WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/TPR/140
31 October 2003
(03-5765)
Trade Policy Review Body
TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM
Report of the Trade Policy Review Body for 2003
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. Mary Whelan (Ireland)
1. The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) was established in 1989 on a provisional basis
and confirmed by Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO.  As required by the
Marrakesh Agreement, the operation of the TPRM was appraised by the Trade Policy Review Body in
1999.  The Appraisal concluded that the TPRM functions effectively, that its mission and objectives
remain important, and that all Members should be reviewed at least once as soon as possible;  theTPRM had also "demonstrated that it had a valuable public good aspect, particularly in its
contribution to transparency".
1  Members have also kept the Mechanism under frequent review over
the years, as a result of which a number of procedural improvements have been introduced since
1989.
2. This Report by the Trade Policy Review Body provides a brief assessment of the TPRM, and
reports on the reviews of Members conducted in 2003.  Tables are annexed showing the Members
reviewed up to the end of 2003, the geographical coverage of the reviews conducted to date, as well
as the proposed programme of reviews for the year 2004.
Objectives of the TPRM
3. Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement states the objectives of the TPRM as: "to contribute to
improved adherence by all Members to rules, disciplines and commitments made under the
Multilateral Trade Agreements and, where applicable, the Plurilateral Trade Agreements, and hence tothe smoother functioning of the multilateral trading system, by achieving greater transparency in, and
understanding of, the trade policies and practices of Members".
4. In this regard, the TPRM is required to periodically review the trade policies and practices of
all Members.  By the end of 2003, the TPRM will have conducted 182 reviews since its formation
(Annex I).  The reviews have covered 96 of 131 Members, counting the European Union as one,representing around 87% of the share of world trade in 2002.  The trade policies and practices of
seven Members will have been reviewed for the first time during 2003.
2  The increased importance
given to the reviews of least developed countrie s (LDCs) has led to 15 such reviews since 1998.3
5. The Trade Policy Review Body will have c onducted 17 reviews in 2003 (Annex II).  The
Secretariat reports for the reviews of Haiti, Maldives, Niger, Senegal, and the Southern AfricanCustoms Union were prepared with the assistance of consultants, under the close supervision of
                                                     
1 WTO document WT/MIN(99)/2, 8 October 1999.
2 These are Burundi, Bulgaria, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Maldives and Niger.
3 The least developed countries reviewed since the establishment of the Mechanism are:  Bangladesh
(twice), Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho (twice), Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali,Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal (twice), the Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda (twice), andZambia (twice).WT/TPR/140
Page 2
Secretariat staff.  Financing from, and the experien ce gained as a consequence of, the German Trust
Fund proved invaluable in preparing the reviews of Niger and Senegal.4  The Secretariat's reports
continue to be written in close consultation with the authorities of the Member under review.
6. Procedures for the reviews conducted in 2003 have generally run smoothly.  Responses to
requests for documentation and questionnaires have normally been provided at or close to therequested dates.   In line with recent practice, the Secretariat has attempted to reduce the burden on
Members under review of providing responses by using, to the extent possible, alternative sources of
documentation, including Members' official web-sites or other authentic sites on the Internet.  It has
not been possible to do this for all Members under review, and requests for documentation continue to
be followed up with a detailed questionnaire when sufficient information is not available from
alternative sources.  Secretariat visits to capitals have continued to be productive, and comments
provided on Secretariat drafts have been pertinent;  close contact with the Member under review  isnecessary to help ensure the factual accuracy a nd clarity of the documentation prepared for the
Review.  The result is that the quality, content, and style of the reviews has been maintained.
7. The reviews conducted in 2003 were relatively evenly spaced throughout the period, reducing
pressure of preparation on the Membership for review meetings at close intervals.  Efforts also
continue to be made to avoid clashes with other meetings at the WTO;  nevertheless, clashes do attimes happen.  The cooperative publishing agreement with an international publishing company has
shortened the period between review meetings and the publication of related documents.
8. The Trade Policy Review programme for 2004 comprises 16 reviews.  These will be of:
• European Union and United States on the two-year cycle;
• Brazil, Republic of Korea, Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland/Liechtenstein on the
four-year cycle;
• Belize, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, and Suriname on the six-year cycle;  and
• five least-developed countries:  Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mali, and Rwanda.
5
9. The TPRB intends to continue to provide an evenly spaced programme of reviews in 2004,
thereby avoiding a concentration of reviews and delays that have occurred in the past.
Value of the TPRM
10. As envisaged in Annex 3, the TPRM continues to be a valuable forum for achieving
transparency in, and understanding of, the trade policies and practices of Members, thus contributingto the smoother functioning of the multilateral trading system.  It provides a forum in which Members
may openly discuss and provide an objective analysis of each others' trade policies and practices.  The
reports prepared by the Secretariat provide a factual and independent review of the trade policies and
practices of individual Members under review and are, in general, appreciated by both the Member(s)
under review and the overall Membership.  By providing an overall picture of the institutionalinteraction in trade policy formulation and implementation and the effect of policies on different
sectors, the reports have also served as an input to trade policy formulation in some cases.  In
addition, several developing and least developed country Members have found the reviews valuable in
highlighting their infrastructural constraints and technical assistance needs.
                                                     
4 In 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany made available DM1 million over a four-year period to
undertake reviews of developing countries and to facilita te the trade-policy review process to better adapt it to
the requirements of developing countries.
5 There is the possibility that a review of Sierra Leone will also be scheduled, in the context of the
Trade Policy Clinic exercise for Sierra Leone.WT/TPR/140
Page 3
11. While carrying out an assessment of the Members' trade policies and practices, the review
process also discusses the economic impact of trade measures, and places the trade and economic
regimes of individual Members within the broader context of developments in their region.  Given the
growing importance of regional trade agreements and groupings, the analysis in the reports has proved
useful in discussing the wider impact of recent economic developments in certain regions, as well as
the more general question of the impact of regionalism on the multilateral trading system.
Points emerging from the 2003 reviews
12. While each review highlights the specific issues and measures concerning the individual
Member, certain common themes emerged during the course of the reviews conducted in 2003.  These
included:
• transparency in policy-making and implementation;
• economic environment and trade liberalization;
• implementation of the WTO Agreements;
• regional trade agreements and their relationship with the multilateral trading system;
• tariff issues, including peaks, escalation, preferences, rationalization and the gap
between applied and bound rates;
• customs clearance procedures;
• import and export restrictions and licensing procedures;
• the use of contingency measures such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties;
• technical and sanitary measures and market access;
• standards and their equivalence with international norms;
• intellectual property rights legislation and enforcement;
• government procurement policies and practices6;
• state involvement in the economy and privatization programmes;
• trade-related competition and investment policy issues;
• incentive measures such as subsidies and tax forgone;
• sectoral trade-policy issues, particularly liberalization in agriculture and certain
services sectors;
• GATS commitments;
• special and differential treatment, including market access and implementation,
particularly for customs valuation, TRIPS and TRIMs;  and
• technical assistance in implementing the WTO Agreements and the experience with
the Integrated Framework.
Coverage of least developed countries (LDCs)
13. The Trade Policy Review Body's Report to the Singapore Ministerial Meeting suggested that
greater attention be paid to the coverage of LDCs in the preparation of the TPRB timetable, and the
1999 Appraisal of the operation of the TPRM also drew attention to this matter.  The TPRB has
continued to review a steady number of least developed Members.  Of the 30 least developed
Members of the WTO, 20 will have been reviewed by the end of 2003;  six of these were reviewed in
2003.7 
                                                     
6 This has been discussed even in cases where Members are not party to the plurilateral Agreement on
Government Procurement.
7 These are Burundi, Haiti, Maldives, Niger, Senegal, and Lesotho in the context of the SACU review.
The least-developed country Members of the WTO yet to be reviewed for the first time are:  Angola, CentralAfrican Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Myanmar,Rwanda, and Sierra Leone.WT/TPR/140
Page 4
14. Trade Policy Reviews of LDCs have increasingly performed a technical assistance function
and have been useful in increasing understanding of the trade policy structure in place and its
relationship with the WTO Agreements.  The reviews have also enhanced understanding in these
countries of the WTO Agreements, enabling better compliance and integration in the multilateral
trading system;  in some cases, better interaction between government agencies has been facilitated bythe reviews.  The reports' wide coverage of Members' policies also enables Members to identify any
shortcomings in policy and specific areas where further technical assistance may be required.
15. Since 2000, the preparation of reviews of LDCs has responded more systematically to
technical assistance needs.  The review process for an LDC now includes a two-to-three-day seminar
for its officials on the WTO and, in particular, the trade policy review exercise and the role of trade in
economic policy;  such seminars have been held during 2003 for the review process of Gambia and
Rwanda (a seminar of a similar sort has been held for Guyana);  in addition, similar exercises havebeen conducted in Benin, Burkina Faso, and Mali (as well as Belize and Suriname).  The Secretariat
Report for an LDC review includes a section on technical assistance needs and priorities, as identified
in cooperation with the Member concerned, with a vi ew to feeding this into the Integrated Framework
process.  The seminars and the technical assistance section in the Secretariat reports involve close
cooperation with the WTO's Development Divisi on and Institute for Training and Technical
Cooperation Division.
Conclusion
16. The Trade Policy Review Mechanism provides a forum in which Members discuss each
others' trade policies in a transparent and frank manner.  The forum is unique in that the separation of
the TPRM from the compliance and dispute settlement aspects of WTO work allows an open debate.The 17 reviews conducted in 2003 have been satisfactory, and have met deadlines agreed with the
Members. The reviews have been evenly spaced throughout the period, giving adequate time to
Members to prepare for the meetings.  The discussants have continued to play a very useful role in
assisting the discussion during the reviews.  The programme for 2004, similarly, aims to avoid delays
and concentration of reviews.
17. The TPRM continues to function effectively in meeting its transparency goals.  However, as
the Membership of the WTO increases, the pressure on the TPRB to review more Members grows.
This, and the limited resources available to the Secretariat to prepare the reviews, makes it important
to keep the Mechanism functioning as effectively as possible within these constraints.  In particular,
continued cooperation between Members and the Secretariat in preparing the reports is essential, as is
the respect of deadlines, in order to maintain the standard and quality of the reports, and in the
successful reviews of Members by the TPRB.WT/TPR/140
Page 5
Annex I
TRADE POLICY REVIEWS
WTO Members reviewed, 1989-2003
Europe/Middle East Asia/Pacific Africa America
Austria1Australia (4) BeninbArgentina (2)
Bahrain Bangladesh(2)bBotswana (2)3, dAntigua and Barbudac
BulgariaaBrunei Darussalam Burkina FasobBarbados
Cyprus Fiji Burundia,bBolivia (2)
Czech Republic (2) Hong Kong, China (4) Cameroon (2) Brazil (3)
European Union (6) India (3) Côte d'Ivoire Canada (7)
Finland1Indonesia (4) Egypt (2) Chile (3)
Hungary (2) Japan (6) Gabon Colombia (2)
Iceland (2) Korea (3) Ghana (2) Costa Rica (2)
Israel (2) Macau, China (2) GuineabDominicac
Liechtenstein2Malaysia (3) Kenya (2) Dominican Republic (2)
Norway (3) Maldivesa, bMadagascarbEl Salvador (2)
Poland (2) New Zealand (3) Lesotho (2)3, b, dGuatemala
Romania (2) Pakistan (2) MalibGrenadac
Slovak Republic (2) Papua New Guinea MalawibGuyanaa
Slovenia Philippines(2) MauritaniabHaitia,b
Sweden1 (2) Singapore (3) Mauritius (2) Hondurasa
Switzerland (3) Solomon IslandsbMorocco (3) Jamaica
Turkey (3) Sri Lanka MozambiquebMexico (3)
Thailand (4) Namibia (2)3, dNicaragua
Nigera, bParaguay
Nigeria (2) Peru (2)
Senegal (2)bSt.Kitts and Nevisc
South Africa (3)3, dSt.Luciac
Swaziland (2)3, dSt.Vincent and the Grenadinesc
TanzaniabTrinidad and Tobago
TogobUnited States (6)
Tunisia Uruguay (2)
Uganda (2)bVenezuela (2)
Zambia (2) b
Zimbabwe
30 Members
(37 reviews)20 Members
(51 reviews)31 Members
(44 reviews)29 Members
(50 reviews)
( ) Figures in brackets show the number of re views completed where this is greater than one.
1 Included in EU from 1995.
2 Joint review with Switzerland (counted as two Members but one review for statistical purposes).3 Reviewed as member of the Southern African Customs Union in 2003 (counted as five Members, but one review for
statistical purposes.
a First review in 2003.
b Least-developed Member.c Member of the Organization of East Caribbean States (OECS) reviewed jointly with other OECS members.d Member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU)
Number of reviews conducted at end-2003 = 182
Number of WTO Members reviewed = 110 out of 146** (counting EU as 15)
= 75% of WTO Members** (of which, 30 in Europe, 20 in
Asia/Pacific, 31 in Africa, and 29 in America)
Least-developed WTO Members reviewed =  20
Share of world trade of WTO Members reviewed(2002) (excluding significant double counting andintra-EU trade) = 87%
** WTO Members as at 2 October 2003.WT/TPR/140
Page 6
Annex II
Trade Policy Reviews conducted in 2003
Membera Meeting Date
(scheduled)Review Cycle (years)
Maldivesb15.01.2003 6
El Salvador (1) 03.02.2003 6
Canada (6) 12.03.2003 2
Burundib02.04.2003 6
SACUc23.04.2003 4
New Zealand (2) 12.05.2003 6
Morocco (2) 16.06.2003 6
Indonesia (3) 27.06.2003 4
Nigerb/Senegalb (1) 22.09.2003 6
Honduras 29.09.2003 6
Bulgaria 15.10.2003 6
Guyana 29.10.2003 6
Haitib04.11.2003 6
Thailand (3) 12.11.2003 4
Chile (2) 02.12.2003 6
Turkey (2) 17.12.2003 4
a Figures in brackets indicate number of previous reviews.
b Least developed country.c Southern African Customs Union, comprising Botswana, Lesotho
b, Namibia, South Africa and
Swaziland.
Annex III
Proposed programme of reviews for 2004
Two-year cycle European Union, United States
Four-year cycle Brazil, Republic of Korea, Norway, Singapore,
Switzerland/Liechtenstein
Six-year cycle Belize, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Suriname
Least developed countries (six-year cycle) Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mali, Rwanda
__________