RESTRICTED  
  
WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
25 July 2023  
(23-5063) Page: 1/7 
Trade Policy Review Body    
 
  
TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM  
SEVENTH APPRAISAL OF THE TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM  
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel (Saudi  Arabia, Kingdom of)  
Draft Report  
Revision  
1  BACKGROUND  
1.1.  The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) was created in 1989 on a provisional basis under 
the GATT and confirmed by Annex  3 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO. Paragraph  F 
of Annex  3 determined that the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) "shall undertake an appraisal of  
the operation of the TPRM not more than five years after the entry into force of the Agreement 
Establishing the WTO. The results of the appraisal will be presented to the Ministerial Conference. 
It may subsequently undertake appraisals of the TPRM at inte rvals to be determined by it or as 
requested by the Ministerial Conference".  
1.2.  The first Appraisal of the TPRM (WT/MIN(99)/2) was undertaken in 1999, the second 
(WT/MIN(05)/1) in 2005, the third (WT/TPR/229) in 2008, the fourth (WT/MIN(11)/6) in 2011, the 
fifth (WT/MIN(13)/5) in 2013, and the sixth (WT/MIN(17)/9 in 2016. The sixth Appraisal concluded 
that " [t]he next Appraisal of the operation of the TPRM should take place at a time to be decided by 
the TPRB, but not later than within five  years, and preferab ly not in the year of a WTO Ministerial 
Conference. It is understood that nothing precludes the TPRB from deciding on specific items for 
improvement before the next Appraisal. The next Appraisal should include an assessment of the 
implementation of the con clusions reached at this Appraisal, inter alia , in terms of the transparency 
of Members' trade policies" . The seventh  Appraisal was postponed from 2021 because of the 
12th Ministerial Conference, initially scheduled for 2021 and subsequently held in June  2022. 
1.3.  With Members' agreement, the first TPRB meeting to discuss the seventh  Appraisal of the TPRM 
was held on 14  September  2022. Nine informal open -ended meetings of the TPRB were held between 
September  2022 and July  2023, chaired first by Ambassador  Ángel  Villalobos Rodríguez (Mexico) 
and then by Ambassador  Saqer  Abdullah  Almoqbel (Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia). Several issues were 
discussed in nine dedicated sessions, and tutorials and demonstrations were organized on the 
functioning of the IT  system for submi tting questions and answers (Q&A). The Chairpersons also 
made themselves available for bilateral and group consultations throughout the exercise. In this 
regard, consultations were held with 11 interested delegations and 3 group coordinators from 12 to 
22 May with the aim of concluding this Appraisal before the summer break. This Report was formally 
agreed at a TPRB meeting on 26  July 2023.  
2  ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE SEVENTH APPRAISAL  
2.1.  In this Appraisal, Members recognized the TPRM as a core function of the WTO  and discussed 
six main aspects: review cycles; Trade Policy Review (TPR) reports; Q&A process; meeting structure; 
follow -up activities; and the Trade Monitoring exercise. Three Members submitted written WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  proposals.1 The discussions were framed around the need to reduce the burden of the TPR exercise 
on Members and the Secretariat while retaining the value of TPRs. The background to each issue 
and the main points raised by Members are summarized below.  
Issue 1 Review cycles  
2.2.  In the sixth Appraisal, Members agreed to change the review cycles from 2, 4, or 6  years to 
3, 5, or 7  years. The new arrangement was phased in starting from 2019. It was also decided that 
the Trade Monitoring exercise would serve to enhance the transparen cy of Members' trade policies 
in between TPRs.  Members noted that, notwithstanding the revised review cycles, the general 
flexibility of up to six months provided for in the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the TPRB2 would 
remain unchanged.  Some Members  requested that assistance , including financial support,  be given 
to LDCs to participate in their TPRs.  
2.3.  In this Appraisal, Members supported retaining the review cycles agreed in the sixth Appraisal, 
with the flexibilities allowed.  
2.4.  Conclusion:  
(1) Members agreed to maintain the c urrent review cycles ( 3, 5, and 7 years)  with the flexibility 
and preparatory assistance accorded to LDCs under Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
Issue 2 TPR reports  
2.5.  According to Annex  3 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the  WTO, the Secretariat must 
produce reports for TPRs on its own responsibility. The format and content of these reports are 
similar for all TPRs, with adjustments as necessary to cater for the different economic and trade 
profiles of the Members under revie w. The reports cover various aspects of trade policies and 
measures of interest to Members and of importance to the multilateral trading system, including 
topics not governed by existing WTO  Agreements, such as competition policy.  
2.6.  The Secretariat has been working to produce more concise reports without compromising the 
quality of the information and analysis. By streamlining its reports, the Secretariat also aims to 
reduce documentation and translation costs. The Secretariat continues to seek to ensure that  its 
reports are factual and objective and that, subject to each Member providing the data and 
information needed for a thorough trade policy review, there is consistency across all Members in 
terms of comprehensiveness, accuracy, and detailed analysis, pa rticularly when they are reviewed 
on the same cycle.  
2.7.  The supply of Government Reports by Members under review is another requirement stipulated 
in Sections  C and D of Annex  3 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
2.8.  In the sixth  Appraisal (para.  2.10), the following was decided:  
(1) For Members reviewed on a 3 -year cycle, the Secretariat Report may, as appropriate, focus 
on the implementation of issues highlighted in the last review, and on the actual changes on 
the ground due to new legislation entered  into force or related to new issues arising from 
recent ministerial decisions of the WTO. For all Members, the scope of the Reports may, as 
appropriate, be limited to the extent possible to the changes in policies and focus on the 
implementation of past r ecommendations. The above is on the understanding that the 
Reports are produced independently by the Secretariat on its own responsibility. The above 
is also without prejudice to the depth and breadth of the reports.  
(2) The scope of the Secretariat Reports ma y include issues relevant to  new trade policy 
developments.  
(3) For LDCs, the Secretariat Reports should integrate to the maximum extent the needs 
assessment and relevant Aid for Trade elements. Members are also encouraged to include 
 
1 WTO documents JOB/TPR/4 (European  Union), JOB/TPR/5 (United  States), and JOB/TPR/6 (China).  
2 WTO document WT/TPR/6/Rev.4, 16  June 2017, para.  3. WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  in their Government Report s a new section on LDC issues, to briefly highlight issues in those 
reports which are considered to be of particular interest to LDC Members.  
(4) On balance, Members prefer keeping Government Reports mandatory, as set out in Annex  3 
to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
2.9.  In this Appraisal, Members noted that the Secretariat Report should remain of a high quality; 
be objective and coherent; and be consistent across all Members. Regarding the structure and focus 
of the Report, Members requested the Secr etariat to (i)  produce, to the extent possible, more concise 
reports; (ii)  explore the use of online profiles, statistical annexes, and other tools that would help 
shorten the Report; (iii)  focus its Report on recent trade policy changes and, in the case o f Section  I 
(Economic Environment), trade -related issues; (iv)  refer in its Report to outstanding specific issues 
raised in the previous Review; (v)  consider regrouping some sections of the Report; and (vi) develop 
indexes or metrics to provide information  on the use of its reports.  
2.10.  A number of Members also discussed ways to broaden the Secretariat Report's coverage of 
(i) WTO notifications; (ii)  WTO technical assistance; (iii)  more consistent analysis of intellectual 
property rights; and (iv)  trade policie s related to new and emerging issues such as supply chains; 
digital trade; MSMEs; trade and environment; trade and inclusiveness, including women's economic 
empowerment ; and (v) particular challenges faced by LDCs . In this regard, some Members 
expressed re servations about the coverage of issues beyond WTO multilateral agreements. It was 
also noted that the Secretariat should use non -official sources with caution. Other Members stated 
that the Secretariat should be allowed to exercise its independence and pr ofessional judgment in 
preparing its Report, recalling that the Report is issued under the Secretariat's own responsibility.  
2.11.  Conclusions:  
(1) Members agreed that the Secretariat should retain its independence and responsibility in 
writing high -quality, objecti ve, coherent, and consistent reports across all Members.  
(2) The Secretariat was request ed to produce, to the extent possible, concise Reports that are 
focused on recent trade policy changes of the Member(s) under review, that may, as 
appropriate,  cover issues  relevant to emerging trade developments  in line with Annex  III of 
the Marrakesh Agreement, and that refer to outstanding specific issues raised in the previous 
Review.  
(3) The Secretariat was requested  to include in its report an assessment of submitted and 
outstanding notifications and to reflect the views of the Member(s) under review receiving 
WTO technical assistance on the benefits thereof.  
Issue 3 Q&A process  
a) Timelines for submitting advance wri tten questions  
2.12.  In the sixth  Appraisal (para.  2.13), the following was decided: "(i)  the alternative timeline 
(AT) will be revised to allow one more week for the Member(s) under review to provide written 
answers to advance written questions submitted within  the established deadline"; and "(ii)  both the 
current timeline (CT) and the revised AT will remain as options for the submission of written 
questions and answers. The choice will be made by the Member(s) under review, at the time of 
agreeing on the date o f review".  
2.13.  In this Appraisal, the Secretariat informed that during the period 2017 -22, about two  thirds 
of Members opted for the CT (67  Members out of 99), and the other third chose the AT (32  Members 
out of 99). It was noted that maintaining a system with  two parallel timelines increases costs and 
complexity. Some Members highlighted that the AT offers the Member(s) under review more time 
to prepare written answers while also giving Members more time to consider those answers in 
preparation for the Review meeting, which is conducive to an interactive Review, and therefore 
suggested that Members be encouraged to use the AT. Other Members indicated that Members 
should have full discretion in choosing between the CT and AT and that there was no need to 
encoura ge the use of the AT. Some Members commented that written questions should be submitted 
by the deadlines established under the rules of procedures for TPR meetings, while other Members WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  asked for smaller delegations to be given flexibility regarding the dea dlines to send written questions  
and that specific consideration be given to  the constraints faced by LDCs.  
2.14.  Conclusion:  
(1) While recognizing that the AT allows more preparation time for Members before the review 
meeting, which is conducive to an interactive Review, Members agreed to maintain the 
current optional nature of the AT and CT.  
b) Facilitating the Q&A process through an IT system  
2.15.  In the sixth  Appraisal (para.  2.17), the following was decided:  
(1) Given that, for the system to be fully functio nal and beneficial, it has to be implemented 
across the board as the only means of submitting questions and answers, the system has to 
be fully tested and necessary technical assistance and training be provided to Members 
before migration to this new platf orm. Members will be invited to take a formal decision to 
launch the system in due course.  
(2) In the initial period of migration (duration to be decided by Members in due course), the 
existing arrangements for submitting questions and answers will co exist wi th the new IT 
system, in order to ensure a smooth transition.  
(3) Volunteering Members will continue to be involved in the fine -tuning and testing of the 
system during the validation stage.  
(4) Members will continue to ensure full implementation of the rules for s ending questions 
adopted at the fourth Appraisal and will send questions numbered in one batch.  
(5) Some Members are concerned about the large number of questions, and Members agree to 
continue exercising restraint in raising questions . 
2.16.  In this Appraisal, t he Secretariat informed that since its introduction in 2018 and up to 
September  2022, the IT system for the submission of Q&A has been used in some 18% of the TPRs 
conducted, i.e.  14 of 80  TPRs. The Secretariat organized on 22  November  2022 a training session  
(tutorial) for Members about the functioning of the IT  system, followed by a demonstration session 
on 14  June 2023. On 27  June 2023, Members were invited to test a demonstration version of the IT 
system and were encouraged to provide feedback to the Secre tariat on ways to improve the system's 
functionality and user -friendliness. The Secretariat has also circulated user guides on the IT platform 
in the WTO's three working languages.  
2.17.  Various Members made suggestions for improved functions that the IT system should 
incorporate, including (i)  the ability to see questions in real time; (ii)  the ability to see answers in 
real time; (iii)  the ability to support another Member's question; (iv)  the possibility to 
cross-reference replies in a user -friendly way; (v)  the inclusion of a hard deadline for uploading 
questions; (vi) the inclusion of a standard template for each question received by the Member(s) 
under review; (vii) the ability to group Q&A by topic; (viii) the ability of the system to address 
formatting iss ues; (ix)  the possibility to filter questions; (x) that the system should be as user -
friendly as the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility website; and (xi) that the system should 
offer a user -friendly function to search and retrieve archived informati on. It was further noted that 
the preceding list is non -exhaustive; the Secretariat would assess the feasibility of the suggested 
improvements and their budgetary implications; and Members would provide additional suggestions 
on possible improvements once they had finished testing the demonstration version of the IT system.  
2.18.  Members also discussed possible ways to rationalize the number of advance written questions 
received by the Member(s) under review, including through technological options, regular remin ders 
to Members of the need to exercise restraint, and the introduction of an indicative limit of questions 
and sub -questions of 75 per Member in each Review. Some Members expressed their concern about 
introducing a fixed limit on the number of questions, bearing in mind that such practice should not 
prejudice Members' interest in achieving greater understanding of the trade policies and practices 
of the Member(s) under review.  Some Members requested that delegations exercise restraint in the WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  number of advance written questions posed to LDCs  and that flexibility be granted when providing 
their written replies . 
2.19.  Conclusions:  
(1) Members agreed to establish an inclusive, Member -led Task Force to strengthen the IT 
system for the submission of written Q &A with a view to making it more user -friendly and 
reducing the burden on the Member(s) under review. A prototype of the improved IT system 
should be available for testing by the end of 2023, making it fully operational by the end of 
2024. Such improvement  should take into account the flexibility needed by delegations 
facing capacity constraints , enabling the uniform use by all Members of the IT system at the 
earliest possible date.  
(2) Members agreed to exercise restraint in posing advance written questions .3 
c) Non -submission of written replies  
2.20.  In this Appraisal, Members raised the following points: (i)  Members that have not received 
answers to their questions within the TPRB's prescribed deadlines could be permitted an additional 
follow -up, or the Secretaria t could keep track of Members that have not completed their Reviews 
(because of outstanding replies); (ii)  Members should be permitted to use the written question 
period to seek updates on late substantive notifications that do not fall within the review p eriod; 
(iii) the Secretariat should include a list/table identifying Members not complying with the 
submission of written replies in the minutes of the TPR reports; and (iv)  there should be a  follow -up 
obligation on Members that have outstanding replies.  Any follow -up process for replies should not 
create an additional burden on LDCs.  
2.21.  Conclusion:  
(1) Members agreed to request the TPRB Chairperson to remind reviewed Members with 
outstanding answers that a TPR is successfully concluded when Members have received 
those answers.  
Issue 4 Meeting structure  
2.22.  A long -standing issue in previous appraisals has been how to reinvigorate and streamline 
TPR meetings and make them more interactive, notably the second meeting of the Review. In the 
sixth Appraisal (para.  2.24), the following was decided:  
(1) As a one -day TPR  meeting in the format originally envisaged in the fourth  Appraisal is 
technically challenging and the benefits are not apparent, it will cease to be an option.  
(2) The current two -day structure of TPR m eetings will be maintained.  
(3) While retaining the existing elements of the second meeting of the Review, Members may 
explore ways of adding value to the second meeting by offering to include, on a voluntary 
basis, innovative elements to the programme for the ir reviews, such as a question -and-
answer session where Members could pose questions relating to the trade policy of the 
Member under review, or a panel discussion on elements of that trade policy. In all cases, 
details of these elements, including the for mat and scope of questions to be considered and 
the make -up of any panel, will be determined by the Member under review and will be 
conducted in informal mode.  
2.23.  In this Appraisal, a group of Members underscored the need to reinvigorate meetings to make 
them more interactive and productive, particularly the second meeting of the Review. They said that 
the second meeting of the Review had become too formalistic and was not conducive to frank and 
open discussion as originally intended when the TPRM was establis hed. These Members suggested 
 
3 In this regard, most Members agreed on an indicative limit of 75  advance written questions , without 
prejudice to Members' interest in achieving greater understanding of the trade policies and practices of the 
Member(s) under review.  WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  ways to improve the level of interaction, especially during the second meeting of the Review, 
including through more streamlined meetings on trade -related policy changes and more focused and 
policy -relevant interventions by Mem bers. In addition, some Members noted that keeping all formal 
statements to the first meeting of the Review and holding the second meeting of the Review in the 
form of an informal Q&A session focused on topics that attract the most interest by Members, alo ng 
with the participation in Review meetings of an additional "external" discussant, would help revitalize 
TPR meetings. Other Members were satisfied with the current meeting structure and saw no need 
to make changes at this point in time. Since there was no consensus at this Appraisal, it was agreed 
that this issue would form part of discussions at the next Appraisal.  
2.24.  Conclusion:  
(1) Members agreed to maintain the current meeting structure, and to consider ways of adding 
value and interactivity to TPR meetings  at the next Appraisal.  
Issue 5 Follow -up activities  
2.25.  In the sixth  Appraisal, Members underlined the value, especially for LDCs, of follow -up 
workshops to their TPRs. As requested by Members, the Secretariat provided an assessment of the 
experiences in cond ucting such activities.  
2.26.  In this Appraisal, the Secretariat informed Members that during the period 2017 -19, there 
were 17  follow -up workshops for individual LDCs and developing countries. In addition, various 
regional seminars were conducted involving the participation of several Members. Because of travel 
restrictions caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, no follow -up workshops/regional seminars were 
conducted in 2020 -21. Members raised the following point s: Secretariat Reports should include 
information and evaluation of follow -up activities as well as other capacity -building/technical 
assistance projects implemented in each Member. Some Members highlighted that these activities 
should not be used to impose new obligations on the Member(s) under review , and requested that 
support be given to LDCs for follow -up activities after their TPRs . 
2.27.  Conclusion:  
(1) Members encouraged the Secretariat to continue offering upon request TPR follow -up 
workshops, in particular for LDCs, and report on the outcome of tho se activities.  
Issue 6 Trade Monitoring exercise  
2.28.  The TPRB meets at least twice a year to review the Director -General's Trade Monitoring 
reports on recent trade policy developments, including the overall trends in implementing 
trade-restricting and trade -liberalizing measures. In preparing these reports, the Secretariat relies 
on Members to provide accurate information and verify all measures recorded for their respective 
economies. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Appraisals recognized the usefulness of the Tra de Monitoring 
exercise, and there was broad consensus among Members to continue with and strengthen it.  
2.29.  In the sixth  Appraisal, some Members expressed concerns regarding the general lack of 
engagement and participation in the Trade Monitoring exercise. Mem bers also discussed the 
possibility of highlighting certain measures in the Trade Monitoring report, and ways to make the 
meetings more interactive and fruitful. They were informed by the Secretariat of the process of 
gathering inputs for the reports, and the necessary steps involved.  
2.30.  In this Appraisal, Members raised the following points: (i)  the importance of transparency 
during times of crisis and the opportunity offered by the TPRB as the main platform for Members to 
address or highlight any lack of tra nsparency; (ii)  the urgent need to increase participation in the 
monitoring exercise and improve the Trade Monitoring function as part of WTO reform; (iii)  the 
usefulness of exploring IT solutions, including a digital platform to streamline the data gather ing 
process and verification; (iv)  the need to streamline the process of requesting information and 
verifying trade measures; (v)  the need to exercise caution in using information from unofficial 
sources; (vi)  the importance of including more qualitative a nalysis of trends and the state of world 
trade as this would allow Members to engage in more constructive discussions; (vii)  the possibility 
of reducing the length of the trade concerns section in the reports and expanding that on trade WT/TPR/W/229 /Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  trends; (viii)  ensuring that the exercise focuses only on multilateral trade agreements and that the 
reports remain focused on trade -related developments; (ix)  clarifying the scope and topics handled 
by the Trade Monitoring exercise, including the length of the reports; (x)  adopting a standardized 
format for inputs to the Trade Monitoring reports; (xi)  exploring the option of having only one report 
per year; and (xii)  further expanding substantive sections relating to new trade policy developments.  
2.31.  Several Member s also reiter ated that the Trade Monitoring reports form part of a transparency 
exercise and peer review among delegations and are not meant to serve to enforce WTO legal 
obligations.  
2.32.  Members highlighted the role of the TPRB as the main forum to share information among  
Members on trade policy developments, particularly during times of global crisis.  
2.33.  Conclusions:  
(1) Members invited the Secretariat to continue to explore, implement and extend IT solutions 
that can facilitate the Trade Monitoring exercise for Members, includi ng through the digital 
platform for the submission and verification of measures online.  
(2) Members called for increased engagement and participation of all Members in the Trade 
Monitoring exercise, including through the training and briefing sessions offered by the 
Secretariat's Trade Monitoring outreach programme.  
(3) Members invited the Secretariat to reduce the frequency of its Report to an annual Report 
in normal times, while maintaining flexibility to adjust their frequency in times of crisis, as 
appropriate.  
(4) Members highlighted the TPRB as the main forum to share information on trade policy 
developments, especially during times of global crises.  
3  DATE OF THE NEXT APPRAISAL  
3.1.  Members agreed that the next Appraisal of the operation of the TPRM should t ake place not 
later than 2027, and preferably not in the year of a WTO  Ministerial Conference. It is understood 
that nothing precludes the TPRB from deciding on specific items for improvement before the next 
Appraisal. The eighth  Appraisal should include a n assessment of the implementation of the 
conclusions reached at this Appraisal, inter alia, in terms of the transparency of Members' trade 
policies.  
__________