seventh Appraisal of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism

Report on the meeting of 8 June 2023

Chairperson: H.E. Mr Saqer Abdullah ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

1.       An informal meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) was held on 8 June 2023. The meeting was chaired by Ambassador H.E. Mr Saqer ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), with the goal of starting to narrow down possible conclusions of the Appraisal. To that end, there will be a series of dedicated sessions on three "baskets" of issues:

2.       Members expressed support for the proposed meeting schedule and the approach to discussing the possible conclusions of the Appraisal. Several Members commented on scheduling conflicts with other meetings over the next few weeks (and the resulting challenges for small delegations), and some noted that, although the schedule was robust, they welcomed the opportunity for productive discussions. There will need to be a time to reflect on any proposals made during the dedicated sessions before the final two informal meetings and the formal meeting to conclude the Appraisal are held.

3.       To make the dedicated sessions as inclusive as possible, Members requested the Secretariat to provide (i) advance notice of the meetings so that capital-based delegates could be included, schedule permitting; (ii) an agenda for each meeting; and (iii) an informal, non-attributable summary after each meeting.

4.       Several Members were of the view that the current IT system (including the online Q&A tool) would benefit from updates to improve usability. The Q&A tool was discussed as having potential to reduce the administrative burden of the review process and improve its efficiency, particularly if functionality was built in to eliminate repetitive questions and to identify trends in topics.

5.       The possibility of having a further demonstration of the current Q&A tool was discussed, along with the suggestion that Members also be granted access in order to have their own experience using the system. Members noted that they need to understand both the current capabilities of the tool and its short- and long‑term potential. Conclusions about the Q&A tool (and the IT system as a whole) should be shared with the TPRB, and one Member proposed that the outcome document be annexed to the Appraisal Report. Members were of the view that ongoing work on the Q&A tool should not preclude the Appraisal from concluding.

6.       Several Members intervened on the topic of capping the number of advance questions submitted for response by the Member under review. A few Members expressed concern about the labour-intensive nature of answering a large number of questions, and also emphasized that this is an issue to be discussed among the TPRB as a whole. The possibility was raised of making the TPR meetings more interactive by incorporating an exchange of views rather than the Q&A being strictly in written format.

7.       Regarding the Secretariat report, several Members were of the view that it was often too long and needed to be concise. One Member said it was investigating whether the report could be divided into two sections – one "stable" section describing structure of the government, legislative process, etc., and one section focusing on changes during the review period and other topical issues. Another Member suggested that it would help the dedicated sessions be more focused if textual proposals were put forward before the meeting.

8.       Speaking on behalf of the LDC group, one Member noted that the follow-up workshops were effective but that LDCs do not want the workshops to create an extra burden or new obligations. The Member suggested that the purpose and programme of the workshops should be reviewed, and that the timelines for the TPRs of LDCs should be made flexible to allow time to prepare. Another Member commented that the TPR contributes to an overview of the development aspects of an LDC Member and that there is a need to review technical assistance and related issues.

9.       On the subject of the third "basket", Members suggested that topics include meeting structure, monitoring and its frequency, TPR timelines, LDC follow-up, and non-compliance in responses to advance Q&A. One Member noted that issues related to the Q&A process, including capping the number of questions, TPR timelines, and non-compliance in responses, all be discussed in the first basket. Some Members expressed a need for advance notice to be given about the topics so that they have time to prepare for the discussion and consult with capital as needed.

10.    The Chair addressed Members' interventions by commenting that the dedicated sessions are intended to narrow down the possible solutions and are not intended to replace the broader discussion among the group as a whole. The dedicated sessions will be available through Interprefy, although without interpretation. The Chair acknowledged the busy meeting schedule and overlap with other committee meetings, and indicated that this was the best schedule possible. He also invited Members to share textual proposals as soon as possible.

__________