation for more effective implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
The Facility  had invited several participants  in each country from Trade, Custom s, and the Plant, 
Animal and Food Safety Ministries. The workshop  was being organized in partnership with the  Codex, 
FAO, IPPC, OIE, STDF , UN-OHRLLS , the World Bank Group and the WCO  and was going to cover the 
issue of transit . At the end of November  2018,  the African Forum for National Trade Facilitation 
Committees  was to be  held in Addis Ababa , which was  a follow up to the International Forum held 
in UNCTAD in Geneva in 2017. The aim of this event was to provide an opportunity for African 
National Trade Facilitation Committees to come together again to share best practices, and discuss 
existing challenges they were still facing and opportunities to overcome th ose challenges. This was 
another joint event with ITC, UNCTAD (wh ich was taking the lead role in its organiz ation), UNECA, 
World Bank , WCO, and UN-OHRLLS . The Facility was also working with CARICOM, the OECS and the 
World Bank Group to organize a regional workshop for Caribbean countries in early 2019.  
4.9.  The grant program  had been recently launched. The purpose  was to offer project preparation 
and project implementation grants  to assist Members that could not find support from donors.  All 
the information  about the grant program could be found  on the Facility 's website  under "TFAF 
Assistance " and "TFAF Grant Program ". The webpage contained  not only the operational rules, but 
also some guidelines to support the rules , as well as the application forms.  
4.10.   Members  could also look up all events in the events calendar on the Facility 's official website. 
It list ed Trade Facilitation events at the WTO, the Facility 's events , as well as those organized by 
partner organizations or Members. The calendar could be  found under "Media and R esources ". It 
would be most useful if everyone organizing events could inform the Facil ity who would include them 
in the  calendar. Members were invited  to send to the Facility  the news stories to be feature d on the  
Facility' s home page.  
4.11.   The representative of the United States  said that it was useful to get an  update . The US hoped 
that others would equally share information in the TFC so that Members could have  a robust 
exchange  in the Committee . 
4.12.   The US had noticed that , even though o ne of the core purposes of the Facility  was to improve  
donor coordination , not every donor ha d submitted  their notification  under article 22 of the TFA . The 
United States therefore encourage d the Facility  to make that a best practice among its donors , as 
well as  to encourage to those Members that had contributed to the Facility  to make sure that they 
were being transparent with other donors in terms of assistance provid ed globally. The Global 
Alliance was also participating and co -sponsoring the referenced event that was taking place in 
Africa . This point should be included on the Committee's agenda later on and discussed in the TFC.  
C. Update on the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitatio n 
4.13.   The representative of Australia  welcomed  the useful experience sharing  exercise . Australia 
wished to update Members  on the activities of the Global Alliance on Trade Facilitation, a 
collaboration of international organizations, governments and business es, supported by the 
governments of Australia, Canada, the Alliance's newest donor, Denmark, Germany, the United 
Kingdom,  and the United States.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.14.   Implementation of two Alliance projects in Colombia was continuing quickly. Th ose projects 
implement ed, respectiv ely, a risk -management system for food products and medical devices 
(INVIMA) , and a Centre for Trade Facilitation and Good Practices to process advance rulings affecting 
the automotive industry. Preliminary data from Colombia show ed a 23 per cent  reduction  in food 
inspections at the border resulting from the INVIMA project.  
4.15.   Phase two of the project in Viet  Nam, which focuse d on piloting the customs bond system, 
was on-going . Two successful public -private workshops had taken place in September in Hanoi and 
Ho Chi Minh City. USAID had participated in both events. The Government of Viet  Nam ha d officially 
approved the project, another sign of the Vietnamese Government's support and sustained political 
will to implement the TFA. The Alliance was working with Vie tnamese Customs to further define the 
pilot and private sector companies.  
4.16.   In Ghana , the Alliance ha d been working with the Ministry of Trade and private sector project 
partners to set up the Nationa l Trade Facilitation Committee T echnical Working Group on pre-arrival 
processing. Members of the Working Group had recently travelled to Germany for a risk management 
training.  
4.17.   In Kenya , pre-arrival processing activities were progressing. Meetings had been  held with the 
Ministry of Trade in Kenya, the private sector , and with co-chairs of the National Trade Facilitation 
Committee. A public -private event was planned for 4 December  2018.  
4.18.   In Sri Lanka, a project aimed to establish an MCC hub - an intermediate point where multiple 
shippers from multiple regional or igins consolidate d their shipments to build Full Container Loads 
(FCL) before sending them to their final destination – which was currently in its first phase. The 
formal project launch had taken place on 3 October  2018 with high-level participation from t he 
Government, local private sector , and a number of donors. In parallel, sessions on regulatory 
reforms were being organized by local partners and a study trip for Sri Lankan delegates to Singapore 
and Malaysia was also being planned.  
4.19.   In Brazil, the Allia nce ha d signed a  Memorandum of Understanding  with the National Institute 
of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO) to assist them with modernizing licensing 
procedures for the import of consumer goods. A private sector in -country Working Group w ould be 
formed to specifically work on regulations and import licenses. Outreach to the private sector had 
been on-going  to set up th at Working Group.  
4.20.   An Alliance project in Morocco ha d just started. With support from multiple border agencies 
and local and inter national agri -food companies, the project w ould help design and introduce a 
paperless, automated data exchange between the weigh bridges  at Mo rocco' s main ports and those 
that use the data, wit h an initial focus on the p ort of Casablanca. The Alliance w ould also support 
Morocco in introducing and sharing electronic phytosanitary certificates (ePhytos) with other 
countries. Next steps include d the signature of a  Memorandum of Understanding  with the Ministry 
of Foreign Trade.  
4.21.   The Alliance Steering Group had ju st approved a project in Zambia and further project scoping 
was progressing in Argentina and the Dominican Republic.  
4.22.   The Alliance was also exploring projects possibilities in Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Honduras, 
India, Malawi,  and Nigeria. Recently, a first e xploratory mission had taken  place in Vanuatu, in 
collaboration with the Pacific Islands Forum.  The Global Alliance w ould officially co -sponsor the 
UNCTAD National Trade Facilitation Committee  Forum in Addis Ababa at end of November  2018, 
with a range of s ide events . 
4.23.   The representative of Brazil  thank ed the Global Alliance for their effort s in promoting trade 
facilitation , and particularly for the effort s now being made in Brazil. The Ministry of Industry, Trade , 
and Services was coordinating the  work, toge ther with the Alliance.  The project in question would 
be a model for other agencies to implement risk management when licensing imports , performing 
controls at the border , and implementing  the new single window system and many others. Brazil 
wished to share this example with other agencies and other partner countries.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.24.   The representative of Egypt  enquired whether the Global Alliance was planning to group 
countries in regions where it was doing projects, i.e. in Africa, Asia, and  Latin America, bearing in 
mind that one of the challenges ahead would be regional and global value chains.  Fortunately, the 
Alliance was working with some of the  most important countries in the se continents. Egypt wondered  
whether regiona l integration, for instance support fo r the establishment of the regional single 
window, was part of the Alliance' s considerations.  
4.25.   The representative of Vanuatu  commend ed the Global Alliance for the presentation and 
appreciated the organisation of the Trade Facilitation workshop  later in the week. It was great that 
capital -based officials could participate and share their experiences in the current meeting. Vanuatu 
was one of the countries that was currently  accessing the Global Alliance Facility. The first visit of 
the Global Alliance team to Vanuatu had taken place  during the previous  month . The World Bank 
had also been undertaking work in  Vanuatu for the last few years , carrying out a needs assessment  
and other activities to  assist Vanuatu in categoriz ing the prov isions of the TFA. Vanuatu ha d already 
notified its categories to the WTO. It would be important for the Global Alliance team to consult with 
the World Bank team and assist in implementing Vanuatu's category C commitments.  Vanuatu 
wished to express its sin cere thanks to the World Bank Group f or their continuous assistance.  
4.26.   The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam was  honoured to be the first country in 
ASEAN to be receiving assistance from the Global Alliance. Through  the implementation of a pilot 
project  for implementing a customs bond, Viet Nam was committed to the implement ation of the 
TFA. 
4.27.   The representative of  Australia  noted , in response to the question by the representative of 
Egypt,  that Australia' s delivery partners in the Alliance were indeed considering regional solutions. 
Unfortunately , he was not able to provide further details at the current meeting but promised to 
revert to the question at a later stage with more details from the Alliance part ners on the regional 
approaches . 
D. Other  
4.28.   The representative of Norway  update d Members  on work regarding the Committee' s rules of 
procedure that had been carried out  throughout the year.  Given that the Committee had been 
functioning well despite the absence of rules of procedure, the proponents  of the proposal for such 
rules, Argentina, Japan,  and Norway, had not pressed forward with the tabling of a revised proposal, 
despite having had constructive exchanges wi th delegations that  had initially expressed some 
doubts. The proponents were grateful for  the spirit of cooperation Members had  shown  through out 
the process. After the summer , the proponents had met up to see if the time was right to formali ze 
the procedure and had decided that  it was indeed time. However, in order to be absolutely s ure that 
no Member  felt that their voice ha d not been heard and bearing in mind that several Members 
needed time to revisit the text after a long break , the proponents had decided not to rush the process 
and not to table the proposal in the current  meeting.  Instead, the proponents would  circulate their 
proposed text shortly and remain ed open to anyone wishing to discuss th e matter further.  
4.29.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
5  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2018) OF THE TRADE FACILITATION COMMITT EE TO THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN G OODS (G/TFA/W/10)  
5.1.  The Chair  recalled that, according to the "Procedures for an Annual O verview of WTO Activities 
and for R eporting under the WTO" (WT/L/105) , which had been  adopted by the General Council on 
15 November 1995, all bodies 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 th ose reports.  In line with this requirement, a draft report had been  circulated on 28 
September 2018 in document G/TFA/W/10 for the Committe e's consideration, followed by an 
updated version on 8 October 2018 (G/TFA/W/10/Rev.1).  The Chair asked if any delegation  had any 
reactions to the draft report . 
5.2.  There being no requests for the floor, the Chair  invited the Committee to adopt the  draft as 
the Committee 's Annual Report  to the CTG.  G/TFA/M/6  
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.3.  It was so agreed . 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1.  The Chair raised the issue of the date of the next meeting. She suggested  setting a date at the 
current meeting so that Members would have sufficient time to prepare. She wanted  to make sure 
that there was not too much of an interval between meetings so that Members could  keep up the 
momentum. With t his in mind, she propose d that the TFA Committee  met relatively early in 2019 , 
starting on 12 February and continuing on 13 February , as necessary . To allow everybody to plan 
ahead even further into the future, it seem ed useful to get at least a notion of subsequent meeting 
dates . She therefore proposed the subsequent meeting of the Committee to  take p lace in June, 
probably during the second half of th e month, followed by a  further session in October . She asked 
if that were agreeable to Members.  
6.2.  It was so agreed . 
6.3.  The Chair further asked if Members were prepared to invite represen tatives from the Annex D 
organiz ations (IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WCO and World Bank) to take part in the next meeting.  
6.4.  It was so agreed . 
6.5.  The Chair thanked delegations for their interventions and for very constructive engagement. 
Special thanks were further due to the Secretariat.  
6.6.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________