WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
4 December 2017  
(17-6663) Page: 1/8 
Ministerial Conference  
Eleventh  Session  
Buenos Aires , 10-13 December 20 17  
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM  
SIXTH APPRAISAL OF T HE TRADE POLICY REVI EW MECHANISM1 
Chairperson: Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)  
1  BACKGROUND  
1.1.  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 World Trade Organization. 
Paragraph F of Annex 3 established that the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) "shall undertake an 
appraisal of the o peration 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 intervals 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, and 
the fifth  (WT/MIN(13)/5) in 2013. The fifth Appraisal concluded that: " The 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 preferably not in the lead up to a WTO Ministerial  Conference. It is 
understood that nothing precludes the TPRB to decide on specific items for improvement before 
the next Appraisal. " 
1.3.  With Members' agreement, the sixth Appraisal of the TPRM was formally launched on 
20 June 2016. Six informal meetings of t he TPRB were held between July and November  2016 to 
discuss proposals submitted individually or jointly by more than 20 Members2 and successive 
drafts of the relevant parts of this Report. The Chairperson also made herself available for bilateral 
and group  consultations throughout the exercise. This Report was formally agreed at a TPRB 
Meeting on 21 December 2016 . 
2  ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE SIXTH APPRAISAL  
2.1.  In this Appraisal, Members discussed four main aspects of the TPRM, namely: preparation for 
Trade Policy Review (TPR) meetings; organization and structure of TPR meetings; follow -up to TPR 
meetings; and other areas of the TPRM. The background to each issue and the views expressed by 
Members are summarized as follows.  
PREPARATION FOR TPR MEETINGS  
Issue 1  Review cycles  
2.2.  In the fifth Appraisal, the need to revise the time -frame for reviews was mentioned but not 
discussed in detail.  
                                                
1 This document was issued as WT/TPR/389 on 22 December 2016.  
2 The European Union counting as one.  WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  In this Appraisal, Members were informed by the Secretariat that, given the increasing 
number of WTO Members, the current review cycl es (2, 4 or 6 years) meant that some 24 reviews 
had to be completed each year. This was already stretching the resources of both Members and 
the Secretariat to the li mit, and building up backlogs. The Secretariat anticipated that, once all the 
countries cu rrently in the accession proceedings had become WTO Members, the number of TPRs 
required would increase to 30 per year, which would not be sustainable in the long run. Members 
therefore discussed w ays to address this challenge. Members noted that, notwiths tanding the 
revised review cycles  (Conclusion (1) below) , the general flexibility of up to six months provided 
for in the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the TPRB3 would remain unchanged.  
2.4.  Conclusion:  
(1) Members agreed to launch the necessary procedures , pursuant to Art.X:8 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO, in order to change the current review cycles (2, 4 or 
6 years)  as specified in Section C(ii) of Annex 3 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing 
the WTO  to 3, 5 or 7 years . The new arrangement will be phased in starting from 2019 . 
(2) Conclusion (1) of Issue 11 will serve to enhance the transparency of Members' trade 
policies in between TPRs.  
Issue 2  Overdue reviews  
2.5.  In this Appraisal, Members noted that there were 8 cases of deviation from the review 
cycles .4 
Issue 3  TPR reports  
2.6.  According to Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, the Secretariat has 
to 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 review. They cover various aspects of trade policies and measures 
of interest to Members and of importance to the multilateral trading syst em, including topics not 
governed by existing WTO Agreements, such as competition policy.  
2.7.  In this Appraisal, Members discussed how the format and content of Secretariat reports could 
be further improved, in particular to reflect modern trade policies such as those related to 
e-commerce. The possibility of Members indicating their specific areas of interest to the Secretariat 
for individual TPRs was also discussed, although some Members cautioned that, for the reports to 
be truly impartial, the Secretariat s hould be allowed to exercise its professional judgement 
independently.  
2.8.  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.  
2.9.  In this regard, s ome Members had identified the preparation of Government Reports a s a 
burden. A Member noted that, in some cases, such Reports provided limited added value 
compared to the Members ' statement on Day One  of TPR meetings . It was suggested that omitting 
Govern ment Reports would also alleviate translation costs. However, some Members found 
Government Reports useful and considered it necessary to retain them.  
2.10.   Conclusion:  
(1) For Members reviewed on a 2 -year cycle5, 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 
                                                
3 Paragraph 3 of Rules of Procedure, WT/TPR/6/Rev.3.  
4 These are (in parentheses the date of their last TPR): Armenia (April 2010); Cuba; Ecuador 
(November 2011); Republic of Guinea (September 2011); Mauritania (September 2011); Papua New Guinea 
(November 2 010); Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (November 2002); and Zimbabwe (October 2011).  
5 Or those on a 3 -year cycle when the new arrangement agreed at Conclusion (1) of Issue (1) comes 
into effect.  WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 implementation of past recommendations.  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 may include issues relevant to modern trade policies.  
(3) For LDCs, the Secretariat Reports should integrate to the maximu m extent the needs 
assessment and relevant Aid for Trade elements.  Members are  also encouraged to include 
in their Government Reports 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.  
Issue 4  Timeline s for submitting questions and answers  
2.11.   In the fourth and fifth Appraisals,  Members acknowledged that the Alternative Timeline (AT) 
for submission of written questions and answers could benefit both the Members under review and 
other Members, and encourage more interact ive discussion at TPR meetings.  However, they could 
not reach  a consensus on whether the AT should replace the Current Timeline (CT). They decided 
to maintain the CT, while allowing volunteers to adopt the AT on a pilot basis. They also agreed to 
revisit this issue in the sixth Appraisal.  
2.12.   In this Appraisal, Members  noted the largely positive comments made by users of the AT in 
a survey conducted by the Secretariat (survey sent on 1 July 2016; results distributed on 
31 August 2016). While some Members were prepared to replace the CT with the AT if there was a 
consens us, others preferre d keeping the AT as an option. Some Members suggested the possibility 
of introducing incentives to encourage usage of the AT, but there was no consensus.  
2.13.   Conclusion:  
(1) The AT will be revised to allow one more week for the Member under  review to provide 
written answers to advance written questions  submitted within the established deadline , as 
illustrated in the graph at Anne x. 
(2) Both the 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 under review , at the time 
of agreeing on the date of review . 
Issue 5  Facilitating the question -and-answer process  
2.14.   In the fifth Appraisal, Members requested the Secretariat to develop an IT system which 
could facilitate the treatment electronically of the question -and-answer process by Members, and 
to simplify and expedite the process for the Member under review to group the questions 
according to themes. A pilot system was tested during the 2015 TPR of Thailan d for the submission 
of written questions, and again tested during the 2016 TPR of the Republic of Korea for the 
provision of written answers.  
2.15.   In this Appraisal, Members were briefed by the Secretariat on the technical functions of the 
system and the  progr ess in its construction. An information session was held on 
21 November  2016. Members affirmed support for the system and offered suggestions on its 
design and migration plan.  
2.16.   In addition, Members discussed ways to manage the large number of questions. Members 
noted that, in case the same or similar questions were raised, the Member under review could 
either give one answer to all those questions, or refer Members to the first answer given. The 
possibility of capping the number of questions that each Member  could put to the Member under 
review was also considered.  WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.17.   Conclusion:  
(1) Given that, for the system to be fully functional 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 platform.  Members will be invited to take a formal decision to 
launch the system in due course.  
(2) In the initial period of migration  (dura tion to be decided by Members in due course) , the 
existing arrangements for submitting questions and answer s will co -exist with 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 sending questions 
adopted at the fourth Appraisal, and will send questions numbered in one batch.  
(5) Some Members a re concerned about the large number of questions, and  Members  agree to 
continue  exercis ing restraint in raising questions . 
Issue 6  Role of the Discussant  
2.18.   Section C(iv) of Annex 3 to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO provides that, in 
consultati on with the Member or Members under review, the Chairman may choose discussants 
who, acting in their personal capacity, shall introduce the discussions in the TPRB.  
2.19.   In this Appraisal, Members discussed whether and how the role of the Discussant could be 
enhanced, such that TPR meetings could be better prepared and Members could be more involved 
in such preparation. Members considered that, in some cases su ch as group reviews, having 
two Discussants for a TPR could enrich the discussion. They also saw the value of encouraging the 
Discussants to share their views and questions with all Members in advance of TPR meetings.  
2.20.   Conclusion:  
As there is already sufficient flexibility in the existin g arrangement for appointing 
Discussant(s) and in the process of preparing for TPR meetings to allow the Discussant(s) to 
play an effective role, there is no need to change the status quo.  
ORGANIZATION AND STR UCTURE OF TPR MEETIN GS 
Issue 7  Meeting  structu re  
2.21.   In the fourth Appraisal, it was agreed that, if requested by the Member under review, the 
Chairperson would consult other Members on the possibility of holding a one -day meeting for that 
Member on a pilot basis, such that Day Two proceedings would take  place in the afternoon of 
Day One. So far, no Member has made such a request.  
2.22.   Meanwhile, a long -standing issue in previous Appraisals has been how to make Day Two of 
the TPR meeting more interactive and productive.  
2.23.   In this Appraisal, Members noted the te chnical difficulty and downside of holding one -day 
TPR meetings as originally envisaged in the fourth Appraisal, mainly because a one -day break 
between Day One and Day Two was necessary for the Member under review to prepare its 
responding statement and fo r the Chairperson to prepa re his/her concluding remarks. Members 
also discussed how the problem of unsatisfactory attendance and participation on Day Two should 
best be addressed. Some Members suggested the possibility of allowing a Member under review 
that had chosen the AT to have the option of substituting its Day Two meeting with the circulation 
of written statements, but there was no consensus.  WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.24.   Conclusion:  
(1) As a one-day TPR meeting in the format originally envisaged in the fourth Appraisal is 
techni cally challenging and the benefits are not apparent, it will cease to be an option.  
(2) The current 2 -day structure of TPR meetings  will be maintained . 
(3) While retaining the existing elements of Day Two, Members may explore ways of adding 
value to Day Two by offering to include, on a voluntary basis, innovative elements to the 
programme for th eir 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 format and scope of questions to be considered and the make -up of any 
panel, w ill be determined by the Member under review and w ill be conducted in informal 
mode.   
Issue 8  Speaking time and speaking order  
2.25.   In the fourth Appraisal, Members agreed that their statements at meetings should not  
exceed seven minutes (" the 7 -minute rule "). In the fifth Appraisal, some Members noted that 
flexibility might be required in the app lication of the 7 -minute rule in the case of group reviews, so 
as to allow deeper consideration of each member of the group. As regards the speaking order, it 
was agreed in the fourth Appraisal that Members who had submitted written questions would 
speak f irst, following the order in which the written questions were submitted. Members who had 
not submitted written questions would follow in the order in which their flags were raised. The 
7-minute and speaking order rules have since been implemented on a pilo t basis, for review in the 
sixth Appraisal.  
2.26.   In this Appraisal, all Members were c ontent with the 7 -minute rule. Some Members 
suggested allocating additional speaking time for the delivery of group statements , and discussed 
possible eligibility criteria . Some Members preferred the status quo for various reasons, for 
instance, because they had reservations about institutionalizing group participation in the TPRM 
context.  
2.27.   Conclusion:  
(1) The 7 -minute rule  will be formally adopted for all interv entions on both Day One and 
Day Two of TPR meetings, except for statements made by the Chairperson, the Member 
under review and the Discussant.  
(2) The speaking order as agreed in the fourth and fifth Appraisals will be formally adopted 
without change.  
(3) On the day befo re each TPR meeting, the Secretari at will post on the WTO Members'  
website a provisional list of speakers for Day One of that meeting, for Members'  advance 
information.  
FOLLOW UP TO TPR MEE TINGS  
Issue 9  Podcasting and minutes  
2.28.   In the fourth Appraisal, Members felt that the possibility of podcasting (i.e. digital audio 
files) should be offered as long as the Secretariat was abl e to provide it within budget. The current 
system was therefore introduced in 2012 on a pilot basis. Members had discussed whethe r 
podcasts could replace written minutes of meetings and thereby save costs, but could not reach 
agreement on this.  
2.29.   In this Appraisal, Members were informed by the Secretariat that the pilot podcasting 
system had serious technical and security issues, such  that service could not continue unless there 
were additional resources to upgrade it. The survey conducted by the Secr etariat (sent on 
1 July 2016 and the results distributed on 31 August 2016) also showed that most Members did WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 6 - 
 
  not consider podcasts very useful. There was a general preference for written minutes which some 
Members believed could not be replaced by podcasts.  
2.30.   Conclusion:  
Given that Members prefer written minutes, and that the existing podcasting system can no 
longer function, the service wil l be discontinue d. 
Issue 10  F ollow -up activities  
2.31.   In the fourth and fifth Appraisals, 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 experience s in conducting such activities at a meeting on 20 June 2016.  
2.32.   In this Appraisal, Members heard feedback from LDCs, and noted their views that TPRs and 
follow -up seminars were very useful and important for them. It was noted that one Member had 
donated fund ing specifically to support such follow -up activities for LDCs. Members also 
considered, under Issue 3, ways to enhance support for developing countries, especially for LDCs, 
so that they could benefit more from the TPR process.  
OTHER AREAS OF THE T PRM 
Issue 11  Trade monitoring  
2.33.   The TPRB meets at least twice a year to review the Director -General's monitoring reports on 
recent trade policy developments, including the overall trends in implementing trade -restricting 
and trade -liberalizing measures. In prepari ng these reports, the Secretariat has to rely on 
Members to provide accurate information and verify all the measures recorded for their economies. 
The response rate, how ever, is often unsatisfactory. The fourth and fifth Appraisals recognized the 
usefulnes s of the trade monitoring exercise, and there was broad consensus among Members to 
continue with it and strengthen it.  
2.34.   In this Appraisal, some Members expressed concerns regarding the general lack of 
engagement in the trade monitoring exercise. Members dis cussed the possibility of highlighting 
certain measures in the trade monitoring report, and ways to make the meetings more interactive 
and fruitful. They were also informed of the process of gathering input for the reports, and the 
necessary steps involved .  In this connection, there was a suggestion to combine two current steps 
in the collection and verification of information.  
2.35.   Conclusion:  
(1) The trade monitoring meetings  will have a regular item on the agenda which gives an 
opportunity for Members to pro vide brief reports on significant changes in their trade 
policies between reviews, in the manner as envisaged in Section D of Annex 3 to the 
Marrakesh Agreement  Establishing the WTO . 
(2) To ensure consistency in the format and length of information provided by different 
Members, the Secretariat may provide Members with a standard format thereof, e.g. time 
of implementation, agency responsible, name and serial number of the  legislation , brief 
description of its key points, etc. This format w ill also a pply, to the maximum extent 
possible, to the information that the Secretariat collects from other non -official sources to 
be verified by Members . 
Issue 12  Vice-Chair  
2.36.   In the fourth and fifth Appraisals, Members decided that, in view of the increased number  of 
TPRs taking place each year, the TPRB would appoint, under its Rules of Procedure for Meetings of 
the TPRB, a Vice -Chairperson to assist the Chairperson in  chairing formal TPR meetings. To 
implement this decision, the Rules of Procedure were subsequent ly revised as per WT/TPR/6/Rev.3 
paragraphs 5 to 7.  WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.37.   So far, no Vice -Chairperson has been appointed, mainly because there has  been no actual 
need to do so. Besides, it is unclear how the arrangement should work in practice, for instance, 
what would trigger the selection process, and when; how the workload and responsibilities are to 
be shared between the Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson; and whether the Member under review 
should have a say on who is to chair its TPR, etc.  
2.38.   Conclusion:  
While there has been no  need to select a Vice -Chairperson so far, to provide flexibility for 
future appointments, the current provision in the Rules of Procedures will remain 
unchanged.  The practical issues mentioned above will be decided by Members if there is an 
actual need to  select a Vice -Chairperson in future.   
3  DEVELOPMENTS ON OTHE R ISSUES SINCE THE F IFTH APPRAISAL  
3.1.  There were comments made  in the fifth Appraisal which did not require further discussion or 
decision by Members, and were therefore not c overed in the sixth Appra isal. Follow -up actions had 
nonetheless been taken. The developments are  reported below for the sake of completeness.  
3.2.  During the fifth Appraisal, Members invited the Secretariat to continue to explore ways to 
improve and streamline its reports in order to make them more effective in achieving the 
objectives of the TPRM and, at the same time, help reduce documentation and translation costs of 
the TPRB.  
3.3.  The Secretariat has been working to produce shorter and 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, particularly 
when they are reviewed on the same cycle.  
3.4.  In the fifth Appraisal, Members also requested the Secretariat to pay more attention in its 
TPR reports to reporting more comprehensively on trade and trade -related measures, covering 
both trade in goods and trade in services, that are applied behind the border by indi vidual 
Members at central government level and, where they are relevant and feasible and where data 
are available at the central government level, matters at sub -central level, in areas such as 
regulatory measures, subsidies and state aid, state trading an d government procurement.  
3.5.  In its reports, the Secretariat continues to make efforts to provide a more detailed analysis of 
behind -the-border measures of the Member under review, for example on state aid, subsidies, 
government procurement, and state trading . The Secretariat also aims to improve its coverage 
and analysis of trade and trade -related policies at the sub -central level, where relevant and 
feasible, and where data are available. Further progress in this area could be made if Members 
contributed mor e information about such measures.  
4  DATE OF THE NEXT APP RAISAL  
4.1.  The 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 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 next Appraisal should include an assessment of the 
implementation of the conclusions reached at this Appraisal, inter alia, in terms of the 
transparency of Members' trade policies.  
 WT/MIN(17)/ 9 
 
- 8 - 
 
  ANNEX  
 
 
 
 
__________