MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/165
30 May 2001
(01-2720)
TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its first
review of Brunei Darussalam on 28 and 30 May 2001. The text of the Chairperson's concluding
remarks is attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged during the discussion.
The review enables the TPRB to conduct a collec tive examination of the full range of trade
policies and practices of each WTO member countries at regular periodic intervals to monitor
significant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports which are prepared respectively by the WTO Secretariat
and the government under review and which cover all aspects of the country's trade policies, including
its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and otherpreferential agreements, the wider economic needs and the external environment. A record of the
discussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with these two reports will be published in due
course at the complete trade policy review of Costa Rica and will be available from the WTO
Secretariat, Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.PRESS/TPRB/165
Page 2
MORESince December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992 and
1999), Australia (1989, 1994 and 1998), Austria (19 92), Bahrain (2000) Bangladesh (1992 and 2000),
Benin (1997), Bolivia (1993 and 1999), Botswa na (1998), Brazil (1992, 1996 and 2000), Brunei
Darussalam (2001), Burkina Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995), Canada (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998
and 2000), Chile (1991 and 1997), Colombia ( 1990 and 1996), Costa Rica (1995 and 2001), Côte
d’Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1997), the Czech Republi c (1996), the Dominican Republic (1996), Egypt
(1992 and 1999), El Salvador (1996), the Eu ropean Communities (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 2000),
Fiji (1997), Finland (1992), Ghana (1992 and 200 1), Guinea (1999), Hong Kong (1990, 1994 and
1998), Hungary (1991 and 1998), Iceland (1994 a nd 2000), India (1993 and 1998), Indonesia (1991,
1994 and 1998), Israel (1994 and 1999), Jama ica (1998), Japan (1990, 1992, 1995,1998 and 2000),
Kenya (1993 and 2000), Korea, Rep. of (1992, 1996 and 2000), Lesotho (1998), Macau, China (1994
and 2001), Madagascar (2001), Malaysia (1993 and 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995), Mexico
(1993 and 1997), Morocco (1989 and 1996), Ne w Zealand (1990 and 1996), Namibia (1998),
Nicaragua (1999), Nigeria (1991 and 1998), Norw ay (1991, 1996 and 2000), Pakistan (1995), Papua
New Guinea (1999), Paraguay (1997), Peru (1994 and 2000), the Philippines (1993), Poland (1993),
Romania (1992 and 1999), Senegal (1994), Si ngapore (1992, 1996 and 2000), Slovak Republic
(1995), the Solomon Islands (1998), South Africa (1993 and 1998), Sri Lanka(1995), Swaziland
(1998), Sweden (1990 and 1994), Switzerland (1991, 1996 and 2000 (jointly with Liechtenstein),Tanzania (2000), Thailand (1991, 1995 and 1999), Togo (1999), Trinidad and Tobago (1998), Tunisia
(1994), Turkey (1994 and 1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1999), Uganda
(1995), Uruguay (1992 and 1998), Venezuela (1 996), Zambia (1996) and Zimbabwe (1994).PRESS/TPRB/165
Page 3
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
Members warmly welcomed the delegation from Brunei Darussalam to its first Trade Policy
Review.  This Review has allowed Members to come to a better understanding of Brunei's trade and
trade-related policies and of the challenges it faces as it seeks to diversify its economy.
Brunei is a small relatively open economy whose prosperity is due mainly to its abundant
petroleum and natural gas resources.  However, the prospect of an eventual depletion of these
resources has prompted the Government to pursue an active industrial policy in order to encourage
economic diversification.  But for the time being, efforts to foster economic diversification are
complicated by a small and non-competitive private sector, which is partly attributable to the fact thatremuneration in the public sector is higher than that in the private sector.  Members asked how the
Government intended to improve the relative attractiveness of jobs in the private sector.
Members welcomed the fact that Brunei's trade and investment regime is relatively liberal –
the average applied MFN tariff, for example, was only 3.1% in 2000.  However, several aspects of the
regime were characterized by a lack of transparency and therefore provided scope for administrativediscretion, which could hamper the Government's efforts to diversify the economy.  Some Members
expressed concern that this lack of transparency, and thus public accountability, also seems to extend
to the operations of certain government bodies, notably the Brunei Investment Agency and
Semaun Holdings.  In response, the Brunei delegation outlined steps being taken to improve the
transparency of government policies and regulations, especially those pertaining to the investmentregime.  It added that Semaun Holdings, although under the Ministry of Industry and Primary
Resources, nonetheless operated in accordance with normal commercial principles.
Members noted that Brunei had ratified the WTO Agreements but had yet to implement
legislation to bring domestic laws into conformity with the obligations in these agreements, except in
the case of TRIPS;  instead, WTO provisions had hitherto been implemented in "good faith" or on a"best efforts" basis.  Members sought clarification of the Government's position and intentions in this
regard.  In response, the Brunei delegation indicated that the Government was in the process of
incorporating these provisions into its national le gislation.  At the same time, Members commended
Brunei's efforts to adhere to its WTO commitments despite the heavy burden placed on its limited
institutional capacity, especially human resources.  Several Members also welcomed Brunei's supportfor the launching of a new round of negotiations.  Members warmly congratulated Brunei on its
successful chairmanship of APEC in 2000.
Members noted that Brunei had taken GATS commitments in four out of 12 service sectors.
They asked whether Brunei intended to make commitments in other sectors, such as transport and
tourism, which it is trying to develop and where policies appear to be already relatively liberal,
particularly as this could support the diversification effort.  In response, the Brunei delegation stated
that the Government intended to undertake progressive liberalization taking into account its nationalpolicy objectives and level of development.
Members also sought clarification of the relative roles of ASEAN and APEC on the one hand,
and the WTO on the other in promoting trade liberal ization;  they welcomed Brunei's assurance that
regional arrangements would be complementary to the multilateral trading system.PRESS/TPRB/165
Page 4
Questions were raised about the wide gap between bound and applied tariffs, which imparted
a degree of uncertainty to the tariff in that it pr ovided Brunei with considerable freedom to raise its
tariffs, although Members recognized that Brunei had seldom, if ever, taken advantage of this
freedom.  They noted that, while small in number, Brunei's tariff peaks of as much as 200% could
distort trade significantly.  At the same time, Members welcomed Brunei's plans to convert the
remaining small number of specific duties to ad valorem  tariffs, thereby increasing the transparency
of the customs tariff .
Members also sought details and clarification on a number of other policies and measures,
including:
• customs valuation and rules of origin;
• temporary bans on construction products that had not been notified to the WTO;
• regulations concerning food imports;
• government-to-government contracts in the case of rice;
• export measures;
• government procurement;
• taxation and incentives;
• progress on privatization;
• competition and regulatory issues (including price controls);
• measures to enforce intellectual property rights;
• level of support to agriculture;
• efforts to liberalize telecommunications services;
• financial services;  and
• tourism.
Members expressed their appreciation for the written and oral responses provided by the
delegation of Brunei Darussalam to advance questions as well as to those posed during the meeting.
In conclusion, I feel that we should congratulate Brunei Darussalam on maintaining a
relatively open trade and investment regime.  I think that we are all aware of certain difficulties
Brunei faces in transparency and in implementation in terms of notifications and domestic legislation,
but I also note that the delegation made Brunei's commitment to the WTO very clear.  Generally, Ithink we understand that technical assistance in some areas might ease Brunei's implementation
problems.  I think that we also agree that a further liberalization of the trade regime, including
additional GATS commitments, could assist Brunei both in its efforts to diversify its economy and in
its further integration into the multilateral system, to the benefit of us all.
END