G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2  
 
26 March 2014  
(14-1900)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
 THIRD THEMATIC SESSION ON GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE 
18-19 MARCH 2014 
Chairman's Report1 
Addendum 
 
This Report was delivered by the Chairman of the WTO TBT Committee at the meeting of 
19-20 March 2014. 
_______________ 
 
 
1.  At the Sixth Triennial Review, the Committee agreed to hold thematic sessions on Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) in response to specific decisions and recommendations contained in our 
triennial review reports.
2 The first thematic session on GRP was held on 5 March 20133, and the 
second on 17 June 2013.4 The third thematic session held this week comprised presentations 
organized under two topics: (i) link between GRP an d trade competitiveness; and, (ii) information 
on Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). The final programme is annexed to this statement. The 
full presentations are available as Room Documents on WTO Documents Online (under 
"Documents for meetings"). 
2.  The representative of  Canada  presented its 2012 Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management 
(CDRM), focusing specifically on the "one-for-one " rule. The CDRM aims to reduce administrative 
burdens imposed on business by government regu lation, such as paperwork. The "one-for-one" 
rule requires that for any new regulation introd uced by a department or agency, regulation of 
equal administrative burden has to be removed by that department or agency. The rule came into 
effect in April 2012, and each department or agency is required to report annually on its implementation to the Treasury Board Secretariat,  which on this basis published its first Annual 
Scorecard Report in January 2014. As a result of the rule, in fiscal year 2013 Canadian businesses 
saved 98,000 hours of time in red tape, and over CAD $20 million in costs. 
3.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  described how it applied GRP mechanisms for public 
consultation and transparency in its regulatory pr ocess. For example, an administrative procedure 
law mandated early, extensive, and systemat ic consultations with stakeholders. Online 
consultation mechanisms were introduced to re duce burdens on business and encourage direct 
citizen participation. The representative presented a case study of a public consultation carried out 
by the National Communications Commission (NCC) on a regulation that harmonized mobile phone 
chargers. Numerous best practices were highlighted, including the early publication of a notice of regulatory activity, explicit justification of the need for government intervention on the basis of 
both environmental and consumer benefits, the introduction of a transition period, and regular 
reviews of the regulation to ensure its fitness for purpose in light of technological evolution.  
                                               
1 Mr. Jingo Kikukawa (Japan). Th is Report is provided on the Chairman's own responsibility. 
2 The latest decisions and recommendations on Good Regulatory Practice are contained in Section I of 
G/TBT/1/Rev.11.  
3 The Moderator's report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/143.  
4 The Chairman's report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.1. G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.  We next heard from the representative of the European Union  who provided information on 
the EU's Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) Programme, part of the EU's "Smart Regulation Agenda". The REFIT Programme was laun ched in 2012 to assess the existing regulatory 
stock for the purpose of ensuring its fitness for purp ose. It is based on the premise that regulation 
requires regular maintenance to ensure that it continues to achieve its legitimate objectives in the 
least costly and burdensome way. The REFIT impl ementation process involves five steps: (i) 
internal screening of the regulatory stock; (ii) consultation with stakeholders; (iii) taking action, 
through withdrawal, repeal, simplification or im provement; (iv) where necessary more in-depth 
assessment via comprehensive evaluations and "fitness checks"; and (v) tracking progress of implementation of REFIT outcomes. It was noted th at the assessment stage is not only applied to 
each regulation in isolation, but is pursued through holistic "fitness checks" of entire policy sectors 
that take account of a regulation's implementation, ex-post evaluation, complaints, infringements, 
and coherence with other related measures impacting the sectors under consideration. Consolidation and repeal of some regulations has already occurred, and there are plans for the 
comprehensive evaluation of key EU legislation such as for chemicals not covered by REACH, type 
approval for motor vehicles, the Renewable Ener gy Directive and the Machinery Directive, the 
details and timing of which would be elaborated in forthcoming roadmaps. 
5.  The representative of  Mexico  then shared information on how GRP principles – such as 
representativeness, consensus, transparency, ration ality, internal coordination, harmonization, and 
review – are embodied in its domestic legislation, as outlined in G/TBT/W/378. In addition, Mexico 
explained its regulatory improv ement process, overseen by the Mexican Federal Commission on 
Regulatory Improvement (COFEMER). This proc ess comprises three aspects: deregulation, 
simplification, and the identification of regulatory gaps. Mexico also elaborated on a series of interlinked tools used in its regulatory streamlining efforts, including: a "quick-scan" methodology; 
regulatory impact calculator; and the use of various forms of RIA tailored to the nature of the 
regulation in question. Taken together, these innovations contributed to Mexico achieving a high score in the OECD's 2009 "Indicators of Regulatory Quality Systems" publication. 
6.  The representative of the World Bank  explained that Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 
was both a process for preparing regulatory proposals, and a document summarizing policy options. He said that while the OECD definition of RIA enjoyed broad acceptance, the scope and details of RIA differed across countries. In particul ar, the types of regulations subject to RIA, the 
kinds of impacts assessed, the methodology of assessment, how RIA is linked to public 
consultation and transparency, and the institutional and legal anchoring varied from country to country. Regarding geographic scope of RIA, all OE CD countries have a legal requirement to carry 
out RIA, but a range of non-OECD countries also regularly conduct RIA. He noted an increasing 
trend for assessing impacts for international trade agreements through RIA, even though RIA is not designed to analyze compliance with trade ag reements. For example, in the context of RIA, 
some governments obliged regulators to consult with the body responsible for trade policies when 
developing new regulations, and to consider impacts on trade, market openness, and international obligations. 
_______________ 
 
 7.  Let me also take this opportunity to report to you on the informal meeting held yesterday 
morning (19 March 2014) specifically on our work on the non-exhaustive list of voluntary mechanisms and related principles of Good Regula t o r y  P r a c t i c e  ( G R P ) .  A s  y o u  k n o w ,  t h i s  w o r k  
focused in the document JOB/TBT/44/Rev.3 . I first presented to Members the general and 
specific comments that were made by several delegations on the paper at the 11 March informal 
meeting of the Committee. We then went through th e text section-by-section to gather additional 
substantive comments and suggestions. I shared the result of this exercise with you by making available an annotated version of JOB/TBT/44/Rev.3 comprising Members' comments made on 
both 11 March and 19 March at the end of the day. On the way forward, Members agreed on the 
need to set a clear process in place to finalize the document. I have therefore set a final deadline 
for comments on JOB/TBT/44/Rev.3 of  30 April 2014 . Thereafter, a final version of the non-
exhaustive list of voluntary mechanisms and related principles of GRP will be circulated. I would 
l i k e  t o  r e m i n d  M e m b e r s  t h a t  w e  h a v e  a l r e a d y discussed this list in the Committee on seven 
different occasions – four informal meetings and three thematic sessions – in which successive 
versions of this list have been considered. It is my hope and intention that the Committee will be 
in a position to adopt the final version of the GRP list at its June 2014 meeting. G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
_______________ 
  
ANNEX 
PRESENTATIONS 
The following presentations were made during the Thematic Session: 
a. Link between GRP and trade competitiveness 
i. Canada : Legislating Canada's one-for-one rule - Controlling the growth of federal 
regulatory red tape (Mr Guillaume Parent)  
ii. Chinese Taipei : Transparency and public consultation mechanisms in the regulatory 
processes: Experience in the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen, and Matsu (Ms Shin-yi PENG) 
iii. European Union : How to ensure that regulations remain "fit for purpose" – The EU 
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT)" (Mr Fabrizio Sacchetti) 
iv. Mexico : Mexico's experience on the use of guidelines for evaluating the impact of 
regulation (Ms Elisa Olmeda D’Alejandro) 
b. Information on Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 
i. World Bank : What is RIA and how is it relevant to GRP? (Mr Peter Ladegaard) 
c. Open Discussion 
 
__________