G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
14 March  2019 
(19-1594) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON GOOD REGULATORY PRAC TICE1 
5 MARCH 2019, 10:00 -13:00  
Moderator 's Report2  
This Report  was delivered by the Moderator of this Thematic Session of the WTO TBT Committee at 
the meeting of  6-7 March 2019 .  
 
_______________  
 
 
At the Eighth Triennial Review, Members  agreed to continue to hold thematic session s in conjunction 
with regular meeting s of the Committee . It was agreed that a session would be held on good 
regulatory practice (GRP) in March 2019 with a focus on domestic committees, and other 
administrative mechanisms, to facilitate internal coordination on TBT.3 The p resentations  
summarized below  will be made  available through  the WTO website.4  
Panel 1  
1.  Ms. Lucy Ikonya (Kenya ) said that the Kenyan TBT National Consultative Committee ("the 
Committee") carries out consultations on TBT matters with relevant stakeholders. The Committe e is 
complemented by the TBT National Notification Authority (NNA), based at the State Department for 
Trade under the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Cooperatives, and the TBT National Enquiry Point 
(NEP), based at the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS). The C ommittee is chaired by the State 
Department for Trade and KEBS acts as the secretariat.  Membership of the TBT National Consultative 
Committee is drawn from various ministries, regulatory bodies and private sector players. These 
include ministries of health, East African affairs, agriculture, veterinary services, and the Office of 
the Attorney General. There is also representation from the Consumer Information Network, the 
Kenya Association of Manufacturers, and the University of Nairobi, among others.  
2.  The Committee 's tasks include the review of all issues pertaining to the TBT Agreement, such as 
the enquiry point and notification obligations, and to review developments in technical regulations, 
standards and conformity assessment procedures that may be barr iers to trade nationally and in 
trading partners. The Committee also tracks and assists with issues that arise in the media or from 
trading partners. The tasks further include exchanging information and assisting in the coordination 
among ministries and le ad agencies on responses to foreign WTO notifications, to review 
developments in the WTO TBT Committee,  and to review responses and enquiries to the country 's 
notificat ions to WTO. She said that an ST C, for example, is first discussed internally before a stance 
is taken at the WTO in Geneva. Furthermore, the Consultative Committee provides views and other 
inputs for the Triennial Reviews of the TBT Committee; it reviews developments in trade and 
regulat ory practices, develops national positions with regard to WTO TBT issues for onward 
transmission to the Geneva -based Kenyan negotiators, and reviews technical assistance needs 
through the responsible ministry.  
                                                
1 The list of speakers is contained in JOB/TBT/ 297/Rev.2 . 
2 Mrs. Thembekile Mlangeni (South Africa) . This Report is provided on the Moderator 's own responsibility.  
3 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv , footnote 294; JOB/TBT/273/Rev.2 , para. 1.1.  
4 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm  G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.  The Committee meets at least three times a yea r, a month before the scheduled WTO TBT 
Committee meeting in Geneva. Ms . Ikonya stressed that the national program is aligned to the 
process in Geneva. A typical agenda includes consideration of the meeting 's last minutes and the 
matters arising therein, d iscussions on implementation of the EAC regional TBT workplan, and 
preparations for the WTO TBT meeting in Geneva, including STCs and informal STC resolutions. 
Among the challenges, she said, are limited feedback from the business community on foreign 
notifications, delayed communication from regulatory authorities concerning proposed/revised 
technical regulations, and inadequate human and capital resources.5 
4.  Dr. Zakiyah  (Indonesia ) said that in 2017 the Chairman of the National Standardization Agency 
of Indonesia (BSN) established a National Committee on Internal Coordination on Technical Barriers 
to Trade.  The National Committee reports to the Chairman of BSN and is supported by a secretariat. 
It meets at least three times a year, with decisions being appr oved by an absolute majority of 
present members. The National Committee members consist of 13  institutions ranging from 
ministries, non -ministerial government institutions, chamber of commerce, and industry 
associations. In some instances, the Committee ha s also contacted universities to include their 
expertise and scientific consideration in discussing regulatory questions. Each ministry is at least 
represented by one high -ranking official to ensure their capacity to provide recommendations and 
encourage c oordination among members and facilitate policy -making. The chairmanship of the 
Committee rotates among the members.  
5.  Dr. Zakiyah noted that in carrying out its duties, the National Committee is expected to provide 
recommendations to the BSN chairman relat ed to the implementation of the TBT -WTO Agreement 
and relevant TBT issues. It coordinates with related stakeholders in providing scientific data, 
regulatory impact assessment on draft regulations, and analysis of potential technical barriers to 
trade faced  by Indonesian industry. The Committee is further supported by 13 working groups for 
specific products / sectors (e.g. automotive, chemical, timber and wood products) that are to provide 
data and that discuss and give inputs to specific issues related to t rade that may affect Indonesia 's 
position in global markets. The working groups are convened by a specific ministry or government 
agency with expertise in the covered sector.  
6.  For the period 2019 -2024, the National Committee has three strategic objectives:  (i) improving 
national export competitiveness, including through active participation in the discussion of technical 
regulations applied in export destinations countries, and maximizing the utilization of the notification 
system; (ii) strengthening Indone sia's position in ensuring that technical regulations comply with 
Good Regulatory Practices and the GATT/WTO obligations by, for example, providing scientific 
evidence to support the legitimate objective of a particular regulation, and by increasing techni cal 
assistance in drafting a regulation to ensure that the implementation of the regulation will not cause 
trade concerns; and (iii) improving identification and prevention of unfair trade practices through 
active monitoring of technical regulations by the  government, and through increasing national 
stakeholders ' access to trade issues arising in the context of the TBT Agreement. She underlined 
that the National Committee coverage is not only limited to issues in TBT -WTO Forum, but also 
provide s assistance in other trade negotiations as an opportunity to strengthen Indonesia 's trade 
agreements. On the other hand, the future challenge of the National Committee is to increase the 
coordination and commitment of the Committee 's members.6 
7.  Ms. Kate Breach (New Zea land) said that New Zealand, as a small country with a relatively 
small public service, seeks to meet its regulatory objectives in the least costly manner, focusing on 
performance -based regulation and recognition of global standards and certification syste ms. The 
limited resources, she said, also mean that regulators look to international standards and conformity 
systems to reduce the burdens of regulation. Due to the small size of New Zealand 's regulatory 
agencies, and the fact that their development of re gulations within the TBT Agreement 's scope occurs 
infrequently, it has, she said, been a challenge for TBT officials to ensure that these agencies remain 
informed and aware of their obligations under the TBT Agreement, including their notification 
obligati ons. New Zealand does not have a formal coordination structure, such as a national TBT 
committee, and instead relies on the national TBT Enquiry Point to provide stakeholder outreach and 
monitor relevant systems to ensure all notifiable measures are identi fied. The Enquiry Point is located 
                                                
5 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/267 . 
6 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/257 . G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 3 - 
 
  within Standards New Zealand which is a part of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and 
Employment.  
8.  In New Zealand, the regulatory impact analysis process is used to alert regulators to international 
obligations. Ms. Breach mentioned that it is difficult to remain succinct and still ensure that regulators 
fully understand their obligations. To ensure that more targeted and detailed messages about TBT 
obligations are promoted and understood by regulatory agencies, New Z ealand has developed a 
Regulator 's User Guide. The guide is regularly updated to reflect changes to New Zealand 's trade 
agreement obligations or decisions of the TBT Committee. The Guide is based on WTO content, 
including WTO TBT Committee decisions and re commendations which are used to explain some of 
the specific obligations. One of the biggest challenges, she said, is ensuring that regulators are aware 
of their notification obligations, and the Guide includes a flow chart to help regulators make this 
determination. The user guide further contains a step -by-step guide for incorporating TBT obligations 
into the regulatory development process. In addition, Standards New Zealand and TBT policy officials 
have been conducting workshops that cover the TBT Agreem ent and its substantive and procedural 
obligations. These have proven useful in providing more targeted guidance for particular sectors and 
for agencies with high staff turnover so that knowledge of trade obligations is maintained. As a 
backstop to ensurin g New Zealand 's compliance with TBT obligations, Ms. Breach said that the 
National Enquiry Point monitors the New Zealand Gazette for new measures to verify that all relevant 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are notified to WTO Me mbers.7  
9.  Mr. Gastón Fernández (Chile) said that his government 's National Commission on Technical 
Barriers to Trade is a central aspect of inter -ministerial coordination for the promotion of 
transparency and identification of trade concerns. Chile 's trade policy has made active use of 
preferential trade agreements, today covering 26 commercial agreements with 64 economies, which 
collectively cover globally 87 per  cent of GDP and 64 per  cent of the population. As much as 94 per  
cent of Chile 's exports go to countries engaged in these agreements. He noted that in the 21st 
century, Chilean trade has grown exponentially while at the same time reducing tariffs unilaterally 
and through trade agreements to close to zero.  
10.  The Chilean National Committee on TBT was e stablished in 1997 as a reaction to the increasing 
importance of regulation as key factor affecting economies and societies. Deficient regulation, he 
said, could restrain the innovation and generate unnecessary costs not only for businesses but also 
for th e entire society. It was important to set up an appropriate institutional setting for the entire 
regulatory cycle in order to assess the overall effect of the policy being designed. The National 
Committee is chaired by the Regulatory Department under the G eneral Directorate of International 
Economic Affairs (DIRECON) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and brings together representatives 
of the ministries and agencies that develop, adapt, and apply technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures i n order to coordinate and provide consistency with the institutions involved. 
DIRECON 's regulatory department also houses the national Enquiry Point for the TBT Agreement.  
11.  Mr. Fernández said that the specific functions of the Commission extend to ensuring that Chile 
maintains its transparency obligations arising under the WTO Agreements and to identify and analyse 
the topics at the TBT Committee on which Chile has to come to a national position. With the passing 
of Decree 77 in 2004, the government establis hed clear and uniform rules on how technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedures should be developed, adopted, and applied. 
Principles of the TBT Agreement such as the use of international standards, non -discrimination, 
avoidance of unnecessar y barriers to trade, and transparency – all are now established principles of 
Chilean law.  
12.  The challenges for the Chilean government are mainly enhancing coordination and 
communication. Chiles is seeking to address this by communicating the ePing alert sy stem to all 
related stakeholders , improving the search for measures, and by increasing capacity building 
activities with regulatory bodies aided by the development of a guide on good regulatory practices 
based on WTO 's TBT obligations and principles as wel l as other available guides, such as from OECD 
and APEC. Based on DIRECON 's experience and in reaction to New Zealand 's previous presentation, 
Mr. Fernández stressed that the user guide needs to emphasize operational details.8  
                                                
7 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/258 . 
8 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/261 . G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Panel 2  
13.  Mr. HU Liang (China ) presented China 's experience in implementing good regulatory practices 
at the border.  He started with an example of a regulatory measure concerning certificates attached 
to foods exported to China. The measure had been notified to the WTO, and, in part du e to the 
comments received, it had been consequently reconsidered. This example and other areas of China 's 
regulatory reform practices, such as legal system modernization, improving the business 
environment, and increasing administrative transparency, are consistent with the basic principles of 
good regulatory practices. He said that the principles and practices of Chinese regulatory reforms 
are to boost regulatory openness and transparency, avoid unnecessary trade restrictions, improve 
regulatory quality, and increase engagement in international discussions and information 
exchange —including in the context of free trade agreements.  
14.  Mr. HU Liang said that a regulatory evaluation, similar to a regulatory impact assessment, is 
used in China. In this process, the social effects of implementing the law are assessed. These 
regulatory reforms have produced results. China had improved its ranking in the World Bank 's ease 
of doing business report from number 78 in 2017 to 46 in 2018. Moreover, inspection and quarant ine 
duties had been merged into China Customs, so that enforcement and regulatory activities are now 
unified. The implementation of the TBT and SPS Agreements as well as the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement (TFA) has also been unified at the border. As a resul t, the coordination cost between the 
previous two authorities has been reduced.  
15.  Over the period from 2013 -2018, Mr. HU Liang stressed that China had let the market play a 
decisive role in allocating resources, relaxed government control, and broadened mar ket access. 
Looking ahead, and in terms of suggestions, he said that good regulatory practices are an important 
tool to avoid unnecessary trade barriers, and that China will continue to improve its regulatory 
structure by following basic WTO principles of transparency, non -discrimination and so on. At the 
same time, he said, the pace of implementing good regulatory practices is different among Members 
and could adapt to local legislative traditions and the status of economic and social development. 
China 's situation today of relaxing government regulation, he said, was similar to that of more 
developed Members in the 1970s, so China needs sufficient time to explore and improve the 
implementation of good regulatory practices gradually. For example, he mention ed that qualitative, 
rather than quantitative, assessment may sometimes be appropriate in analysing the social and 
economic effects of regulation.9 
16.  Ms. Debora Cumes Mariscal (Guatemala ) said that Guatemala 's Committee for Technical 
Barriers to Trade has it s legal basis in a ministerial agreement from 2009 which approved the 
creation, integration, and operation of National Technical Committees within the framework of 
international economic and commercial agreements. The committees are composed of regulators 
and representatives of the public and private sectors. The members of the Committee for Technical 
Barriers include the ministries of economy, agriculture, and health, the standards commission and 
customs administration, as well as representatives of the bu siness community. She mentioned that 
there is also a private sector institution, CENCIT, which seeks to advance the interests of the private 
sector in Guatemala 's trade policy and which is concerned in part with technical regulations. 
CENCIT 's board of dir ectors represents the different business chambers (agriculture and industrial), 
alongside groups more specialized in foreign trade, such as the Sugar Association (ASAZGUA) and 
the Guatemala Association of Exporters.  
17.  Ms. Cumes  said that the process of consultation between stakeholders, the National Committee, 
and the mission in Geneva is structured around the timeline of the WTO TBT Committee. In these 
consultations, the government and private sector define a unified country po sition for the WTO 
meeting and prepare questions to be raised. In practice, she said, there is constant communication 
between the mission in Geneva, the Ministry of the Economy, and the National TBT Committee. 
Moreover, the Ministry of the Economy acts as a streamlining intermediary that can consolidate the 
input from the TBT Committee, such as suggestions on how to react to STCs. Old and new concerns 
are discussed individually, she said, and the business community shares their export interests, 
expansion p lans, and perception of potential threats. Ms. Cumes stressed that the WTO 's new ePing 
system is extremely helpful in allowing the private sector to stay informed about regulatory changes 
around the world. She further mentioned that Guatemala feels that it  is the responsibility of all 
Members to be involved in the ePing system. She mentioned Guatemala 's experience in having asked 
                                                
9 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/268 . G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 5 - 
 
  for the WTO Secretariat 's assistance to muster the participation of the private sector and of different 
Government institutions, through a series of presentations and national workshops. Business actors 
were made aware of ePing.10 
18.  Ms. Jennifer Stradtman  (United States) highlighted five internal coordination mechanisms 
the United States uses to implement the WTO Agreement on Technical  Barriers to Trade (WTO TBT 
Agreement).  In each circumstance, an agency has statutory authority to implement the activity. The 
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) coordinates 
a pre -publication comment period  for US  agencies on draft technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures. This review period al lows an opportunity for the US  Trade Representative 
(USTR) to ensure draft  measures are consistent with U S trade obligations. The Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA) allows for public notice and commen t on draft regulations in the U S Federal 
Register. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as the U S notification authority, 
reviews the Federal Regist er daily to determine which US  measure s to notify to the WTO TBT 
Committee. Domestic stakeholders and WTO Members comment during the same open comment 
period on any notified TBT measure.  
19.  US stakeholders comment on WTO TBT notifications. The United States Department of 
Agriculture (USD A) coord inates U S Government comments on WTO TBT Notifications related to 
agricultural products. USDA reviews notifications and drafts comments on high impact agricultural 
notifications, finalizes the interagency consultation, and transmits comments via local emba ssies or 
the national enquiry points. In fiscal year 2018, USD A coordinated the submission of 111  comments 
out of 919 TBT notification s it reviewed. NIST also provides guidance to other stakeholders to 
comment on WTO TBT notifications through its website,  and in fiscal year 2018, the U S Enquiry Point 
sent a record of 282 US comments. Some of the comments concern actions that were not notified 
to the TBT Committee.  
20.  USTR coordinates the engagement of the US States in their regulatory activities with relevance  
for the WTO. The US Enquiry Point regularly reviews a database of state regulations and USTR checks 
whether any need to be notified to the WTO. If a comment is received on a state regulation, the US 
Enquiry Point sends the comments to the state regulatory  agency, and if consultations are requested 
USTR liaises with the Governor 's office to connect to the appropriate regulator. USTR moreover 
interacts with industry through a variety of industry and agricultural trade advisory committees, with 
a committee de dicated to standards and technical barrier s to trade.  
21.  The USTR also coordinates participation and positions to the three annual WTO Technical 
Barriers to Trade Committee through the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Subcommittee on Technical 
Barriers to Trade. Ms. Stradtman noted that over an eight -week process, the US Government makes 
determinations on which specific trade concerns to bring to the WTO TBT Committee. Approximately 
20 US federal agencies partici pate in this process .11 
22.  Ms. Jennifer Evans  (CEO, National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia) noted that 
unlike many of the preceding speakers, Australia 's coordination on TBT matters is not filtered 
through a formal national TBT Committee. Ms . Evans outlined the role of Australia 's national  quality 
infrastructure (NQI) in respect to Australia 's TBT processes and implementation of the TBT 
agreement. Australia 's NQI is comprised of four bodies: (i) Standards Australia, the national body 
responsible for producing documentary standards; (ii) the  National Measurement Institute, the peak 
body for metrological standards and certified reference materials; (iii) the National Association of 
Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA), a private sector, not -for-profit body recognised as the national 
authority  for laboratory accreditation and the authority for inspection bodies and their accreditation; 
and (iv) the Joint Accreditation Scheme of Australia and New Zealand (JAS -ANZ), which is the 
national authority for both nations for certification body accredita tion and as well as authority for 
inspection body accreditation.  
23.  Ms. Evans said that the NQI receives direction from the federal Australian government, while 
the different bodies vary in their specific relationships with the government. The Australian 
government requires transparency and impartiality, engagement with government and industry 
stakeholders, and the facilitation of mutual recognition internationally. It was stressed that 
stakeholder engagement is key to the NQI 's role, which is achieved through  proactive contact with 
                                                
10 The full prese ntation is contained in document RD/TBT/269 . 
11 The full presentation is con tained in document RD/TBT/270 . G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 6 - 
 
  government agencies and industry associations as well as information gained through the NQI 's 
provisions of services.  
24.  Australia 's Commonwealth Standards and Conformance Advisory Group (CSCAG) facilitates an 
exchange of information b etween the NQI and a diverse range of Australian government agencies 
on developments within the NQI. These exchanges significantly focus on trade -related issues. Ms . 
Evans stressed that good policy can be undermined by operational detail and that regulatio n 
requir ing a testing procedure which is currently unavailable or even generally infeasible, because of 
the unavailability of laboratory expertise, measurement standards, or validated methods , should be 
avoided . One example of such instances is the absolut e prohibition of asbestos in products when 
science does not allow for a zero determination. Ms . Evans highlighted that the NQI is an important 
resource to regulators when developing policy or conformity assessment procedures, as the NQI can 
advise on the o perational and practicable impacts of proposed measures or conformity assessment 
procedures. Ms. Evans stressed the importance of early, even informal, engagement with NQIs to 
ensure effective regulatory processes .12 
25.  On a personal note, the Moderator  made t he following remarks.  
26.  Let me first say that Tuesday morning 's session on GRP with a focus on domestic coordination 
mechanisms was very rich in detail and breadth – we heard many experiences, lessons learned and 
challenges.  
27.  One overarching point made by speakers was that these coordinating committees are essentially 
about making the implementation of the TBT Agreement more efficient. Coordination is, of course, 
not an end in and of itself. We coordinate to become more efficie nt because we recognize – as one 
of the speakers put it – that regulations and standards are increasingly important for the functioning 
of our economy and for trade, so by better implementing the TBT Agreement in this way we are 
boosting our own competitiv eness in important sectors of our economy.  
28.  This report I am providing is not exhaustive and I will not read it out in full. I would, at this 
point, like simply to highlight a few cross -cutting points regarding the operation of national 
coordination Commit tees (in no particular order):  
a. Stakeholders . The importance to include a broad range of stakeholders in the work of 
coordinating Committee 's was mentioned by several if not all speakers. This could include, 
for example: the authorities responsible for noti fication; the enquiry point; the standards 
body, relevant ministries (e.g. trade, health and agriculture); the regulatory bodies, the 
private sectors – and even academia. Of course, countries are different so in some 
countries there is overlap. For example , it may be so that the standards body is both the 
enquiry point and authority responsible for notifications in some countries while these 
functions are separated in others. The point here is that there is no one way to do this – 
but including all stakehol ders is important.  
b. Function s / tasks . In terms of the tasks of the coordinating committee, many of you put 
a lot of emphasis on coordination and transparency. For efficient functioning, several tasks 
were illustrated by the participants. For example, monit oring TBT measures in other 
countries (through notifications and ePing) that might affect exports; tracking and 
monitoring the development of regulations "at home " to ensure that the transparency 
obligations are followed; preparing for and effectively enga ging in the TBT Committee 
meetings in such a way that national interests can be either promoted or defended in 
Geneva – and here the crucial role of Geneva -based delegations was mentioned. These 
interests that delegations have in the TBT area can pertain e ither to specific trade concerns 
or be of a more horizontal nature, for instance with respect to decisions and 
recommendations being discussed in the context of triennial reviews.  
c. Informing regulators . One specific practice that came out in a couple of presentations 
and that may be worth singling out is the development of guidance for regulators. The 
importance of guiding regulators was stressed – and this can be done, for example, by 
developing "regulator guides " of a step-by-step nature, meaning very operational and 
                                                
12 The full presentation is contained in docu ment RD/TBT/271 . G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 7 - 
 
  practical. I understand this to be a guide aimed at helping regulators follow a workflow 
that helps them comply with the obligations of the TBT Agreement.   
d. Timing . Several of you spoke of the importance of timing the national coordination 
meetings in advance of TBT Committee meetings in Geneva, for example 3 times a year. 
It was also noted that some Members report back from the Committee as well.  
e. Formal or informal . I note that while some s peakers identified formal mechanisms for 
coordination, others said that they do not have any formal body. Instead, for example, 
the enquiry point could serve as a de facto coordinator. One speaker stressed the 
importance of National Quality Infrastructure as a whole -of-government approach to TBT 
that also serves to effectively coordinate implementation.  
29.  Finally, I would just mention that it was striking how many of the challenges and existing 
approaches are similar.  One challenge that several reiterated was  the importance (and difficulties) 
in effectively engaging the private sector in the work of coordina ting Committees.  In general, I  think 
that the points that I have listed – and probably others that I have omitted – could be helpful for 
Members who are in  the process of setting up national coordinating committees, or who are trying 
to make current ones more effective.  
30.  The Committee might wish to consider ways to bring this work forward. I leave that as a thought 
for you, Chairman – and the Committee more broadly – to consider and follow  up on.  
31.  I welcome any comments from Members on this oral report, of course – please feel free to jump 
in with any additions if you think I missed something important. Let me again thank Members for 
their engagement and for the experience that has been shared .  
_______________  
 G/TBT/GEN/256  
 
- 8 - 
 
  ANNEX  
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON GOOD REGULATORY PRAC TICE  
5 MARCH 2019 , 10:00 -13:00  
Final Programme  
At the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to continue to hold thematic sessions in conjunction 
with its regular meetings during 2019 to 2021, with a view to further deepening the Committee's 
exchange of experiences on specific topics, and to hold a session on good regulatory practice (GRP) 
in March 2019 with a focus on domestic committee s, and other administrative mechanisms, to 
facilitate internal coordination on TBT.1  
_______________  
 
 
This thema tic session was moderated by:  Mrs. Thembekile Mlangeni (South Africa)  
 
Panel 1  
a. Kenya : TBT Domestic Coordination Mechanism , Mrs Lucy Ikonya, National TBT Enquiry 
Point, Kenya Bureau of Standards.  
b. Indonesia:  Indonesia's experience on establishment of national committee for internal 
coordination on TBT , Dr. Zakiyah, Deputy Chairman of BSN for Implementation of 
Standards and Conformity Assessments , Indonesia Chairperson for the National 
Committee on TBT . 
c. New Zealand : New Zealand's TBT User Guide for Regulators and other approaches to 
domestic coordination , Ms Kate Breach, Senior Policy Officer, Trade Negotiations Division, 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.  
d. Chile : National Commission on Technical Barriers to Trade, Inter -ministerial Coordination 
for the Promotion of Transparency and Identification of Trade Concerns , Mr Gastón 
Fernández, Head of the Regulatory Department of the General Direc torate for International 
Economic Affairs (DIRECON) . 
Panel 2  
e. China: Understanding and implementing experience on good regulatory practice at the 
border , Mr. HU Liang, Shanghai Customs . 
f. Guatemala: National consultations process regarding in particular trade  concerns , 
Ms. Debora Cumes Mariscal, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the WTO.  
g. United States : Internal Coordination Mechanisms , Jennifer Stradtman, Director, 
Technical Barriers to Trade, Office of the United States Trade Representative . 
h. Australia : Internal coordination – Australia 's approach to the involvement of national 
quality infrastructure in meeting the objectives of the TBT agreement , Ms Jennifer Evans, 
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)  
__________  
 
                                                
1 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv , footnote 294; JOB/TBT/273/Rev.2 , para. 1.1.