WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/TPR/W/30
27 June 2003
(03-3423)
Trade Policy Review Body
DRAFT
TRADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM
Report of the Trade Policy Review Body for January-July 2003
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. Mary Whelan (Ireland)
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 WTO.  As required by the
Marrakesh Agreement, the operation of the TPRM was appraised by the Trade Policy Review Body in
1999.  The Appraisal concluded that the TPRM functions effectively, that its mission and objectivesremain important, and that all Members should be reviewed at least once as soon as possible;  the
TPRM had also "demonstrated that it had a valuable public good aspect, particularly in its
contribution to transparency".
1  Members have also kept the Mechanism under frequent review over
the years, as a result of which a number of procedural improvements have been introduced since
1989.
2. This Report by the Trade Policy Review Body provides a brief assessment of the TPRM, and
reports on the reviews of Members conducted in the period January-July 2003.  Tables are annexed
showing the Members reviewed up to the end of Ju ly 2003, the geographical coverage of the reviews
conducted to date, as well as the proposed programme of reviews for the year 2003.
Objectives of the TPRM
3. Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement describes the objectives of the TPRM as being "to
contribute to improved adherence by all Members to rules, disciplines and commitments made under
the Multilateral Trade Agreements and, where applicable, the Plurilateral Trade Agreements, and
hence to the smoother functioning of the multilateral trading system, by achieving greater
transparency in, and understanding of, the trade policies and practices of Members".
4. In this regard, the TPRM is required to periodically review the trade policies and practices of
all Members.  By the end of July 2003, the TPRM will have conducted 175 reviews since its
formation (Annex I).  The reviews have covered 92 of 131 Members, counting the European Union as
one, representing around 86% of the share of world trade in 2002.  The trade policies and practices of
three Members will have been reviewed for the first time during January-July 2003.2  The increased
importance given to the reviews of least-developed c ountries (LDCs) has led to 14 such reviews since
1998.3
                                                     
1 WTO document WT/MIN(99)/2, 8 October 1999.
2 These are Burundi, Maldives and Niger.
3 The least-developed countries reviewed since the establishment of the Mechanism are:  Bangladesh
(twice), Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guinea, Lesotho (twice), Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali,Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal (twice), the Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda (twice), andZambia (twice).WT/TPR/W/30
Page 2
5. The Trade Policy Review Body will have conducted 10 reviews in January-July 2003
(Annex II).  The Secretariat reports for the reviews of Maldives, Niger, Senegal and the Southern
African Customs Union were prepared with the assistance of consultants, under the close supervision
of Secretariat staff.  Financing from, and the experience gained as a consequence of, the German Trust
Fund proved invaluable in preparing the reviews of Niger and Senegal.4  The Secretariat's reports
continue to be written in close consultation with the authorities of the Member under review.
6. Procedures for the reviews conducted in January-July 2003 have generally run smoothly.
Responses to requests for documentation and questionna ires have normally been provided at or close
to the requested dates.   In line with recent practice, the Secretariat has attempted to reduce the burden
on Members under review of providing responses by using, to the extent possible, alternative sources
of documentation, including Members' official web-sites or other authentic sites on the Internet.  It has
not been possible to do this for all Members under review and requests for documentation continue tobe followed up with a detailed questionnaire when sufficient information is not available from
alternative sources.  Secretariat visits to capitals have continued to be productive, and comments
provided on Secretariat drafts have been pertinent.  The result is that the quality, content, and style of
the reviews has been maintained.
7. The reviews conducted in January-July 2003 were evenly spaced throughout the period,
reducing pressure of preparation on the Membership for review meetings at close intervals.  Efforts
also continue to be made to avoid clashes with other meetings at the WTO;  nevertheless, clashes do
at times happen.  The cooperative publishing agreement with an international publishing company has
shortened the period between review meetings and the publication of related documents.
8. The Trade Policy Review programme for the period August-December 2003 comprises seven
reviews.  These will be of:
• Thailand and Turkey on the four-year cycle;
• Bulgaria, Chile, Guyana and Honduras on the six-year cycle;  and
• one least-developed country:  Haïti.
5
9. The TPRB intends to continue to provide an evenly spaced programme of reviews in 2003,
thereby avoiding the concentration of reviews and delays that have occurred in the past.
Value of the TPRM
10. As envisaged in Annex 3, the TPRM continues to be a valuable forum for achieving
transparency in, and understanding of, the trade policies and practices of Members, thus contributing
to the smoother functioning of the multilateral trading system.  It provides a forum in which Members
may openly discuss and provide an objective analysis of each others' trade policies and practices.  The
reports prepared by the Secretariat provide a factual and independent review of the trade policies andpractices of individual Members under review and are, in general, appreciated by both the Member(s)
under review and the overall Membership.  By providing an overall picture of the institutional
interaction in trade policy formulation and implementation and the effect of policies on different
sectors, the reports have also served as an input to trade policy formulation in some cases.  In
addition, several developing and least-developed country Members have found the reviews valuable
in highlighting their infrastructural constraints and technical-assistance needs.
                                                     
4 In 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany made  DM1 million available over a four-year period to
undertake reviews of developing countries and to improve the Mechanism to better adapt it to the requirements
of developing countries.
5 The documentation and meeting for the first review of Haïti was fully prepared in 2002, but at the last
moment the Haïtian delegation was not able to attend;  the work will be updated for completion of the review in2003.WT/TPR/W/30
Page 3
11. In addition to trade policy formulation, the review process also discusses the economic impact
of trade measures, and places individual Members' trade and economic regimes within the broader
context of developments in their region.  Given the growing importance of regional trade agreements
and groupings, the analysis in the reports has proved useful in discussing the wider impact of recent
economic developments in certain regions, as well as the more general question of the impact of
regionalism on the multilateral trading system.
Points emerging from the January-July 2003 reviews
12. While each review highlights the specific issues and measures concerning the individual
Member, certain common themes emerged during the course of the reviews conducted in the period
January-July 2003.  These included:
• transparency in policy-making and implementation;
• economic environment and trade liberalization;
• implementation of the WTO Agreements;
• regional trade agreements and their relationship with the multilateral trading system;
• tariff issues, including peaks, escalation, preferences, rationalization and the
difference between applied and bound rates;
• customs clearance procedures;
• import and export restrictions and licensing procedures;
• the use of contingency measures such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties;
• technical and sanitary measures and market access;
• standards and their equivalence with international norms;
• intellectual property rights legislation and enforcement;
• government procurement policies and practices;
• state involvement in the economy and privatization programmes;
• trade-related competition and investment policy issues;
• incentive measures such as subsidies and tax forgone;
• sectoral trade-policy issues, particularly liberalization in agriculture and certain
services sectors;
• GATS commitments;
• special and differential treatment, including market access and implementation,
particularly for customs valuation, TRIPS and TRIMs;
• small-island and small land-locked Members;  and
• technical assistance in implementing the WTO Agreements and the experience with
the Integrated Framework.
Coverage of least-developed countries (LDCs)
13. The Trade Policy Review Body's Report to the Singapore Ministerial Meeting suggested that
greater attention be paid to the coverage of LDCs in the preparation of the TPRB timetable, and the
1999 Appraisal of the operation of the TPRM also drew attention to this matter.  The TPRB has
continued to review a steady number of least-developed Members.  Of the 30 least-developed
Members of the WTO, 19 will have been reviewed by the end of July 2003;  five of these were
reviewed in the period January-July 2003.6 
14. Trade Policy Reviews of LDCs have increasingly performed a technical assistance function
and have been useful in increasing understanding of the trade policy structure in place and its
                                                     
6 These are Burundi, Maldives, Niger, Senegal, and Lesotho in the context of the SACU review.  The
least-developed country Members of the WTO still to be reviewed at the end of July 2003, will be:  Angola,Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of  Congo, Djibouti, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Haïti,
Myanmar, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone.WT/TPR/W/30
Page 4
relationship with the WTO Agreements.  The reviews have also enhanced understanding in these
countries of the WTO Agreements, enabling better compliance and integration in the multilateral
trading system;  in some cases, better interaction between government agencies has been facilitated by
the reviews.  The reports' wide coverage of Members' policies also enables Members to identify any
shortcomings in policy and specific areas where further technical assistance may be required.
15. Since 2000, the preparation of reviews of LDCs has responded more systematically to
technical assistance needs.  The review process for an LDC now includes a three-to-four-day seminar
for its officials on the WTO and, in particular, the trade-policy review exercise and the role of trade in
economic policy;  such seminars have been held during January-July 2003 in the context of the review
process for Gambia and Rwanda (a seminar of a similar sort has been held for Guyana).  The
Secretariat Report for an LDC review includes a section on technical-assistance needs and priorities,
as identified in cooperation with the Member concerned, and with a view to feeding this into theIntegrated Framework process.  The seminars and the technical-assistance section in the Secretariat
reports involve close cooperation with the WTO's Development Division and Institute for Training
and Technical Cooperation Division.
Conclusion
16. The Trade Policy Review Mechanism provides a forum in which Members discuss each
others' trade policies in a transparent and frank manner.  The forum is unique in that the TPRM's
separation from the compliance and dispute settlement aspects of WTO work related to the
Agreements allows an open debate.  The  10 reviews conducted in January-July 2003 have been
satisfactory, and have met deadlines agreed with the Members. The reviews have been evenly spaced
throughout the period, giving adequate time to Members to prepare for the meetings.  The discussantshave continued to play a very useful role in assisting the discussion during the reviews.  The
programme for the remainder of 2003, similarly, aims to avoid delays and concentration of reviews.
17. The TPRM continues to function effectively in meeting its transparency goals.  However, as
the Membership of the WTO increases, the pressure on the TPRB to review more Members grows.
This, and the limited resources available to the Secretariat to prepare the reviews, makes it importantto keep the Mechanism functioning as effectively as possible within these constraints.  In particular,
continued cooperation between Members and the Secretariat in preparing the reports is essential, as is
the respect of deadlines, in order to maintain the standard and quality of the reports, and in the
successful reviews of Members by the TPRB.WT/TPR/W/30
Page 5
Annex I
TRADE POLICY REVIEWS
WTO Members reviewed, 1989-July 2003
Europe/Middle East Asia/Pacific Africa America
Austria1Australia (4) BeninbArgentina (2)
Bahrain Bangladesh(2)bBotswana (2)3, dAntigua and Barbudac
Cyprus Brunei Darussalam Burkina FasobBarbados
Czech Republic (2) Fiji Burundia,bBolivia(2)
European Union (6) Hong Kong, China (4) Cameroon (2) Brazil (3)
Finland1India (3) Côte d'Ivoire Canada (7)
Hungary (2) Indonesia (4) Egypt (2) Chile (2)
Iceland (2) Japan (6) Gabon Colombia (2)
Israel (2) Korea (3) Ghana (2) Costa Rica (2)
Liechtenstein2Macau, China (2) GuineabDominicac
Norway (3) Malaysia (3) Kenya (2) Dominican Republic (2)
Poland (2) MaldivesbMadagascarbEl Salvador (2)
Romania (2) New Zealand (3) Lesotho (2)3, b, dGuatemala
Slovak Republic (2) Pakistan (2) MalibGrenadac
Slovenia Papua New Guinea MalawibJamaica
Sweden1 (2) Philippines(2) MauritaniabMexico (3)
Switzerland (3) Singapore (3) Mauritius (2) Nicaragua
Turkey (2) Solomon IslandsbMorocco (3) Paraguay
Sri Lanka MozambiquebPeru (2)
Thailand (3) Namibia (2)3, dSt.Kitts and Nevisc
Nigera, bSt.Luciac
Nigeria (2) St.Vincent and the Grenadinesc
Senegal (2)bTrinidad and Tobago
South Africa (3)3, dUnited States (6)
Swaziland (2)3, dUruguay (2)
TanzaniabVenezuela (2)
Togob
Tunisia
Uganda (2)b
Zambia (2) b
Zimbabwe
29 Members
(35 reviews)20 Members
(50 reviews)31 Members
(44 reviews)26 Members
(46 reviews)
( ) Figures in brackets show the number of re views completed where this is greater than one.
1 Included in EU from 1995.
2 Joint review with Switzerland (counted as two Members but one review for statistical purposes).
3 Reviewed as member of the Southern African Customs Union in 2003 (counted as five Members, but one review for
statistical purposes.
a First review in 2003.
b Least-developed Member.
c Member of the Organization of East Caribbean States (OECS) reviewed jointly with other OECS members.d Member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU)
Number of reviews conducted at end-July 2003 = 175
Number of WTO Members reviewed =   106 out of 146** (counting EU as 15)
Number of WTO Members reviewed =   92 out of 131** (counting EU as 1)
= 72% of WTO Members** (of which, 29 in Europe, 20 in
Asia/Pacific, 31 in Africa, and 26 in America)
Least-developed WTO Members reviewed =  19
Share of world trade of WTO Members reviewed(2002) (excluding significant double counting andintra-EU trade) = 86%
** WTO Members as at 28 March 2003.WT/TPR/W/30
Page 6
Annex II
Trade Policy Reviews conducted in January-July 2003
Membera Meeting Date
(scheduled)Review Cycle (years)
Maldivesb15.01.2003 6
El Salvador (1) 03.02.2003 6
Canada (6) 12.03.2003 2
Burundib02.04.2003 6
SACUc23.04.2003 4
New Zealand (2) 12.05.2003 6
Morocco (2) 16.06.2003 6
Indonesia (3) 27.06.2003 4
Niger/Senegal (1) 28.07.2003 6
a Figures in brackets indicate number of previous reviews.
b Least-developed country.c Southern African Customs Union, comprised of Botswana, Lesotho
b, Namibia, South Africa and
Swaziland.
Annex III
Proposed programme of reviews for September-December 2003
Two-year cycle -
Four-year cycle Thailand, Turkey
Six-year cycle Bulgaria, Chile, Guyana, Honduras
Least-developed countries (six-year cycle) Haïti
__________