WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/276 
19 March 2007 
 (07-1144) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
REPORT ON THE CASE STUDY TO CLARIFY EFFECTIVENESS OF MRAS 
 
Submission by Japan
 
   The following communication, dated 14 March 2007, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Japan
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The “Case Study to Clarify Effectiveness of MRAs” was conducted by Japan, lead economy 
of the project, by using the questionnaire which wa s agreed on at the SCSC1 meeting in February 
2006 with minor modifications proposed by some me mber economies.  It should be reminded that the 
questionnaire is focused equally on both MRAs and other similar existing mechanisms (hereafter: 
MRAs) to facilitate the acceptance of conf ormity assessment results.  (See Appendix1 1-1, 1-2 for the 
questionnaire.)  
2. Responses were received from 12 economies (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Hong 
Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zeal and, Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and 
Thailand) and 8 enterprises, as of 1 September 2006. 
3. The responses contained many questions that we re left unanswered, including those related to 
the number of certificates issued.  It is difficult to clarify the effectiveness of MRAs in specific 
quantitative terms.  Therefore, Japan has sel ected some interesting points from responses and 
evaluated the efficiency of existing MRAs in rather  qualitative manner, with an eye toward the future 
direction of MRAs. 
4. The report is available in the form of a presentation2 made at the APEC/SCSC2 in 2006.   
II. THE SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY 
A. IDENTIFIED MRA S EXISTING IN APEC  REGION  
5. As many answers were identical, responses were  consolidated in the following 28 MRAs (See 
Appendix１ 2) (( ) designates the responding economy).   These 28 MRAs are classified into the 
following categories: Governmental/Non-governme ntal, Multilateral (including regional and 
international)/Bilateral MRAs; a table describing th e answer from each economy, is also available 
                                                      
 1 The Appendixes are available on the APEC/SCSC web sites [http://www.apec.org/content/apec/ 
documents_reports/subcommittee_standards_conformance/2006.html]  Doc. No. 006 "Report on Case Study to 
Clarify Effectiveness of Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs)." 
 2 The file of the presentation is available on th e APEC/SCSC web sites mentioned above. Doc.No.006a 
“Report on Case Study to Clarify Ef fectiveness of Mutual Recognition A rrangements (MRAs) –  Presentation.” G/TBT/W/276 
Page 2  
 
  (see Appendix
１ 3.).  According to the case study fo r private company, the responses from 8 
enterprises have been summarized in the Appendix1 4.  
6. In addition, New Zealand submitted a paper providing general information on their 
perspective on MRAs which is available in the Appendix１ 5. 
1. Governmental MRAs 
(a) Multilateral MRAs 
1. APEC/ EE (Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore) 
2. APEC/ Tel (Australia, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, China, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore ) 
3. APEC/ Toy (New Zealand) 
4. APEC/ Food (New Zealand) 
5. ASEAN/ EE (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam ) 
6. ASEAN/ Tel (Malaysia, Philippines) 
7. CIPM (Australia, Chinese Taipei) 
8. Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law (Japan) 
 (b) Bilateral MRAs 
9. Australia - New Zealand (Australia, New Zealand) 
10. Australia - EC (Australia) 
11. Australia - EFTA  (Australia) 
12. Australia - Singapore (Australia, Singapore ) 
13. Brunei - Singapore (Brunei Darussalam) 
14. Japan - EC (Japan) 
15. Japan - Singapore (Japan, Singapore ) 
16. New Zealand - EC (live stock) (New Zealand) 
17. New Zealand - EC (Electrical products, Telecomm unications equipment, etc.) (New Zealand) 
18. New Zealand - EFTA (New Zealand) 
19. New Zealand - Singapore (New Zealand, Singapore) 
20. Chinese Taipei - The United States (Chinese Taipei) 
21. Chinese Taipei - Canada (Chinese Taipei) 
22. Chinese Taipei - Australia (Chinese Taipei) 
23. Thailand - Canada (Thailand) 
 2. Non- governmental MRAs 
(a) Multilateral MRAs 
24. ILAC/APLAC (Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, New Zealand, 
Thailand) 
25. IAF/PAC /IAAC(Australia, Canada, Chinese Taip ei, Indonesia, New Zealand, Thailand, Peru) 
26. IECEE/CB scheme (Canada, Japan) 
 (b) 
Bilateral MRAs 
27. Australia - Thailand (Australia) 
28. New Zealand - Chinese Taipei (New Zealand)   G/TBT/W/276 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. SECTORS AND TYPES OF MRA S 
7. Many MRAs include electrical/electronic equipm ent and/or telecommunication terminal/radio 
equipment sectors in their scope or coverage.  No t so many governmental MRAs are established upon 
request from domestic industries compared to non-governmental MRAs. 
8. As for the type of MRAs, Type B MRAs are most commonly found.  This is particularly 
evident in bilateral MRAs, where we found 3 Type A, 9 Type B, 2 Type E, and 3 “other” MRAs.  
Type B is the most popular among bilateral MRAs, and in some cases is chosen in order to be 
consistent with existing domestic or foreign MRAs.  It should be noted that there is a hybrid type 
which combines Type B and E (on one side intern ational standards are applied and on the other 
national standards are applied as additional require ments for designation of CABs). (New Zealand on 
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei MRA) 
C. EFFECTIVENESS OF MRA S 
1. The number of certificates/testing reports issued 
9. In many cases, the number of certificates/testi ng reports issued through MRAs reported is not 
available.  In bilateral MRAs, the number is available only for 9 out of 17 MRAs.  Among the 9 
bilateral MRAs, 5 MRAs have not issued any certif icates/testing reports and 2 MRAs have issued 
few.  In the remaining 2 bilateral MRAs, Ne w Zealand-European Communities MRA on livestock 
and animal products sector issued more than 1001 certificates/testing re ports in 2005, and the 
Thailand-Canada MRA on fish and fishery products  sector issued more than 90,000 in 2005.  
Meanwhile, in the multilateral and non-government al MRAs such as the ILAC/APLAC, IAF/PAC 
and IECEE/CB scheme, 1001 or more certificat es/testing reports were issued in 2005. 
D. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF MRA S 
10. Data of quantitative evaluation on MRAs was extr emely limited.  For the reported 17 bilateral 
MRAs, no data was available while Hong K ong, China responded that over 95% of 
telecommunications equipment marketed in thei r economy was under ILAC/APLAC MRA, with less 
than 5% through the APEC/Tel MRA.  
E. QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF MRA S 
11. With regard to qualitative evaluations, there were  some interesting comments from individual 
economies, as follows: 
2. Multilateral MRA 
- The MRA is a good mechanism for informati on exchange and building up confidence 
between economies. (New Zealand on APEC/Toy, Australia and Chinese Taipei on CIPM3, 
Chinese Taipei on IAF/PAC) 
 - MLAs facilitate greater ha rmonization and recognition of standards and conformity 
assessment systems. (Canada on IAF/PAC) 
 
                                                     
 
3 CIPM means “In metrology, the Mutual Recognition Arrangement of the International Committee of 
Weights & Measures”, it based on the Meter Conv ention. Hence, CIPM swerves this Case Study G/TBT/W/276 
Page 4  
 
  - ILAC/APLAC MRA removes the need to replicat e laboratory functions, reducing the need to 
negotiate individual agreements for acceptance of  test reports, as test reports are largely 
accepted worldwide using the system. (New Zealand on ILAC/APLAC) 
 - MRAs may reduce the burden on government in  performing tasks related to conformity 
assessment. (Hong Kong, China on ILAC/APLAC) 
 
3. Bilateral MRAs 
12. There were many general and formal comments that the MRAs make it possible to avoid 
repetitive testing, and reduce lead time and costs associated with entering a market, though some 
MRAs, such as Australia-New Zealand MRA (compreh ensive arrangement including labour mobility) 
are evaluated highly.  In addition, one response said that the MRA helped improve the quality and 
safety of fishery products through the constant ex change of up-to-date information on standards and 
regulations, and that it provides technical assistance for the less-developed party (Thailand on Thailand-Canada MRA). 
F. I
NEFFICIENCIES /DIFFICULTIES AND IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT  
13. As for the questions concerning difficulties/in efficiencies, and ideas for improvement, many 
respondents indicated that MRAs require a large amount of government re sources and/or have a 
relatively small impact on trade. Some inter esting comments from individual economies are as 
follows: 
1. Multilateral MRA 
- Not all APEC economies have fully implem ented the MRA (Australia on APEC/EE); 
- Developed member economies a nd/or exporting economies must provide technical assistance 
to the less-developed member economies and/or  countries in the development of technical 
regulation and standards.  Funding assistance n ecessary for negotiation and implementation of 
the MRA should be given to less-developed memb er economies.  Continuous training of the 
personnel actually involved in the MRA (Philippines on APEC/EE and ASEAN/Tel); 
 - There is a wide range of different standards in this area, including international, regional, and 
national standards.  This makes it challenging a nd costly for CABs to become accredited to all 
appropriate standards (New Zealand on APEC/EE); 
 
- Progress under this MRA largely depends on two or more economies identifying a sector that 
faces significant barriers to trade and agreeing to negotiate a sectoral annex to address the specific issues.  This requires commitment not on ly by trade policy offi cials but also by the 
relevant regulators (New Zealand on APEC/Food); 
 
- Regulators in some economies are reluctant to use voluntary sector MRAs/MLAs to help 
support their regulatory decisions (Aus tralia on ILAC/APLAC and IAF/PAC); 
 - Some regulators in some economies are not accepting the ILAC/APLAC MRA as the basis for 
their acceptance of test reports from other countries. (New Zealand on ILAC/APLAC); 
 
- Regulators in some economies are reluctant to use voluntary sector MLAs to help support 
their regulatory decisions (New Zealand on IAF/PAC). 
  G/TBT/W/276 
 Page 5 
 
 
  2. Bilateral MRAs 
- Information/education initiatives need to prom ote awareness of the MRA (Australia and New 
Zealand on Australia-New Zealand MRA); 
 - Most trade under the MRA is in the pharmace uticals and medical devices area, a relatively 
small part of total trade. Keeping the MRA up to date involves considerable administrative 
effort (Australia on Australia-EC MRA); 
 - While significant resources were used to ne gotiate and implement the Agreement, the 
outcome and benefits of the Agreement justify the negotiating and implementing 
commitments. Existing mechanisms such as th e Joint Management Committee and Technical 
Working Groups allow for the timely resolutio n of issues (New Zealand on New Zealand-EC 
MRA (livestock)); 
 - A number of administrative complexities have m eant that the Sectoral Annexes of the MRA 
have not been amended or added to since the MRA came into force in 1999, preventing the 
anticipated gains from being fully realized.  New Zealand and the European Communities 
have commenced negotiations to amend the text  of the MRA in an effort to improve its 
operation by, amongst other things, clarifying the Joint Committee. (New Zealand on New 
Zealand-EC). 
 
III. CONCLUSIONS OF THE CASE STUDY AND POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS FOR 
FUTURE ACTIVITIES 
14. The following are considered from this case study though an individual economy should 
evaluate the effectiveness of its own MRA and d ecide whether to establish an MRA on account of its 
economic or social situation in each economy. 
A. E
VALUATION OF EFFECTIV ENESS OF EXISTING MRA S 
15. Many member economies are inexperienced with MRAs because most MRAs have come into 
force since 2000, and member economies have not an alyzed the results and impact of their MRAs 
established in the past.  It was recognized to be a little too early to analyze the effectiveness of MRAs. 
16. In this case study, therefore, we found that ex tremely few MRAs are evaluated quantitatively.  
In spite of the fact that certificates/testing reports are basic data that need to be analyzed for their 
effect on trade, many economies do not seem to be  even tracking the number issued under MRAs.  
While it is extremely difficult to calculate resources (administrative cost etc.) used in negotiating and 
implementing MRAs, at the very least, the number of certificates/testing reports issued under MRAs 
need to be recorded and monitored in order to enable quantitative analysis in the future. 
B. COOPERATION WITH INDUSTRY AND CLOSE EXAMINATION OF SPECIFIC SECTORS  
17. In the case study, MRAs were found not alwa ys to be established based on requests from 
domestic industries, except non-governmental MRAs.  This might indicate a lack of cooperation with 
industries in planning, nego tiating and implementing MRAs. 
18. It therefore found it important for governments  to understand the actual international trade 
transactions of private companies who are major play ers, in order to plan, establish and implement 
MRAs effectively.  In this context, governments should deepen cooperation with industry and work to 
understand its needs. G/TBT/W/276 
Page 6  
 
  19. In addition, it seems to be important that governments target specific sectors in close 
cooperation with industries because the effect of MR As is different depending on the sector.  In this 
case study, it can be seen that successful MRAs are focused on a specific sector such as livestock and 
animal products in the New Zealand-Eu ropean Communities MRA (more than 1001 
certificates/testing reports in 2005) and fish and fi shery products in the Th ailand-Canada MRA (more 
than 90,000 in 2005).  Furthermore, Australia responded that most trade under its MRA with the 
European Communities is in specific sectors su ch as pharmaceuticals and medical devices even 
though the MRA scope includes electrical/electroni c equipment, telecommunications terminal/radio 
equipment, pressure equipment etc.  In the electrical/electronic sector, which many MRAs include under their scope or coverage, the IECEE/CB Scheme  (more than 1001 testing reports issued in 2005) 
seems to be effectively used by  industries because many manufacturers of these products in the world 
are using international standards for their businesses. 
C. U
SE OF EXISTING NON -GOVERNMENTAL MULTILATERAL MECHANISMS  
20. It appears that non-governmental (voluntary) mu ltilateral mechanisms are more effective and 
have greater economic effect than bilateral MRAs .  Most bilateral and governmental MRAs apply 
many different technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, and other criteria.  As a 
result, it is claimed that administrative staff ar e required to fully understand all of these different 
matters, and this generates significant administrativ e costs.  On the other hand, non-governmental 
multilateral mechanisms such as ILAC/APLAC, IAF/PAC and the IECEE/CB scheme can reduce 
costs because of their use of single global standards. 
21. In the case study, many non-governmental MRAs show relatively high usage, with the 
number of certificates/testing repor ts standing at more than 1001 in 2005.  Furthermore, response 
from Hong Kong, China notes that over 95% of te lecommunications equipment marketed into Hong 
Kong, China was through the ILAC/APLAC MRA, and less than 5% was through APEC/Tel MRA.  Non-governmental MRAs seem to be functioning we ll because they are established on the basis of 
industry requirements and a single set of global standards. 
22. Non-governmental MRAs do face some challeng es, however.  For example, the number of 
participating economies is limited; regulators in some economies are re luctant to use voluntary 
mechanisms such as ILAC/APLAC to  help support their regulatory decisions; and some regulators in 
some economies do not accept ILAC/APLAC mechanisms  as the basis for their acceptance of test 
reports from other countries.  These challenges need to be further addressed. 
D. C
ONSIDERING OTHER TYPES OF MRA S 
23. Where technical barriers on trade cannot be  removed under existing non-governmental 
multilateral mechanisms, one option to facilitate trade might be to  consider establishing new MRAs 
and negotiating with one or more partners, provided mutual satisfac tion regarding their potential for 
facilitating trade is confirmed.  Though the case study shows that the Type B seems to be very popular 
and most preferred model for bilateral governmental MRAs, it might be useful to consider other types 
with structures that differ from existing MRAs. 
24. One example is found in the asymmetrical MRA combining elements of Types E and B 
described in New Zealand’s response in connection with the New Zealand-Chinese Taipei MRA.  In 
this asymmetrical hybrid model, New Zealand’ s designation of CABs largely depends on their 
accreditation to international standards with very  limited additional requirements while Chinese 
Taipei designation of CABs depends on accredita tion to international standards as well as an 
understanding of, and compliance with, their specific mandatory requirements.  G/TBT/W/276 
 Page 7 
 
 
  25. The other option could be a trade facilitati on mechanism with so called “cross-border 
designation” of CABs in foreign countries which is  a similar mechanism with Type C MRAs in the 
questionnaires.  Japan reported effective use of su ch a mechanism in their regulatory regime for 
electrical appliances.  It is also reported that th e idea of “cross-border designation” is presented on the 
occasion of the TBT Committee in March 2006 with  a document reference number of G/TBT/W/263. 
__________