Concluding remarks by the Chairperson

The eighth Trade Policy Review of Thailand has offered us a good opportunity to deepen our understanding of recent developments in, and challenges to, its trade, economic, and investment policies; this has been achieved despite the constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the preparation of the reports and on our deliberations. Our discussion has clearly benefited from the active participation of the Thai delegation, led by Mr. Rachavitch PIYAPRAMOTE, Minister, Permanent Mission of Thailand to the WTO and WIPO, Bangkok Office, who participated from Bangkok. I would like to thank H.E. Ambassador Sunanta KANGVALKULKIJ, Permanent Representative of Thailand to the WTO, and her team for their work and cooperation in the preparation of this Review. I would also like to express my appreciation to our discussant H.E. Ambassador Silvia Elena ALFARO ESPINOSA of Peru for her insightful remarks, and to the [44] delegations that took the floor for their valuable contributions. Thailand responded to two-thirds of around 600 written questions posed by Members; some Members noted that even though their questions were submitted within the stipulated deadline, some have not been answered. They look forward to receiving replies to outstanding questions as soon as possible.

Members commended Thailand's economic performance during the review period, with an average annual GDP growth rate of 3.4% between 2015 and 2019. However, they also expressed concern about the slowdown of the economy from 2019, and the extraordinary difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Some Members acknowledged that Thailand's balanced fiscal situation allowed it to swiftly adopt measures to provide relief after the onset of the crisis.

Members noted the challenges facing the economy, such as the need to improve income and regional disparities and to boost the low levels of public and private investment. They welcomed Thailand's reform initiatives, in particular the “Thailand 4.0” and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) projects. Members appreciated Thailand's efforts to enact new, and amend existing trade-related legislation, including the Andi-Dumping and Countervailing Act, the Industrial Products Standards Act, the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, and the Trade Competition Act, among others. On the other hand, some Members pointed out that Thailand's Foreign Business Act is still restrictive, and that applying for a foreign business license can be a bureaucratic and lengthy process.

Members commended Thailand's strong commitment to the multilateral trading system, and welcomed its contribution to advance WTO reform. The delegation of Thailand recalled that it had tabled a proposal on the dispute settlement system to facilitate discussions and resolve the Appellate Body impasse. Many Members appreciated the leadership role played by Thailand's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the WTO and WIPO, who served as Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body and the General Council in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Members congratulated Thailand for the ratification of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2015, the acceptance of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement in 2016, and for its participation in the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement and the Joint Statement Initiative on e-Commerce. They also welcomed Thailand's recent announcement that it will join the Services Domestic Regulation Joint Statement Initiative, and encouraged Thailand to participate in the Joint Statement Initiative on investment facilitation. Members acknowledged Thailand's support for the WTO Working Group on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), highlighting the importance of MSMEs in COVID-19 recovery. Some Members also welcomed Thailand's support in developing a Framework for Negotiations in Domestic Support in agriculture.

Members referred to Thailand's economic integration agenda within the ASEAN, and with other economic partners through the conclusion of RTAs. Many welcomed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed on 15 November 2020, and were interested in learning more about the agreement's scope.

Referring to specific trade policies, many Members appreciated the adoption of the new Customs Act, which helped simplify customs procedures and improve transparency. Some Members remain concerned about the penalty regime and the commission payments under this Act, and enquired about plans to enact further customs reforms. Members urged Thailand to simplify its tariff structure, which was seen as relatively complex. Some Members noted the significant gap between bound and applied rates, the extensive use of non-ad valorem rates, and the few cases where applied rates exceed bound rates. Some Members appreciated that Thailand is revising its tariff quota allocation system; they noted that currently the tariff quota fill rates are very low for some agricultural products, and looked forward to seeing the implementation of the revised system. Some Members pointed out that Thailand applies import licensing and other requirements on various products, and encouraged further relaxation of these measures.

Some Members were interested to know more about mandatory standards and their effects on the importation of goods. Some have raised specific trade concerns on SPS measures maintained by Thailand at the WTO SPS Committee. Members noted with concern Thailand's export ban on surgical masks, which are essential to fight the pandemic. Some Members noted Thailand's targeted initiatives in specific economic sectors or geographical zones, through the use of investment incentives, and called on Thailand to simplify and broaden them to all sectors.

Some Members recognized that Thailand is an observer to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, and has included provisions on cooperation and information sharing in some of its FTAs. They encouraged Thailand to consider expanding these obligations to cover market access commitments. Thailand was invited to open its procurement market to foreign suppliers, and to ensure transparency, non-discrimination, competition and fairness in government procurement processes. Many Members applauded efforts by Thailand to strengthen IPR protection, including through the amendment to its Trademark and Copyright Acts. Members congratulated Thailand's recent accession to the WIPO's Madrid Protocol and the Marrakesh Treaty, and supported Thailand's continuing efforts to accede to other WIPO instruments.

A number of delegations pointed out that agriculture receives more trade protection than the rest of the economy, with the average tariff on agricultural products being much higher than on non-agricultural products. It was also noted that import and export restrictions, as well as import surcharges, apply to agricultural products. Members encouraged Thailand to further liberalize its agriculture sector by reviewing its existing market access measures, and to use ad-valorem tariffs to increase transparency. Members noted that Thailand's latest notification on domestic support to agriculture covers only up to 2016, and urged Thailand to submit more up-to-date notifications. Many appreciated Thailand's efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and welcomed Thailand's active participation in the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations, particularly as a significant producer through marine capture fishing.

It was acknowledged that services remain the main contributor to Thailand's economy and account for a significant share of GDP and employment. Members appreciated Thailand's steps in relaxing foreign equity restrictions for some services sectors, and encouraged Thailand to revise its GATS schedule to reflect them. Members also encouraged Thailand to consider further liberalizing its investment regime in the services sector to attract foreign investment. On financial services, Members acknowledged Thailand's effort to remove banking and insurance businesses from the list of activities where foreign investment is restricted, and encouraged it to pursue the liberalization of these services. Some noted that Thailand has undertaken commitments for international maritime transport services under the GATS, and questioned whether Thailand's practice to reserve the transportation of government cargos to Thai-flagged vessels is in conformity with such commitments.

The above are some of the key issues that emerged from our discussion. I hope that the Thai delegation will take into account and further reflect on these issues and on the many constructive comments, both broad and detailed, that it has received during this Review. Members look forward to receiving written answers from Thailand to any outstanding questions or follow-up questions within one month, at which point the Review will be successfully concluded.