INF/IFD/R/16  
 
7 October 2020  
(20-6920) Page: 1/7 
  Original: English  
 
 
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON INVESTMENT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 24 AND 25 SEPTEMBER  2020 
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open -ended meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development, 
coordinated by Mr. Mathias Francke (Ambassador -designate, Chile), was held on 24  and 
25 September 2020. As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all W TO Members ahead of 
the meeting,2 the purpose of this meeting was two-fold: to finalize the informal thematic discussions 
on the remaining sections of the informal consolidated text that could not be addressed before the 
summer break due to lack of time;3 and to start the negotiations on a multilateral framework on 
investment facilitation for development.  
In keeping with the Joint Initiative 's open, transparent and inclusive nature, all WTO Members were 
invited to attend  the meeting .  
1  GENERAL REMARKS  
1.1.  A delegation drew attention to the challenges still faced by participating  Members in Africa due 
to the COVID -19 pandemic . He reminded Members that at the meeting on 24 July 2020, his 
delegation raised concerns regarding the COVID situation that was still ev olving in Africa, and which 
was likely to undermine the effective participation of capital -based officials in the negotiations and 
their ability to provide guidance. Some of the COVID -related difficulties included restrictions on 
international air travels;  difficulties in obtaining guidance from Capital on substantive negotiating 
issues requiring stakeholders' validation; as well as, more generally, the digital divide and IT 
infrastructure related difficulties, which might undermine their capacity to partic ipate through virtual 
means. The last sentence of paragraph 3.2 of the report of the meeting held on 24 July made 
reference to his delegation's concern regarding the COVID situation, but did not capture the specific 
difficulties he had just mentioned. As s tated at the July meeting, he called on Members to take note 
of these concerns. His delegation reserved the right to revert to any issue in the text with its views 
at any time before the conclusion of the negotiations.  
1.2.  Indonesia informed delegations that it had formally joined the initiative. The Coordinator 
welcomed Indonesia , highlighting that the initiative now counted with the support of 105 Members .  
2  BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW TEXT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
2.1.  Two new text proposals were submitted prior to the meeting – one on measures against 
corruption4 and another one addressing the preamble, the objective, the scope and definitions , and 
corporate social responsibility.5  
 
1 This summary, prepared and circulated under the Coordinator 's responsibility, is being shared with a 
view to providing delegations with a record of the discussions and assisting them in reporting back to their 
capitals. It provides a non -exhaustive, illus trative review of the issues addressed by Members at the meeting.  
2 Document INF/IFD/W/2 5, dated 18 September  2020.  
3 Sections IV, V , VI and VII of the informal consolidated text (INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2 , dated 
15 July 2020).  
4 Document INF/IFD/RD/54, dated 21 September 2020.  
5 Document INF/IFD/RD/55, dated 24 September 2020.  INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2.  The proposal on measures against corruption  was presented as part of the discussion on 
element 27 below. In presenting the other proposal, which addressed different provisions of the 
framework,6 the Member concerned focused on two aspects that had motivated the proposal. Firstly, 
while the scope o f this initiative remained limited to facilitating investments through administrative 
improvements and the promotion of international cooperation and communication with relevant 
stakeholders, the provisions of the future framework could interfere with inve stment obligations set 
out in other IIAs, including their interpretation. In this regard, it was important to reduce those risks 
and avoid unintended consequences. Secondly, in a number of instances, regulatory measures and 
the right to regulate of States had been called into question by investors in ISDS arbitral tribunals. 
In this context the inclusion of corporate social responsibility standards in the future framework was 
of great importance to re -balance the rights and obligations of investors and Memb ers, for example, 
by encouraging the adoption of responsible business conduct and best practices regarding 
environmental, human rights, labour, transparency and taxation matters, among others.  
2.3.  The Coordinator informed participating Members that a revised version of the informal 
consolidated text, including the written proposals presented thus far would be circulated to all 
Members prior to the next meeting.  
3  INFORMAL THEMATIC DISCUSSION  
3.1.  The thematic discussions resumed where they had been adjourned at the l ast meeting.  
3.1  Section IV: Contact / Focal point / Ombudsperson types of mechanisms, 
arrangements to enhance domestic coordination and cross -border cooperation on 
investment facilitation  
3.1.1   Element 18: Contact / focal point /ombudsperson types of mechanism  / National 
Investment Facilitator  
3.2.  Two participating Members presented proposals related to this element.  
3.3.  The first Member introduced its proposal for a national investment facilitator. The proposal 
called on Members to designate, establish or maintain a Nati onal Investment Facilitator, who would 
help investors navigate the host country's regulatory framework so that investments can be 
implemented faster and smoothly. Another objective of the proposal was to clarify the functions of 
the different types of mech anisms (e.g. contact points, enquiry points)  referred to in the informal 
consolidated text . According to the proposal, the national investment facilitator would facilitate the 
settling of grievances between the government and the investor(s) and would take  up the functions 
of the enquiry point, while the contact points would be in charge of technical assistance  and capacity 
building . He further clarified that the proposal did not require Members to necessarily establish an 
investment facilitator on a de nov o basis – they could designate an already established institution 
(e.g. an investment promotion agency) to fulfil the functions described in the proposal . The national 
investment facilitator would not replace competent agencies dealing with investment but would 
rather help investors deal with relevant procedures and paperwork.  
3.4.  The second Member presented its proposal. While reference was made in the text to different 
agencies (e.g. contact point, focal point, enquiry point), the proposal focused on the dif ferent 
functions that should be included in the framework and left the organization of the institutional 
structure to deliver those functions to each Member. The most important function was to respond to 
enquiries from investors. The proposal also foresaw allowing for the reception of enquiries from other 
Members , but this function was less important. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the proposal called on 
Members to endeavor to establish or maintain appropriate mechanisms to assist investors to fulfill 
requirements, which was a central pillar of investment after -care services. In that regard, the 
proposal amounted essentially to a trouble -shooting mechanism, not a grievance mechanism. The 
proposal reassured Members that any information provided through any of these me chanisms was 
without prejudice as to whether the measure concerned was consistent with the investment 
facilitation framework. Referring to the other proposal, this Member considered that centralizing all 
 
6 Document INF/IFD/RD/55, dated 24 September 2020 . INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 3 - 
 
  these responsibilities in only one agency may be dif ficult to comply with. In that regard, he suggested 
that there should be flexibility regarding the institutional structure to fulfill those functions.  
3.5.  Several Members supported the proposal to designate or establish a national investment 
facilitator. Seve ral others saw merit in the idea but considered that the concentration of all the 
functions in one single entity may be difficult to implement for a large number of governments. A 
number of Members suggested working on the basis of both proposals, focusing  on the functions 
identified therein, but allowing Members the necessary institutional flexibility to implement them.  
3.1.2   Element 19: Domestic Regulatory Coherence  
3.6.  One participating Member presented its text proposal on impact assessment of major 
regulatory m easures within the scope of the framework. The proposal only encouraged Members to 
conduct such impact assessments and, in so doing, provide opportunity to domestic stakeholders to 
comment and take into consideration the potential impact of the proposed re gulation on micro, small 
and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs). In addition, drawing inspiration from article 8 of the TFA, 
the proposal encouraged Members to ensure inter -agency cooperation, thus implementing a whole -
of-government approach in investment fa cilitation.  
3.7.  Some Members supported the proposal. Others indicated that while regulatory impact 
assessments may be difficult to implement by many Members, in particular LDCs, they could still go 
along with the idea provided it was conveyed as a best endeav ours' obligation. In that regard, one 
Member suggested that this may be an area in which developing countries and least-developed 
countries ( LDCs) might get technical assistance. Questions were posed by some Members regarding 
the definition of "major regul atory measure"; the relationship between the opportunity to comment 
by stakeholders under this provision and the similar obligation in Section II; the scope of inter -
agency cooperation foreseen; and the reasons for taking into consideration only the impact  on 
MSMEs.  
3.8.  The proponent clarified that the general objective of the proposal was to encourage Members 
to conduct regulatory impact assessments, not to make an obligation to be implemented as of the 
framework's entry into force. While the consideration of other impacts of regulations could be 
envisaged – and the language could be improved along those lines – the proposal's intention was 
that the potential impact on MSMEs be taken  into consideration as well. The intention was to limit 
the provision only to m ajor changes to regulation or legislation. The obligation to provide 
stakeholders with the opportunity to comment was an encouragement – the intention was to learn 
about everybody's concerns and views, but not to oblige the regulator to take every single c omment 
on board. The final paragraph of the proposal, which encouraged Members to ensure inter -agency 
cooperation aimed at facilitating investment and avoiding  conflicting requirements  for investors, 
which was an essential aspect of domestic regulatory coh erence.  
3.1.3   Proposed new element 20: Domestic Supplier Databases  
3.9.  One participating Member presented its proposal encouraging each Member to establish or 
maintain a domestic supplier database , which was aimed at assisting investors in finding  domestic 
suppliers. The database would list relevant domestic suppliers in specific sectors, including potential 
subcontractors and service providers, and exhibit, inter alia, the following features, where possible: 
highlight local production and services  capacity through company factsheets; be searchable by 
sector or industry, name of product or service, etc.; be linked to aftercare services for investors; be 
available online, preferably in the Single Portal; be available in one of the WTO official langua ges; 
be consistently updated. The proponent explained that the proposal result ed from requests by 
investment promotion agencies and the private sector. Such a database would greatly benefit SMEs 
in investment -recipient countries.  
3.10.   The Members who addressed  the proposal saw merit in the idea, which was drafted as a best 
endeavours' obligation. Some of them explained that since this type of databases were usually 
maintained by industry associations, the provision could be revised to reflect the private sector 's 
leadership in this area. Other Members considered that while requiring the future WTO Committee 
on Investment Facilitation to establish a global database of domestic suppliers, as foreseen in the 
proposal, might be difficult to implement, the potential role of the Committee in this area was worth 
considering.  INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1.4   Proposed new element 21: Cross -border cooperation on investment facilitation  
3.11.   One participating Member presented its proposal on this element. The proposal called on 
Members to designate a contact p oint to facilitate co -operation among Members. Areas for co -
operation, according to the proposal, include the exchange of information and sharing of experiences 
regarding the implementation of th e framework; the exchange of expertise on regulatory and 
institutional matters, including project evaluation assistance; the exchange of information with 
respect to investment opportunities; the collection and compilation of data and statistics relating to 
investments; the promotion of cooperation with a view to inc reasing investment for development, 
including investment in and by micro, small and medium enterprises.  
3.12.   One Member considered that the proposal contained interesting ideas. However, the areas of 
co-operation envisaged were of diverse nature and could be ad dressed separately, in different ways. 
In that regard, he explained that cooperation through contact points could be addressed in the 
context of element 18, while other areas of co -operation, such as the exchange of experiences in 
the implementation of the  agreement or the exchange of expertise on institutional matters, could 
be addressed within the WTO investment facilitation Committee. The exchange of information on 
business practices, as well as the promotion of business partnerships, seemed to go beyond  the 
functions of the WTO.  
3.2  Section V: Special and differential treatment for developing and least developed 
country members  
3.13.   Two participating Members presented proposals related to this section. The first Member 
considered that provisions on technical assistance and capacity building should be as comprehensive 
as in the Trade Facilitation Agreement ( TFA) and aimed at helping de veloping countries, and 
particularly LDCs, implement the obligations resulting from the framework . The crucial importance 
of technical assistance and capacity building for the implementation of the  investment facilitation  
framework  explained the comprehens ive proposal that appear as paragraph 25.6 of the informal 
consolidated text.  The proposal aimed at putting the investment facilitation framework at the same 
level of the TFA  in terms of technical assistance and capacity building. Technical assistance and 
capacity building should be dire cted at countries that really need ed it and must be assessed case -
by-case.  
3.14.   The other proponent explained that the scope of technical assistance and capacity building 
should be clarified. In that regard, capacity building sh ould not become the purpose of the 
framework, but be adapted to the needs of each developing country -Member . Special and differential 
treatment must be given only to the Members that needed  it and to the extent needed. This Member 
proposed that the extent of special and differential treatment be discussed at a later  stage. 
Flexibilities for the implementation of the framework will depend on the actual content of substantive 
provisions. He added that paragraph 25.4 (cooperation with other international organ izations) 
overlapped with paragraph 28.5 and was therefore not necessary.  
3.15.   All Members that intervened considered that special and differential treatment should be an 
integral part of the framework. Some of them considered that, development being a fundame ntal 
purpose of the investment facilitation framework, a high standard of special and differential 
treatment should be achieved. From that perspective, they supported in general the TFA approach. 
However, one of them drew Members' attention to the challeng es faced in the TFA context with 
regard to donor engagement, adding that further information on developing and LDC Members' 
experience with TFA implementation would be useful.  
3.16.   Other Members considered that discussing special and differential treatment pro visions at this 
stage of the negotiations was premature. The objective was to establish a set of practices that all 
Members would apply. The actual scope of flexibilities and technical assistance would depend on the 
type of commitments in the framework.  One of them further considered that granting permanent 
exceptions for certain categories of countries was not necessarily development -friendly. Rather, 
what was development -friendly was to accompany those countries in the process of implementation. 
The imple mentation of some obligations would require additional resources , but others would not. 
He added that special and differential treatment had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based 
on needs, and time limited. He concluded that if  obligations  in the i nvestment facilitation framework INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 5 - 
 
  ended up being comparable to the commitments reached in the TFA, then the TFA model could be a 
starting point for the conversation on this.  
3.3  Section VI: Cross -cutting issues  
3.3.1   Element 26: Corporate social responsibility/respon sible business conduct  
3.17.   Three Members presented their proposals on this element.  
3.18.   The first Member explained that the obligations envisaged in the proposal applied to 
governments – there were no direct obligations for enterprises. The proposal called on Members to 
support the dissemination and use of relevant internationally agreed instruments , which had been 
adopted by most Members,  such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the 
UN Global Compact, the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Pr inciples Concerning Multinational Enterprises 
and Social Policy and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and related due diligence 
guidance.  The proposal also envisaged this as a working area of the future Committee on Investment 
Facilitation,  and called for co -operation with relevant international organizations active in this field.  
3.19.   The second Member stressed that the proposal amounted to a best -endeavours' obligation. It 
stipulated that, in  accordance with its laws and regulations, each Membe r should encourage 
enterprises operating in it or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate in their internal 
policies corporate social responsibility practices, provided that each Member shall not adopt or 
maintain measures for the purposes o f this paragraph which impose d a new or more burdensome 
requirement  on such enterprises . 
3.20.   The third Member explained that its proposal sought to establish a better balance between 
investors and host countries. In that regard, responsible business conduct (R BC) obligations 
remind ed investors of their responsibilities.  The proposal put forward a list of voluntary RBC 
principles to encourage investors to incorporate certain standards with a view to contributing to 
sustainable investment in the host country. The intention was not to create RBC standards. Finally, 
the proposal did not make reference to s pecific international instruments in this area since  many 
Members had not taken part in their drafting or were not party to them.  
3.21.   Members that intervened on this element supported the inclusion of provisions aimed at 
strengthening the social responsibility of investments. Some of them enquired about the difference 
between the expressions "responsible business conduct" and "corporate social responsibility", which 
seemed to be used indistinctively. One Member agreed that Members should be encouraged to adopt 
best practices in this area, but clarified that, not being a member of the OECD, a cross -reference to 
an instrument emanating from that organization would not be possible. Regarding the latter, some 
delegations suggested that, drawing from the experience in other investment treaties, reference 
could be made to multilateral instruments in this area and to those to which a Member was signatory.  
3.3.2   Element 27: Measures against corruption  
3.22.   Three Members presented their proposals on this element. The first proponent, whose 
proposal had been submitted just before the meeting, considered that p reventing and combatting 
corruption was essential to the purpose of these discussio ns - creating a transparent, efficient and 
predictable environment for facilitating cross -border investment. Incorporating robust anti -
corruption provisions in this agreement would be relevant and would add value to it. The provisions 
set out in the propos al enumerated specific steps that each Member should take to prevent and 
combat corruption as it related to foreign investment. The proposal was based on the CPTPP Chapter 
on Transparency and Anticorruption and other regional trade agreements, which in tur n had adapted 
the obligations of the United Nations (UN) Convention against Corruption to the international trade 
context. The scope of this proposal was limited to measures to eliminate corruption with respect to 
matters covered in the agreement and recog nized that the definition of offences covered were 
reserved to each Member's law. Furthermore, the proposal required Members to adopt or maintain 
measures to combat corruption, encouraged Members to adopt or maintain measures that promote 
integrity among p ublic officials, sought to increase public awareness and recognized the important 
role that the private sector and society can play in the prevention and combating of corruption in 
matters affecting international investment.  INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.23.   The second proponent explained that the proposal aimed at clarifying the measures that 
Members were expected to apply in this area. The proposal therefore referred to the adoption of 
measures in conformity with the obligations under the UN Convention against Corruption . 
3.24.   The third propon ent explained that its proposal required each Member to take measures 
against corruption, money laundering, terrorism financing, tax fraud and tax evasion, with regard 
to matters covered by this framework, in accordance with Members' legal system and inter nationally 
agreed standards endorsed or supported by  that Member such as  the UN Convention against 
Corruption and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises , as well as the current standards 
in the field of international taxation.  
3.25.   While not negating  the idea of including provisions on this matter, some Members questioned 
the comprehensiveness of the first proposal, including the selective reference to specific articles of 
the United Nations relevant convention. In replying to this question, the first  proponent explained 
that his government did not consider anti -corruption to be just a tangential issue in the facilitation 
of investment – on the contrary, it was very pertinent. He further explained that the provisions from 
the UN Convention had not been repeated but had, rather, been adapted to this context, in order to 
make clear that these obligations  would be mandatory and enforceable in the WTO.  
3.4  Section VII: Institutional arr angements and final provisions  
3.4.1   Element 28: WTO Committee on Investment Facilitation  
3.26.   One proposal addresses this element. The proposal spelled out the Committee's main 
functions and called on the Committee to maintain close contact with other international 
organizations active in the area of investment facilitation and to consult with investors and relevant 
stakeholders, as appropriate. The proposal also envisaged a discussion on the establishment of an 
Investment Facilitation Facility, emulating the TFA.  
3.4.2   Element s 29 and 30: E xceptions  
3.27.   Two proposals addressed these elements. The first proponent explained that, for the sake of 
consistency with other WTO agreements, its proposal simply made the relevant articles of the GATT 
and GATS applicable to the provision s of this framework. The second proponent considered it 
important that the framework include security exceptions and exceptions to preserve financial 
regulation and policy.  
3.28.   One Member considered that exceptions should be discussed in light of the final pr ovisions of 
the framework. Another Member supported the first proponent's approach with regard to general 
and security exceptions, but also saw merit in the inclusion of exceptions for financial regulation and 
policy.  
3.4.3   Element 31: Dispute settlement  
3.29.   One pro posal had been made on this element. It stipulates that f or any dispute concerning 
the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Agreement, the parties  shall only have 
recourse to the  WTO's  Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the  Settlement of Disputes 
(DSU) . The proponent explained that the proposal reinforced the exclusion of establishment rights 
and ISDS from the scope of the framework.  
3.30.   Most Members that intervened in this discussion supported the proposal. One Member 
however q uestioned the inclusion of a Dispute settlement chapter, given that the framework would 
not contain market access or national treatment obligations. Another Member referred to the 
placeholder for providing a grace period for the application of the DSU cont ained in Section V on 
SDT of the informal consolidated text.  
3.4.4   Element 32: Final provisions  
3.31.   Two proposals had been presented on this element. In general, they both aimed at avoiding 
affecting the rights and obligations of Members under other WTO agreements. Some Members 
enquired as to the rationale for the reference to specific WTO agreements in both proposals.  INF/IFD/R/16  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  ORGANIZATION OF WORK FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER -DECEMBER 2020  
4.1.  Participating Members endorsed the proposed working methodology contained in t he annex to 
the annotated agenda for this meeting.  
5  NEGOTIATIONS ON INVESTMENT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
5.1.  On the second day of the meeting,  participating Members started the negotiations on the 
investment facilitation for development agreement on the basi s of the informal consolidated text, 
which includes the written proposals submitted by Members so far. They started the text -based 
negotiations by considering in detail the provisions in Section II on "Transparency of Investment 
Measures " of the informal c onsolidated text, focusing on the provisions regarding the "publication 
and availability of measures ". 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1.  The International Trade Centre (ITC) informed participating Members of the 3rd Virtual 
Capacity Building Workshop on "Implementing a Multilateral Framework on Investment Facilitation 
for Development", co -organized by the ITC, the German Development Institute (DIE), the World 
Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIP A) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), and 
which was held online on 23 September 2020. The event, which was part of a broader project on 
investment facilitation by these institutions, aimed at building knowledge, gathering field level 
inputs, especially fr om the private sector, and building capacity in developing and LDCs to engage 
meaningfully in the negotiations. More than 150 persons attended the workshop. The ITC 
representative considered that, similar to trade facilitation, technical assistance and cap acity building 
could play a key role in designing and implementing institutional and regulatory reforms for 
investment facilitation. He also drew Members' attention to an Inventory of Concrete Measures to 
Facilitate the Flow of Sustainable FDI prepared for  the workshop. He added that the ITC stood ready 
to assist Members in their discussions on investment facilitation and in the implementation of 
investment facilitating institutional and administrative reforms.  
 
__________