INF/IFD/R/15  
 
31 August 2020  
(20-5928) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
 
 
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON INVESTMENT FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
OPEN -ENDED INFORMAL VIRTUAL MEETING HELD ON 24 JULY 2020 
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open -ended informal meeting of the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development, coordinated by Mr. Mathias Francke (Ambassador -designate, Chile) , was held on 
24 July 2020 .2 As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members  ahead of the 
meeting ,3 its main purpos e was to allow Members to continue the thematic discussion bas ed on the 
latest version of the informal consolidated text.4 As also specified  in the annotated agenda, the 
meeting was not meant to conduct any negotiations, nor to lead to any decision -taking  or drafting 
suggestions by the Coordinator. In keeping with the Joint Initiative 's open, transparent and inclusive 
nature, all WTO Members were invited to attend  the meeting .  
1  BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW TEXT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  In the absence of any new text proposal submitted since the last meeting  (held on  10 July ), 
Members moved to the next agenda item .  
2  THEMATIC DISCUSSION  
2.1.  Before resuming t he thematic discussions where they had been adjourned , the Coordinator 
replied to questions raised by different delegations  that had remained unanswered at the  end of the  
last meeting .  
2.2.  Three questions pertained to element 12 of the informal consolidated t ext on ''Fees and 
Charges ''.5 When a sked about the meaning of ''authorization fees and charges '' in para . 12.1, the 
Coordinat or answered that, in the absence  of an agreed definition, the expression had to be 
considered in the context of the whole sentence  of that paragraph – referr ing to the fees and charges 
"charged by [ the Member's] relevant competent authorities for processing an application, including 
those charged for the amendment or renewal of such authori zation".  The requirement imposed on  
those fees and charges that they must be "commensurate with the costs incurred to process the 
application" seemed to indicate that the  fees and charges  were charged by the competent authorities 
to cover the (administrative) costs incurred to process the application .  Another question regarded 
the footnote to para. 12.1 stat ing that "Authori zation fees do not include fees for the use of natural 
resources, payments for auction, royalties, tendering or other means of awarding concessions, or 
mandated contribu tions to universal service provision". The  Coordinator explained that the  footnote 
aimed at clarifying that 'authorization fees ' were different from 'extraction fees' (i.e., royalties or 
similar taxes) charged for the use (extraction , commercialization , etc. ) of natural resources.   
Authorization fees aimed at covering the administrative costs of processing a license (related to 
paperwork , etc.), while extraction fees  were charged for the right to explor e and/or extract .  Another 
questio n pertained to whether the fees and charges referred to  in paragraph 12.2 of the informal 
 
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, illustrative review of the issues addressed by Members at the meeting.  
2 The meeting was conducted over the Interprefy virtual platform.  
3 Docum ent INF/IFD/W/23 dated 20 July 2020.  
4 Document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2 dated 15 July 2020.  
5 Document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2, p. 20.  INF/IFD/R/ 15 
 
- 2 - 
 
  consolidated text6 were the same as the 'authori zation fees and charges ' mentioned in 
paragraph  12.1. The Coordinator suggested that  this be further discussed and clarified in future 
drafting sessions.  
2.3.  Another question  sought clarification of the relationship between paragraphs 10.2 and 14.1 of 
the informal consolidated text, both regarding the acceptance of authenticated copies  in lieu of 
original documents. The Coordinator explained that  sub-paragraph 10. 2 set out the general 
obligation regarding the acceptance of copies in authorization procedures  (with some flexibility 
language added in  square  brackets) , while  sub-paragraph 1 4.1(b) referred to an obligation to accept 
copies of documents submitted through electronic means as part of the online submission of 
applications.  Finally, the Coordinator explained that the expression "integrity of the authorization 
process"7 seemed to indicate  an authorization process guaranteeing the ability of competent 
authorities to verify the authenticity  of relevant documents .  
2.2  Section III bis: Temporary entry for investment persons/ facilitation of movement of 
business persons for investment purp oses  
2.4.  Two participating Members submitted text proposals under this section.  
2.5.  The first Member briefly introduced its text proposal on the temporary entry for investment 
persons based on its recently concluded RTAs (adapted to a multilateral context). The obligations 
were kept relatively general  to accommodate the diversity of Members' regulatory frameworks in 
this area  and the wide range of sectors covered by the IF framework . The proposal also included a 
further elaborated definition of 'investment persons' based on existing FTA language .8 
2.6.  The second  Member  reiterated some cardinal points of its presentation made at the last 
meeting. Its proposal on facilitating the movement of business persons  for investment purposes had 
to be read together with its proposed scope article (carving out market access ). Furthermore, it 
incorporated the safeguards from the GATS Annex on Movement of Natural Persons – ensur ing that 
no commitment was taken on border and/or labo ur market  opening . Thus, Members retained full 
sovereignty over whether to allow entry of foreign investments, investors or their employees into 
their countries . The proposal  was based on work by key international organizations, which found the 
regulatory environment regarding the movement of investment -related personnel to be an important 
determinant of FDI flows. The proponent highlighted that the proposed disciplines addressed 
problems faced both by domestic investors abroad and foreign investors in its territory.  
2.7.  Some  delegations welcomed the two proposals  and, offering preliminary comments (pending 
further analysis in their capital s), considered  the facilitation of movement of business persons for 
investment purposes to be an important aspect of investment facilitation . They  mentioned  notably 
the publication of information on requirements for the temporary entry of investors , and the  fostering  
of transparency , predictability and governance principles for the treatment of permit applications  as 
relevant in this regard . At the same time, these delegations  stressed the need for governments to 
protect their legitimate policy objectives and  to retain full authority over whether  to grant access to 
their territory  and to whom . Regarding  the second proposal ,9 the need to keep para graph  19 
(acceptance and processing of applications in electronic format ) as a best -endeavour provision was 
stressed . Many of the intervening delegations underlined  the challenges in defining an 'investment 
person ' and in operationaliz ing any such provisions.  These challenges required further discussions .  
2.8.  On the other hand, some delegations expressed reservations on the proposals . They voiced 
doubts  on the workability of including any such provisions in an IF framework  as well as  concerns 
on their nexus with mode 4 market access  issues . Other Members saw room only for very precise 
and targeted /circumscribed  provisions  in this area .   
2.9.  A participating M ember expressed  the view  that the obligations contained in these proposals 
went beyond the realm of investment facilitation. In its jurisdiction, measures affecting the 
 
6 Adequate t ime-period between the publication of measures and their entry into force.  
7 In sub -paragraphs 10.1( c) and 14.1(b) o f the informal consolidated text.   
8 The proponent noted in this regard that, i n past discussions on its previous proposal, the question had 
been raised on the difference between an 'investor ' and an 'investment person '.  
9 Proposal entitled "Facilitation  of Movement of Business Persons for Investment Persons", pp. 25 -26 of 
document INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2.  INF/IFD/R/ 15 
 
- 3 - 
 
  temporary entry and stay – including procedural ones  – were within the competence of migration 
and sub -national authorities. They  were addressed bilaterally with other States , typically in mutual 
recognition agreements. The Member  was not currently in a position to engage on these issues  since 
an additional i nternal mandate  would be required  to do so .  
2.10.  Regarding the first proposal,10 that same  Member enquired whether a n 'investment person ' 
(i.e., a natural person ) was meant to include both service suppliers/investors a s well as  employees 
of services suppliers/ investors. Regarding the second proposal,11 it asked about the relationship  
between 'business persons' and the mode -4 categor ies contained in Members ' GATS schedules. The 
proponent in question clarified that 'business person s' designated persons related to the 
investment/business , irrespective ly of any particular GATS  mode -4 categor ies.  The Member also 
asked  the proponents of the two proposals how they envisaged  address ing Members' existing MFN 
exemptions under the GATS relat ing to the movement of natural persons.  The proponent  of the 
second proposal  replied that  the footnote relating to paragraph 3 of its proposal  – which used the 
same wording as footnote 1 in the GATS Annex on Movement of Natural Persons  – had been inserted 
to that purpose . The proponent stated its readiness to work on additional or amended language with 
interested  Members.  
2.11.  The Coordinator observed that m ore discussions were needed on th ese topics, and 
encouraged Members to engage on them bilaterally, in small groups a s well as  multilaterally.      
2.3  Section III ter: Transfers and subrogation  
2.12.  The proponent presented its proposal stressing that provisions  on transfers and subrogation  
were typically included in its BITs and did not relate to market access or investment  protection. 
Rather , they promoted transparency and procedural stability , thus  improving the investment climate 
and facilitating investments.  The provision on transfers aimed at facilitating transfers relating to 
profit s as well as other investment -related capital  flows (e.g. a foreign -owned subsidiary purchas ing 
equipment /materials , for which it needed funds to be sent by its parent company ). Transfer s of 
capital occurred not only in relation to companies , but also their employees. The provision on 
subrogation  (risk insurance) contributed to fostering a more secure business environment and thus, 
furthering investment .  Both provisions were without prejudice to Members' right to decide on FDI 
applications. The proponent  also indicated its interest in exception clauses (general, security  related  
as well as other exceptions) and its intention to table a related proposal . 
2.13.  Many Members expressed reservations regarding the inclusion of provisions on transfers and 
subrogation  into the framework . In order for their capital to better  assess the proposal, t hey 
requested more information from the proponent regarding the relationsh ip of these provisions with 
the scope and objectives of an IF framework .  
2.14.  One Member  held the view that transfers of funds were a key element of the operation of 
investment and pleaded in favo ur of finding room in the framework for such a provision. T he question 
was raised as to the relationship between the proposed provision  on transfers and GATS Article XI ; 
and also, whether the proponent could consider the introduction of  an exception provision, such as 
GATS Article XII. The latter  quest ion was answered in the affirmative by the proponent .  
2.15.  Several Members  regarded  subrogation  as akin to investment protection afforded to investor s, 
notably in relation  to ISDS claims  – and thus outside the scope of an IF framework . The proponent 
replied that its proposal focused solely  on the procedural aspects of subrogation and reiterated its 
willingness to discuss further with interested Members . 
2.4  Preamble  
2.16.  Two Members submitted text proposals on preambular language, and three  submitted a 
proposal on 'objectives ' of the framework.  
2.17.  Several Members advocated that the preamble be developed at a later stage, once t he 
framework provisions would be more advanced. The suggestion was made to replace 'framework' 
by 'agreement'. A Member presented its proposal on the preamble, stating its preference for the use 
 
10 INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2, Section III bis, p. 24.  
11 INF/IFD/RD/50/Rev.2, Section III bis, pp. 25 -26. INF/IFD/R/ 15 
 
- 4 - 
 
  of the term 'investment' instead of 'FDI'. Another Member opposed the references made in the 
preamble to corporate social responsibility and specific international instruments , as well as the 
UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  since the IF framework would exist beyond 2030 .  
2.5  Section I: Scope and general principles  
2.18.  Six Members proposed language under Section I.  
2.19.  Many Members who took the floor supported  a wide coverage of FDI , including both services 
and non -services ' sectors  as well as  the whole investment lifecycle . They argued that investors would 
not understand artificial dividing lines between inve stment stages .  A Member suggested  a wide and 
comprehensive  'overall scope ' under Section I – to be complemented by more specific scope  
provisions  under relevant s ections.  As an example, th at Member stated that the scope of Section II 
("Transparency of Investment Measures") could be more comprehensive as compared to the one of 
Section III ("Streamlining and speeding up  Administrative Procedures and Requirements"). The 
latter could, for example , be limited to specific authorization procedures.  What mattered  most, it 
argued,  were the framework's  substantive obligations , which needed to be clearly defined .  
2.20.  Other Member s argued that  the current  proposals on 'scope' were excessively broad  and 
favou red, instead, a more precise and circumscribed definition of the scope – notably to minimize 
potential overlap s with BITs .  A Member thought that the most efficient way to proceed was to model 
the scope of the IF framework on the definition of commercial presence  (mode 3 ) in the GATS.  
Further discussion on how to best draft the exclusions of market access, investment protection and 
ISDS was also deemed necessary.  
2.21.  Overall , most Members who took the floor favoured covering only foreign direct  investment 
(FDI) – to the exclusion of other types of investment and notably of indirect ( portfolio ) investment.  
Conversely , a Member argued that limiting the scope to FDI, which implied that it had to exceed a 
certain ownership threshold, would diminish the f ramework's value. That Member favoured , instead,  
a coverage of both direct and indirect investment – as provided for in its proposed definition of the 
term 'investment'  under Section I .  
2.22.  Views differed on whether , or not , to list the different stages of th e investment life cycle . 
Some Members advocating a more narrowly defined scope , were against listing the different stages  
of the investment life cycle . In their view, that would minimize the overlap with investment 
protection provisions in IIAs .  
2.23.  A Member stated that the extension of Members' obligations to measures adopted or 
maintained by sub -central governments would  potentially  be problematic and that, therefore, some 
obligations would need to be circumscribed to central governments. Finally, a  Member requested 
clarification of the coverage of measures adopted or maintained by "non -governmental bodies in the 
exercise of powers delegated by central, regional or local governments or authorities", as proposed 
by several Members in paragraph 1.4(b) of  the informal consolidated text.12 
2.24.  Definitions : While some Members favoured the inclusion of definitions of 'investment ' and 
'investor ' in the framework , many others were either unsure at this stage or opposed to includ e such 
definitions .  
2.25.  Specific e xclusions of specific sectors or activities : Some Members indicate d that they might  
need some sector -specific (or other  specific ) exclusions. The question of exclusions  was deemed to 
depend on the nature of the substantive commitments in the framework and would thus , need to be 
decided  upon later.  
2.26.  MFN treatment : many participating Members shared the objective of ensu ring a non -
discriminatory  application of the framework  – stressing that MFN treatment constituted a 
cornerstone of the WTO. One Member saw no need to include an MFN clause  in the framework .13 
Many Members agreed  that, before devising concrete language for the  MFN clause  (and possible 
MFN exemptions) , a clearer understanding of the framework's substantive  provisions and scope of 
 
12 See INF/IFD/RD/50/REV.2, p. 7. The provision in questio n is based on GATS Article I:3(a)(ii).  
13 It argued that element 7 of the informal consolidated text ("Reasonable, objective and impartial 
administration of measures") could serve that purpose.  INF/IFD/R/ 15 
 
- 5 - 
 
  application , including any benefits to be extended to other Members,  was needed .14 At the same 
time, the need to avoid unintentionally 'importing' provisions from other IIAs through the 
framework's MFN clause was  acknowledged. In this regard, a Member argued in favour of including 
also a reference to future IIAs in paragraph 32.3 of the consolidated text. Another Member 
mentioned possible drafting solutions ('non -importation' clause) in order to avoid this.  
3  PROPOSE D SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER –DECEMBER 2020  
3.1.  Participating Members  endorsed  the "Proposed Schedule of Meetings for the Period September –
December 2020"15 and supported the switch to negotiating mode starting in September  2020. The 
Coordinat or announced his intention to circulate a methodology of work together with the annotated 
agenda for the September meeting, following bilateral consultations that he would conduct with 
interested delegations in due course .   
3.2.  Some participating Member s reiterate d the commitment  made by their Ministers in November 
2019 to achieve a concrete outcome by MC12. They hoped that a comprehensive and ambitious 
outcome could  be achieved at MC12 next year . To that end, t hey stressed , Members needed to make 
the best use of the four rounds of negotiations starting in September. They also hoped that a draft 
text reflecting convergence among  Members  could be achieved  by the end of 2020  – as an early 
harvest and stepping stone for a concrete outcome for MC12. They encourage d Members  wishing to 
do so  to submit proposals as soon as possible.  A Member stressed its objective  to reach a balanced, 
sound and robust IF framework .  Another delegation drew attention to the challenges in relation to 
the COVID -19 pandemic still faced by a number of Members, which needed to be taken into 
consideration.  
4  NEXT MEETING  
4.1.  The next meeting (in -person , with virtual add -on over the Interprefy platform) will be held on 
24-25 September 202 0.  The Coordinator stated that, i n the morning of 24 September, time would 
be provided for Members who so wished to finalize the informal thematic discussions on the 
remaining sections of the informal consolidated text that could not be addressed before t he summer 
break due to lack of time.16 
4.2.  The Coordinator  encouraged all Members wishing to do so to send their text proposals or 
contributions as early as possible be fore the next meeting  in September . All text proposals would be 
incorporated in further revisions of the informal consolidated text .  
__________  
 
14 I.e., the exact benefits that should be extended to other Mem bers needed to be better understood.  
15 Document INF/IFD/W/24 circulated to all Members before the meeting; re -circulated as document 
INF/IFD/W/24/Rev.1 after its endorsement by participating Members at the meeting.  
16 Sections IV, V , VI and VII of the informal consolidated text.