WT/TPR/ R/9 
 
12 June 2023  
(23-3978) Page: 1/2 
Trade Policy Review Body   
 
SEVENTH APPRAISAL OF THE T RADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM  
REPORT ON THE MEETING OF 8 JUNE 2023  
Chairperson: H.E. Mr Saqer Abdullah ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia ) 
1. An informal meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) was held on 8  June 2023. The 
meeting was chaired by Ambassador H.E. Mr Saqer ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia), with the 
goal of starting to narrow down possible conclusions of the Appraisal. To that end, there will be a 
series of dedicated sessions on three "baskets" of issues:  
Topics  Meeting dates  Meeting Room  
1 Timelines for submitting Q&A; 
Facilitating the Q&A process through an 
IT system; Lack of submission of written 
replies.  Thursday , 8 June (3 p.m.)  S2 
Monday , 19 June (3 p.m.)  S3 
Friday , 7 July (3 p.m.)  D 
2 Secretariat report  Monday , 12 June (3 p.m.)  D 
Friday , 23 June (3 p.m.)  S3 
Monday , 10 July (3 p.m.)  D 
3 Other issues:  
Review cycles; Meeting structure; 
Follow -up activities for developing 
countries and LDCs; Trade Monitoring.  Thursday , 15 June (3 p.m.)  S3 
Monday , 26 June (3 p.m.)  S3 
Friday , 14 July (3 p.m.)  D 
2. Members expressed support for the proposed  meeting schedule and  the approach to 
discussing the possible conclusions of the Appraisal. Several Members commented on scheduling 
conflicts with other meetings over the next few weeks (and the resulting challenges for small 
delegations), and s ome noted that, although the schedul e was robust, they welcomed the 
opportunity for productive discussions.  There will need to be a time to reflect on any proposals made 
during the dedicated sessions before the final two informal meetings and the formal meeting to 
conclude the Appraisal are held. 
3. To make the dedicated sessions as inclusive as possible, Members requested the Secretariat 
to provide (i) advance notice of the meetings so that capital -based delegates could be included , 
schedule permitting ; (ii) an agenda for each meeting; and (iii ) an informal, non -attributable 
summary after each meeting.  
4. Several Members were of the view that the current IT system (including the online Q&A tool) 
would benefit from updates to improve usability. The Q&A tool was discussed as having potential to 
reduc e the administrative burden  of the review process and improv e its efficiency , particularly if 
functionality was  built in  to eliminate repetitive questions and to identify trends in topics.  
5. The possibility of having a further demonstration of the current Q& A tool was discussed, along 
with the suggestion that Members  also be granted access in order to have their own experience 
using the system . Members noted that they need to understand both the current capabilities of the 
tool and its  short- and long -term potential. Conclusions about the Q&A tool (and the IT system as a 
whole) should be shared with the TPRB, and one Member proposed that the outcome document be 
annexed to the Appraisal Report. Members were of the view that o ngoing work on the Q&A tool 
should not preclude the Appraisal from concluding.  WT/TPR/R/9  
 
- 2 - 
 
  6. Several Members intervened on the topic of capping the number of advance questions 
submitted for response  by the Member under review. A few Members expressed concern about the 
labour -intensive nature of an swering a large number of questions, and also emphasized that this is 
an issue to be discussed among the TPRB as a whole . The possibility was raised of making the TPR 
meetings more interactive by incorporating an exchange of views rather than the Q&A being  strictly 
in written format.  
7. Regarding the Secretariat report, several Members were of the view that it was often too long 
and needed to be concise. One Member said it was investigating whether the report could be divided 
into two sections – one "stable" s ection describing structure of the government, legislative process, 
etc., and one section focusing on changes during the review period and other topical issues.  Another 
Member suggested that it would help the dedicated sessions be more focused if textual p roposals 
were put forward before the meeting.  
8. Speaking on behalf of the LDC group, one Member noted that the follow -up workshops were 
effective but that LDCs do not want the workshops to create an extra burden or new obligations. 
The Member suggested that the purpose and programme of the workshops should be reviewed, and 
that the timelines for the TPRs of LDCs should be made flexible to allow time to prepare.  Another 
Member  commented that the TPR contributes to a n overview of the development aspects of an L DC 
Member and that there is a need to review technical assistance and related issues.  
9. On the subject of the third " basket ", Members suggested that topics include meeting structure, 
monitoring and its frequency, TPR timelines, LDC follow -up, and non -complia nce in responses to 
advance Q&A. One Member noted  that issues related to the Q&A process, including capping the 
number of questions, TPR timelines, and non -compliance in responses, all be discussed in the first 
basket. Some Members expressed a need for adv ance notice to be given about the topics so that 
they ha ve time to prepare for the discussion and consult with capital as needed.  
10. The Chair addressed Members' interventions by commenting that the dedicated sessions are 
intended to narrow down the possible solutions and are not intended to replace the broader 
discussion among the group as a whole. The dedicated sessions will be available through Interprefy , 
although without interpretation. The Chair acknowledged the busy meeting schedule and overlap 
with oth er committee meetings, and indicated that this was the best schedule possible. He  also 
invited  Members to share textual proposals as soon as possible.  
 
__________