WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/TBT/W/348  
14 February 2012 
 (12-0853) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE TBT WORKSHOP ON  
REGULATORY COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBERS 
8-9 NOVEMBER 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 Regulatory cooperation is about regulators from different governments engaging with one 
another on rules and principles for regulating markets in the pursuit of more compatible, transparent 
and simple regulations, and the lowering of trade barriers.  The TBT Committee has given importance 
to regulatory cooperation in its work, especially sin ce the Fifth Triennial Review of the Agreement.  
To build on this work and pursuant to its mandate  from the Fifth Triennial Review, the Committee 
held a Workshop on Regulatory Cooperation Between Members.     
The Workshop was divided into four sessions.  The first session focused on the work of the 
WTO particularly in the TBT and SPS contexts, th e second Session focused on Members' experiences 
with regulatory Cooperation, the third session focused  on presentations from relevant organizations on 
regional regulatory cooperation in itiatives, and the fourth session heard expert panellists discuss 
lessons learned and ways forward on regulatory cooperation.2   
This Report provides a summary of key points and issues that arose from the presentations 
and discussions during the Workshop.  The full presen tations made by speakers are available on the 
WTO website.3  A background note by the Secretariat, circ ulated before the Workshop, is contained in 
document G/TBT/W/340.   
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 The programme, as well as the biographies of speakers and moderators, is contained in Annex 1. 
3 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/wkshop_nov11_e.htm  G/TBT/W/348  
Page 2  
 
   
I.  OPENING REMARKS ............................................................................................................ 3  
II.  SESSION I:  OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY COOPERATION .................................... 3  
A.  B
ACKGROUND OF THE TBT COMMITTEE 'S WORK ON REGULATORY COOPERATION  .................... 3  
B.  THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SPS  COMMITTEE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING 
GUIDELINES ON EQUIVALENCE  .................................................................................................... 3  
III. SESSION II: MEMBERS' EXPERIENCES .......................................................................... 4  
A.  CHINA - EU COOPERATION : WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS 
SAFER : THE CHINA -EU  EXAMPLE , MR. KONG XIAOBANG  (CHINA ) AND MR. 
FABRIZIO SACCHETTI  (EU) ........................................................................................................ 4  
B.  EU – US COOPERATION - APPROACHES AND EXPERIENCES : MR. JAN ERIC FRYDMAN  
(EU)  AND MR. JEFF WEISS  (US) ................................................................................................ 5  
C.  NEW ZEALAND – AUSTRALIA COOPERATION (JOINT PRESENTATION ): "THE TRANS -
TASMAN EXPERIENCE WITH REGULATORY COOPERATION ", MS SIRMA KARAPEEVA 
(NEW ZEALAND ) ......................................................................................................................... 7  
D.  BRAZIL : "STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO IMPROVE 
REGULATION IN BRAZIL : PRO-REG AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE ", MR. RODRIGO 
AUGUSTO RODRIGUES AND MR. ALFREDO LOBO ...................................................................... 8  
E.  MEXICO : "THE MEXICAN EXPERIENCE WITH REGARD TO REGULATORY 
COOPERATION : CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS ", MR. JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES  ....................... 9  
F.  CONCLUSION ON DISCUSSION OF MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES  ..................................................... 10  
IV.  SESSION 3: COOPERATION IN REGIONAL AND OTHER 
INTERNATIONAL FORA .................................................................................................... 10  
A.  APEC:  "REGULATORY COOPERATION IN APEC",  MS SIRMA KARAPEEVA (NEW 
ZEALAND ) ............................................................................................................................. .... 11 
B.  APEC:  "MUTUAL RECOGNITION ARRANGEMENT ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT OF 
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT : ITS IMPLICATIONS IN REDUCING 
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE ", MS CAROLINA VASQUEZ (CHILE) .................................... 11  
C.  ASEAN:  "EXPERIENCE OF THE ASEAN  CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS 
AND QUALITY (ACCSQ)"  MR. HO CHI BAO (SINGAPORE ) ...................................................... 12  
D.  SARSO  (SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION ): MR. CHANDAN 
BAHL (INDIA ) ............................................................................................................................ 13 
E.  OECD:  "THE CHALLENGE OF SHARING INFORMATION – OBSTACLES AND 
COOPERATION MECHANISMS IN THE FIELD OF PRODUCT SAFETY ", MR. PETER AVERY 
(OECD) ........................................................................................................................ ............. 13  
F.  UNECE:  "A COMMON REGULATORY LANGUAGE FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT : THE 
CASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MODEL AND HARMONIZATION OF VEHICLE 
REGULATIONS ", MR. CHRISTER ARVIUS (UNECE) .................................................................. 14  
G.  CONCLUSION ON DISCUSSION OF CO-OPERATION IN REGIONAL AND OTHER 
INTERNATIONAL FORA .............................................................................................................. 15  
V.  SESSION 4:  PANEL ON LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................... 16  
A.  OPENING REMARKS  ................................................................................................................... 16  
B.  PANEL DISCUSSION  ................................................................................................................... 16  
C.  GENERAL DISCUSSION  .............................................................................................................. 21  
ANNEX 1: CHAIRPERSONS SUMMARY REPORT .................................................................... 25  
  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. OPENING REMARKS 
1. The session was opened by the Chair, Ms Denise Pereira.   She said that regulatory 
cooperation took place through various mechanisms, including formal and informal exchanges in 
bilateral, plurilateral and regiona l institutional contexts.  The work  of the TBT Committee was, in 
fact, a form of regulatory Cooperation: including discussion of specific trade concerns.  The 
Committee had given importance to regulatory cooper ation in its work, especially since the Fifth 
Triennial Review, and most often in the cont ext of the Committee's work on Good Regulatory 
Practices.  Members had shared experiences and re iterated the importance of regulatory cooperation 
and good regulatory practice (GRP) as a means of avoiding unnecessary barriers early on in the 
regulatory process.  As the use of non-tariff measur es affecting international trade in goods had grown 
in recent years this type of cooperation was becoming more important.  Enhancing mutual 
understanding of regulatory systems through regulatory cooperation could help avoid trade friction in 
the design and implementation of these non-tariff measures.  
II. SESSION I:  OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY COOPERATION 
A. BACKGROUND OF THE TBT COMMITTEE 'S WORK ON REGULATORY COOPERATION  
2. Erik Wijkström (WTO Secretariat), discussed the rationale and concept of regulatory 
Cooperation, and the various avenu es for Cooperation, from the perspective of the TBT Agreement.  
Various issues arose in regulatory Cooperation, such as compatibility of regulatory regimes, 
development levels, capac ity constraints, and exchange of in formation, and the mandate of the 
workshop was to allow Members to discuss how best to work towards effective convergence.  While 
diversity among countries was natural, the aim of regulatory Cooperation should be reduction of 
unnecessary diversity and associated costs. For this, it was important to define the scope, setting and 
level of ambition of an exercise undertaking convergence at the outset.  
3. The World Trade Report 2011 noted that, not only had the number of preferential trade 
agreements (PTAs) increased globally, the value of trade and depth of issues covered by them had 
also increased significantly.  Most PTAs also fo cused on reducing and eliminating non-tariff barriers 
to trade, through mutual recognition, conformity assessment and deeper re gulatory convergence.  
Early lessons in regulatory convergence showed th at similarity between regulatory regimes helped 
build confidence between trading partners, and that  such Cooperation was most efficient when it came 
at an early stage.  He highlighted the significance of robust domestic institutions in ensuring effective 
regulatory Cooperation.   
B. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SPS  COMMITTEE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES 
ON EQUIVALENCE  
4. Marième Fall (WTO Secretariat) spoke about Ar ticle 4 of the SPS Agreement which provided 
for an approach on the implementation of equiva lence, and for consultations with the aim of 
harmonization. She stressed the significance of improved market access and policy innovations as consequences of convergence, particularly for least-developed countries (LDCs) and developing 
countries. Document G/SPS/19/Rev.2 provided gui delines for equivalence, transparency, and 
technical assistance for Members, and she provided a brief history of how the guidelines were developed. Additionally, she discussed the proced ure for notifications of equivalence in the SPS 
Committee, noting that so far only two such notifications had been made.  
 
 G/TBT/W/348  
Page 4  
 
  III. SESSION II: MEMBERS' EXPERIENCES  
5. The moderator, Mr. George Opiyo
4 opened the session which was to focus on specific 
examples of national and bilateral regulatory Coope ration aimed at improving regulatory procedures 
and processes.    
A. CHINA - EU COOPERATION : WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS SAFER : 
THE CHINA -EU  EXAMPLE , MR. KONG XIAOBANG5  (CHINA ) AND MR. FABRIZIO SACCHETTI 6 
(EU) 
6. Mr. Sacchetti noted that since China's accessi on to the WTO, EU-China Cooperation efforts 
had intensified greatly in an increasing number of sect ors and in more than 50 policy areas. Efforts at 
regulatory Cooperation were supported by political oversight, and a technical assistance programme 
which included a component on quality infrastructure and TBT.  In introducing the EU-China 
regulatory Cooperation framework, he highlighted the three main dialogues relevant to TBT contained 
therein:  (i) a regulatory dialogue between EU's DG Enterprise and Industry (DG Enterprise) and 
China's General Administration of Quality Supe rvision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) to 
promote regulatory convergence and eliminate unnecessar y obstacles to trade and investment; (ii) an 
industrial policy dialogue between DG Enterprise, and the Ministry of Industry and Information 
Technology (MIIT),  (iii) and a consumer product saf ety dialogue between DG  Health and Consumers 
(DG SANCO) and AQSIQ with the objective of enhancing safety of cons umer products exported 
from China to the EU through in formation exchange, regulatory exchanges, awareness raising 
campaigns, training, and stakeholder participation.  
7. He explained that the rationale for regulator y cooperation on product safety was based on the 
premise that product safety was a global concern and a shared responsibility of manufacturers, 
exporters, and the government.  With rising global  trade volumes, supply chains and manufacturing 
processes had undergone a dramatic change with increasingly interdependent markets.  Therefore, 
ensuring and enhancing consumer confidence that goods, no matter where they are produced, are safe, 
was key. Enforcement was no longer a national issue and there was therefore a need for reinforcing 
international cooperation in this area. In providi ng a case study on EU-China cooperative efforts to 
strengthen toy safety, he explained the activities and achievements, including the current priorities, as 
well as lessons learned.  Activities included regular meetings among toy experts, raising awareness of 
applicable requirements through outreach and tr aining activities, exchanging information on unsafe 
products and close Cooperation on standards.  These  activities would continue as priorities, as would 
closer Cooperation on market surveillance and pr omoting compatible traceability requirements and 
solutions.  While the importance of creating a «pr oduct safety culture», of effective supply chain 
management to ensure a high level of compliance, an d of preventing, rather than curing, was learned, 
important challenges remained in dealing with the inte rnationalization of the supply chain, in ensuring 
timely information exchange e.g. on scientific  evidence on new risks, new regulations and 
enforcement actions, and in achieving greater c onvergence of standards and safety requirements. 
                                                      
4 Mr. George Opiyo works with Uganda National Bure au of Standards in the Technical Operations 
Directorate. He is the Secretary to the National Committee on Technical  Barriers to Trade/Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of Uganda and is the officer in charge of the WTO TBT National Enquiry Point of 
Uganda.  
5 Kong Xiaobang is from the Department of Supervision on Inspection, Administration for Quality, 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, China. 
6 Fabrizio Sacchetti joined the European Commission's Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry 
in July 2003. He is currently responsible for policy coordination regarding matters falling under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and repr esents the European Union at the meetings of the 
WTO TBT Committee in Geneva.  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 5 
 
 
  8. Mr Kong Xiaobang introduced the AQSIQ, which was a ministerial administrative organ 
directly under the state council. He explained that  the legal framework of RAPEX provided guidelines 
and general rules on product quality and safety, an d explained how the notification system worked 
therein.  The EU-China RAPEX (The Rapid Alert System for non-food dangerous Products) 
collaboration was a mechanism of information exch ange that would ease the challenges faced by the 
fast-paced development of the EU-China economic and trade relationship.   He explained how the 
RAPEX-China notification system worked through AQSIQ and how a special online platform had been set up by China in 2009 to run the programme. Essentially, this was a system for transmission of 
data between the EU and China on product safety (consumer products identif ied as dangerous).  He 
explained the working of the RAPEX-China sy stem, and discussed key achievements including 
technical exchange activities, improved quality a nd safety control, effective investigation and 
feedback on information on quality and safety of co nsumer products, thus pr otecting consumer rights 
and consumer interests.  He described the EU-C hina RAPEX system as a good example of keeping 
markets open, coordination of po licies, and reducing trade fricti ons between partners.  By 31 
December 2010, 4885 cases of products identified as dangerous had been notified and translated into 
Chinese through the RAPEX-CHINA system. Inspection and quarantine agencies at various locations 
were organized to investigate 1678 of these cases. 
9. The focus of the EU-China RAPEX system sinc e 2007 had been to create a win-win scenario 
for both China and the EU in trade in toys by ensu ring that the toys reaching consumers were safe and 
of good quality.  China's role was to monitor that only toys certified as safe would be exported to the 
EU, while the latter played a role in enforcing EU's own safety regulations and feeding back 
information on non-compliant products.  Through th e cooperative mechanism, expert-level meetings 
were held at least twice each year, with regulators, industry stakeholders, as well as market surveillance authorities.  Target ed outreach events were designe d to raise awareness of EU's 
applicable safety requirements among Chinese eco nomic operators and government officials, and 
closer Cooperation on standard setting had been established. 
10. Mr. Sacchetti discussed a study undertaken by the EU in 2008 on toy supply chains, noting 
that it was necessary to ensure that a toy safety cu lture was embedded in the entire supply chain.  He 
also noted lessons learned and priorities for the futu re work.  He concluded  that a one-size-fits-all 
solution would not work in regulatory Cooperati on, and that there was a need to intensify 
international Cooperation and greater convergen ce and harmonization of international safety 
standards.  
11. In response to questions, Mr. Sachetti clarified that, within the EU, at an administrative and 
an operational level, each member State remained fre e to structure market surv eillance in the way that 
best suited its own institutional framework.  At the European level, there w as a legal framework for 
the coordination of market surveillance activiti es which created some common requirements and 
principles that all member States had to follow wh en performing market surveillance.  Mr. Kong 
clarified that the system concerned only products exported to the EU. 
B. EU
 – US COOPERATION - APPROACHES AND EXPERIENCES : MR. JAN ERIC FRYDMAN7  (EU)  
AND MR. JEFF WEISS8  (US) 
12. Through a broad range of horizontal policy tools and sectoral activities, the speakers 
explained that cooperation took several forms, from informal exchanges to structured dialogue, to 
binding government agreements (MRAs). The mo st appropriate approach would be selected 
                                                      
7 Jan Eric Frydman is the Head of Unit for Interna tional Regulatory Agreements and Toy Safety at the 
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission. 
8 Jeff Weiss is the Senior Director  for Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) at the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative (USTR).   G/TBT/W/348  
Page 6  
 
  depending on the policy context and the objectives pursued. Cooperation was necessary to reduce the 
unnecessary costs to business; enhance competitiveness; improve quality of regulation; increase consumer confidence; minimize trade frictions; enhance and deepen EU-U S trade Cooperation and 
economic ties.  A variety of policy instruments and tools had been pursued over the past decade which 
featured regulatory cooperation in TBTs as a key el ement.  They included the Transatlantic Economic 
Partnership (1998); US-EU Positive Economic Ag enda (2002); US-EU Economic Initiative (2005); 
and the Framework for Enhancing Transatlantic Ec onomic Integration (2007), all of which were 
devised to inject new impetus and garner political  support to these processes. These initiatives were 
supported by sectoral dialogues at expert level a nd the dialogue on good regulatory practices between 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and th e European Commission's Secretariat-General as 
well as by the High Level Regulat ory Cooperation Forum, while th e Transatlantic Economic Council 
and EU-US summits provided political oversight.  
13. Sectoral co-operative initiatives, such as in pha rmaceuticals, auto safety, marine equipment, 
and toys, were explained.  The sectoral appro ach was an effective means of Cooperation through 
development of best practices and guidelines.  The High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum was 
aimed at promoting Cooperation on cross-cutting re gulatory subjects, and had a strong TBT angle 
since technical barriers to trade had been known to impact small and medium sized enterprises 
disproportionately.  In addition to discussing best practices identified in 2006, the common understanding of regulatory principles agreed in June 2011, lessons lear ned and horizontal forum 
issues, the speakers provided a case study of success ful Cooperation in the area of toys.  Through a 
variety of approaches over the past decade, US-EU regulatory cooperation efforts had grown and 
expanded.  The experience had shown that the fo llowing were necessary for successful international 
regulatory cooperation: comparable jurisdictions over the subject matter to be regulated;  common 
powers, including comparable institutional structures and regulatory competences;   shared values on 
the role of government, acceptable risk and issu es such as impact assessment, risk assessment, 
transparency;  confidence and trust between re gulators;  the need for highest level political 
will/supervision of the bureaucratic process;  a common interest;  necessary resources;  and a 
stakeholder driven process. 
14. Mr. Weiss noted that the two trading part ners, EU and US decided upon the common 
elements of understanding.  These included transp arency and openness, including stakeholder 
participation; consideration of bene fits and costs; the necessity of impact assessment before proposing 
a regulatory measure, based on both qualitative a nd quantitative analysis; selection of the least 
burdensome approach; adoption of behaviourally in formed choices; avoidance  of duplicative or 
divergent approaches; and evaluation of regul atory approaches on a periodic basis through a 
transparent procedure including stakeholder inputs.  He added that the use of online tools for planning 
was considered effective and increased information ex change between trading pa rtners.  Additionally, 
he shed light on sectoral issues currently in focus such as energy efficiency; work on nanotechnology 
and the development of guidelines; e-mobility to av oid conflicting standards in  areas such as safety 
and electric plugs; and developing a roadmap of standa rds in these areas.  In response to questions, he 
explained that it was difficult to create one defin ition for a small and medium enterprise (SME) but 
that certain practices and policies could be put in  place to benefit these types of enterprises, in 
particular regulatory simplification. 
15. Mr. Frydman added that since 2007, one of the main topics of Cooperation had been toy 
safety. A task force on the subject had develope d a draft report on improvement of regulatory 
Cooperation on product safety matters, with a focus on toy safety.  The fact that both trading partners 
had new safety regulations for toys was a co mmon challenge, and enha ncing Cooperation on the 
subject, he said, had improved both sides' understanding on the issue. The two partners would like to 
have common approaches to common issues such as definition of materials, risk assessment, 
traceability, declaration of conformity etc. Additiona lly, the two partners were looking for closer 
Cooperation on enforcement issues, market surve illance, and exchange of information.    G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 7 
 
 
  16. He underscored lessons learned over 13 years of  Cooperation noting that the scope and depth 
of Cooperation had expanded greatly, as had the build ing of confidence. Since regulatory Cooperation 
was both technical and time consuming and based on regulatory traditions and jurisdictions, there was 
no one-size-fits-all approach.  Further, the focu s of Cooperation should be new regulations, as 
opposed to changing what had already been negotiate d and agreed upon, and that best practices that 
worked in the past should be re plicated as much as possible.  Furthermore, he underscored the 
significance of expectations management, and of  political oversight for technical negotiations. 
Political will and support were critical for regulators to enhance convergence to  ensure focus on areas 
where the net benefits were  the highest.  Finally,  it was essentia l to account for resource and statutory 
constraints and to create opportunities for Cooperati on based on those constraints.  In response to 
questions from the floor, he discussed the regulator y impact assessment mechanism noting that it was 
a combination of different types of impact asse ssments, including economic, social, environmental, 
trade etc. which were carried out before formulati ng the legislative proposal.  He also mentioned that 
regulatory recognition and equivalenc e had higher benefits for SMEs since it reduced the cost of 
adapting to different types of procedur es and regulations in different countries 
17. In response to questions, he noted that the EU di d have a definition for an SME so that the EU 
programmes could specifically target SMEs.  In fact, he mentioned that the European Commission 
had recently issued a new communication which pro posed support for European SMEs going to third 
countries because it appeared that only 13 per cent of  European SMEs actually had business or trade 
with countries outside of the EU.  According to a survey carried out, the ma in obstacles to such 
commerce were regulatory differences as well as ot her issues like market access, information, and 
IPR protection. 
C. NEW ZEALAND – AUSTRALIA COOPERATION (JOINT PRESENTATION ): "THE TRANS -TASMAN 
EXPERIENCE WITH REGULATORY COOPERATION ", MS SIRMA KARAPEEVA9 (NEW ZEALAND ) 
18. Ms Karapeeva spoke about the Trans-Tasman experience of regulatory Cooperation, noting 
that what helped ease convergence wa s the fact that Australia and New Zealand were very similar in 
terms of geographical location, climate, populati on and culture, allowing for similar preferences in 
goods and services.  Since engaging in the Trans- Tasman cooperation, both countries had noticed a 
steady increase in flows of goods and services, and also  noticeable benefits to stakeholders. She also 
commented that convergence was part of a larger, single, economic market initiative reflecting deeper 
integration and Cooperation at all levels of government.  She presen ted three examples of regulatory 
co-operation and convergence:  the Trans-Tasman  Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTRMA); the 
Joint Food Standards Code; and the Propo sed Joint Therapeutic Products Agency. 
19. The TTRMA was a non-treaty agreement, but the commitment contained therein was 
reflected in mirror legislation in both countries.  It  was essentially an equiva lence arrangement:   any 
good that could be legally sold in one country coul d be sold in the other, regardless of differing 
technical regulations.  It also applied to regist ered occupations.  The principles contained in the 
agreement were cornerstones of the economic and policy regulation in both countries and had 
delivered benefits to all stakeholders, at low ad ministrative costs.   The Arrangement had a broad 
coverage, with only a few exclusions and exempt ions, and enabled greater mobility of goods at 
reduced costs of trade.  It contributed to build ing confidence in each other’s regulatory outcomes and 
was a central driver for regulatory policy cooperatio n and Trans-Tasman integration.  Some examples 
of activities included a joint programme on minimu m energy performance standards and labelling;  
involvement in reviews of electrical and gas safety regimes;  joint development of standards;  and 
sharing of compliance information from market su rveillance.  Remaining challenges included the 
                                                      
9 Ms Karapeeva is a Senior Analys t with the Trade Environment Team of the New Zealand Ministry of 
Economic Development and leads the team’s international technical barriers to trade agenda. G/TBT/W/348  
Page 8  
 
  continued building of trust and confidence between  regulators, raising awareness among regulators, 
and finding ways to bridge differences in ar eas where large differences still existed.   
20. Cooperation on food standards via the Joint Food Standards Code resulted in the Single Food 
Standards Code developed by a single agency, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).  
Harmonised food standards were implemented by each  country's regulators.  They were based on 
sound science, a shared expertise base and had a clear  focus on protecting public health & safety.  
Similarly, the Proposed Joint Therapeutic Products  Agency was creating a single regulatory scheme 
and a trans-Tasman regulator for therapeutic goods.  It was a three phase approach beginning in July 
2011.  Like other speakers, she emphasized the significance of political will and drive, deeper 
stakeholder involvement, and strong  domestic institutions while asserting that there could not be a one 
size fits all solution to regulatory Cooperation.  
21. In response to questions, Ms Karapeeva str essed the importance of  constant and on-going 
dialogue between the regulators in both countri es as well as dialogue and interaction through the 
entire political system.  New Zealand ministers partic ipated in Australian ministerial council meetings 
and had voting rights on issues of trans-Tasman con cern so many decisions on regulatory action were 
made at ministerial levels.  She added that regul atory impact analyses were made early on in the 
policy and development process so that consideration of the trans-Tasman trade impact was taken into 
account early in the process.  
D. B
RAZIL : "STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO IMPROVE REGULATION IN 
BRAZIL : PRO-REG AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE ", MR. RODRIGO AUGUSTO RODRIGUES10 
AND MR. ALFREDO LOBO11 
22. Mr. Rodrigues presented Brazil's Programme for the Strengthening of the Institutional 
Capacity for Regulatory Management.  It was pr esently the seventh largest world economy with a  
population of 191 million in 2010.  The regulatory dir ectives for Brazil were to improve the quality of 
regulation; reduce regulatory risks; increase tran sparency and accountability; work towards wider 
social participation in the improvement of re gulatory framework with a stronger consumer 
engagement; reinforce regulatory performan ce; and improve regulatory governance.  
23. He discussed the main proposals for regulatory reform in Brazil, noting the Programme for 
the Strengthening of the Institutional Capacity for Regulatory Management – PRO-REG which was 
aimed at improving the regulatory management system of the country.   
24. The OECD Peer Review of Regulatory Framew ork in Brazil represented a unique opportunity 
to discuss current regulatory practices in Brazil in or der to improve the performance of the system;  
achieve policy objectives;  demystify the ideol ogical debate over regulatory structure involving 
ministries and agencies; and learn from the interna tional experience.  The Review emphasized that 
was necessary to adopt Regulatory Impact Analysis in Brazil, and called atte ntion to the importance 
of an oversight body.  Following the Review, th e Programme envisaged the conception and set-up of 
a Unit of Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Regulatory Issues in the Executive branch and 
would introduce Regulatory Impact Analysis, and woul d learn with international best practices.  The 
Programme, sponsored by the Inter-American Developm ent Bank, was also working with the Institute 
of Brazilian Affairs at George Washington Univers ity, the US Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA), and established C ooperation agreements between the Brazilian Federal Government 
and the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Brazil.  
                                                      
10 Mr. Rodrigues is Deputy-Head of the Department of Analysis and Attendance of Governmental 
Policies (SAG – Casa Civil). 
11 Mr. Lobo is Director of Quality at the Braz ilian National Institute of Metrology, Quality and 
Technology - INMETRO.  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 9 
 
 
  25. Mr. Lobo  discussed the work undertaken by the Nati onal Institute of Metrology, Quality and 
Technology (INMETRO), which was an agency under the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (MDIC).  Its main activities were scientif ic and industrial metrology;  legal metrology;  
conformity assessment;  accreditation of certificati on and inspection bodies and testing;  calibration 
laboratories;  the Enquiry Point for the TBT Agreement (WTO);  and diffusing innovation and 
knowledge.  While there were 32 regulatory agen cies in Brazil including ANVISA for health, 
DENATRAN for traffic safety, and IBAMA for th e environment, INMETRO could act in any 
area/product where there was no regulatory authority. Products regulated by INMETRO included toys, tires, household appliances, auto parts and electric wires and cables.   
26. He discussed activities undertaken to strengthen th e regulatory structure in Brazil.  The Guide 
on Good Regulatory Practices on Technical Regulations  was developed by CONMETRO in 2007.  As 
part of the exercise, sector panels were conducted to allow for effective stakeholder participation in 
the development of the guide; a deployment plan was established consisting of training in various 
government institutions; and a training programme for managers and professionals of regulatory 
authorities was developed and implemented.  A second activity was the development and 
implementation of a Methodology for Impact Asse ssment and Technical Feasibility of Technical 
Regulations and Conformity Assessment Procedures.  A third activity was the Assisted Deployment 
of Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessme nt Procedures.  As a result of these initiatives, 
Brazil was fifth in notifications in the WTO a nd Brazilian technical regulations complied with 
international standards.  This led to fewer comp laints about Brazilian regul ations and fewer specific 
trade concerns raised against Brazil.  Finally, he  mentioned that Brazil, through INMETRO, was co-
operating with the United States, China a nd Mozambique in regulatory programmes. 
27. On this last point, in response to a question, he explained that the agreements with the US and 
China were about harmonizing technical regulations and exchanging information about the recalls and 
incidents with products.  On the agreement with Mozambique, Brazil was assisting in the 
implementation of good types of technical regul ation and conformity assessment procedures.   
E. M
EXICO : "THE MEXICAN EXPERIENCE WITH REGARD TO REGULATORY COOPERATION : 
CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS ", MR. JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES12 
28. Mr. Dorantes noted that the origins of regulat ory Cooperation in Mexico could be traced to 
Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization ( LFMN); the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA); the WTO TBT and SPS Agreements; and other FTA's. With respect to NAFTA, 
presidential commitment resulted in the terms of reference of the High Level Regulatory Cooperation 
Council (HLRCC) being concluded in  March 2011.  The six main objectives of the HLRCC were to 
make regulations more compatible and simple; increase regulatory transparency; promote public participation;   improve the analysis of regula tions; link regulatory cooper ation to improved border-
crossing and customs procedures; and increase technical Cooperation.  A Work Plan was being elaborated through a public consultation mechanism wh ich would result in an outline of activities that 
would be carried out over two years.  Possible subj ects to be covered incl uded food safety; e-health; 
safety regulations in transportation; oil and gas;  nanotechnologies; recognition of laboratories; and e-
certification at factories.  
29. In the Latin American context, Members of the Latin Arch Forum, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru, aimed at 
optimizing their commercial exchanges, and increasing trade, investment, and cooperation with 
economies in the Asia-Pacific region.  One of the goa ls of the Forum, in relation to TBT, was to 
enhance transparency, regulatory c ooperation and technical Cooperation.  
                                                      
12 Mr. Dorantes is the Director General of Interna tional Trade Rules at the Secretariat of Economy in 
Mexico. G/TBT/W/348  
Page 10  
 
  30. Lessons learned from Mexico's international re gulatory cooperation included the notion that a 
one-size fits all approach would no t work. He also underscored the significance of strong political will 
and drive, confidence building among regulators, an d technical assistance. Additionally, he asserted 
the importance of private sector involvement in identifying priorities and types of activities to be subject to regulatory Cooperation.   Further challenges to be addressed included defining priorities in 
activities, countries and regions; convincing regulators and private sector of their importance; 
upholding Cooperation as a priority on the trade age nda and the use of good regulatory practice.  
31. In response to questions, he noted that the main problem experienced was that of human 
resources.  Because the regulatory and legal systems as well as the legislation were different, the necessary expertise was not always available.  For this reason, private sector involvement was 
important;  they often had the necessary technical input.  Nevertheless, technical assistance from other 
countries was also important particularly when work ing with a developed count ry which had available 
resources.  On another point, he added that the mo st significant challenge faced in mutual recognition 
of the telecommunications sector was convincing both the national manufacturers and the national 
laboratories of the benefits of this agreement becau se they were not often immediately obvious.    
F. C
ONCLUSION ON DISCUSSION OF MEMBERS ' EXPERIENCES  
32. The moderator highlighted some factors that came to light from the presentations in this 
session.  The first was the need for strong political goodwill.  Regulatory agencies could cooperate but 
they still remained accountable to their domestic  regulators.  Without political goodwill cooperative 
efforts might not be successful.  Secondly, strong institutional structures we re necessary to achieve 
regulatory Cooperation.  Thirdly, it was clear that one  size does not fit all situations so all approaches 
must be tailored to political and institutional circ umstances.  Fourthly, he noted the importance of 
being clear about the objectives of Cooperation and selecting the appropriate tool to achieve that 
objective.  Finally, he noted the importance of  building confidence and trust between regulatory 
agencies.  
33. He provided an example of Cooperation effort s among Least-developed countries in Africa.  
In the treaty establishing the East African Community  there was an article on Cooperation in the area 
of standards, technical regulations and conformity  assessment which gave rise to a protocol that was 
negotiated and agreed on by the members of the East African Community.   Once adopted, the 
protocol gave birth to the East African Comm unity Standard Quality Assurance Metrology and 
Testing Act.   Such cooperative efforts were also  experienced in the comm on market for east and 
southern Africa. This treaty also provided fo r Cooperation in the areas of standard, technical 
regulations, conformity assessment and testing.  Finally, the treat y that established the Southern 
Africa Development Community also provided for Cooperation in the areas of standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment.   
IV. SESSION 3: COOPERATION IN REGIONAL AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL 
FORA 
34. The session moderator, Mr. Bipin Menon
13, introduced the session on co-operation in regional 
and other international fora.  He spoke about the importance referencing international standards in 
regulatory cooperation initiatives even when regi onal (or sectoral) in nature – and about the 
importance of capacity building and technical assistance in this respect.  
                                                      
13 Bipin Menon has a trade specialization background in the Department of Commerce of India.  He has 
been involved in the NAMA negotiations for the past six years and more recently in TBT where he has worked 
in areas such as international st andard setting and transparency.   
  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 11 
 
 
  A. APEC:  "REGULATORY COOPERATION IN APEC",  MS SIRMA KARAPEEVA (NEW ZEALAND ) 
35. Ms Karapeeva, on behalf of Ms Julia D oherty the 2011 APEC SCSC Chair, discussed 
regulatory Cooperation within APEC. She provi ded a background on APEC, and then discussed 
initiatives undertaken on regulatory Cooperation and convergence in 2011 by APEC members. She 
also provided case studies of several sectoral initiativ es in regulatory Cooperation.  She noted that the 
focus of APEC was not just on regional Coop eration, but regulatory cooperation aimed at 
strengthening the multilateral trading system a nd promoting sustainable economic growth.  The 
mandate of the APEC Sub-Committee on Standard s and Conformance (SCSC) was based on the 
principles and obligations of the TBT and SPS Agreements. She underscored the strong global 
presence and dynamic growth of the APEC region, and noted that the 2011 priorities of APEC 
included strengthening regional economic integrati on and expanding trade; promoting green growth; 
expanding regulatory cooperation and advancing regulatory convergence.  Political will and drive, as 
well as effective engagement of stakeholders , were significant for regulatory Cooperation. 
Additionally, she discussed the APEC-OECD Inte grated Checklist on Regulatory Reform, which she 
said, included:  internal coordination to enable a whole of government approach to rule making; 
assessing the impact of alternatives to achieving re gulatory objectives; and transparency and public 
consultation processes.   
36. Speaking about the APEC SCSC she noted th at its objectives included reducing negative 
effects on trade due to differing standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures; promoting greater alignment of national standards with international standards and greater 
consistency of approaches to conformity assess ment; promoting good regulatory practices and 
transparency of standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures; encouraging 
cooperation on the development of technical infrast ructure; promoting greater regulatory dialogue; 
and encouraging business involvement in standard s and conformance activities. She also discussed 
sectoral initiatives in the toy, wine, food safety, so lar technologies, and green buildings sectors.  The 
objectives of these initiatives were to enhance tran sparency, encourage better alignment and reduce 
barriers to trade related to standards, technical re gulations and conformity assessment procedures, and 
the associated unnecessary costs and expenses, while still promoting high levels of product safety; encourage participation from key stakeholders, the pr ivate sector and academia, to bring in expertise; 
provide a baseline on the use of standards, regul ations and conformity assessment procedures;  
encourage the use of international standards;  and minimize disruptions to trade.  Finally, speaking on 
the outcomes of the sectoral initiatives, these had enhanced transparency, and policy coordination, 
increased exchange of information between agenci es, and encouraged a model of public private 
Cooperation to enable sustainable capacity building.  
B. APEC:
 "MUTUAL RECOGNITION ARRANGEMENT ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT OF 
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT : ITS IMPLICATIONS IN REDUCING TECHNICAL 
BARRIERS TO TRADE ", MS CAROLINA VASQUEZ14 (CHILE) 
37. Ms Vasquez spoke about the Mutual Recognitio n Arrangement on Conformity Assessment of 
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEMRA), and its  implications for reducti on of technical barriers 
to trade. She discussed the conclusion and endorsemen t of the agreement by the APEC SCSC in 1999, 
and briefly discussed the various parts of the EEM RA. She covered an overview of the information 
exchange regime, its legislative references, a descr iption of the testing and approval mechanisms, the 
labelling requirements, and the regulatory and legi slative requirements of the regime.  She also 
highlighted the provisions covering acceptance of test  reports and certification, underscoring that the 
agreement applied to both pre and post market cer tification and had implications for both regulators, 
                                                      
14 Carolina Vasquez is a consultant in the Sub De partment for Technical Barriers to Trade of the 
General Directorate of International Economic Relations (DIR ECON), part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.    
 G/TBT/W/348  
Page 12  
 
  and manufacturers. For regulators, the MRA ensu red comprehensive information on the regulatory 
regimes of members' economies manufacturers, al lowing for improved compliance to regulations.  
For manufacturers, the MRA allowed for testing, cer tification and approval to be done in the economy 
of the manufacturer, reducing the costs involved, and the time to market for the products.  The benefits from the MRA included reduction of cost of business through mutual recognition of testing 
requirements; reduction of the impact of regulatory infrastructures particularly those relating to pre-
market testing, certification, inspection and appr oval; promotion of better information sharing of 
regulatory regimes in the region; improving safety and facilitating trade in electrical and electronic products;  assisting in market expansion, partic ularly to APEC economies signatory to the APEC 
EEMRA; promoting greater regulatory harmoni zation and lesser negotiation process.   
38. She also underlined the difficulties and costs of the MRA, i.e. regulatory changes, fears and 
insecurities in the economies, and the added costs of adaptation.  For Chile, in particular, the 
challenges for convergence included the amendm ent of regulations for electrical products; 
incorporation to the CB Scheme;  th e need to work with companies and testing laboratories; working 
to lower the resistance to change and the participa tion in the MRA.  Finally, she discussed the role of 
the Joint Regulatory Advisory Committee (JRAC) in promoting greater regulatory focus and regulator 
to regulator dialogue, and in facilitating the APEC EEMRA.  
C. ASEAN:
 "EXPERIENCE OF THE ASEAN  CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND 
QUALITY (ACCSQ)"  MR. HO CHI BAO15 (SINGAPORE ) 
39. Mr. Ho talked about the experiences of th e ASEAN Consultative Committee on Standards 
and Quality (ACCSQ).  He also discussed the ASEAN Economic Community goal for 2015 of a 
single market and production base comprising free flow of goods, services, investments, capital and 
skilled labour. Free flow of goods would cover elimination of tari ffs; elimination of non-tariff 
barriers; rules of origin (ROO); trade facilitation; customs integration; ASEAN single window; standards & technical barriers to tr ade.  He also spoke about the role of the ACCSQ in harmonising 
standards and reducing technical barriers to trad e.  ACCSQ was supported by three working groups 
and covered sectors like automotive products, electr onics, healthcare, rubber based products, and 
prepared food stuffs.  He highlighted the achievement s of the four core MRAs within the ACCSQ:   
the Electrical Electronic Equipment MRA; the Ph armaceutical Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) 
MRA;  the ASEAN Harmonised Cosmetic Re gulatory Scheme; and the ASEAN Harmonised 
Regulatory Regime for Electrical and Electronic Equipment (AHEEER).  The achievements included 
acceptance of test reports, cost reductions for ma nufacturers, and harmonised technical requirements 
and conformity assessment procedures.   
40. Mr. Ho explained that the key lessons learne d included that the challenge of convergence 
from Members' different development levels can be  worked through and overcome with political will 
and drive and commitment from regulators;  and that , in spite of differences, the basis of MRAs can 
be underpinned by international conformity asse ssment and accreditation schemes with minimal 
changes to current regimes.  Underlining that MRAs provided a fertile gr ound for coherence with 
ASEAN, Mr. Ho concluded by highlighting the benef its of MRAs, which were:  that MRAs help to 
reduce costs to business and "time to market", whic h in turn facilitate trade while ensuring product 
safety;  MRAs set the groundwork for regulatory coherence in ASEAN and  provided a platform for collaboration and building confidence for ASEA N, which led to ASEAN's move towards a 
harmonized technical regulations and conformity  assessment procedures (AHEER) regime;  MRAs 
help in harmonization of national standards with  international standards (harmonization with 
international standards is a key component of ASEAN's harmonised AHEER regime);  MRAs, by 
                                                      
15 Ho Chi Bao is the Deputy Director of Policy & Promotion Division in SPRING Singapore. SPRING 
Singapore is a government agency that helps enterprises grow as well as being the national standards and 
accreditation body.  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 13 
 
 
  leveraging on international schemes, has helped A SEAN achieve "one standards, one test and one 
certificate accepted everywhere";  and this wo rk supports the realization of ASEAN Economic 
Community Goal of free flow of goods.  
D. SARSO  (SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION ): MR. CHANDAN BAHL16 
(INDIA ) 
41. Mr. Bahl spoke about the South Asia Regiona l Standards Organisation (SARSO).  Its key 
objectives included placing regional cooperation on a firm foundation, accelerating the pace of social 
and economic development of the countries, and promoting the cause of peace, progress and stability in the region. He discussed the significance of re gulatory Cooperation to reduce non-tariff barriers and 
allow smoother trade between nations.  He spoke  about the background to the establishment of 
SARSO by the SAARC Committee on Economic Coope ration (CEC), noting that its objectives 
included promoting and undertaki ng harmonization of national sta ndards of the SAARC member 
states with a view to removing technical barrier s to trade and facilitating the flow of goods and 
services in the region; developing SAARC standards on the products of regi onal/sub-regional interest; 
and encouraging the use of international standards published by ISO, IEC, etc. by way of adoption, 
where appropriate, as SAARC Standards; encourag ing exchange of information and expertise, 
facilitating capacity building among member states; acting as a source of information for members on 
standards, regulations and conformity assessment; presenting the common interests of members in international standardisation orga nisations; and promoting MRAs c onformity assessment procedures.  
42. He discussed the structure of SARSO, its go verning board, and their functions, and the 
structure and the role of the Technical Management Board (TMB).  SARSO's on-going work included 
the development of SAARC standards for specific products and sectors, drafting the SAARC 
Agreement on Implementation of Regional Sta ndards, and drafting the SAARC Agreement on 
Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of Conformity Assessment.  In conclusion,  India's expected 
benefits of SARSO included harmoni zation of national standards of the member states which would 
help in  removing technical barriers to trade a nd facilitating the flow of goods and services in the 
region; facilitating common interests of the Member St ates in the various international standardization 
organizations; facilitating acceptance of results of c onformity assessment amongst the countries in the 
region; and promoting  capacity building among member states.  
E. OECD:
 "THE CHALLENGE OF SHARING INFORMATION – OBSTACLES AND COOPERATION 
MECHANISMS IN THE FIELD OF PRODUCT SAFETY ", MR. PETER AVERY17 (OECD) 
43. Mr. Avery discussed the work undertaken by the OECD on product safety, and the challenges 
and obstacles encountered, particularly in informati on sharing, with a view to regulatory Cooperation 
and harmonization. He provided a background of the work undertaken by the OECD and the Working 
Party on Consumer Product Safety (established in 2010), including, promoting information exchange; 
supporting research on product safety issues; monitoring and assessing  policy and regulatory developments; promoting Coopera tion with non-members and; prom oting harmonisation of product 
safety requirements and information collection. He also underlined the short, medium and long-term 
work plans for the OECD on product safety.  
44. Speaking on the challenges and opportunities in wo rk on product safety, he said that the main 
opportunities came from governments being now more receptive to sharing information, a strong 
interest from non-members, and cooperation resu lting in cost-effectiveness and avoidance of 
                                                      
16 Mr. Chandan Bahl is working as Scientist ‘E’ (I nternational Relations) in the Bureau of Indian 
Standards, the National Standards Body of India. 
17 Peter Avery is Principal Administrator in the OECD’s Directorate for Sc ience, Technology and 
Industry, where he heads th e Consumer Policy Unit. G/TBT/W/348  
Page 14  
 
  duplication of regulation.  On the challenges, de veloping web-platforms had high costs and technical 
challenges, a  lack of common language between regul ators added difficulty, and there was a need to 
maintain vitality and relevance of platforms, and to engage non-members into cooperation. He noted 
issues of agreed taxonomies, competing priorities, and funding, and underscored the significance of 
stakeholder involvement.  
F. UNECE:
 "A COMMON REGULATORY LANGUAGE FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT : THE CASE 
OF THE INTERNATIONAL MODEL AND HARMONIZATION OF VEHICLE REGULATIONS ", MR. 
CHRISTER ARVIUS18 (UNECE) 
45. Mr. Arvius presented the case of the UNECE "International Model for Technical 
Harmonization".  Firstly, he differentiated the de grees of regulatory cooperation, which could be 
separated broadly into good (national) regulatory practices and trans-national arrangements,  The 
degrees could be seen as a “ladder of ambition” in regulatory cooperation ranging from the first step 
as good (national) regulatory practice embodied in the TBT Agreement, including observance of principal trade policy provisions (non-discrimina tion, proportionality, performance based regulations, 
use of international standards, etc.) and informa tion exchange procedures for awareness building, to 
subsequent steps of trans-national arrangement s (not included in the TBT Agreement). These 
arrangements included recognition of common testi ng procedures, accreditation systems, recognition 
of test results, inspections and certificates, r ecognition of product specifications, markings and, 
ultimately, recognition of fully harmonized techni cal regulations. He made the point that the 
objectives of the TBT Agreement to combat “unnece ssary obstacles to trade” was much more limited 
than to achieve full market access which was th e objective within the EU (and in the UNECE 
International Model).  Article 2.4 of the TBT Ag reement provided for exceptions to the use of 
international standards as certain measures could be ineffective for some countries in light of differing 
regulatory objectives.  Therefore, coherence in re gulatory objectives was n eeded to refer to/use the 
same international standard(s). This was one of the rationales for the UNECE International Model. 
46. He presented the main principles in the "Int ernational Model for Technical Harmonization”, a 
regulatory cooperation model, based on a “standa rds receptive regulatory technique” within the 
UNECE-WP.6.  He emphasised that the model coul d be a basis for organisations dealing with 
regional integration aimed at aligning the technica l regulations between the countries concerned. It 
also served as a basis for initiatives in certain s ectors:  the Telecom Initiative, Earth Moving 
Machinery Initiative, and the Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments.  A Sector Initiative 
on Pipeline Safety was also underway.  The model was open for application in regional and sectoral 
arrangements for all interested UN Member States (192 countries). It included the definition of 
regulatory convergence with regard to the necessar y health and safety, environmental conditions, 
applicable international standards and proof of c onformity for the sectors/product areas concerned.   
The number of countries involved in such arrange ments could gradually be enlarged through a 
flexible “step-by-step” approach. He envisaged that the use of the model in different regions and 
sectors would provide for less fragmentation of technical regulations on the globe. 
47. Mr. Ramos
19 spoke about the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP. 29), its historical background and structure, together with the 1958 & 1998 Agreements.  He focused on the environmental prot ection aspect of the programme, noting that it had 
adopted limits for the reduction of the emissions  of gaseous pollutants such carbon monoxide CO 
(yellow), hydrocarbons HC (blue) and nitroge n oxides NOx (green).  The Forum or WP.29 
administered three agreements, the 1958 Agreemen t, the 1998 Agreement, and the 1997 Agreement.  
                                                      
18 Christer Arvius is Director at the Swedish Na tional Board of Trade and Chairman of the UNECE 
Working Party on Regulatory Co-operation and Standardization Policies (WP.6). 
19 J. Ramos is Chief of the Vehicle Registrations Section in the UNECE Transport Division and 
Secretary to WP.29   G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 15 
 
 
  WP. 29 was unique, transparent and global, and decisi ons were taken by gove rnments of contracting 
parties.  He discussed the provisions of the 195 8 and 1998 Agreements, and how WP. 29 regulations 
could eliminate technical barriers to trade and re duce the cost of developing new regulations and 
standards by recommending the application of globa lly developed vehicle regulations, instead of 
developing new ones. 
G. CONCLUSION ON DISCUSSION OF CO-OPERATION IN REGIONAL AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL 
FORA 
48. After the presentations, participants engage d in a general discussion.  Regarding the 
presentations on APEC, Ms Karapeeva stressed that a principle lesson learned was that the problem that regulators were seeking to resolve needed to be properly framed from the outset, as did what 
regulators were seeking to achieve so that c onsensus could be sought around these parameters.  
Without this, moving to the next stage would be diff icult.  Another important element was timing.  In 
the example of wine regulation, the growing trade in the region made clear that both producers and importers would have something to gain through re gulation.  In the case of electrical and electronic 
goods, recognition among all APEC members was not immediate because while regulation was fairly 
harmonized for many countries, for others, improve ments had to be made for the MRA and for the 
export market.  With regard to the CB Scheme, Ms Vasquez said that APEC members considered that 
it was necessary in order to guarantee certification and to ensure the safety of the products.   
49. In response to a question on the need for the ASEAN MRA for electrical and electronic goods 
if ASEAN Members were signatories to the CB Scheme, Mr. Bao said that the two were 
complimentary.  The CB Scheme was voluntary a nd the ASEAN MRA contained additional standards 
went further.  He discussed the different rat es of harmonization of standards among the members 
states, noting that the MRA provided some useful pressure to move at a certain speed of transformation.  Some ASEAN members provided technical assistance to other Members in the transformation and accreditation process.   Sometimes regulators were apprehensive in dealing with 
different countries but usually, through dialogue and negotiation, confidence and trust could be 
established.  In regard to a question about the role  of the private sector, Mr. Bao said that, in ASEAN, 
the private sector was encouraged and invited to sit in during the product working group meetings.  
Their input was often sought because, ultimately, regulatory integration was about meeting their 
needs.   
50. With regard to SARSO, Mr. Bahl stressed that  member states sought to develop regional 
standards in areas of common interest.  Standards would not be developed in all areas where national 
standards existed, but only in identified areas of  regional interest so that accepting conformity 
assessment results of each other member states would be easier.  The development of regional standards versus the harmonization of the existi ng standards was a complimentary activity because 
some national standardizing bodies already existed.   SARSO was not meant to overtake or remove 
any of the existing structures but to be a complime ntary exercise along with individual standardisation 
efforts.  Developing a common platform and in stitutional framework would accelerate trade among 
the member states.  While the objective was to enc ourage use of international standards, in certain 
cases, situations arose whereby deviations from tho se standards were required.  One example he cited 
was geographical or climatic conditions.  Mr. Bahl al so explained, in response to questions, that India 
(BIS) annually organizes training programmes for de veloping countries on standardization and quality 
assurance, on management systems and on laborator y quality assurance systems, details of which are 
available on the BIS website ( www.bis.org.in )    
51. In response to questions on the OECD work, Mr. Avery stressed that the benefits of 
harmonization became more apparent the more c ountries became involved.  The OECD was always 
interested in expanding to include more countries.  If this was not operational, then another future 
option could be to transform the OECD activities to  a more global platform.  In terms of market G/TBT/W/348  
Page 16  
 
  surveillance, a business advisory council existe d through which interested companies could 
participate to exchange information.  This mech anism would expand in the future.  He discussed the 
positive Cooperation with the Organizat ion of American States (OAS), in particular the web portal for 
member countries of internet specific product or recal l information collected in different jurisdictions. 
With respect to the role of non-OECD members, five countries were engaged in product safety area 
programmes:   Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa.  Brazil was in the process of 
becoming a regular observer. Beyond the countries with enhanced engagement, Egypt was also a 
regular observer in the consumer policy committee an d working party.   As observers, these countries 
were treated as regular OECD members in that they  were invited to participate in the work, the 
research analysis, and in the policy discussions a nd policy instruments.  Product safety was a global 
issue in need of global solutions.   
52. In response to questions, Mr. Christer Arvi us stressed that while the TBT Agreement 
provided that the appropriate level of protection c ould be set by the individual members themselves, it 
also provided that countries could go further to  establish trans-national arrangements.  Mr. Ramos 
added that the 1958 and 1998 Agreem ents were drafted through an open process with representatives 
of the contracting parties, and governmental a nd non-governmental organizations.  In the area of 
vehicles, this meant that not only the vehicl e manufacturers were present but the association of 
consumers and different bodies that provided comme nts during the process.  Also, the documents 
were freely available on the web for comments.   The idea was to incorporate as many comments and 
views before the regulations were finalized.   
53. Mr. Menon, the Moderator, summarized the key points raised during the discussion.  He 
noted that the spectrum of regulatory cooperation va ried across regions from information exchange to 
harmonization, and therefore, internal coordi nation, including through the use of TBT mirror 
Committees was critical.  The sectoral initiatives, and ad aptation to regional conditions with respect to 
the use of international standards were also highli ghted as important.  He underlined the significance 
of private sector involvement in regulatory coope ration, and the challenges faced by small and 
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) as regulators engage d in cooperation.  Furthe r, he spoke about new 
areas such as sustainable and green growth at a regional level as part of the theme of regulatory cooperation.  He also stressed the significance of  acceptance of test reports and certification and 
harmonization of conformity assessment.  He also  asserted that it was evident from the discussion 
during the session that the development of regional st andards could complement the national standard 
setting process.  He also spoke of the need for t echnical assistance to de veloping countries and LDCs, 
and the requirement for a database on safety fro m the OECD to ensure effective information 
exchange. Finally, he referred to the model of regulatory cooperation under the UNECE, and the co-
existence of parallel agreements under the WP 29 of the UNECE.    
V. SESSION 4:  PANEL ON LESSONS LEARNED 
A. O
PENING REMARKS  
54. The moderator, Mr. Matthew Smith, introduced the panellists, Mr. Bipin Menon, Mr. George 
Opiyo, Mr. Rodrigo de Macedo Pinto, Mr. Jeff Weiss,  Mr. Jan Eric Frydman, and Mr. Xinhua Sun.   
This session was to be an open discussion based on the presentations made during the Workshop, as 
well as participant's experience.  One question to guide comments was the possible role the TBT 
Committee could have in helping Members to furthe r their efforts in regulatory cooperation.  This 
could be looked at in the specific context of th e Sixth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement. 
B. PANEL DISCUSSION  
55. Mr. Sun began by emphasizing the importance of strong political will from high-level 
authorities in order to ensure successful regulator y cooperation.  Another important lesson to be  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 17 
 
 
  learned was that "one-size-does-not-fit-all".  Me mbers should study the spectrum of options and 
choose those that match best their national cond itions. Regulatory cooperation in the TBT context 
took various forms, from exchange of information to regulatory convergence and harmonization.  It 
was also emphasized in several presentations diffe rent national conditions, geographical, climatic, 
infrastructural and technological situations might ma ke it necessary to regulate in different ways.  The 
key was to limit or reduce the costs associated w ith necessary regulatory diversity through, among 
other things, good regulatory cooperation.  He proposed that the TBT Committee discuss some 
guidelines on best practices of regulatory coopera tion between Members, possibly in the context of 
the Sixth Triennial Review of the Agreement.  Me mbers' efforts, such as the EU-US initiative, and 
those of other relevant international organizations could be brought together to form a good basis for 
further discussion in the TBT Committee. 
56. Mr. Menon agreed with Mr. Sun's comments a nd suggestion.  Looking at the matter from the 
point of view of domestic policymakers, he not ed that regulatory cooperation was an important 
ingredient in the various stages of good regulat ory practices (GRP), on the process through which 
Members formulated their technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  This could 
begin with a needs assessment of a particular regula tion; which was the first step of GRP to determine 
whether the regulation was necessary.  After this de termination, an assessment of the objectives of the 
regulation could be carried out.  Part of this assessment could look at whether other Members had 
been able to satisfy their objectives through the regula tion.  Then an analysis of regulatory alternatives 
could be carried out.  Policy makers were gr appling in the TBT area with the multitude of 
international standards around the world.  It was important to hone in on the correct standard to fit the 
national or regional context.  Impact assessment  was also an important element but one where 
developing countries often had capacity constraints and where technical assistance was important both 
in the regional as well as bilateral context.  Followi ng this, there were issues of benchmarking against 
international standards to determine whether an inte rnational standard was relevant or whether it was 
necessary to deviate from the standard.  In additi on, stakeholder consultation was necessary and often 
easier to carry out in a regional or bilateral forum.  Finally, internal coordination was a challenge in 
many countries.  Regulatory cooperation enabled Me mbers to look at different models of internal 
coordination and find the best fit.   
57. Transparency was an important issue with resp ect to regulatory cooperation.  However, there 
was a lack of clarity on the notification requirements of the TBT Agreement, in terms of how to understand what a significant effect on trade was, a nd how to determine if a measure was not based on 
an international standard in the absence of an ag reed set of international standards.  Regulatory 
cooperation should be effective, especially for help ing Members fulfil their multilateral obligations.  
Members needed to find ways to transpose the u seful ideas shared during the workshop into their 
domestic regulatory processes, and see how regul atory cooperation can best address national needs 
and objectives. 
58. Mr. Frydman said that the benefits of regulat ory cooperation included promotion of both the 
aims and implementation of the TBT Agreement.  The Workshop demonstrated that nearly all 
countries were engaged in some fo rm of regional or bilateral regulatory cooperation, that it was a 
useful exercise, and that it was occurring in more or ganized and systematic form s.  Substantial growth 
in organized regulatory cooperation initiatives had occurred over the past 15 years, and he wondered 
how this area would evolve in the coming 15 years.  The two presentations from UNECE showed a 
successful model for global regulatory cooperation,  and he suggested that automobile regulatory 
cooperation occurring in WP29 could be extended to other sectors, following the general model 
established in WP6.  
59. Regarding the role of the TBT Committee, he considered that regulatory cooperation could 
help implement the TBT Agreement in three ways: enhancing transparency; increasing harmonization 
through reinforcing cooperation on the development of  new regulations and on international standard-G/TBT/W/348  
Page 18  
 
  setting; and, reducing or preventing trade problems and serving as a tool to solve those problems.  He 
provided two suggestions for how the TBT Comm ittee could facilitate regulatory cooperation.  
Building on Mr. Sun’s comments, developing an d disseminating best cooperative practices for 
regulatory cooperation could be one role for the Comm ittee.  Given the wide variety in the ways and 
means of regulatory cooperation, a set of best cooperative practices could identify approaches that 
were typically successful, suggest ways to avoid common difficulties, and highlight which solutions 
worked best in different contexts. Practices could be compiled by sector, by region, or by problem.  While acknowledging that "one-size-does-not-fit-a ll", he said these practices could promote new 
means to fruitful regulatory cooperation.  Encourag ing Members to further increase transparency by 
providing information about new and upcoming regula tions on a voluntary basis in the context of the 
Sixth Triennial Review could be another role.  Th is could take the form of sharing work plans, 
legislative agendas or other documents that indicate regulatory work for the upcoming period, which would allow Members to learn about new and upcomi ng regulations earlier, and to be better prepared 
for notifications when they were made.  A web b ased system could be developed to disseminate these 
regulatory agendas as an early warning tool to support regulatory cooperation. 
60. Mr. Opiyo noted with interest that countries we re engaging in regulatory cooperation in areas 
where international standards existed; for example,  China and the EU were cooperating in the area of 
toy safety and quality despite the existence of ISO st andards for toys.  With respect to the presentation 
on the modernization of regulatory techniques from UNECE, there were similar activities on-going amongst East African Community (EAC) members Ke nya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, 
which were seeking to harmonize regulations for inspection, market surveillance, and product 
certification.  In reference to the issue of "one -size-does-not-fit-all", he said that benchmarking 
against models of successful regulatory cooperation, and then adapting the model to one’s particular 
context, was a practical approach.  This followed no rmal practice in the standardization field.  He 
stressed the importance of domestic coordination for regulatory cooperation, and in this respect 
political will was crucial, a message which was repeated throu ghout the Workshop. 
61. Regulatory cooperation in Africa took various fo rms, and he provided some examples of 
bilateral cooperation arrangements between gove rnments, and bilateral cooperation between 
regulatory agencies or authorities.  With respect to  the former, he described two examples: between 
Malaysia and Uganda in the area of standardiza tion; and between Turkey and Uganda through an 
agreement on trade, economic and technical coopera tion, which included direct technical cooperation 
between the Turkish Standards Institution and the Uganda National Bureau of Standards.  With 
respect to the latter, he mentioned a memora ndum of understanding (MOU) between the Uganda 
National Bureau of Standards and the National Metr ology Laboratory of South Africa, as well as an 
MOU between the governments of Uganda and Rw anda, which comprised cooperation between the 
Rwanda Bureau of Standards and Ug anda National Bureau of Standards.   In addition, he highlighted 
the MOU between the Uganda National Bureau of Standards and the American Society for Testing 
Materials (ASTM). 
62. Regional regulatory cooperation also took place in Africa, including within the EAC, within 
the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) in the areas of standards and technical 
cooperation and conformity assessment, and within the Southern African Development Community 
(SADC).  One area where additional efforts were  needed was in regulatory cooperation between 
African and developed countries.  There was an im portant gap given efforts to negotiate market 
access within the WTO.  Without such cooperation,  negotiated market access for African countries 
might not amount to market entry due to requirement s in developed country markets.  This sort of 
regulatory cooperation could help African exports  reach the markets of developed countries.  
63. Mr. Pinto noted that regulatory cooperation rested upon several factors, including, high-level 
commitment, similarity in regulatory regimes, in ternal coordination, confidence between regulators 
and issues relating to resource constraints.  With  respect to high-level commitment, nearly all  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 19 
 
 
  presentations during the Workshop highlighted th e importance of regula tory cooperation being 
supported by political commitment at a high level.  However, this didn't mean that political 
commitment should focus on cooperation with a br oad ambition and scope.  Rather, in its initial 
stages, regulatory cooperation in small areas was most  valuable, and this coul d later be enhanced and 
scaled-up.  For cooperation to be effective it n eeded to be responsive to demand from the trade 
community, regulators and other domestic stakeholders .  Coordination first between interested parties 
was therefore required in order for regulatory coope ration to successfully respond to a clear demand. 
64. He also highlighted the importance of similarity  between partners to enable deeper forms of 
regulatory cooperation.  For example, Australia and New Zealand shared many political, social and 
cultural commonalities, and these factors allowed them to engage in very deep forms of cooperation, 
such as the creation of a common regulatory agency fo r particular sectors.  However, similarities were 
not preconditions for cooperation, and the example of  EU and China cooperation in toys showed that 
two very different WTO Members could successfully cooperate in useful ways.  Likewise, cooperation between Mexico and its NAFTA partne rs led to intensive and deep cooperation, 
notwithstanding challenges that arose due to asymmetry between the capacities of partners, 
highlighting the need for technical assistance in th is respect.  A main lesson was that groups of 
Members were willing to cooperate when they had an interest in facilitating trade between their 
economies, reducing unnecessary diversity between thei r regulations, and enhancing efficiency of the 
private sector and governments.  For example, th e mutual recognition of conformity assessment 
procedures performed by other governments impr oved efficiency of one’s own government. 
65. The TBT Committee already had an important func tion in regulatory cooperation.  It provided 
a forum for Members to exchange  views in areas such as transpar ency, standards, good regulatory 
practises, and in this respect helped Members to better understand each other’s systems, which 
allowed them to engage in more regular and fru itful cooperation.  The current functions of the 
Committee could be intensified, through opport unities such as this Work shop whereby Members 
would present their efforts in this area.  Also, the role of the Committee in disseminating GRP was 
important, since it promoted common principles regarding transparency and accountability, which 
would enable a more effective horizontal approach to  regulatory cooperation.  Article 10.7 of the TBT 
Agreement related to the notification of agreem ents among Members in the areas covered by the 
Agreement.  In his experience, such notifications  were rare.  The Committee could find ways to 
enhance this provision as part of the Sixth Triennial  Review, in order to enhance transparency with 
respect to mutual recognition agreements and other ag reements related to the Agreement.  Ways could 
also be found to share information on regulations prior to formal notification, for example through 
sharing annual work plans or regulatory agendas containing those elements that would be of 
international interest.  Such information sh aring could provide a degree of early notice. 
66. Mr. Menon said that discussions related to the idea of early notice were on-going in the 
NAMA NTB negotiations.  An idea was to change th e notification format of the TBT Agreement to 
allow Members to share more information on a vol untary basis, as a way of capturing all the possible 
stages of the lifecycle of a notification.  The regul atory agenda could be one additional stage in the 
lifecycle.  Another stage could be the final measure  in force; since information on the final measure 
was not notified by Members and was often difficult to  obtain, particularly for SMEs.  Changes to the 
notification format had ramifications for the TB T IMS database, as it would then be updated and 
reflect all additional information that would be captured across the lifecycle of a notification.  
67. Mr Weiss said his government was working closely with Canada and Mexico on a new 
ambitious regulatory cooperation work plans with a high level of ambition.  These plans comprised a 
wide range of different potential mechanisms in different sectors and contexts, including, MRA or 
equivalency approaches, retrospective alignment, prospective alignment, and assisting certification 
bodies to get recognition using similar standards or si milar implementation of in ternational schemes.  
One way to build the necessary politic al will for regulatory cooperati on was to ensure that regulators G/TBT/W/348  
Page 20  
 
  considered regulatory cooperation as a GRP, and an important element of the regulatory process.  In 
the US, the USTR and the Office of Informati on and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) issued a policy 
memorandum asking regulators to consider regu latory cooperation in their normal process of 
regulating.  Although this was not possible in all s ituations, and additional efforts were required, it 
was valuable to begin institutionalizing th e idea of regulatory cooperation as a GRP. 
68. Internal coordination was important for impl ementing the TBT Agreement and for regulatory 
cooperation in general, since it helped Members de velop a coherent national approach as to how to 
regulate for a particular objective.  On this la tter point, internal coordination allowed different 
interested agencies to engage on a regulatory meas ure and be involved in regulatory cooperation.  
Involvement of trade agencies in regulatory coopera tion, although not the primary participants in 
technical discussions, was particularly important because it could ensure that measures adhered to 
international obligations, such as not being more trad e restrictive than necessary for a chosen level of 
protection.  In other words, participation of trade agencies could help avoid a situation where an equal 
level of protection was achieved with a more restri ctive measure.  He said it would be valuable to 
learn about the kinds of processes, mechanisms or institutions that Members use to promote internal 
coordination. 
69. With respect to harmonization within preferen tial trade agreements, there was concern about 
the standards to which they harmonized.  Harmonizati on to regional standards instead of international 
standards could lead to a situation that was more tr ade-restrictive.  This situation could also hinder 
developing countries, in that adopting regional st andards could enhance exports to one region, but 
compromise their ability to export to other regions .  Nonetheless, regional cooperation initiatives and 
dialogues could be very useful in certain circumst ances.  In contexts where relevant international 
standards did not exist, or the standards did not go into specific details, regulatory collaboration 
initiatives could be valuable incubato rs towards developing international approaches.  To this end, US 
regulators and industries participated in various forums, including the Worldwide Trade Group, and 
regulatory collaboration initiatives in  the cosmetics and pharmaceuticals sectors.  These forums could 
minimize unnecessary regulatory divergences at least between groups of participating Members.  In 
the presence of multiple regional initiatives, it was impor tant to find ways to bring them together such 
that each initiative was aware of work being unde rtaken elsewhere, to avoid widely differing 
approaches, and to promote harmonization.  
70. Transparency was important for regulatory cooperation, because the earlier countries knew 
what others were doing, the easier it was to align re gulatory approaches.  It was much easier to align 
with future regulations, rather than aligning regulatio ns that had already been formulated. He stressed 
that outcomes of regulatory cooperation should provide international benefits, in that if two countries 
were cooperating through a transparent process whic h permitted commenting by outside parties, this 
ensured that benefits were not limited and that tr ade restrictive outcomes were avoided.  In this 
respect, he echoed the idea of sharing work plan s or regulatory agendas.  These documents did not 
need to be complicated or exhaustive, but simply  provide a best guess of regulatory activity in the 
next year.  The Committee could discuss guidelines on how to set up a work plan and what to include therein, so that Members could compare the areas in which they were regulating, with the aim of 
finding common areas for planned regulation a nd promoting exchange of information. 
71. Mr. Smith summarized some of the ideas raised by  the Panel in relation to regular work of the 
TBT Committee and in the context of the Sixth Triennial Review.  There was discussion of 
developing best practices for regulatory cooperation a nd for cooperation in general, and how to embed 
regulatory cooperation as a good regulatory practice in domestic government systems.  Panellists 
noted the need to promote better information shari ng with respect to agreements related to the TBT 
Agreement, and also with respect to regulatory ar eas that Members were expecting to address in the 
future.  An updated TBT notification format could capture some of this information and share it  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 21 
 
 
  through a formalized mechanism.  The importance of early engagement before regulatory structures 
were entrenched was stressed, and information sharing to promote this could be valuable. 
C. GENERAL DISCUSSION  
72. The representative of Burkina Faso noted the l ack of representation of a number of African 
countries active in regulatory Cooperation at the Workshop.   Recalling the presentation on New 
Zealand and Australia cooperation, his country w as engaged in a cooperation project with Cote 
d'Ivoire; this bilateral trading relationship represen ted 60 per cent of his country’s trade in goods.  A 
draft standardization agreement was under discussion between the two countries, and related activities 
were on-going.  The experience of New Zealand and Australia provided useful lessons, and gave ideas 
as to how to enhance cooperation with Cote d'Ivoire. 
73. The representative of Bangladesh said that deeper forms of regulatory cooperation depended 
on the capacity of a country.  For example, without cap acity to properly test or certify, countries could 
not participate in mutual recognition or other ki nd of arrangements.  He proposed that the TBT 
Committee consider developing mechanisms for re gulatory Cooperation with specific assistance for 
LDC countries such as Bangladesh to enhan ce capacities in their regulatory regimes. 
74. The representative of Mauritius said his country had received assistance from the World Bank 
to improve its trade competitiveness.  This assistance had been extended to six countries in the region.  
An NTB database for Mauritius had been developed,  which included TBT, SPS and trade facilitation 
measures such as export permits, import permits, and licences affecting trade in six thousand products.  Mauritius was now engaged in streamlining NTMs identified,  in consultation with private 
stakeholders.  A regulatory unit was being estab lished to conduct RIAs, although Mauritius faced 
capacity constraints in this respect.  The represen tative hoped that Mauritius could receive additional 
assistance from the World Bank or from other donor countries or institutions to conduct RIAs.  Also, a trade information portal was under development, to  provide information on all new, amended, and 
old regulations.  This would be used to dissemi nate information to customs authorities and line 
ministries about amendments to new regulations or to old regulations.  Finally, he requested 
assistance from ITC to develop a database for Mauritiu s to help identify NTMs in export markets. 
75. The representative of Antigua and Barbuda explained that standards coordination in 
CARICOM began with a precursor in 1973, and it had been neither a short nor easy process.  A 
central secretariat was located in Barbados.  The resources to operate the secretariat were provided through contributions from CARICOM member states , but the technical work was conducted through 
projects that were funded by various agencies such as the IDB, and through projects with the EU and 
Euromat.  A well-functioning secretariat was essenti al for success, which was the responsibility of 
member states.  Additionally, the creation of a CARICOM single market to allow products and 
services to move freely within that market was an important basis for cooperation.  The associated regional quality infrastructure helped promote the deve lopment of national quality infrastructures;  the 
strength of the regional system depended on the streng th of the weakest national link in that system. 
76. The representative of Brazil said that regulatory  cooperation was challenging, as it needed to 
ensure confidence, quality and protection, while a ddressing obligations of the TBT Agreement and the 
necessity of trade facilitation.  Regarding the Sixth Triennial Review, he said that ways should be 
found to coordinate quality, confidence, protection and trade facilitation, possibly through enhanced 
regulatory cooperation and technical assistance.  Brazil’s cooperation frequently concerned quality 
issues, and that Brazil had engaged in long term bilateral cooperation with Mozambique. 
77. The WTO Secretariat said it was important to separate the acts of regulatory cooperation from 
the reasons for cooperation itself, for example, transp arency, harmonization, or any of the other issues 
that were covered by the TBT Agreement.  With r espect to role of the TBT Committee, added value G/TBT/W/348  
Page 22  
 
  would come from a very focused and clear manda te as to how the Committee could contribute to 
regulatory cooperation work.  From the discussi on, two suggestions could be discerned: the 
Committee discuss best practices with respect to regul atory cooperation; and, that Committee serve as 
a forum to discuss issues on the basis of an early notice type function, in other words issues on which 
cooperation was valuable at an early stage.  The other subjects discussed, such as good regulatory 
practices, transparency, the notification format, in ternational standards, and conformity assessment, 
were relevant to the broader agenda of the Committee. 
78. The representative of Mexico said that the e xperience of the SPS Committee was useful to 
consider.  Given that all Members agreed that re gulatory cooperation activities were desirable, that 
they promoted trade facilitation and that they were in line with the philosophy of the TBT Agreement, 
the Committee should find ways to ensure that re gulatory cooperation tools were recognized in the 
Agreement.  The first step to promoting widespr ead regulatory cooperation was through the exchange 
of experiences amongst Members, which was achieved  in this Workshop.  A longer term objective for 
the Committee could be to develop some form of  recommendations regarding MRAs, along the same 
lines as guidance of the SPS Committ ee on equivalence agreements.  
79. The representative of New Zealand noted that sev eral speakers and panellists had referred to 
developing a set of guidelines or some kind of  documentation that could help Members pursue 
regulatory cooperation.  One of the outcomes of the Fifth Triennial Review was a recommendation to develop a very similar set of guidelines on conformi ty assessment.  This idea was originally proposed 
by New Zealand, and although it was characterized  as conformity assessment work, New Zealand had 
envisaged a much broader set of mechanisms capt uring the lessons learned on regulatory cooperation 
and trying to codify some of the steps that Member s needed to take or consider when they embarked 
on these sorts of initiatives.  In response to the s uggestion of developing new guidelines, she reminded 
Members that a work programme already existed but hadn't progressed.  Discussion during the Workshop could be the impetus to move this work forward. 
80. Mr. Smith asked panellists to share their t houghts on the various activities that could be 
undertaken by the TBT Committee to facilitate the work of reaching out and cooperating with other 
Members.  He also inquired whether panellists had case studies to share, which illustrated how 
Members overcame particular cha llenges to successful cooperation. 
81. Mr. Frydman offered to share the set of EU-US guidelines for regulatory cooperation that 
were developed and adopted in 2002, following an inter-service and inter-agency consultation 
amongst all regulators concerned.  This document benefited from being deve loped over time, and had 
been recognized by regulators as realistic and usef ul.  The document could be a starting point for  
steps regulators should take in regulatory cooperation, a nd the benefits gained at those different steps.  
He also offered to share guidelines for best coopera tive practices that were  developed in 2007 and 
illustrated lessons learned and challenges that could be overcome.  One important challenge for those 
engaged in regulatory cooperation was the need to capture political interest in order to build the 
requisite political will.  Given that regulatory cooperation was legal, detailed and technical, it was 
often difficult to reconcile it with the leaders' po litical visions.  In this respect, balancing between the 
technical aspects and relating it to the vision of the outcomes of cooperation was crucial. 
82. Mr. Pinto suggested that a precursor to deve loping guidelines on regulatory cooperation in the 
WTO context could be a compilation of Member's ex periences, case studies, and internal guidelines 
on regulatory cooperation.  This could be modelled on the Secretariat compilation on GRP.
20  
83. Mr. Opiyo explained the development of in stitutional structures in the East African 
Community similar to those shared by Antigua and Barbuda.  The treaty establishing the EAC 
                                                      
20 G/TBT/W/341  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 23 
 
 
  contained an article providing for cooperation in the areas of standards and conformity assessment.  
This article gave birth to a protocol for cooperation in those areas, which later led to the East African 
Community Act on Standards and Conformity Assess ment.  He agreed it was important to have a 
strong secretariat.  The experience of the EAC showed that progress on harmonization of standards and conformity assessment only occurred after member states committed human and financial 
resources to a dedicated unit of the EAC secretariat. 
84. Mr. Sun noted some Members had agreed with the idea of developing guidelines on 
regulatory Cooperation.  In particular, New Zeala nd and Mexico provided further input on guidelines 
in the areas of conformity assessment and reco mmendations regarding MRAs .  Rgulatory cooperation 
in the TBT context covered a vast range of areas  including standards, technical regulations and 
conformity assessment, and topics such as MRAs, ha rmonization, and convergence.  In this respect, 
there were a number of similar terms like regulat ory convergence, regulatory coherence, regulatory 
alignment and regulatory harmoniza tion.  He suggested Members discuss how to define regulatory 
Cooperation and its terms in the TBT context;  di scussions should emphasize the TBT context so as 
not to complicate work on the guidelines. 
85. The representative of Antigua and Barbuda clarif ied that despite its successes, cooperation in 
CARICOM still faced many challenges.  Political diff erences between member states were sometimes 
presented as technical differences which was probl ematic.  Although the Secretariat may function 
well, there was still much work for the national bodies in Member States, since the regional secretariat 
did not have jurisdiction at the national level.  Fo r example, the National Standards Body of Antigua 
and Barbuda, national policy and tr ade policy makers, officials, a nd representatives needed to be 
aware of work under way at the regional level so  they could support it at the national level.  
86. Mr. Weiss said that if the Committee decided to develop guidelines, they should focus on the 
goal rather than the type of mechanism, b ecause the type would differ depending on the 
circumstances, as was ill ustrated throughout the Workshop.  Rather than guidelines for using 
particular mechanisms, guidelines for Cooperation in general would be most useful; including 
information on mechanisms that may be most appropr iate in a particular context, and what factors 
mattered in choosing a mechanism, given that so me mechanisms were more resource and time 
intensive than others.  If the goal was to ma ximize trade facilitation with least effort, certain 
approaches might achieve half of the objective in  a very short period of time, whereas other 
mechanisms may achieve the full objective, but require years of effort, or be unfeasible.  The 
Committee should take a broader view, focusing on th e goal and the most efficient ways to reach it.  
He added that the US strongly cons idered requests for assistance in areas of capacity constraints.  In 
January 2012 a United States delegation would visit se veral Asian countries to give seminars on legal 
drafting, RIAs, international coordination, and implementation of the TBT Agreement.  These 
requests were infrequent, and he encouraged  interested Members to come forward. 
87. Mr. Smith commented that Members seemed ready and willing to embark on regulatory 
cooperation discussions, provided the environment was right and that resources were available.  In 
fact, all Members seemed to already be engaged at one level or another in talking to other Members 
about differences that existed between their regula tions.  Although Members cooperated differently, 
and despite various mechanisms and terminology for regulatory cooperation, there was a common 
appreciation in the value of ensuring that one's regulatory system interfaced with other countries 
regulatory systems, so to avoid situations where syst ems acted as a barrier to trade.  While similarities 
between partners, in particular in regulatory cultur e, could facilitate regulatory cooperation, it was not 
the decisive factor.  Other more important factors included a shared understanding about the 
objectives of the cooperation arrangement, alignment of  interests for mutual benefit from cooperation, 
and proper framing of the arrangement  especially vis-à-vis other trading partners.  It was easier to 
start with basic forms of cooperation, for example simply talking about how systems might work 
better together.  This built confidence in domes tic regulatory systems, and had a better chance of G/TBT/W/348  
Page 24  
 
  success.  Deeper forms of cooperation, such as form al equivalency or mutual recognition, wherein the 
number of participating countries fell as the level of  commitment to shared systems increased, were 
very attractive from a trade facilitation perspective but  politically difficult with respect to sovereignty 
and the perceptions of other trading partners. 
88. The Canadian experience showed that regul atory cooperation was most interesting to 
regulators when they were able to discuss with their counterparts very specific questions that both 
groups were seeking to address;  this was easiest in areas of novel regulations.  However, cooperation 
efforts could be complicated when political will was not aligned with the direction in which regulators 
believed cooperation would be most fru itful.  In this regard, internal coordination was essential for all 
regulatory cooperation activities.  
89. Mr. Smith concluded that the Workshop had provided a good basis for discussions in the TBT 
Committee over the coming year.  A number of the panellists had offered to further share their 
experiences in regulatory cooperation.  Finally, he  noted interest in developing guidelines for 
regulatory cooperation that could serve  as a resource for WTO Members.   
 
 
_______________ 
  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 25 
 
 
   
ANNEX 1: CHAIRPERSONS SUMMARY REPORT 
 
Report by the Chairperson, Ms Denise Pereira, to the regular meeting of the  
TBT Committee held on 10-11 November 2011 
 
 The TBT Committee held a Workshop on Regul atory Cooperation on 8-9 November 2011.  
Approximately 35 developing country capital-based TB T expert officials were sponsored by the WTO 
through the DDA Global Trust Fund.  In total, over 130 TBT officials attended.  The Workshop 
provided opportunity for Members to share expe riences and information on regulatory cooperation 
efforts, including challenges and opportunities,  as well as discuss the role of the WTO TBT 
Committee in promoting regulatory cooperation, includ ing ideas that could be looked into by the TBT 
Committee for the upcoming 6th Triennial Review. 
 In the first session , the WTO Secretariat reported on work undertaken in the TBT and SPS 
Committees in the area of regulatory cooperation.  With respect to TBT, the role of regulatory 
cooperation in building confidence between trading partners and their regulators, and improving the 
transparency of regulation was underscored.  While certain diversity between national regulations is 
normal given differences between Members, regulat ory cooperation could he lp reduce instances of 
unnecessary diversity, and also reduce the costs associ ated with necessary regulatory diversities.  The 
growth in the number of preferential trade agreemen ts that include TBT related provisions was noted, 
which is illustrative of cooperation on standards,  technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures. While regulatory cooperation is not ex plicitly mentioned in the TBT Agreement, it is 
implicit throughout the various provisions of the agreement and in the work of the TBT Committee 
itself. 
 On the SPS side, the Secretariat described th e provisions of the SPS Agreement that dealt 
with equivalence, as well as work in the SPS Comm ittee that led to the development of guidelines for 
reaching equivalence arrangements.   
 During the second session , Members presented case studies of their regulatory cooperation 
initiatives.  Members emphasized the importance of building confidence and trust between regulators 
in order to foster successful regulatory coopera tion arrangements.  Likewise, high-level political 
commitment to regulatory cooperation was highlighted  as a crucial component.   The experience of 
Members showed that similar institutional structures  or regulatory traditions make deeper forms of 
regulatory cooperation easier.  However, such similarities are not a necessary precondition to 
cooperation; rather it is a mutual interest in achieving a shared policy objective that matters.  
 The importance of being clear about the objec tives of regulatory cooperation efforts from the 
outset was a point that was raised at several inst ances.  Setting objectives to match institutional and 
political contexts will influence the choice of instru ments selected for regulatory cooperation.  The 
range of experiences presented by Members illustrates th at there is no "one size fits all" approach to 
regulatory cooperation.  Members have successfully  cooperated in different settings and sectors, 
through varying methods with va rying levels of ambition, from full harmonization of technical 
regulations to simple information sharing.  The particulars of a given initiative may depend on many 
factors, including the level of trust between re gulators, differences in regulatory capacities and 
regulatory traditions, and the political context for cooperation.  
 Members' experiences showed that ambiti ons for regulatory cooperation can sometimes 
encounter differences between Members with r espect to regulatory systems, capacities, or 
preferences.  But regulatory cooperation initiatives need  not be derailed by these differences.   Part of 
regulatory cooperation is finding other ways to facilitate trade and regulatory compatibility while 
respecting fundamental differences.  Moreover, these differences can contribute to Members learning G/TBT/W/348  
Page 26  
 
  from one another to improve regulatory design.  Re gulatory cooperation should not be seen as a threat 
to national sovereignty or national legislative author ity.  Rather it can be an opportunity to find new 
and more effective ways to facilitate trade while meeting national policy objectives in the context of 
globalized supply chains. 
 One principal goal of regulatory Cooperati on is avoiding unnecessary regulatory differences 
so as to lower trade costs and improve competitiv eness. Regulatory cooperation also helps lower the 
costs of regulating, particularly if it leads to bette r designed and more effective regulation.  Members’ 
presentations emphasized information sharing as an important goal of regul atory cooperation which 
helps regulators to meet shared policy objectives.   For example, information sharing on product 
recalls can operationalize product safety regulations. 
 The discussion also touched upon the need to  address situations wherein the mandate of 
regulatory agencies does not explicitly involve tr ade promotion and may therefore impose certain 
limitations on regulatory coopera tion.  Finally, the session explored some innovative regulatory 
cooperation initiatives, including the planned deve lopment of a joint Australia-New Zealand 
regulatory agency for therapeutic products, and tripartite regulatory cooperation between the 
European Union, China and the United States with respect to toy safety. 
 Session three  included presentations from Members a nd Observers on regulatory cooperation 
initiatives in regional economic organizations, regional standardizing organizations, and 
intergovernmental organizations.  Pr esentations showed that there exis ts a wide spectrum of efforts on 
regulatory cooperation across regions, sectors, and or ganizations. However, in all cases the value of 
strong political commitment, building confiden ce between regulators, and robust domestic 
institutional arrangements were again stressed.  E qually, setting clear regulatory objectives suited to 
regional or sectoral needs was again highlighted. Presentations noted the importance of engagement 
of all key stakeholders in regulatory cooperati on initiatives, particularly the private sector.   
 The session explored the role of sectoral re gulatory cooperation initiatives in ensuring optimal 
conditions for trade.  Members indicated that  sector-specific arrangements for MRAs, mutual 
acceptance of test reports and certification, and harmonization of conformity assessment systems 
(including to international standards), could re duce costs to businesses, lessen time to market, 
encourage more efficient exchange of informa tion, and enhance the transparency, which could 
particularly benefit SMEs and facilitate trade in  general.  Although leve ls of development and 
configuration of regulatory regimes varied betwee n partners, such initiatives could nevertheless be 
effective with political drive and commitment by re gulators, and with only minimal changes to 
domestic regulatory structures. Some examples presented by Members include those of MRAs on 
electrical and electronic products. 
 An important question was the re ference to - or use of - intern ational standards by regional or 
sectoral regulatory cooperation initiatives.  In some  cases regional organizations were developing and 
following regional standards adapted to their partic ular regional conditions and addressing particular 
regional interests, although efforts were made to follow international standards when appropriate.  
Presentations highlighted that the requirement to use international standards wais ideal, but that in 
certain cases, was not absolute, for example, re gional organizations may sometimes deviate from 
international standards due to pa rticular climatic, geographic, or  technological conditions, and some 
sectoral cooperation initiatives may not follow intern ational standards if they would not achieve 
regulatory objectives.  Discussion reflected some of  the specific challenges for regional regulatory 
cooperation, such as building bridges with existi ng national regulatory systems, agreeing on common 
regulatory objectives, and domestic  resistance to integration. 
 The session touched upon the role of capacity building and technical assistance in ensuring 
effective regulatory cooperation.  Training prog rammes and workshops, par ticularly for LDCs, are  G/TBT/W/348  
 Page 27 
 
 
  vital to building confidence and overcoming capac ity constraints and domestic resistance to 
regulatory cooperation.  The model of regulator y cooperation under Work Programme 6 (WP6) was 
discussed, as was regulatory cooperation for auto  standards in UNECE.  The OECD presented 
information sharing efforts under way regarding product safety. 
 The fourth  and concluding session  featured an interactive discussion between six expert 
panellists, the moderator, and Me mbers who took the floor.  The pa nellists and moderator provided 
their impressions of the workshop and lessons lear ned, as well as ideas on new initiatives for the TBT 
Committee to further regulatory cooperation, and potential links to work of the Committee in the 
context of the 6th Triennial Review.  Some of the points ma de by panellists include: the importance of 
well-placed political will for regulatory Cooperation;  that regulatory cooperation should be demand-
driven and derive from domestic coordination;  the link between regulatory cooperation and 
implementation of good regulatory practices (GRP); th e role of regulatory cooperation in furthering 
the implementation of the TBT Agreement; how to  foster regulatory cooperation between regions 
where it is less developed; and the benefits of  focusing regulatory cooperation on emerging policy 
issues where regulatory structur es are not yet entrenched.  
 Some suggestions from panellists for new initiatives for the TBT Committee include the 
development of guidelines for best practices in regulatory cooperation and building on the existing 
role of the TBT Committee by sharing experien ces on regulatory cooperati on under existing agenda 
items.   
 On a personal note, I found the workshop to be very useful.  It was interesting and 
informative to learn more about the regulatory cooperation activities and initiatives that Members are 
engaged in.  A good learning point was that alt hough similarities between Members ease cooperation 
and processes, differences are not necessarily an obstacle.  In fact differences may provide the impetus 
for regulatory innovation that lower costs and improve regulatory efficiency.  On the role of the TBT 
Committee, we know that it already plays an import ant part in multilateral regulatory cooperation.  
From the discussions we had in the workshop, we saw  that there is potential for the Committee to take 
new initiatives to further promote regulatory coopera tion between Members. This, of course, would 
require more work from us, but it is indeed wort h exploring what the Committee can do in this area 
going forward that would add value to our work, to the multilateral trading system, and to global trade 
as a whole.  
 
 
__________