seventh Appraisal of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism

Report on the FIRST DEDICATED SESSION ON other issues of 15 June 2023

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

1.       The first dedicated session on "Other Issues" (so-called "Basket 3") was held on 15 June 2023. The meeting was chaired by Ambassador H.E. Mr Saqer ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

2.       The Chair recalled that the purpose of the meeting is to hear Members' views on basket 3 issues – review cycles, meeting structure, follow-up activities for LDCs, Trade Monitoring exercise, and date of the next appraisal. To aid the discussion, the Secretariat displayed the draft conclusions on each issue as contained in the revised chair note circulated on 26 May 2023.

3.       Some Members said that their priority in discussing "Other Issues" was to reduce the burden on Members caused by Trade Policy Review (TPR) meetings while safeguarding and expanding the contribution that TPRs make to transparency and the smooth functioning of the multilateral trading system.

4.       Regarding the review cycles, some Members said that extending the three-year review cycle by one year would be desirable, given the heavy burden the current three-year cycle imposed on Members subject to it.

5.       On the meeting structure, Members exchanged ideas on ways to reinvigorate TPR meetings. It was noted that the formal and protocol-driven nature of TPR meetings is not conducive to interactive discussions and detracts from the original purpose of the TPR process, which is to achieve greater transparency and understanding of Members' trade policies and practices. Several Members said that the second meeting day in particular sees a significant drop in the level of participation and engagement by Members and that, as currently organized, it contributes little to the Review's goals, and is therefore a missed opportunity.

6.       To remedy this situation and make TPR meetings more efficient, informative, and useful for Members and stakeholders, some Members suggested rethinking the arrangements for the Review's second meeting. They said that Members should have the option to organize the second meeting in the form of a "dedicated discussion". Members put forward the following ideas regarding dedicated discussions: they would last half a day and take place on the day immediately following the Review's first meeting; they would be informal, with high-level representation, and held under the Chatham House Rule to allow for frank discussions; and they would be in the form of interactive question‑and‑answer sessions, focused on the topics that elicit the highest number of written questions by Members, for example.

7.       One Member proposed to cap the number of written questions received by Members that opt for a dedicated discussion for their second meeting, noting that this would serve as an incentive for Members to choose the alternative format.

8.       Another Member, while agreeing that it is desirable to make TPR meetings more interactive and less formal, said that the current meeting arrangements should be maintained, and that the gap day between the first and second meetings offered the Member under review an opportunity to consider the questions and comments received during the first meeting and to prepare its response.

9.       Some Members said that an additional measure to make TPR meetings more productive would be to invite an "external discussant" in addition to, or in substitution of, the ambassador or other Geneva-based delegate traditionally chosen for that role. It was noted that the option of having an external discussant should be voluntary, and that external discussants could be from academia or a think tank.

10.    One Member noted that further consideration needs to be given to the participation costs of external discussants in TPR meetings, especially to who would bear those costs. Another Member cautioned against relying on external speakers to serve as TPR discussants, noting that peer review is a central feature of the TPR process, and that external discussants would lack the necessary knowledge about WTO work.

11.    Several Members highlighted the need to ensure that any alternative arrangement for TPR meetings would be voluntary. Some Members noted that not all Members can take on the extra burden that dedicated discussions would entail, including the need for the Member under review to bring to Geneva relevant experts who can engage meaningfully on the topics of the dedicated discussion.

12.    Several Members suggested that the Secretariat prepare, for the consideration of Members, a "menu of options" from which Members could choose to make their TPR meetings more interactive.

13.    One Member raised the issue of how to make Members' oral statements during the TPR meeting more conducive to a fruitful exchange of views. It was suggested that Members' oral statements could be more useful if, instead of devoting time to simply citing the value of bilateral trade flows, they focused on the bilateral, regional, and multilateral significance of the trade policies and practices of the Member under review.

14.    A few Members referred to the conclusions contained in paragraph 2.19 of the revised chair note of 26 May 2023. It was noted that the second conclusion was intended to highlight and leverage the value of the Trade Policy Review Body as a horizontal body and transparency platform allowing Members to discuss the direction of trade policies across all areas of WTO work, especially in times of stress, and did not seek to create any additional burden on Members.

15.    One Member raised the issue of the TPR preparation process and recommended that the Secretariat endeavour to make greater use of virtual rather than in-person meetings in its discussions with capital-based authorities. The Secretariat was requested to provide delegations with information on the budget related to TPR travel. While supporting the need for this information, one Member said that the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration would be better placed to handle such a request.

16.    Regarding follow-up activities for LDCs, one Member highlighted the need to bring more rigour to the follow-up process, for example by holding a meeting midway through an LDC's review cycle to assess progress. Another Member called on LDCs to provide inputs on this specific item. The Chair reminded Members that some Members were not able to participate in the dedicated discussions due to the lack of capacity of small delegations to avoid conflict between WTO meetings. Meanwhile, he recalled the intervention made by Djibouti on behalf of the LDCs Group in the last TPRB meeting held on 8 June 2023 in which it was made clear to Members that follow‑up activities should not in any way burden LDCs with further duties or commitments.

17.    On the Trade Monitoring exercise, Members discussed the following five draft conclusions contained in the Chair's note of 26 May 2023 on: (i) the use of IT solutions for submission and verification of measures; (ii) Members' participation in the Trade Monitoring exercise; (iii) verification of measures submitted by delegations; (iv) the use of unofficial sources in trade monitoring reports; and (v) the frequency and timing of those reports.

18.    Members expressed support for the implementation and development of IT solutions and welcomed the recently launched IT system. One Member suggested to replace the current individual login system with a single account for each Member to facilitate use by capital-based experts. Some Members said that the existing IT platform should be extended to allow for verification of intellectual property and services measures.

19.    Members highlighted the need to increase participation in the Trade Monitoring exercise and noted the potential contribution of improved IT platforms in this regard. Capacity constraints were mentioned as one factor limiting some Members' participation.

20.    Members' views differed on whether measures submitted by delegations or identified by the Secretariat in official government sources should be subject to verification. Different views were also expressed in relation to whether the Secretariat is entitled to use unofficial sources for its report. Some Members requested further clarity on the distinction between official and unofficial sources. The Secretariat clarified that official sources comprise both WTO official documents and government sources, while newspapers and academic papers are unofficial sources. The Chair proposed to drop the draft conclusions related to both issues (i.e. conclusions (3) and (4) under paragraph 2.29) to facilitate consensus among Members.

21.    Several Members invited the Secretariat to consider reducing the number of reports to one per year, while one Member highlighted the usefulness of biannual reports in times of stress such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. The Chair proposed to modify draft conclusion (5) under paragraph 2.29 to reflect the recommendation by Members that the Secretariat publish trade monitoring reports on a yearly basis in normal circumstances while maintaining flexibility in times of crisis.

22.    On the date of the eighth Appraisal of the operation of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the Chair drew attention to the text contained in paragraph 4.1 of the chair note of 26 May 2023, which states that the next appraisal should take place within four years of the seventh Appraisal.

23.    Members called on the Secretariat to work with the Chair to propose revised text for the relevant paragraphs of the revised chair note of 26 May 2023 for Members to discuss at the next meeting.

24.    The Chair closed the meeting by indicating that the next session on "Other Issues" would take place on Monday, 26 June at 3 p.m. in room S3.

__________