It began at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996, where a mixed group of WTO members (*1) put this issue on the WTO agenda. In the Singapore Ministerial Declaration, MPs called: “(…) the Trade in Goods Council is carrying out exploratory and analytical work (…) aimed at simplifying trade procedures in order to assess the scope of WTO rules in this area (*2)”. The text of the agreement was adopted at the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013, where members also agreed on the procedure for integrating the future TFA into the WTO agreement. Eleven months later, the WTO General Council adopted the Protocol amending the WTO Agreement and, since then, this Protocol has been open for approval by WTO Members. Currently, the cost of international trade is about $2 trillion.  This is due to a large number of factors, including redundant customs procedures, marginal tariffs and unnecessary duplication.  The economic benefits of the Trade Facilitation Agreement are not yet fully perceptible and measured. However, estimates of the economic benefits arising from the agreement are widespread. Estimates range from about $68 billion to nearly $1 trillion a year. According to the OECD, the trade facilitation agreement has the potential to reduce trade costs by 14.1% for low-income countries, 15.1% for middle-income countries and 12.9% for high-middle-income countries.
This would indicate a series of earnings of about 9 to 133 $US per year per person on the planet. These wide ranges indicate that some uncertainties still surround the trade agreement.  Work on the Trade Facilitation Agreement continued after the Singapore Summit.  The main objective of these discussions was to gain a first understanding of the scope of the agreement. Defining a clearly defined role for the WTO has become a priority. The role played by wtOwould began relatively widely. The earliest proposal is that the WTO would be responsible for payments, insurance and other financial requirements in the area of international trade.  In the late 1990s, efforts by a number of countries to make WTO rules binding and not encouraged provoked a reaction to limit the scope and focus on certain aspects of the GATT.
. . .