GUIDANCE NOTE FOR THE ASSESSED JURISDICTION TO HELP ITS PREPARATION FOR

THE PEER REVIEW GROUP MEETING

1.
The purpose of this note is to give an overview of the Peer Review Group (PRG) procedure in
order to help the assessed jurisdiction prepare for the PRG meeting. The PRG oversees the peer review
process and approves the draft reports for submission to the Global Forum. It consists of 29 members and it
is chaired by Mr. Franois dAubert of France, assisted by four vice-chairs (India, Japan, Cayman Islands
and Singapore).
2.
The agenda of the meeting will be provided to the assessed jurisdiction by the Chair of the PRG
at least one month before the meeting. The time for the first and second reading/approval of the report will
be indicated in the agenda. However, the pace of the meeting may vary and the Chair may shift times of
the items on the agenda to accommodate discussions. It is therefore important to plan time in such a
manner so as to be available throughout the PRG meeting until the report is approved. It is very important
to remain in touch with the administrator for the report who can keep the assessed jurisdiction updated
regarding any change in timing of discussion of the report.
Preparatory meeting
3.
The assessment team will meet with the assessed jurisdiction before the PRG discussions. It is
recommended that this meeting takes place at reasonable time before the reading of the report so that there
is enough time for the assessed jurisdiction and the assessment team to finalise its preparation for the
reading. The purpose of the meeting is to:

discuss any pending issues or questions (e.g. assessed jurisdictions comments on the draft,
additional information, recent developments);

consider issues that may be raised by the PRG (e.g. comments received from PRG members
which were not incorporated in the draft)

provide a (final) explanation on the procedural aspects of the meeting; and

agree on final practical arrangements (e.g. availability of the jurisdiction during the PRG
meeting, location of meeting rooms).

The first reading: presentation and discussion of the report

4.

The Methodology (paragraph 44) indicates that during the first reading:

i. Assessment team introduces itself, and the assessors present in high-level terms the key issues from the
report, the amendments made to integrate the PRGs written comments, and the substantive outstanding
issues. The team will have the opportunity to intervene/comment on any issue concerning the report.
ii. Assessed jurisdiction makes its opening statement, also addressing the substantive outstanding issues.
Additional editorial changes should not be discussed orally but provided to the Secretariat.
1

iii. The PRG then discusses the issues raised in the report, focusing on the substantive outstanding issues.
As a matter of good practice, delegations should not raise comments that they have not raised in writing.
However, should a delegation wish to bring up a new issue, it should, if possible, inform the
PRG/Secretariat in advance of the discussion. The PRG should give careful consideration to the views of
the assessors and the jurisdiction when deciding on the wording, as well as taking into account the need to
ensure consistency between reports.
5.
The presentation will commence with each member of the assessment team introducing
themselves. Unlike previous PRG meetings, the assessment team will not present a summary of the report
at this stage. After the introduction by the assessment team, the floor will be given to the assessed
jurisdiction for their opening statement.
6.
In the opening statement the assessed jurisdiction is invited to express its experience with the
review process and to provide the PRG with information on recent or planned activities in the field of
exchange of information (EOI) and implementation of the Global Forums standards. The opening
statement should also summarise the main points of the review outcomes from the jurisdictions
perspective. If the assessed jurisdiction has different view of certain substantive issues than the assessment
team it might mention these points in high level terms to be discussed in more detail during the first and
second reading of the report.
7.
After the jurisdictions opening statement, the Chair will open the floor for discussion, inviting
PRG members to comment on the Introduction part of the report. Then the report will be taken up by each
element whereby a member of the assessment team will provide an overview of the main findings relating
to that element alone. After the summary from the assessment team, the assessed jurisdiction will be given
the opportunity to make any comments they wish relating to that element of the report. The floor will then
be opened up to questions from the PRG members, all relating to that element only. Once all discussions
have concluded, the next element shall be introduced by the Chair with a summary of the findings
presented by a member of the assessment team and the process shall be repeated.
8.
It should be noted that during the PRG discussion, the Report is not actually read and the
discussion is opened only to enable the PRG members to raise any question, make any comment or make
an objection to the conclusions drawn by the assessment team. The discussion focuses primarily on the
issues which have already been raised by PRG members in their written comments and which have not
been incorporated in the report or where the PRG member is not comfortable with the way the comments
have been incorporated. The PRG members, however, can in practice raise issues not brought out in the
written comments. The assessed jurisdiction and the assessment team also have the opportunity to
intervene/comment on any issue concerning the report. In particular, whenever there is a question, the
assessors are usually given the opportunity to answer first. If the question requires information from the
assessed jurisdiction or is directed to the assessed jurisdiction, the assessed jurisdiction will be invited to
take the floor. The discussion of the Report shall continue in this form until all elements have been
discussed, concluding with the executive summary and, in the case of a Phase 2 review, a brief summary as
to how the assessment team allocated the overall rating.
9.
If the assessed jurisdiction agrees with the draft report, its role is mainly to provide factual
clarification if the assessment team or the PRG asks for it. Where the assessed jurisdiction disagrees with
certain conclusions in the report, it may wish to raise its disagreement at the meeting and ask the PRG to
reconsider. Such disagreement should not only be raised during the opening statement, but at any element
the disagreement relates to.
10.
However, it should be noted that situations where the jurisdiction presents new facts during, or
just before, the PRG meeting should be rare and well reasoned. All relevant facts should have been

provided to the assessment team during the course of the review and already presented in the draft
submitted to the PRG for its consideration. The purpose of the PRG meeting is to arrive at a consensus on
the draft report. If factual inaccuracies are found in the report, the assessment team may be asked to make
appropriate amendments.
11.
During the first reading proposals to amend the draft may be made by PRG members. If there is
agreement on such proposals, they will be incorporated into the draft before the second reading (REV2
draft). In case the members do not object to the text or conclusions made by the assessment team then they
remain unchanged for the second reading.
12.
If the discussion of the draft does not lead to a conclusion, the Chair, the Secretariat or OECD
legal advisors may make a compromise proposal. After each element is so discussed, the Chair will
proceed to similarly open the Executive Summary for discussion. The decisions made by the PRG during
the first reading might be summarised by the assessment team or the Secretariat at the end of the reading.
13.
In case no changes are proposed to the text, the Chair may ask the members if the Report is
considered as approved. If no member objects, then a second reading may not be required.
Drafting side-meeting
14.

The Methodology states:

45. Once the first reading is complete, the assessment team, first in consultation with the assessed
jurisdiction, will incorporate any amendments agreed by the PRG into the draft. A revised version of the
report will then be circulated as a room document.
15.
The assessment team works with the assessed jurisdiction to incorporate in the report any
changes in accordance with the PRGs decisions on the report. This must be done as quickly as possible,
so that the updated draft report is distributed to the PRG well in advance of the second reading. The more
compromise language proposed during the first reading, the easier the discussion should be during the
second reading.
The second reading: approval of revised peer review reports
16.

The Methodology indicates:

46. A second reading will take place at the same PRG meeting:
i. Assessment team presents the revised version of the report and summarises any changes made to the
draft report to reflect the discussions of the first reading.
ii. Assessed jurisdiction has an opportunity to respond to the changes it disagrees on.
iii. The PRG then discusses the revisions made after the first reading with a view to approving the revised
report.
iv. The report and the executive summary are approved when consensus of the PRG is reached.
17.
According to the Methodology, Consensus in the context of the approval or adoption of a report
means that no one jurisdiction can block the approval of the report.

18.
If the PRG members agree to all the changes made, the Chair will ask the PRG if the report is
approved. If no objection is raised, the report is considered as approved.
19.
As soon as possible and within one week after approval of the draft report by the PRG, the
assessed jurisdiction should submit Annex 1 to the administrator of the report at the Secretariat. This annex
presents the jurisdictions response to the review report and shall not be deemed to represent the Global
Forums views. The Annex can also summarise recent changes made to the assessed jurisdictions EOI
framework or EOI mechanisms or present future plans with impact on transparency and exchange of
information for tax purposes.
20.
The report once approved by the PRG is sent to the Global Forum members for approval by
written procedure. In the absence of any objections within three weeks, the report is considered to be
adopted. If there are objections, the Steering Group of the Global Forum shall decide whether to refer the
report back to the PRG for consideration at its next meeting or to include discussion of the report in the
agenda for the next Global Forum meeting.
21.
If the report is not approved at the PRG meeting, the PRG will task the assessment team in
consultation with the assessed jurisdiction to revise the report. The revised report will then be submitted to
the PRG under the written procedure. If comments are made, the report will be discussed at the next PRG
meeting. The assessed jurisdiction will be invited to participate in this meeting. At this PRG meeting only
those issues will be discussed on which consensus was not reached in the first meeting. If the report is not
approved it will be presented to the Steering Group for inclusion in the agenda of the next Global Forum
meeting for oral debate. The report is adopted if consensus is reached meaning that no one jurisdiction can
block the adoption of the report.
22.
Transparency is one of the core principles of the Global Forum peer review process. After each
report has been adopted by the Global Forum, usually within a period of one month, the reports will be
made public on the Global Forum website. On publication, the Secretariat will send out a press release
giving a brief overview of the findings of each report. The administrator responsible for the report will
send a copy of this press release along with the published report to the jurisdiction who is encouraged to
circulate it within their own administration, government bodies and all other stakeholders.
Confidentiality
23.
It should be noted that confidentiality is an important element of the peer review process and the
approved reports should not be circulated until adopted by the Global Forum. Further, all draft reports and
meeting documents are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed under any circumstances outside the
discussions that take place within the PRG meeting. If jurisdictions are in any way unclear regarding their
confidentiality obligations, they should discuss their queries with the Global Forum administrator
responsible for their report.