RESTRICTED  
  
G/TFA/M/11  
 
11 August 2020 
(20-5498) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Trade Facilitation   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE FACILITATION  
 
20 FEBRUARY 2020  
CHAIRPERSON: HE MR MOHAMMAD QURBAN HAQJO (AFGHANISTAN)  
Contents  
MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ............................  2 
1  REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO NOTIFY DEFINITIVE DATES FO R CATEGORY B 
PROVISIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  2 
Lao PDR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  2 
Afghanistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
Burkina Faso  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
Chad ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  7 
Senegal  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
Solomon Islands  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  9 
Djibouti  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  9 
2  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed delegations to th e extraordinary meeting of the Trade Facilitation 
Committee (TF Committee, Committee, or TFC). The meeting had been convened in document 
WTO/AIR/TFA/11/Rev.1, in accordance with Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for meetings of the 
General Council, which ap plied mutatis mutandis to the TF Committee under its rules of procedure.  
1.2.  In accordance with Article 16.2 (a) of the TFA, the deadline for least  developed country (LDC) 
Members for the submission of the definitive date for the implementation of category B provisions 
was 22 February 2020. In accordance with Article 16.2 (b) of the TFA, LDC Members could submit a 
request for an extension of their definitive dates up to the deadline of 22 February 2020. The 
Committee was required to take a decision o n the request by that same date.  
1.3.  Between 13 and 21 February, the Committee received requests from the delegation of Lao PDR 
and the delegations of Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Chad, Senegal and Solomon Islands for an 
extension of the deadline for the submiss ion of definitive dates for implementation of their category 
B provisions. Subsequent to issuing WTO/AIR/TFA/11/Rev.1, Djibouti also submitted a request for 
an extension of the 22 February 2020 deadline.  
1.4.  The Chairperson had convened the meeting of the Comm ittee on Trade Facilitation in order to 
consider these requests.  
1.5.  Additionally, the Chairperson informed the Committee that he would raise two issues under 
Other Business: the dates of the Committee's next meetings in 2020, and the participation of Annex 
D organizations and the Global Alliance in the next Committee meeting.  G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.6.  The Committee adopted the agenda as proposed in WTO/AIR/TFA/11/Rev.1, including the 
consideration of the request by Djibouti and the items added under Other Business.  
MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADE 
FACILITATION AGREEMENT  
1  REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO NOTIFY DEFINITIVE DATES FOR CATEGORY B 
PROVISIONS  
Lao PDR  
1.7.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from Lao PDR in 
document  G/TFA/N/LAO/1/Add.3, dated 13 February 2020, in which it raised a request for an 
extension until 21 February 2021 to notify the definitive dates for implementation of its category B 
provisions.  
1.8.  The Ambassador of Lao PDR  thanked the Chairperson and all the  parties concerned for 
organizing the meeting in order to consider Lao PDR's request. Lao PDR acknowledged receipt of a 
letter from the WTO Director -General reminding LDCs to submit the definitive implementation date 
for their Category B provisions in acco rdance with the deadline of 22 February 2020.  
1.9.  Lao PDR had notified in documents G/TFA/N/LAO/1 and G/TFA/N/LAO/1/Add.2 an indicative 
date of 31 December 2020 for implementation of its category B provisions. The consultation process 
to identify the definiti ve dates for implementation of category B provisions had been undertaken 
with various sectors across the country. Those sectors had subsequently identified that they had 
limited resources which had given rise to challenges and difficulty to implement the c ategory B 
provisions. As a result, Lao PDR would not be able to notify the 31 December 2020 as the definitive 
date for implementation of its Category B commitments.  
1.10.   According to article 16.4 of the TFA, LDC Members that failed to notify the definitive dat es for 
the implementation of category B provisions would be required to implement those provisions within 
one year after the deadline of 22 February 2020. Consequently, Lao PDR requested an extension of 
the deadline to 22 February 2021 in order to submit t he definitive implementation dates for its 
category B provisions. Lao PDR was committed to notify the definitive dates before the extended 
deadline.  
1.11.   The representative of Haiti supported the Lao PDR's request for an extension to 22 February 
2021.  
1.12.   The repr esentative of Chad, as Coordinator of the LDC group, spoke on their behalf. The LDC 
Group thanked the Chairperson for having convened the special meeting of the TFA committee. The 
LDC group urged Members to demonstrate flexibility and understanding towards  LDCs to allow those 
countries additional time to notify the definitive dates for their category B provisions. Many LDCs 
were currently undertaking the necessary work to allow for the implementation of their category B 
provisions but some LDCs would requir e more time. LDCs were doing their best, taking into account 
their existing difficulties in terms of human resources, institutional issues, technical issues and in 
some cases, coordination between the lead Ministry and the other entities concerned.  
1.13.   The pro blem was not a lack of willingness on the part of LDCs, rather it was a question of 
capacity, time, and human and institutional capacity. LDCs were working on those challenges with 
the very welcomed support and understanding spirit of Members. The LDC Grou p urged WTO 
Members to allow sufficient flexibility to LDCs and provide additional time in accordance with the 
required timescale of each country.  
1.14.   The representative of the Philippines  said that pursuant to Article 16.2 of the TFA, they 
supported the reque st from the delegation of Lao PDR for additional time. The Philippines looked 
forward to Lao PDR’s compliance with the notification requirement by 21 February 2021.  
1.15.   The representative of Thailand  expressed Thailand's support for Lao PDR’s request. Thailand  
believed that the extension would provide sufficient time for Lao PDR to prepare its notification to 
fulfil the obligations under the TFA.  G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.   The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam supported Lao PDR's request. As one of 
Lao PDR's closest neighbour s, Viet Nam fully understood the resource constraints and difficulties 
that various ministries and agencies in Lao PDR were facing in implementing its TFA commitments, 
in particular its category B provisions. Viet Nam requested that the Committee adopt the  decision in 
Lao PDR's favour.  
1.17.   The representative of Myanmar  thanked the Chairperson for convening the meeting. Myanmar 
fully supported the Lao PDR's request. LDCs were encountering difficulties in submitting definitive 
dates for category B provisions and they hoped to receive maximum flexibility and understanding 
from Members in their consideration of an extension of one year to the notification deadline for Lao 
PDR. With regard to Myanmar's notification, its National Trade Facilitation Committee was in th e 
process of finalizing its category B definitive dates and they would be notified before the 22 February 
2020 deadline.  
1.18.   The representative of Cambodia  expressed Cambodia's support Lao PDR's request. Lao PDR 
was a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system and it had committed to implementing its 
WTO obligations. Lao PDR was the 2nd LDC to ratify the TFA and was the 18th WTO Member to 
formally a ccede to the TFA. The Ambassador of Lao PDR had referred to their limited capacity which 
made it difficult for them to notify the category B definitive dates by the deadline of 22 February 
2020. Cambodia also supported the requests for extension submitted by other LDCs. Cambodia 
hoped to be in a position to submit its notification before the 22 February 2020 deadline.  
1.19.   The delegate of Nepal  speaking on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation, 
expressed the Group's appreciation to the Chairperson f or convening the meeting at very short 
notice. The Group asked all Members to give positive consideration to the requests made by LDC 
Members for an extension of the deadline for notification of the definitive dates for category B 
provisions.  
1.20.   In the contex t of the upcoming deadline for the notification of category B implementation for 
LDC Members, a meeting of the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation had been held on 19 February 
2020 and it discussed various matters including the notification deadline and i ssues faced by LDCs 
in the implementation of the TFA. It was understood that most of the Members which had not notified 
their definite dates were still completing their internal procedures. Sometimes, minor issues hindered 
the completion of the process. Fo r instance, organizing a meeting of a National Trade Facilitation 
Committee and validating the notification of definitive implementation dates could take a long time 
because of the busy schedule of the Committee members. In addition, trade facilitation was  a cross -
cutting subject that needed the engagement of various agencies to finalize the notification and it 
could take a long time to develop a common view on the different aspects of the notification.  
1.21.   Nepal had completed its own process of consultation wi th the relevant agencies and had 
reached consensus. As a result, Nepal had notified the definitive date of its category B provisions 
earlier that day and would submit its notification ahead of the deadline.  
1.22.   The representative of the United States  said that  they had carefully studied the notification 
by Lao PDR and their preference was to agree to an extension until 2 October 2020, which would be 
in advance of the planned October meeting of the TF Committee. The additional eight months would 
allow for Member -to-Member discussions on the exact needs of LDCs. The US was open to reviewing 
individual requests for further extensions in October.  
1.23.   The representative of Burkina Faso  thanked all the partners that had supported them through 
the notification process of t he indicative dates of categories B and C which it had notified on 3 
December 2019. Burkina Faso was requesting an extension to 21 February 2021 to give them the 
time and means to be able to establish its definitive dates. It would also allow them to resol ve a 
number of difficulties facing the National Trade Facilitation Committee. No effort would be spared in 
submitting its notification ahead of the extended deadline. Concerning the other extension requests 
under consideration by the Committee, Burkina Fas o wished to express its support all of them, and 
hoped that the Committee would look favourably  on them.  
1.24.   The representative of Singapore  said that TFA Article 16 allowed developing countries to seek 
an extension to submit their notifications – subject to A greement by the TF Committee. The provision 
recognized the challenges faced by developing Members, especially LDCs. But the additional G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 4 - 
 
  flexibility should be sought and granted judiciously and on a needs basis to ensure a sound balance 
between upholding tra nsparency and the challenges of developing Members. Hence, it would be 
helpful if those delegations seeking an extension could continue to explain their specific difficulties 
in meeting the deadlines, and why they needed an extension. Based on the interven tion by Lao PDR, 
Singapore could consider its request sympathetically, and had no objections to the requested 
extension. Singapore encouraged Lao PDR and the other LDCs to continue to do their best to submit 
their notifications in a timely manner.  
1.25.   The repr esentative of Bangladesh  expressed his country's support for Lao PDR's request in 
light of the constraints experienced by LDCs in implementing the TFA.  
1.26.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU had no objections to the request 
by Lao PDR or  any other requests for extension that had been circulated prior to the meeting. They 
supported the statement by Singapore on the importance of providing transparency on the reasons 
for the delays in notifications. The EU would welcome explanations on why the delays were being 
incurred, particularly since Members might be able to support those delegations in some way. The 
EU welcomed the news from Nepal and other Members that had said they aimed to notify their 
definitive dates by the deadline.  
1.27.   The represen tative of Japan  expressed Japan's support for Lao PDR's request. Japan thanked 
Lao PDR for its explanation for the delay and its need to extend the notification deadline. In order 
to achieve the benefits of the full implementation of the TFA, it was impera tive that Members, 
including LDCs, notify the definitive dates for the implementation of the TFA provisions at an earliest 
possible date. Japan encouraged Lao PDR to provide the notification as soon as possible before the 
requested extended deadline.  
1.28.   The Chairperson  said in light of the interventions made, it appeared that Members had no 
objections to grant an extension to Lao PDR to notify the definitive dates of its category B provisions, 
in accordance with Article 16.2. However, there was not consensus o n the duration of the extension 
to be granted. The Chairperson proposed that in light of the position of other Members, the US might 
wish to give further consideration to its proposal to grant an extension until 02 October 2020. He 
proposed that the Commit tee move on to the remaining requests and revert to the request from Lao 
PDR. 
1.29.   It was so agreed . 
Afghanistan  
1.30.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the communication from Afghanistan 
which had been circulated in document G/TFA/N/AFG/1/Add.1 dated  19 February 2020 in which it 
raised a request for an extension until 22 August 2020 to notify the definitive dates for 
implementation of its category B provisions.  
1.31.   The representative of Afghanistan  said that a draft notification of the definitive dates fo r its 
category B provisions had been submitted to the WTO Secretariat. However, the scheduled meeting 
of the High Economic Council of Afghanistan which was the authority competent to approve 
notifications had been cancelled. Consequently, pursuant to Artic le 16.2, Afghanistan was requesting 
an extension until 31 August 2020. Afghanistan would submit its final notification as soon as it had 
been approved by the High Economic Council.  
1.32.   The representative of Nepal , speaking on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Tr ade Facilitation, 
requested all Members to give positive consideration to Afghanistan's request.  
1.33.   The representative of the United States  said that the US agreed  to Afghanistan's request. The 
US reminded Afghanistan that it had notified Article 10.6.2 as a  category A commitment but it had 
yet to provide the relevant information which was overdue. The US requested that Afghanistan make 
the relevant information available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.34.   The representatives of Cambodia , Lao PDR and Bangladesh  supported Afghanistan's request . G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.35.   The Committee agreed  to extend the notification period for Afghanistan until 31 August 2020 
for notification of the definitive dates for its category B provisions.  
Burkina Faso  
1.36.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the communication from Burkina Faso 
which had been circulated in document G/TFA/N/BFA/1/Add.2 dated 19 February 2020 in which it 
raised a request for an extension until 21 February 2021 to notify the definitive dates for 
implementation of its category B pr ovisions.  
1.37.   The representative of Burkina Faso  referred to his previous statement and hoped that the 
Membership would give favourable consideration to its request.  
1.38.   The representative of Nepal  said that the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation supported 
Burkina Faso's request and asked all Members to give it positive consideration.  
1.39.   The representative of the United States  said that the US preferred to agree to an extension 
until the planned October 2020 meeting of the TF Committee. The additional eight months would 
allow for Member -to-Member discussions on the exact needs of LDCs and the US was open to 
reviewing individual  requests for extensions at the October TFC meeting. The US reminded Burkina 
Faso that it had notified Article 10.6.2 as a category A commitment but it had yet to provide the 
relevant information which was over -due. The US requested Burkina Faso to make th e relevant 
information available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.40.   The representative of Lao PDR  expressed appreciation for the US recommendation to extend 
Lao PDR's notification deadline until October 2020. He wished to clarify that according to TFA Article 
16.2(b), Lao PDR had the right to propose to extend its notification for one year and he requested 
that the US reconsider its position. LAO PDR was committed to fulfilling its obligations and would 
make its best efforts notify its definitive dates ahead of t he requested extended deadline.  
1.41.   The representative of Burkina Faso  also asked the US to take into account that Burkina Faso's 
request for an extension had been made in light of its difficulties in identifying the definitive dates 
line. The request had also  been made in line with requests from other Members. Burkina Faso was 
willing to comply with its TFA obligations, as evidenced by their request for an extension in 
accordance with Article 16.2. The TFA authorized LDCs to request an extension of a year. The refore, 
Burkina Faso requested the US to support their request for an extension of 12 months and assured 
the US of its commitment to meeting the new deadline.  
1.42.   The representative of Chad recalled his previous statement as Coordinator of the LDC Group, 
where  he had raised a number of examples of the constraints LDCs faced in terms of respecting the 
TFA notification deadlines. On behalf of the LDC Group he thanked Members that had supported the 
requests submitted by a number of LDCs. Trade facilitation was a c ross cutting issue which required 
commitment from many key players, including the Ministries concerned, customs, and the private 
sector in order to ensure coherent and productive work. The LDCs requesting an extension had found 
themselves preparing for a n umber of large conferences which were going to tie up their resources. 
There was the WTO Ministerial Conference, the UNCTAD Conference, as well as other Conferences. 
The key players involved in establishing the definitive dates to be notified would be extr emely busy 
in the second half of the year. For that reason, some LDCs had requested an extension to 22 February 
2021 to give an extra year to deal with the trade facilitation issues in a dynamic way and to notify 
within the new extended deadline. The LDC G roup requested the understanding and indulgence of 
the US to allow the LDCs requesting an extension to have an extra year. It had been particularly 
difficult for LDCs that had real difficulties in terms of human resources, infrastructure capacity and 
institutional capacity to meet the 22 February 2020 deadline.  
1.43.   The representative of Cambodia  extended full support to the requests by Burkina Faso and 
Lao PDR. Cambodia noted Lao PDR's explanation and its willingness to notify as soon as possible. 
With referenc e to Article 16.2, the last paragraph stated that "the Member may request that the 
Committee extend the period sufficiently to notify its dates". Therefore, it was clearly mentioned 
that there was no specific time -period stipulated for an extension request  by LDCs.  G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.44.   The representative of Senegal  supported the statements by Chad on behalf of the LDC group 
and by Nepal as the Focal Point for the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation. Senegal also aligned 
itself with the support given to the requests from Burkina Faso and Lao PDR. LDCs very often fac ed 
significant challenges with regard to notifications and it would be important to grant extensions to 
the LDCs as requested. Senegal invited other Members to demonstrate more flexibility regarding the 
requests for extensions taking into account the chall enges indicated by the countries concerned. He 
believed that those countries would be able to submit the required notification in accordance with 
the requested extension. Senegal wished to demonstrate its full support to those countries that had 
requested an extension and invited Members to demonstrate sufficient flexibility in supporting 
extension in order to allow the notifications to be made.  
1.45.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that taking into account the particular 
circumstances and special pro blems that concerned Members were facing it was important for the 
Committee to learn about the specific difficulties of Members that had made a request. The 
Committee's decision would allow Members to continue their work with certainty. If there were 
conce rns that a one -year extension would result in no progress being made to notify the definitive 
dates, perhaps the Committee could review the notifications at the October TFC meeting. The 
Committee could give a one -year extension to provide certainty and if Members were in a position 
to, they could provide definitive dates earlier than the extended deadline. In any case, the 
notifications could be reviewed at the October TFC meeting.  
1.46.   The representative of the United States  said that both Lao PDR and Burkina F aso submitted 
their requests for an extension within the period allowed by the TFA and the US was positively 
inclined to agree to an extension. However, neither Member had provided any reasons to explain 
the difficulties encountered as to why they had not been able to meet the deadline. The 22 February 
2020 deadline was four years after the entry into force of the TFA and seven years since the 
conclusion of the negotiations. That was a considerable amount of time with knowledge of upcoming 
deadlines. Since the notifications under discussion had provided neither any reasons for the request 
of extensions nor explanation of the difficulties the Members had encountered in meeting the 
deadline, the US believed that an extension to 2 October 2020 before the Octobe r TFC meeting 
would be a good amount of time for both of these Members to wrap up any domestic discussions. 
This would avoid giving too much space for the inertia that often accompanied an additional year to 
set in. An extension to October would not preclu de an additional extension if needed but it would 
allow both Lao PDR and Burkina Faso to provide some explanation about any difficulties that they 
were still encountering,  and the Committee might try to address them in a regular TFC meeting. The 
US hoped t hat those Members could positively consider and agree to that request.  
1.47.   The representative of Nepal  said that according to the TFA LDC Members could request a 
period of time that they considered they would need to notify their definitive dates. Nepal believ ed 
that the Committee should support the requests of Lao PDR and Burkina Faso, and that the 
Committee should also expect that the Members would try their best to complete the process as 
early as possible within that extension period.  
1.48.   The Chairperson  said t hat according to Art. 16.2 of the TFA, there was no limit to the extension 
period that LDC Members could request. At the same time, the US had proposed that the Committee 
agree to extending the notification deadline for Lao PDR and Burkina Faso until Octob er 2020. This 
would result in a difference of four months between a one -year extension requested by the Members 
and the deadline proposed by the US. The US proposal would result in a 2 -stage process for 
considering a request for extension from those Member s. However, there was no jurisprudence or 
practice that could clarify whether this process was allowed for in the TFA. Even if the Committee 
agreed  to move to a 2 -stage process, there were no guarantees that during the October meeting 
those Members would n ot request a further extension maybe for longer than 4 months.  
1.49.   The Chairperson therefore inquired if the Committee could take into consideration the 
explanations that had been provided by both Members as well as their commitment to do their best 
to notify their definitive as soon as possible within the extended period. Those Members could inform 
the Committee at its October meeting if they were encountering difficulties to notify their definitive 
dates by 21 February 2021. Since the majority of the Membersh ip had supported the requests he 
asked if the Committee could agree to grant an extension until 21 February 2021 considering the 
countries' capacity constraints.  G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.50.   The representative of the United States  said that the reasoning behind their proposal of an 
eight-month extension was because of the lack of information regarding the reasons for the 
extension requests from the two Members. It was encouraging to hear their commitments to provide 
their definitive dates as soon as possible. The US request for the two  Members to consider extending 
the deadline until before the October Committee meeting was an attempt to try to make that 
deadline a tool to help Members submit their definitive dates as soon as possible rather than grant 
a one -year extension where things could run into more difficulties. Setting an earlier deadline could 
provide the Committee with an earlier opportunity to identify warning signs and work with the 
Members to implement the commitments. The US would not object to the request by the two 
member s for a one -year extension and they could proceed on that basis.  
1.51.   The representative of Lao PDR  thanked Members for their support. LDCs had many difficulties, 
including financial, technical, and human resource limitations. However, the delegation would 
request work to start on the notification immediately with the aim to completing the notification 
ahead of the extended deadline.  
1.52.   The representative of Chad, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, thanked Members for their 
support. The LDC Group particularly tha nked the US for its understanding and flexibility. The LDCs 
had a number of trade partnership with the US, as well as a number of agreements in Asia and 
Africa, and other regions. The US was sending a positive sign to the LDCs and to the WTO. The 
Committee 's discussion could have an interesting impact on the other discussions that were taking 
place in the Organization relating to fisheries subsidies domestic support and S&D treatment. They 
hoped that the impetus displayed during the discussion would drive f orward all the other discussions. 
That would mean that Members would be able to deliver significant outcomes in other areas of WTO 
work.  
1.53.   The representative of Burkina Faso  thanked Members for their support and  thanked the US 
for their flexibility. Burkina Faso was committed to respecting their obligations. He called for 
Members' continuing support to assist Burkina Faso to achieve its national reforms which they hoped 
would lead to the implementation of their category B and category C commitments.  
1.54.   The Commi ttee agreed  to grant the requests by Lao PDR and Burkina Faso for an extension 
until 21 February 2021 for notification of the definitive dates for their category B provisions.  
Chad  
1.55.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from Chad  which had 
been circulated in document G/TFA/N/TCD/1 dated 19 February 2020 in which it raised a request 
for an extension until 21 February 2021 to notify the definitive dates for implementation of its 
category B provisions.  
1.56.   The representative of Chad said that Chad's request for additional time to submit its 
notification resulted from challenges and difficulties that they were facing in establishing their NTFC 
and associated sub -committees. Chad, like other LDCs, had experienced many difficulties, for 
exam ple: delays in planned meetings on trade facilitation in the capital because of electricity cuts; 
LDCs' lack of high -speed internet, resulting in arduous communication - sometimes, emails to and 
from capital could take up to three days to be delivered; ins ufficient human resources and insufficient 
training. Significantly, officials were not familiar with process of notifications. Chad needed capacity -
building support and it was requesting assistance from the Secretariat in that regard. It called upon 
Member s to understand the difficulties faced by LDCs. In light of these problems, Chad had requested 
an extension of one year to be able to organize their work better and to enable them to hono ur their 
responsibilities and meet their commitments. Notifications w ere a priority,  but they faced a very 
difficult set of circumstances and asked for understanding from Members so that this extra year 
could be granted to Chad as for the previous request.  
1.57.   The representative of Nepal  on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Trade  Facilitation reiterated 
its request to Members to give positive consideration to Chad's request for an extension of its 
notification deadline.  
1.58.   The representative of Lao PDR  said that his delegation supported Chad's request. He 
requested Members to underst and the difficulties of each LDC and said that it was not possible to G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 8 - 
 
  compare one country with another as countries could be facing different situations and could have 
different potential. He urged Members to understand the reality of Chad's challenges.  
1.59.   The representative of the United States  said that Chad had met the deadline for submitting a 
request for an extension. The US was positively inclined to agree to an extension but similar to other 
requesting Members, Chad had not provided any reasons or expla ined the difficulties encountered 
as to why it would not be able to meet the deadline. The 22 February 2020 deadline was four years 
after the entry into force of the TFA which was a considerable amount of time for knowledge of the 
deadline. Since the notif ication under discussion had not provided the requested extension and the 
specific difficulties that Chad had encountered in meeting the deadline, the US requested the 
Chairperson to consider an earlier deadline of 2 October 2020, before the October Commit tee 
meeting to wrap up the domestic discussions in Chad. This would also not allow for too much space 
for inertia they could accompany another year to set in. An extension to October would not preclude 
an additional extension of needed and would also allow  Chad to provide some explanation about the 
difficulties that it was encountering so that the Committee could try to address them in a regular 
meeting of the TF Committee. The US had made the same request with regard to Lao PDR and 
Burkina Faso and had sho wn flexibility. The US also reminded Chad that it had notified Article 1.4, 
Article 10.6.2 and Article 12.2.2 as category A commitments but had yet to provide the relevant 
information which was now long overdue. The US requested Chad to make the relevant i nformation 
available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.60.   The representative of Burkina Faso  expressed his country's support for Chad's request and 
called upon Members to consider it favo urably. Burkina Faso was in a position to understand the 
difficulties being e xperienced by Chad since it faced the same circumstances.  
1.61.   The representative of Cambodia  said that his country fully supported Chad's request. 
Cambodia also supported the upcoming requests raised by Senegal and Solomon Islands.  
1.62.   The representative of Chad said that Chad's primary goal was to notify the definitive dates 
well before October 2020. However, given the difficulties previously described it would be very 
difficult to meet that goal. Therefore, they had requested an extension of one year so that they  could 
achieve everything that they needed to achieve in order to make the notification. While Chad was 
continuing its efforts to submit the notification before February 2021, potentially they would need 
the full year to be able to notify their definitive dates for category B provisions. Chad assured the 
US that they were making every effort to notify by October 2020 or even earlier, but an extension 
of one year would allow them to be quite sure that they could meet their commitments.  
1.63.    The representative of  the United States thanked Chad for its response and for its commitment 
to meet the obligations as soon as possible. The US accepted Chad's request for the extension of 
one year.  
1.64.   The Committee agreed  to grant Chad's request for an extension until 21 Februa ry 2021 for 
notification of the definitive dates for its category B provisions.  
Senegal  
1.65.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to a communication from Senegal which had 
been circulated in document G/TFA/N/SEN/2/Add.1, dated 19 February 2020 in whic h it raised a 
request for an extension until 21 February 2021 to notify the definitive dates for implementation of 
its category B provisions.  
1.66.   The representative of Senegal  thanked the Committee for having agreed  to consider its 
request. Senegal wished to r eiterate its commitment to effectively implement its obligations under 
the TFA and in particular its notification obligations. Senegal had presented a notification of its 
categorization in document G/TFA/N/SEN/1 dated 3rd June 2019 which placed two measure s relating 
to Article 10.1 and Article 11 in category B. However, given the difficulties that it had experienced 
in coordinating the different administrations involved, as well as a number of changes in its trade 
authorities, followed by problems with chai ns of command in the Senegalese customs authorities, 
Senegal had not been able to transmit the notifications as expected by 22 February 2020. Therefore, 
it was requesting an additional period of time up to 31 August 2020 to notify its category B definitive  
dates. Senegal was convinced that it's National Trade Facilitation Committee would be able to meet G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 9 - 
 
  and undertake the necessary consultations to meet its notification commitments under the TFA by 
that date. Senegal thanked Members for their collaboration a nd requested their approval of the 
extension request.  
1.67.   The representative of the United States  said the US could join the consensus and agree to the 
requested deadline extension of 31 August 2020. The US also wanted to remind Senegal that it had 
notified Ar ticle 10.4.3, Article 10.6.2 and Article 12.2.2 as category A commitments but had yet to 
provide the relevant information which was overdue. The US asked Senegal to make the relevant 
information available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.68.   The representative of Nepal  on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation requested 
Members to give positive consideration to Senegal's request. He also thanked the US for its flexibility 
regarding the consideration of requests made by LDCs.  
1.69.   The representative of Senega l thanked Members, and particularly the US and Nepal, for their 
support. Senegal had submitted its transparency notifications to the Secretariat and was working 
with them to conform with the required format. The same constraints that had prevented Senegal 
from communicating its definitive dates for category B had also prevented them from finalizing the 
transparency notifications. Senegal expected to submit the transparency notifications along with the 
definitive dates of category B provisions in due course.  
1.70.   The Committee agreed  to grant Senegal's request for an extension period until 31 August 
2020 for notification of the definitive dates for its category B provisions.  
Solomon Islands  
1.71.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the communication from Solomon Islands 
which had been circulated in document G/TFA/N/SLB/1, dated 19 February 2020, in which it raised 
a request for an extension until 30 June 2020 to notify the definitive dates for imple mentation of its 
category B provisions.  
1.72.   The representative of the United States  said that the US agreed  to Solomon Islands request 
for an extension of the deadline until 30 June 2020. The US also reminded Solomon Islands that it 
had notified Article 1.4 an d Article 10.6.2 as category A commitments but had yet to provide the 
relevant information which was overdue. The US requested Solomon Islands to make the relevant 
information available to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  
1.73.   The representative of Nepal , on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation said that 
they supported Solomon Islands request for an extension and they requested Members to also give 
it positive consideration.  
1.74.   The Committee agreed  to grant Solomon Islands request for an extension  period until 30 June 
2020 for notification of the definitive dates for its category B provisions.  
Djibouti  
1.75.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the request from Djibouti which had been 
received on 20 February in which it raised a request for an extension until 21 February 2021 to notify 
the definitive dates for implementation of its category B provisions.  
1.76.   The representative of Djibouti  thanked the Committee for including consideration of Djibouti's 
request for extension on the agenda of the me eting. Djibouti had submitted its notification of 
categorization of provisions in G/TFA/N/DJI/1 dated 3 July 2019. It was now requesting an extension 
of the deadline for notification of the definitive dates for implementation of its category B provisions 
until 21 February 2021. The additional time would allow capital experts and the relevant authorities 
to confirm the definitive dates. It requested the Committee to look favourably on its request.  
1.77.   The representative of the United States  requested that Djibou ti consider requesting an earlier 
extension date before the October 2020 meeting. An extension to October would not preclude an 
additional extension of needed and would also allow Djibouti to provide some explanation about the 
difficulties that it was enco untering so that the Committee could try to address them in a regular G/TFA/M/11  
 
- 10 - 
 
  meeting of the TF Committee. The US also wanted to remind Djibouti that it had notified Article 10.6 
as a category A commitment but had yet to provide the relevant information which was overdue. 
The US asked Djibouti to make the relevant information available to the Secretariat promptly.  
1.78.   The representative of Nepal , on behalf of the LDC Core Group on Trade Facilitation asked the 
Committee to give positive consideration to Djibouti's reque st. 
1.79.   The Committee agreed  to grant Djibouti's request for an extension period until 21 February 
2021 for notification of the definitive dates for its category B provisions.  
1.80.   The representative of Chad thanked all the Members who had accepted the LDC Members 
requests for an extension to the deadline for notifying the definitive dates for implementation of the 
category B provisions. He suggested that perhaps LDC members having been granted an extension 
until 21 February 2021 could consider following the example  of Senegal and Solomon Islands, who 
had requested shorter extensions. Chad was pleased to have had a positive meeting. He also 
requested Members to continue with support to LDCs.  
1.81.   The Chairperson  thanked Members for their flexibility in their consideration  of the requests 
received from a number of LDCs for an extension to the category B definitive dates notification 
deadline.  
2  OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1.  The Chairperson  confirmed that the next meeting of the Committee would take place on 19 
May and continue on 2 0 May as necessary. The regular session of the Autumn meeting would take 
place on 20 and 21 October and would be followed by the Dedicated Session on Capacity Building 
on 22 October.  
2.2  The Committee agreed  to invite Annex D organizations and the Global Alliance to attend the 
next Committee meeting.  
2.3.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________