WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO 
WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
15 June 2012 
 (12-3154) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
16 and 18 November 2010 Original: English/ 
 anglais/  inglés 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 
Record of the Meeting 
Addendum 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Bozkurt Aran (Turkey) 
 
 This document contains the additional res ponses provided by Papua New Guinea to advance 
written questions by Members.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
16 et 18 novembre 2010   
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
PAPOUASIE NOUVELLE GUINÉE 
Compte rendu de la réunion 
Addendum 
Président:  S.E. M. Bozkurt Aran (Turquie) 
 
 Le présent document contient les réponses add itionnelles fournies par la Papouasie Nouvelle 
Guinée aux questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les Membres.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________  
Órgano de Examen de la s Políticas Comerciales 
16 y 18 de noviembre de 2010  
 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
PAPUA NUEVA GUINEA 
Acta de la reunión 
Addendum 
Presidente:  Excmo. Sr. Bozkurt Aran (Turquía) 
  En el presente documento figuran las respu estas adicionales facilitadas por Papua Nueva 
Guinea a las preguntas presentadas anticipad amente por escrito por los Miembros.
1 
                                                      
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente.  WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  REPLIES PROVIDED BY PAPUA NEW GUINEA 
UNITED STATES (follow-up questions) 
1) The government of Papua New Guinea did not r espond to either of our SPS questions (i.e., 
one on Page 37 and the other on pa ge 55, paragraph 67).  In light of the "RULES OF PROCEDURE 
FOR MEETINGS OF THE TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY" (WT/TPR/6/Rev.2, 
14 November 2008), when can we expect to receive  Papua New Guinea’s responses to these questions 
that address basic obligations under the SPS Agreement? 
PNG’s response 
PNG is relatively free of many of the world’s pest  and diseases that are detrimental to our agricultural 
production, the environment and people’s livelihoods . About 87 % of the population is dependent on 
agricultural production and 26 % of agricultural pr oduce is exported. More importantly, the rural 
populations are heavily reliant on subsistence agri culture. Globalization has increased biosecurity 
risks (i.e. risk of exotic pest and disease intr oductions). The National Agriculture Quarantine and 
Inspection Authority (NAQIA) through its monitori ng and surveillance functions at the Airports, 
Seaports, International Mail Exchanges, stringent  import screening and export facilitation minimizes 
these risks. 
As a signatory to the Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Agreement (SPS), through the WTO membership 
PNG has agreed to abide by the principles of the agreement and to  base its sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures on scientifically justified assessment of ri sks. This SPS Agreement directs member states to 
use "risk assessment techniques developed by the re levant international orga nizations" in plant and 
animal product import/trade. In line with this NAQIA allows imports from animal and plant or their 
products from approved sources. T hose approved sources are sources where Pest Risk Assessment 
(PRA) and or Import Risk Assessment (IRA) impo rt conditions have been  developed for those 
imports.  
Currently NAQIA has yet to develop import protocol s for some animal and animal products from the 
US. We have no established trade with most other countries on these products and the US is one such 
market.  The protocols can be developed case by  case bases and upon request from potential importers 
or when the need arises. Like every other new a pplication to import, risk assessments are done and 
any intended import from the US will follow the sa me procedure. These import risk assessments are 
based on relevant international standards such as th e OIE standards "Terrestrial Animal Health and 
the Aquatic Animal Health Code" (The Code) for an imals and the IPPC guidelines for plant and plant 
products.   
NAQIA’s Import Risk Analyses (IRA) process for anim al products involves taking into consideration 
the results of Veterinary Service of the country , zoning and compartmentalization (if any) and the 
surveillance systems of the exporting country.  If an  IRA is recommended afte r the initial screening it 
will be based on current knowledge of the above sy stems and a host of other conditions within PNG 
including the presence or absence of particular diseas es. A similar process involves in PRA for plants.  
For the purposes of the Agriculture Quarantine Circular (AQC) it is used to differentiate and help 
NAQIA identify imports from approved sources and t hose from not approved or yet to be approved 
sources which are subject to an IRA/PRA process. Im ports can be restricted based only after an IRA 
but this is not the case for the USA.  WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
Page 4  
 
  Question on Page 55, paragraph 67 
We appreciate that Papua New Guinea has moved aw ay from zero tolerance measures in the direction 
of measures based on international standards and sci ence, taking into account the circumstances in the 
export country. We would, however, like to unde rstand how Papua New Guinea will regulate in the 
absence of an international standard? What is the scientific basis for resorting to broad import bans? 
PNG’s response 
Firstly, there are no broad bans on import of live plants, animals and aquatic species including fish. 
Rather it would be stated that PNG does not encour age the importation of certain species of plants or 
animals like live cattle. This is based on the fact (rightly pointed out) that PNG lacks suitable post 
entry quarantine (PEQ) and laboratory capacity.  Some of these conditions for import approval 
include the surface disinfection of eggs, quarantine-is olation of stock or cultures, mandatory reporting 
and/or submission of samples of in-transit or post- transit mortalities, and sterile disposal of all 
shipping materials including fodder. When there is a ban it is based on an identified and potential risk 
pathway through which the agent or bio security threat can enter into the country with the commodity.   
Every other country places similar conditions. As a gene ral rule applications for live imports that need 
"rush" IRAs are discouraged unless there is a well- established certainty that they are of low risk. 
Applications that lack strong back-up data  cannot be rushed as these pose high risk.  
While trade facilitation is one of the functions of NAQIA, bio security is its mandate. PNG is free of 
important exotic insect pest, weeds and diseases of pl ants and animals that are found in other parts of 
the world. As such and as much as possible we would like to maintain this status in order to protect 
the country’s biodiversity. Therefore PNG places great importance on its quarantine laws by placing 
restrictions on the import of live animals into the country. Applications for live animal imports maybe 
considered on a case by case basis but first it has to  be from a permitted country and should have in 
place import conditions and thirdly there should be an approved PEQ facility where NAQIA can 
monitor the animals during the quarantine period.  
Where and when a ban is advocated it is based on or undertaken as a short term measure against 
changes in pest/disease status of our trading part ners and on our own inability to monitor detect, 
contain, control and eradicate the incursion before  the pest/disease gets itself established. Semen or 
animal embryos of certain animal species from cer tain countries are allowed. Hence there is no 
outright long term ban and all imports are subject  to an IRA and that would include imports from 
the US. 
2) With regard to export assistance (our question re Page 48, Paragraph 42), the government of 
Papua New Guinea stated that its export assistan ce tax incentive is for research, promotion or 
establishment of export markets, and therefore does not fit the definition of Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement on prohibited subsidies. However, if the incentive provides any financial assistance for 
export promotion, the program should be duly notified in accordance with Article 25 of the 
Agreement.  When will PNG notify the program pursuant to Article 25 of the SCM Agreement? 
PNG’s response 
Internal Revenue Commission (IRC) collects some  information on the two tax concessions for 
manufactured exports (i) exemption of income from sa le of exports and ii) e xport market development 
deduction] relating to applicable taxpayers who have applied and been approved for the concession. 
IRC has provided such informati on to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Trade 
Division. If information on the tax concessions for manufactured exports is requested by WTO in  WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  accordance with Article 25 of the SCM agreement,  IRC recommends the point of contact for the 
information request should be DFAT. 
EUROPEAN UNION (Additional and follow-up questions) 
I. Follow-up comments and questions 
1) Q 1 has been partially replied - in its reply,  PNG refers only to its activities as regards to 
sustainable development. Could PNG also elabor ate further on how it encourages the core labour 
standards in this context? It would be good to have more details about how the Medium Term 
Development Plan will contribute to sustainable economic, environment and social development. 
In addition, could PNG explain how it ensures that the eight fundamental ILO Conventions and 
the ILO's 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation are respected in the informal 
sector?  
2) Q-s 7, 9, 11 were replied on the second day of the review and Q 10 will be replied in a later 
stage as stated by PNG. The EU  encourages PNG to send the replies as soon as possible and will 
study the replies of questions provided on the second day review. 
 WTO Secretariat' s Report, Pages 29-30, Paragraph 42 
 According to the Secretariat's report "[…] The Government is trying to raise investment by 
developing a facilitating policy framework, in cluding plans to enhance the manufacturing 
sector and boost exports. […]" 
Q.10 Could PNG elaborate how investment promo tion activities are reflected in MTDP 2011-2015 
and what are the concrete actions PNG envisaged? 
PNG’s response 
To achieve economic benefits th rough investment promotion ac tivities such as the manufacturing 
sector will require addressing the supply-side cons traints such as transport. The MTDP 2011-2015 has 
identified key enablers (unlocking land for  development, normalizing law and order issues, 
investing in primary, secondary, higher and t echnical education, health, utilities and a quality 
transport infrastructure) that will lay the foundation for implementation of the PNGDSP and 
Vision 2050.  In addition, the government’s Publ ic Investment Program (PIP) outlines resource 
utilization by focusing development efforts on key policy areas. 
PNG has envisaged through the MTDP a number of  initiatives for immediate action which include: 
 - Investment in the key enablers. E.g. Development of transport infrastructure and 
utilities to facilitate trade and give cost advantages to domestic exporting industries. 
 - Opening up of access to export markets and technological capacities to improve 
productivity, implementing programs and in itiatives to minimize the burden on export 
oriented businesses and providing a low cost, low risk environment to run a business to be highly competitive. 
 - Promoting export led growth in all indus trial sectors through careful planning and 
 sequencing, establishing international sta ndards in the handling and marketing of 
 agricultural produce in order to  gain access to foreign markets. 
 - Establishing a Trade Development Board that  will effectively and strictly coordinate 
and pursue trade, with particular focus on the promotion of exports. WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
Page 6  
 
  Encouraging the integration of small and medium enterprises in foreign markets by promoting their 
off-shore investments and partnerships. 
3) Q 13 needs further explanation – in its reply,  PNG states that "[tariff exemptions are granted 
to prescribed organisations that in turn use comp anies to implement the project]". Could PNG specify 
how in this case granting concessions on a MFN basis is applied?  Also, could PNG elaborate on 
which are the conditions for government approval and how these concessions "assist local industry"? 
In addition, could PNG explain whether all like produc ts are exempted, independent of their origin or 
only those imported by the company to which approval has been granted?  
PNG’s response 
Internal Revenue Commission (IRC) is responsible  for administering any import Goods & Services 
Tax (GST) concessions that have been granted, although Customs is responsible for administering 
excise and import duty and any related concessions . Concessions for import GST are usually 
requested from IRC which are revi ewed on a case by case basis in cooperation with Treasury and 
submitted to NEC for approval. Legal authority for a pproval of the concessions rests entirely with the 
NEC, and IRC only implements the NEC’s decision.  Import GST concessions are typically granted on 
a company/organisational basis, for example for comp anies investing in the natural resources sector or 
agriculture sector during the pre-implementation pha se, government programmes, or for aid projects. 
Community organisations and charities enjoy an import GST zero rating under the GST Act. Import 
GST concessions apply only to those products imported by the company/organisation to which 
approval has been granted, and are not typically ap plied for all like goods, nor for a particular country 
of origin. Local industries may benefit indirectly as suppliers or sub contractors to those organisations 
to which the import GST concession has been granted. 
"Tariff exemptions are granted to prescribed organisations that in turn use companies to 
implement the project"  
Could PNG specify how in this case granting on a MFN basis is applied? Also could PNG 
elaborate on which are the conditions for government approval and how these concessions 
"assist local industry"? In addition, could PNG explain whether all like products are exempted, 
independent of their origin or only those impo rted by the company to which approval has been 
granted? 
 - Wider consultation is done amongst all stak eholders to conform to both international 
and domestic obligations before an exemp tion is granted including MFN issues.  
 - Exemptions apply mainly to new industr ies especially those th at may support local 
industries in line with government objectives under value adding manufacturing 
industries.  
 - Exemption is accorded to only those pr oducts imported by the company specifically 
for implementing the project. 
As stipulated earlier, this Department’s interest is  in development of new industries and in the process 
where exemptions are required as an incentive, st akeholders responsible for granting those are 
consulted with appropr iate justifications. 
4) Q-s 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 were replied on the sec ond day of the review - the EU will study the 
replies of questions provided on the second day review.   WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  5) Q 22 - it its reply, PNG states that the respon se to this question will be provided by the PNG 
Forest Authority (PNGFA) at a la ter stage. The EU encourages P NG to send the replies as soon as 
possible.  
This is a Joint-Response by the PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) and PNG Forest Industry 
Association (PNGFIA) to the questions raised in  the context of PNG’s Trade Policy Review in 
regards to Forestry: 
Question 
"According to the Government's report, PNG Fo rest Authority (PNGFA) has developed its own 
national Logging Code of Practice, and has r eceived assistance from international development 
partners in support of sustainable ma nagement of the forest resource.  
In order to encourage sustainable management of fo rests and ensuring legality of forest operations the 
EU has adopted Forest Law Enforcement, Govern ance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. EU Illegal 
Timber Regulation has recently been adopted fo r timber and timber products requiring economic 
operators to demonstrate that these products have b een made with legally harvested timber. What is 
PNG stance vis-à-vis FLEGT?" 
PNG’s response 
The EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) is an Action Plan adopted by the 
European Parliament in February 2004 to address illegal logging and trade of illegal timber products 
and prevent them from entering the EU market. It essentially seeks to differentiate legal from illegal 
timber products.  It is a demand-side pressure fo r reform and is part of a broader objective to 
introduce governance reforms and capacity buildi ng in producer countries in order to achieve 
sustainable forest management.  
The trust of the Action Plan is a licensing scheme negotiated through Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements (VPA) on a bilateral basis.  The VPA is a time-bound, legally bi nding inter-governmental 
bilateral agreement between the EU and major ti mber producing countries (EU partner country). It 
aims to implement the scheme by strengthening  governance in the partner country. The licensing 
scheme is currently limited to logs, sawn wood, plywood and veneer.  
PNG has not considered the EU FLEGT Programme at its current state for possible adoption as part of 
its existing legal, regulatory and on-going monitori ng and surveillance programmes in its efforts to 
combat illegal-logging and illegal trade of timber pr oducts in the country.  The major considerations 
attributed to this, among others, are:  
 1. PNG has the legal and regulatory framewo rk in place to ensure all timber production 
and export activities are done within the confines of the National laws:  
 1.1 All log harvesting operations are m onitored by PNGFA and done by legally 
certified timber companies approved by this Authority, where they are issued 
harvesting licences or permits to operate. Their legal entities as Companies and forest industry participants are also verified before they are given approval to undertake forestry operations; 
 1.2 All timber processing operations are also legally certified, where both the 
processing operations and the company involved are certified by this 
Authority;   WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
Page 8  
 
   1.3 It is the only country in the South East Asia and the Pacific region that has a 
third-party internationally recognized aud iting firm that audits all log exports. 
This is done by SGS PNG Ltd, a member of the global Swiss firm SGS Group (Société Générale  de Surveillance); 
 1.4 As part of PNG’s on-going effort s to improve legal assurance of timber 
production and exports, industry particip ants are now being encouraged to 
engage in Timber Legality and Traceab ility Verification (TLTV) certification 
being undertaken by SGS Group to ascertain and ensure the legal origin or legal compliance of timber or forestry projects in the country, which is a voluntary scheme.  Three major timber companies in the country are already 
in the process of getting their TLTV; 
 1.5 The legality of all exports of timber  products are verified by different State 
entities prior to their actual exports, in cluding the Department of Foreign 
Affairs & Trade and PNG Customs. 
 2. Globally, there is a plethora of volunt ary schemes and initiatives for timber legality 
assurance. The verification of legality and forest certification schemes adhere to a 
uniform standard with specific principles and criteria. More significantly, these 
efforts operate purely on a voluntary basis.  The EU FLEGT VPA, however, needs to 
be contextualized to negotiating countries’  conditions, and in due process, subject 
these countries to restrictive conditionalities. It is a voluntary scheme by its ‘cover’ but practically it’s not because of the st rict conditionalities. One such conditionality 
is, for e.g. PNG exporters to apply F LEGT licensing scheme to non-EU markets 
regardless of whether this particular form  of legality assurance is demanded by other 
consuming countries. Resultantly, timber producing companies will face additional administrative and bureaucratic procedur es.  Implementing such conditionalities 
would come at a significant adjustment costs (legal, social, environmental, etc.) to 
producer countries, especially for PNG were  the producer market is oligopolistic 
- there a very few larger producers and many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which do not have the capacity to finance these costs – we would basically be asking them to go bankrupt. Even engaging in the TLTV scheme is a significant costs exercise as claimed by one of the three co mpanies who are in the process of getting 
TLTV. Additionally, the EU is not even ab le to justify undergoing these adjustments 
with attractive market returns or incentives. It  is with this protectionist view and lack 
of incentives that PNG, as a small developing country, largely ignores this EU FLEGT Programme. 
 3. Being a party to such legality schemes such as the EU FLEGT Program would act as 
a potential non-tariff barrier to access other markets apart from the EU. No country in 
the world has accepted this scheme, except two in Africa, which effectively means 
that there is no global recognition and mark et acceptance of such schemes. It would 
self-defeat the purpose of engaging in such schemes. In addition, there would be the 
requirement that other countries would also want their own legality or certification 
schemes that PNG would have to comply with in other to allow imports of PNG timber or wood products. This would violate the objective of WTO that seeks to 
liberalize international trade.   
 4. There is yet to be concrete evidence of a unilateral commitment from all the 27 EU 
Member States to accept FLEGT-licensed timber.  Even if this unilateral commitment 
is forthcoming, the constitution of the EU allows for Member States’ individual 
interpretation of the EU’s Directive. While  the definition of legal timber will be  WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  commonly applied throughout all Member Stat es, there will be disc repancies in terms 
of implementation procedures. Such lack of unilateral commitment among the Member States serves little incentive for countries like PNG to be a party to such 
schemes.  
 5. There is no differentiation between FLEGT-licensed and non FLEGT-licensed timber 
and timber products. Non FLEGT–licensed timb er will continue to be granted access 
into the EU market, which does not creat e a level playing field for FLEGT-licensed 
timber within the EU market. 
6) Q 29 has been partially replied - in its re ply, PNG is explaining how it is considering 
environmental issues in its economic development st rategy; however, also the information on how the 
social issues are considered would be useful.  
7) Follow-up on questions on fisheries sector – Could PNG explain how it ensures that vessels 
listed on its shipping register do not engage in IUU fishing? And also, how it ensures that vessels 
listed on its shipping comply with PNG's labour laws and regulations, as well as the relevant ILO 
Conventions relating to maritime wo rkers? Thursday, 19 April 2012 
PNG’s response 
PNG ensures that vessels listed on its shipping re gister do not engage in IUU fishing through the 
following monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools: 
 - 100% Observer coverage on all PNG licensed fishing vessels 
 - Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) onboard all PNG licensed fishing vessels 
(automatic location communicator(ALC)) 
 - Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) 
 - Port transshipment monitoring – fish transshipment monitoring  - Continuous enforcement surveillance   - Vessel compulsory inspection. 
8) Q 33 has not been replied – in its reply, P NG refers to access to international markets, open 
skies and traffic rights. However, question 15 was aimed at receiving information on PNG's plans to 
further liberalise airport operations services and gr ound handling. Could PNG provide information on 
its intentions?  
II. Additional questions 
II. TRADE POLICY REGIME: FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 
(3) T RADE POLICY FORMULATION , IMPLEMENTATION , AND EVALUATION  
Main trade laws 
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 19, table II.1 
1. The EU remains concerned that  the recent amendment to the Environment Act (2000) risks to 
downgrade the environmental standards, hence jeopardiz ing the sustainability of specific sectors, such 
as fisheries or logging. Has the Government of P NG taken into account the potential impact of the 
amendment to the Environment Act (2000) in the long - term?  WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
Page 10  
 
  (5) T
RADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(ii) Preferential 
(a) Regional agreements (i) EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) 
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 26, para-s 31-32 
The interim Economic Partnership Agreemen t was signed by PNG on 30 July 2009.  
 2. The EU encourages PNG to take the nec essary implementation steps in order to attain 
legal certainty and benefit fully from the agreement. Could PNG elaborate on 
implementation process to date (instituti onalization of EPA Council, Trade and 
Development Committee etc.) and possible next steps?  
PNG’s response  
PNG signed the interim EPA in 2009 with EU in orde r to carry forward the trade preferences for its 
canned fish exports to the EU and to some extent  its agricultural products. This was done because the 
negotiations for an all Pacific ACP States comprehe nsive trade agreeement could not be completed by 
31
st December 2007. As a result, PNG is now enjoying the duty free and quota free access to EU 
markets under the iEPA. 
Both PNG on the Pacific side and EU on the other are the only parties that have fully ratified the 
iEPA. PNG Parliament unamiously ratified the agreement on the 25th May 2011. 
Both Parties have now established IEPA Trade Comm ittee to deal with all the implementation issues 
such as the rules of procedure of the Trade Committ ee, rules of procedure of  the special committees, 
rules of procedure for dispute settlement, code of  conduct for arbitrators and mediators as well as 
other operational issues like frinancial and technica l assistance to address supply side constraints. 
These are now work in progress.  
PNG is currently working on an outstanding national action to bring down to zero the remaining tariff 
rates of certain EU products by way of gazettal notice to all implementing agencies both public and 
private.  
(6) F OREIGN INVESTMENT REGIME  
(i) Overview WTO Secretariat’s report, pages 29 – 30, para-s 42-43 
 3. The approval of new investment projects  by the PNG is subject to a condition of 
"provision of new services". Could PNG elaborate further on the meaning and 
coverage of this cond ition and explain the respective screening process? 
(a) Legislative arrangements 
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 30, para. 45  
The Secretariat's report informs that "[The IPA certif ies foreign investors (50% or more ownership or 
control and management by non-PNG citizens) as bona fide investors to conduct business in PNG, 
and screens FDI proposals, mainly acco rding to the authorities, designed to ensure that investors are 
of "good standing[…]".   
 4. Could PNG explain the criteria to assess the good faith and good standing of 
prospective investors?   WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
   5. Could PNG inform whether these criteria are set out in a public law or in an internal 
rule?  
 6. Could PNG state the percentage of investors rejected per year as the result of this 
screening process? 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) I NTRODUCTION  
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 36, para 4  
The Secretariat’s report recognizes that "[PNG bound a ll tariff items at an (unweighted) average rate 
of 32.8%.  The large 27.7 percentage point gap betw een this and average applied MFN rates, widened 
by unilateral tariff reductions, leaves PNG much scope  to raise tariffs within its commitments, also 
contributing to the unpredictability of the tariff.  However, applied tariffs have been raised only 
occasionally. Applied tariffs on a handful of items seemingly exceed bound rates.]"  
 7. The EU welcomes that the level of app lied tariffs has been steadily reduced along the 
last decade. However, bound tariffs remain much higher, thus generating uncertainty. 
Considering that applied tariffs have been raised only occasionally, has PNG 
considered the possibility of binding most if not all its MFN rates at the applied level? 
(3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS  
(v) Export Processing Zones 
WTO Secretariat's report, pages 48-49, para-s 43-45 and reply by PNG to the question by US in its 
written replies .  
In its replies, PNG explains that "[The Government  has recently endorsed a new concept to be called 
as the "Economic Corridor". Under the PNG Deve lopment Strategic Plan (PNGDSP) 2010-2030 and 
the Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2011-2015, several rural Economic Corridors have 
been identified in each of the 4 regions in the country.[…]". 
 8. Could PNG inform whether national labour laws, the fundamental rights at work as 
embodied by the ILO's 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation 
and the 8 core ILO Conventions will also  apply in free zone s and free economic 
zones? 
(4) I NTERNAL MEASURES  
(ii) Government procurement 
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 53, para. 61  
The Secretariat's report states that "[Despite improvements, public procurement remains inefficient, 
and further reforms could enhance performance and he lp ensure value for money. The private sector 
has identified several weaknesses in public procurem ent, including:  lack of transparency with 
associated suspicion of corruption (abuse of Certif icates of Inexpediency and splitting contracts to 
favour small firms); no standardized documentation and evaluation;  poor disclosure of awarded 
contracts; discretionary issue of contracts;  poor  quality documentation and contract management;  
and procurement delays.  The authorities indicated th at technical assistance was needed to assist in 
implementing government procurement policies, including training of officials.] "  
 9. Could PNG elaborate on the steps it is taking to increase efficiency and ensure that 
public resources are properly allocated? WT/TPR/M/239/Add.2 
Page 12  
 
  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(6) S
ERVICES  
(i) Telecommunications  
(b) Policy 
WTO Secretariat’s report, page 86, para. 90 
According to the Secretariat's report, "[Uncertain ty in the Government's telecommunications policy 
ended with the NEC approving the National ICT Policy Phase II Reforms Final Report in March 2009 
(in the National Information and Communications  Technology Act of November 2009).  The Act 
provides a comprehensive reform package for introd ucing open competition. Some parts, relating to 
the transition to the new regulator (the Nati onal Information and Communications Technology 
Authority (NICTA)), became operative on 3 March 201 0.  The rest of the Act, regarding the 
succession of functions, will enter into force on 2 August 2010, when the independent industry-
specific telecommunications regulator, NICTA, will replace PANGTEL and take over the ICCC's regulatory functions.[…]".  
 10. Could PNG elaborate on the implemen tation of the National Information and 
Communications Technology Act after it entered into force in August 2010? 
__________