WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/TPR/W/44 
17 November 2011  
 
(11-5943) 
Trade Policy Review Body  
  
  
TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM 
 
Fourth Appraisal of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism 
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
 
Final Draft 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
1. The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) was established in 1989 on a provisional basis 
and confirmed by Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreem ent Establishing the World Trade Organization.  
Paragraph F of Annex 3 establishes that the Trad e 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 th e appraisal will be presented to the Ministerial 
Conference.  It may subsequently undertake appraisal s of the TPRM at intervals to be determined by 
it or as requested by the Ministerial Conference". 
2. The first appraisal of the TPRM (WT/MIN(99)/2) was undertaken in 1999, the second 
(WT/MIN(05/1) in 2005, and the third (WT/TPR/229) in 2008.  The third Appraisal concluded that 
"TPRB should undertake a further appraisal of the operation of the TPRM no more than three years after the conclusion of the present appraisal". 
3. The Chairman announced his intention to begin the fourth appraisal of the operation of the 
TPRM on 3 April 2011.  Informal meetings of the TPRB were held between July and November 2011 
to discuss successive drafts of this Report and pro posals by Members, including two communications 
from China's delegation (JOB/TPR/1 and JOB/TPR/2).  The Report was agreed at a TPRB Meeting on 18 November 2011.  
4. By the end of February 2012, the TPRM will have conducted some 320 reviews covering all 
but three of the WTO's Members in 1995, namely Cuba, Guinea Bissau and Myanmar.  Owing to their 
more recent accession to the WTO, six other Me mbers (Moldova, Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Viet Nam, Tonga, Ukraine and Cape Verde)  have also yet to be scheduled for review.   
II. RESULTS OF THE 2008 APPRAISAL 
5. Members drew a number of conclusions from the 2008 appraisal.  As regards the Secretariat, 
it should:  continue to streamline the process of information gathering, verification, revision and 
completion of its reports; submit draft reports and, when appropriate, a list of the main issues for 
discussion with the authorities of the Member under review prior to visiting the capital;  highlight 
more explicitly the significant changes made by the Member under review to the trade policies and 
practices discussed in its previous reviews;  wh ere necessary, consider issuing an addendum to its 
report to capture any significant ch anges that occur between the fina lization of the report and the 
TPRB meeting; post on the WTO website one week before each TPRB meeting a list of the main WT/TPR/W/44 
Page 2  
 
  points raised in Members' questions submitted at l east two weeks before the meeting to the Member 
under review; and update the list to cover issues ra ised in questions received after the two-week 
deadline in a revision to be circulated during the fi rst session of the review.  The Secretariat considers 
that it has implemented these instructions to the b est of its ability; for the time being, there has not 
been a case when it has b een felt necessary to issue an addendum to  a report.  It was decided to no 
longer follow the practice of issuing the "communication from the discussant". 
6. As regards TPRB meetings, the TPRB recognized  the need to promote more interactive 
discussions among Members, particularly during the second session of a review meeting, including 
through a better use of the existing advance writte n question and answer process.  However, the 
TPRB could not reach consensus on how this might be achieved, including on a proposal to move 
forward by one week the deadlines for distribution of documents, questions and answers.  The TPRB 
agreed to reconsider the matter at the next appraisal of the operation of the TPRM and urged 
Members, in the meantime, to improve their interac tion during the meetings, especially at the second 
session. 
7. The TPRB considered other possible changes to the operation of the TPRM relating to, 
among other things, the nature of interim reports, the coverage and critical leve l of Secretariat reports, 
the speaking order in review meetings, the possibl e webcasting and opening to the public of such 
meetings, the Chairman's Concluding Remarks, the number of sessions for a review meeting, the days 
between sessions, and participation in press conferen ces.  Again, the TPRB did not reach agreement 
on modifications concerning those issues but deemed that they merited further consideration in the 
future. 
III. PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE 2008 APPRAISAL OF THE TPRM 
(i) Secretariat Reports 
8. Since the Third Appraisal three years ago, the Secretariat has continued to make 
improvements to its reports.  Building on a recomm endation from the first (1999) appraisal to give 
greater attention to the technical assistance need s of least developed countries, it now seeks the 
approval of these countries to include a section on aid for trade in their reports.  In line with 
recommendations from the first (1999) and second (2005)  appraisals, it takes as a starting point, for 
each report, issues that were raised at a Member's previous review, both in other Members' questions and in the Chairman's Concluding Remarks.  It has made it a priority to seek to review Members who 
have not yet had a review or whose last review has exceeded the time set out in the TPRM cycle for 
reviews, of 2-4-6 years.  It has sought to group the reviews of several Members into one TPRB 
meeting where such a grouping is justified by, for ex ample, the Members' participation in a regional 
trade or economic agreement, and those Members ag ree to being grouped.  The Secretariat continues 
to seek to make its reports shorter and more conci se and to focus on specific trade policy issues rather 
than attempting to produce a comprehensive report each time, particularly where this is justified by 
the relative frequency of a Member's review cycle.  The Secretariat continues to  seek to ensure that its 
reports are factual and objective a nd that, subject to each Member pr oviding the data and information 
that a thorough trade policy review requires, they treat Members even-handedly, particularly when 
they are reviewed on the same cycle. 
(ii) Number of Reviews 
9. Given the increasing number of WTO Members, the review cycle set out in the TPRM 
mandate now requires that 24 reviews are completed each year.  Once all countries that are currently 
in accession proceedings become WTO Members,  that total will increase to 30 per year.  
The Secretariat has steadily increased the number of reviews it prepares each year, from about 15 
between 2000 and 2005, to 19/20 in the past few y ears.  The programme envisages this rising to an  WT/TPR/W/44 
 Page 3 
 
 
  average of 24 per year over the next few years, beginning in 2012 when the current draft programme 
foresees the review of 26 Members (Annex 1).1  This increase in the number of reviews per year will 
place pressure on the Secretariat's resources.  Equally, and even where a number of individual reviews can be grouped into a single TPRB meeting, it w ill increase demands on the time and resources of 
Members, the TPRB Chairman and Discussants to r ead the reports, prepare questions, and participate 
in the TPRB meetings.  Already today, with the cu rrent structure of two-day meetings, Members and 
the TPRB Chairman must count on a commitment to the TPRB of at least 40 days per year.
2 
(iii) Question and Answer Process 
10. The exchange of questions and answers with the Member(s) under revi ew is an important 
element of the review process, which supplements th e trade policy information that is available from 
the reports by the Secretariat and the Member(s) c oncerned.  The existing agreed working procedures 
are as follows.  
 Members are invited in the airgram to submit their written questions to the Member(s) under 
review via the Secretariat no later than two w eeks before the TPRB meeting.  These questions 
should be answered in writing by the Member(s) under review before the start of the meeting.  
Normally, the answers arrive no more than a fe w hours before the meeting begins, leaving the 
Secretariat little time to photocopy and distri bute them in the meeting room and Members 
little time to examine the answers they have received.   
 
 Written questions received after the two week deadline should be answered by the Member 
under review, to the extent possible, before the start of the second session of the TPRB meeting.  Any of those questions that are left  unanswered, along with any additional questions 
raised by Members orally during the meeting, should be answered in writing no later than one 
month after the meeting, with some latitude in  the Chair's discretion for Members answering a 
large number of questions.  
 11. Most Members on the 2- and 4-year cycles rece ive a relatively large number of questions, and 
some a very large number, which reportedly can create problems for the authorities in capital to 
provide written answers within the deadlines, both be fore and after the TPRB meeting.  This may also 
be true in 6-year cycle Members with limited resources to respond to questions.  The burden of responding to questions is compounded when they have  first to be translated by the Member under 
review from, and to, one of the working languages of  the WTO.  It may also detract from the quality 
and timeliness of the exchange of trade policy info rmation that is being sought, particularly when 
written answers can be circulated by the Secretar iat no earlier than during the first session of the 
review or when questions left unanswered during th e meeting are only provided several months later. 
(iv) Discussion in the TPRB 
12. In previous appraisals, the TPRB has recognized the need to promote more interactive 
discussions among Members.  In practice, however, little seems to have changed over the past few 
years. 
13. The whole of the first session of each review  is typically taken up by Members reading 
prepared statements, which subsequently are reprodu ced in full in the minutes of the meeting.  Any 
interactive discussion among Members or with the Member under review takes place during the 
                                                      
1 TPRB meetings for three Members, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Nepal, were shifted from 2011 into 
2012 to avoid clashes with  the Eighth Ministerial Co nference in December 2011. 
2 The TPRB also meets at least twice a year to con duct its periodic review of the Director-General's 
monitoring reports on recen t trade policy developments. WT/TPR/W/44 
Page 4  
 
  second session of the review (two days after the first session), but more usually the second session is 
devoted largely to concluding statements with, in some instances, the Member under review providing 
supplementary answers to questions that have b een posed; in a number of cases, the second session 
can be rather short, sometimes less than one hour .  In the process, the collective appreciation and 
evaluation of the impact of the trade policies and practices of the Member under review on the 
functioning of the multilateral trading system, whic h is one of the mandated objectives of the TPRM, 
seems often to play a distant, secondary role.   
14. During the past few months, efforts have b een made through the Chairman's introductory 
remarks and the comments by the discussant to enc ourage Members to engage in more interactive 
discussions by identifying issues that could warrant attention, particularly from the point of view of 
the functioning of the multilateral trading system. 
(v) Reviews of Least Developed Countries 
15. Following the review cycle mandated in the TPRM, three-quarters of the reviews each year 
are devoted to Members on the 6-year cycle, many of which are least developed countries.  In the Secretariat's experience, TPRs can be particularly valuable for these Members, providing them with 
an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive analysis of their trade policies from the point of view of 
their development objectives and to identify their technical assistance and capacity-building needs.
3  
TPR reports are often the main, if not the only, trade policy document available to the Government 
and, for this reason, reviews have occasionally been encouraged by other intern ational institutions and 
donors.  The process can also provide a catalyst for better coordination by the Member under review of its trade and trade-related policies. 
16. The Secretariat's assi stance supplements the very limite d domestic resources that these 
Members typically have at their disposal to conduct such a periodic review.  The Secretariat reports 
are used by the governments concerned for internal  consultation purposes with other ministries and 
domestic stakeholders, and externally in their comme rcial relations with trading partners and in the 
context of aid-for-trade consultations with potential  donors.  The Secretariat regularly offers to assist 
each of these Members to conduct a follow-up workshop in its capital, after the TPRB meeting, to 
discuss and disseminate the results of the review. 
17. A TPR is a relatively resource-intensive exercise  for these Members, both in terms of the time 
and effort of government officials involved in its pr eparation and the costs of bringing a delegation to 
Geneva for the TPRB meeting.    
18. Progress has been made in grouping reviews of some of these Members into one meeting, 
while maintaining the individuality and completen ess of their TPR reports by the Secretariat. 
IV. TPR MISSION AND OBJECTIVES 
19. In the course of this Fourth Appraisal, Memb ers reaffirmed the relevance of the TPRM's 
mission as defined in Annex 3.  The TPRM had been c onceived as an exercise in policy transparency.  
It was not intended to serve as a basis for the enfo rcement of specific WTO ob ligations or for dispute 
settlement procedures, or to impose new policy co mmitments on Members.  The Mechanism should 
thus remain focused on achieving greater transp arency in, and understanding of, Members' trade 
policies and practices and thereby contributing to th e smoother functioning of the multilateral trading 
system.   
                                                      
3 Since 2009, additional material has been added to TPR reports of LDCs and some other six-year cycle 
Members to use/enhance the TPR as a tool to identify and follow up the trade-related technical assistance and 
wider aid-for-trade needs of  the Member under review.  WT/TPR/W/44 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. Members stressed the high importance that they co ntinue to attach to the Mechanism and its 
existing mandate aimed at enhancing transparency, wh ich they consider to be a pillar of the WTO.  
They all agreed that the TPRM is functioning eff ectively and achieving its objectives.  Nonetheless, in 
anticipation of the mandated rise in the number of  Trade Policy Reviews in accordance with the 2-4-6 
year frequency (which Members broadly agreed to maintain, with the existing flexibility4) and 
consequent increased burden on Me mbers (including in their role as discussants), the Chairperson and 
the Secretariat, it was agreed that the main purpose of this Fourth Appraisal would be to streamline 
the existing TPRM in order to make it even more e ffective in achieving its objectives.  At the same 
time, and having in mind their recommendation at th e first (1999) Appraisal of the TPRM, Members 
considered it important to enhance, where require d, the role of the TPRM in making available 
technical assistance to developing country Members, and in particular to the least developed country 
Members (in accordance with Annex 3D).   They believed that there is considerable room for 
improvement in these respects.  Members also em phasized the importance of undertaking first TPRs 
of Members that have not yet been review ed, in accordance with the 6-year cycle. 
21. Members stressed that any changes in the f unctioning of the TPRM's role in enhancing 
transparency should not jeopardize its present satisfa ctory performance.  Enhanced transparency could 
act as a catalyst for action by Members under Review .  At the same time, however, any proposals in 
this regard should not affect the existing rights and obligations of Members.  Nor should they expand 
the Secretariat's role in the TPRM.   
22. Members focused their attention on three main aspects of the TPRM, namely:  preparation for 
TPRB Meetings; organization and structure of TPR B Meetings; and follow-up to TPRB Meetings.  
The three subsequent sections summarize their pr oposals for streamlining the TPRB under these broad 
headings. 
V. PREPARATION FOR TPRB MEETINGS 
(i) Role of the Secretariat 
 (a) Quality of the Secretariat reports   
 23. Members expressed broad satisfaction with the high quality of the Secretariat's reports and 
their impartiality.  Nevertheless, they saw room for improvements in several respects, including:   
 Consistency across all Members (especially those in the same cycle) in terms of 
comprehensiveness, accuracy and detailed analysis;  
 new developments, including Members' response to  the observations of previous reviews;  
 greater coverage of matters (such as trade polici es' role in sustainable development, aid for 
trade, and implementation at the sub-central level); and  
 more detail in the Secretariat's report of the exte nt to which requested information or data are 
not available from Members under review.   
 
(b) Summary observations  24. Members considered that the Secretariat's Summary Observations in its Report could be 
modified with a view to ensuring that their comparability and consistency across Members 
(particularly those on the same frequency) is more evident. 
                                                      
4 The TPRM does allow some flexibility  in this regard.  For example,  in accordance with Annex 3C(ii), 
a period longer than six years can be (and has been) a llowed for LDCs.  Moreover, an  additional six months has, 
in practice, been allowed sometimes fo r Members on 2- and 4-year cycles. WT/TPR/W/44 
Page 6  
 
  (c) Secretariat's existing list of subject s covered by advance written questions   
 25. Members were broadly satisfied with the Secr etariat's list of subjects covered by advance 
questions.  
(ii) Question and Answer Process 
 
26. Members broadly agreed that the usefulness of meetings and discussion therein could be 
greatly improved by more timely receipt of writte n answers to their questions submitted to the 
Member under review in advance of the meeting.  Currently, these written answers are distributed on 
the day of the meeting, which allows little time fo r them to be fully considered and understood by 
Members.  They considered that more timely distribution of written answers could be achieved by 
allowing more time for Members under review to prepare written answers. 
27. Accordingly, where possible and appropriate, Members should apply the revised timelines 
shown below for submission of written questions and answers.  Otherwise, Members should continue 
to apply the current timelines shown below.  Members should inform the TPRB, through the 
Secretariat, of their choice of timelines at the time the dates for their TPRB meetings are set. 
Timelines for Distribution and Receipt of Documents 
 
 Weeks (working days) 
before TPRB 
 Current  Revised
Secretariat and Government Reports to translation  9  11 
Distribution of Reports to Members  5 7 
Receipt of Written Questions from Members  2 4 
Receipt of Written Answers from Member under Review  By the start of 
the meeting  1 
Posting of Written Answers, Notes, etc.a (working days)  
 
 
a Secretariat's List of subjects cove red by advance written questions and 
Addendum (if necessary) as well as Secretariat and Government 
Reports.     (0) (4) 
 
Furthermore,  
1.  
a. Members are encouraged to submit their written questions in as few batches as 
possible, and ideally in just one batch (see also paragraph 34); 
 
b. additional follow-up questions raised by Members in writing before the conclusion 
of the TPRB meeting should be answered in writing no later than one month after 
the meeting, with some latitude in th e Chair's discretion for Members responding 
to a very large number of questions; and 
c.  the Member under review is obliged to respond only to questions that are 
submitted or received within the TPR’s prescribed deadlines.  WT/TPR/W/44 
 Page 7 
 
 
  2. Without in any way limiting the scope of transparency of the TPRM in throwing light on 
Members' trade and trade-related policies, measures and practices, Members considered the following "best-effort" guidelines might facilitate responses to written questions. 
 
a. Members are encouraged to exercise greater self-discipline and common sense 
in the types and number of written questions posed.   
 b. In order to improve the coherence of their written questions, Members should 
group them into the following three categori es:  those related to the Secretariat 
report; those concerning the Governme nt report; and other questions (see 
proposed template in Annex 2).  Where th e questions relate to the Secretariat 
or Government reports, they should refe r to the paragraph numbers in these 
reports. 
 c. Clearer and more precise written questions would increase the likelihood of 
clearer and more precise written answers. 
 d. Without precluding questions of a "highly technical" nature,  Members felt that 
such questions might be more usefully addressed in the relevant WTO committee. 
 
e. Members should refrain from posing questions that are hypothetical or 
concerning matters where the informati on sought is readily available to the 
public.  
 f. Members should refrain from posing questions on matters undergoing dispute 
settlement, including those matters under consultation. 
 
28.  In the case of Members who apply the revise d timelines shown above and usually (or are 
expected to) receive an exceptionally large number of written questions (more than 500, for example), 
the Secretariat may allow an additional week to en able them to submit their written answers no later 
than one week prior to the meeting.  
VI. ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTU RE OF TPRB MEETINGS 
29. With a view to encouraging as much interac tive and fruitful discussion as possible in the 
TPRB, Members broadly agreed on the following. 
(a) Role of the Chairperson 
 
30. The Chairperson's Introductory Remarks should identify key themes for discussion, covering 
in particular issues of importance to the multilateral trading system.  
31. The Chairperson's Concluding Remarks should be consistent across all TPRs.  It is 
understood that these remarks should not deal with matters being addressed by the Dispute Settlement 
Body.  Nor should they have any legal force. 
(b) Role of Discussants 
 
32. Members called for the Discussan t's role to be reinforced.  Without limiting Discussants' 
freedom, in line with the TPRM’s mandate, Member s suggested that the Discu ssant, in coordination 
with the Chairperson, might usefully identify and build on the key themes, focus on the main 
challenges, and review policy changes since the previous TPR.  WT/TPR/W/44 
Page 8  
 
  (c) Members' formal statements  
 33. Members' statements should be restricted to no more than 7 minutes.  In instances where 
Members' written statements would take longer than  7 minutes to deliver orally at the TPRB Meeting, 
they could submit their statements to the Secret ariat (for distribution and posting on Members' 
website) as soon as possible after the Meeting.  (T he Chairperson would warn speakers after five 
minutes that they have two minutes to finish their oral statements.) 
34. Delegations of Members that have submitted written questions  would be invited by the 
Chairperson to speak first,  in the order in which the wr itten questions were received.   In the event of 
more than one batch of ques tions, the final batch would determine the order of speakers.   (Delegations 
not submitting written questions w ould continue to speak second , in the order in which their flags are 
raised.) 
(d) Possibility of one-day TPRB Meetings  
 
35. In the event of a request by a Member under review, the TPRB agreed that the Chairperson 
would consult with Members on the possibility of holding a one-day meeting for that Member on a 
pilot basis. 
(e) Structure of TPRB Meetings  
 36. In line with the objective in paragraph 29, the first session might focus on questions and 
answers, and, with the concurrence of the Member(s) under review, the second session might be 
devoted to a more in-depth exchange of views.   
VII. FOLLOW-UP TO TPRB MEETINGS 
(a) Reviews of Members on a 6-year frequency   
37. The TPRB agreed that there could be further follow-up to reviews of those Members on a 6-
year frequency, especially least developed countries (LDCs ), at their request.  This follow-up could 
involve a workshop/seminar to discuss and disseminate  the results of the revi ew as well as to identify 
the trade-related technical assistance and capacity  building needs of the reviewed Member(s).  
(b) Dissemination of TPRB meeting's proceedings   
38. Members felt that the possibility of video- conferencing, web-linki ng or podcasting TPRB 
Meetings should be offered to the Member under review  as long as the Secretariat is able to provide 
this service within existing budget limitations. 
VIII.  MONITORING 
39. TPRB members recognize the usefulness of the tr ade monitoring exercise.  There is broad 
consensus for the continuation and strengthening of the current monitoring exercise on trade and 
trade-related measures (based on Section G of Annex 3) and related briefings by the Director-General 
in international fora such as the G-20. 
Background 
 
40. The TPRM requires Members, in between their re views, to provide information on significant 
trade policy changes.  The WTO Secretariat uses this and other information, including a specific 
request by the Director-General sent to all delega tions, to prepare factual reports covering the trade 
and trade-related developments in Members and Observer Governments.  The reports, which are  WT/TPR/W/44 
 Page 9 
 
 
  issued on a regular basis, are discussed at formal  and informal meetings of the TPRB.  The WTO 
Secretariat consults closely with all delegati ons to gather complete, up-to-date and accurate 
information on their trade and trade-related measures, and to verify the relevant information collected 
from other non-official sources.  It has received good cooperation from the majority of Members, 
although active participation is not universal.  The information is consolidated and presented in the 
Director-General's Annual Report on Developments in the International Trading Environment, as 
called for by paragraph G of Annex 3.   
41. During the various meetings of the TPRB held  since early 2009 to discuss the Director-
General's trade monitoring reports , delegations recognized the pos itive contribution of the WTO's 
regular monitoring of trade measures to containing prot ectionist pressures, in particular in the context 
of the global financial and economic crises.  They  recognized the usefulness and importance of this 
transparency exercise.  Members reaffirmed thei r commitment to enhanced transparency in trade 
policy and to a multilateral surveilla nce of trade measures.   They called for the continuation and 
strengthening of the Trade Monitoring Exercise unde r the TPRB.  In addition, delegations took note 
of the Director-General's regular  trade monitoring of the G-20 economies, which is made publicly 
available, undertaken in response to the G-20 Leaders' specific request. 
42. In the context of the 4th Appraisal of the TPRM,  delegations indicated their desire to bring 
this matter to the attention of Ministers at the 8th Ministerial Conference, and to prepare a Ministerial 
Decision aimed at the continuation and strengthening of the trade monitoring exercise under the TPRB. 
Decision for the 8
th Ministerial Conference 
43. Based on the considerations mentioned above a nd in light of the broad support and greater 
collective knowledge brought about by the regular m onitoring of trade and trade-related measures 
undertaken since the onset of the global financial and economic crisis, the TPRB agreed to recommend that the Eighth Session of the Mi nisterial Conference decide as follows: 
44. "We recognize the regular work undertaken by  the TPRB on the monitoring exercise of trade 
and trade-related measures in fulfilling its mandate.  We take note of the work initially done in the 
context of the global financial and economic crisis, a nd direct it to be continued and strengthened.  
We therefore invite the Director-General to c ontinue presenting his trade monitoring reports on a 
regular basis, and ask the TPRB to consider these monitoring reports in addition to its meeting to 
undertake the Annual Overview of Developments in th e International Trading Environment.  We also 
take note of the WTO's reports on its specific m onitoring of G-20 measures.  We commit to duly 
comply with the existing transp arency obligations and reporting requirements needed for the 
preparation of these monitoring reports, and to co ntinue to support and cooperate with the WTO 
Secretariat in a constructive fashion.  We call upon the TPRB to continue discussing the strengthening 
of the monitoring exercise of trade and trade-related measures on the basis of Members' inputs." 
45. "We are committed to full adherence to our no tification obligations under WTO Agreements.  
To this end, we invite the Director-General to continue including in his annual report on the Overview 
of Developments in the International Trading Envi ronment a description and summary of the record 
of notifications received in the relevant WTO bodies." 
IX. OTHER DECISIONS 
46. Members agreed that all the changes in Parts V, VI and VII should be implemented on a 
provisional basis.  In the light of experience with these changes, the TPRB should prepare a Fifth 
Appraisal of the operation of the TPRM for the 9th Ministerial Conference. WT/TPR/W/44 
Page 10  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Programme of Reviews for 2012 
 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 25 and 27 January 2012 
Nepal 1 and 3 February 2012 
Kuwait 7 and 9 February 2012 Turkey 21 and 23 February 2012 Trinidad and Tobago 7 and 9 March 2012 The Philippines 20 and 22 March 2012 
United Arab Emirates 27 and 29 March 2012 
Uruguay  25 and 27 April 2012  China, People's Republic of 12 and 14 June 2012 Colombia  26 and 28 June 2012 Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau and Togo 2 and 4 July 2012 
Singapore 24 and 26 July 2012 
Korea, Rep. of 19 and 21 September 2012 Bangladesh  24 and 26 September 2012  Norway 9 and 11 October 2012 EAC (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi 
and Rwanda) 24 and 26 October 2012 
Israel  30 October and 1 November 2012 
Iceland  13 and 15 November 2012 Nicaragua 4 and 6 December 2012 United States 18 and 20 December 2012 
 
 This programme has been established in c onsultation with delegations and taking into 
consideration the overall timetable of  WTO meetings planned for 2012. 
   WT/TPR/W/44 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Annex 2 
 
[Format for reference] 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW OF MEMBER A  
 
WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBER B 
 
PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
II TRADE POLICY REGIME:  FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 
Page 11 (Para 1) 
 
Member A's overall trade policy aim has remained unchanged since its  previous Trade Policy Review;  it is to accelerate the ope ning of its 
economy to the outside world, to introduce foreign technology a nd know-how, develop foreign trade,  and promote economic develop ment 
that is "mutually beneficial" with its trading partners.  In th is context, Member A has recentl y concentrated more on the openi ng up of its 
services sectors.    
Questions: 
 
1. Does Member A have any plans to unilate rally liberalise the services sectors?   
 
2. If so, could Member A please elaborate on these plans and the anticipated timeframes? 
 
PART II:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
Page 18 (Para 65) 
 In April 2009, Member A decided to launch a pilot program to settle  the cross-border trade in the local currency in five cities .  The 
implementation measures followe d up in July that year.   
 
Questions: 
 
3. Would Member A please explain the effec tiveness of the pilot program on settlement of cross-border trade in the local curren cy? 
 4. How does the Government of Member A intend to  enhance the utility of this settlement program? 
 
PART III:  OTHER QUESTIONS 
Reference No., title and date of law, decree, regulation, etc. 
 Description and specific information 
 
Questions: 
 5.  
 
 
 
__________