TPP Countries Backing Non-Binding Notification For Regulatory Co...
[Link]
Daily News
TPP Countries Backing Non-Binding Notification For Regulatory Coherence
Posted: March 29, 2013
The United States and other countries participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations have essentially agreed that obligations in a regulatory coherence chapter will not be subject to dispute settlement, and they are instead coalescing around a proposed reporting requirement on how countries are implementing the chapter's commitments, according to the U.S. lead negotiator on this issue. I think we are at a point where virtually everyone has concluded that dispute settlement is probably not the best option, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Mark Linscott told Inside U.S. Trade after speaking at a March 28 TPP event hosted by the Washington International Trade Association. There's now a lot of traction for this idea of implementation reports as a means to assess how countries are doing in implementing the commitments [on regulatory coherence] and increase understanding of that. In his remarks at the event, Linscott indicated that this question of how to ensure implementation of regulatory coherence commitments is one outstanding issue in the negotiations for this chapter. Linscott signaled that the U.S. supports this notification approach, although it has not yet been fully agreed upon by TPP countries. We think it has a lot of merit, and there seems to be some coalescing and we'll see how it plays out, he said after the event. The original U.S. proposal on regulatory coherence established a series of hortatory commitments related to regulatory reforms, including the obligation for each TPP party to "endeavor" to set up a regulatory coordination mechanism at the central level of government, and to consider establishing a national coordinating body for this purpose, according to a version of the text leaked in October 2011 (Inside U.S. Trade, Nov. 4, 2011). This was the only obligation that the U.S. had proposed subjecting to the TPP dispute settlement, although the leaked text was somewhat ambiguous on this point. Linscott pointed out that the notion of making regulatory coherence obligations subject to regular TPP dispute settlement procedures has limited value added because many of the commitments are written in hortatory language that only calls on signatories to endeavor to live up to them. After the event, Linscott said the TPP regulatory coherence chapter will likely include a requirement for countries to notify what their central regulatory coordination mechanism is. But he said the notification approach being considered by TPP countries is broader in that it would entail implementation reports across the boardabout what countries are doing to follow through with their regulatory coherence obligations and how those efforts can be promoted. He described the notification approach as one under which individual TPP countries would notify their implementation efforts, after which all TPP members would review those efforts, have the opportunity to ask questions, and ideally identify areas where a country needs to do more and may require assistance. Linscott noted that both the dispute settlement approach and the notification approach are different ways of dealing with the same issue of ensuring that TPP countries follow through with their regulatory coherence obligations. USTR earlier this month strongly signaled that most of the provisions in the regulatory coherence chapter have already been agreed to by TPP countries. It did so by listing regulatory coherence as one of four TPP chapters where negotiations are so far advanced that they will not be discussed again by technical experts and will have their outstanding issues taken up in the late stages of the negotiation. One civil society source said the notification approach was proposed by New Zealand at the TPP negotiating round that took place earlier this month in Singapore. New Zealand is leading the charge on regulatory coherence together with the U.S., this source said. The push for each TPP country to have a centralized regulatory coordination mechanism, similar to the U.S. Office of the Information and Regulatory Affairs, is one of four main components of the TPP regulatory coherence chapter,
1/2
2013/03/30 17:50
TPP Countries Backing Non-Binding Notification For Regulatory Co...
[Link]
according to Linscott. All four components are included in the leaked U.S. proposal from October 2011. The second component is to encourage countries to use regulatory impact assessments to determine whether a proposed regulation is the best to meet the country's objective, he said. Such assessments may include a cost-benefit analysis, appropriate risk management, and an evaluation of the trade impacts of the regulation, he added. Linscott said the third element is for each TPP country to have a process for periodic stocktaking of past regulations in order to determine whether they are still relevant and what has been their impact, including on trade. The final element is for each TPP country to provide periodic regulatory forecasts of what regulations it is planning to issue, Linscott said. The leaked U.S. proposal called on TPP countries to publish this regulatory agenda on an annual basis and include any covered measure that it reasonably expects its regulatory authorities to issue within no less than the following twelve-month period. Linscott said the chapter would also set up a committee on regulatory coherence, which would be charged with developing action plans, priorities and sectoral initiatives. The committee would also receive notifications from TPP countries on actions taken, carry out periodic reviews of the chapter, and make recommendations, he added.
1996-2013. Inside Washington Publishers Web Design by Blue Water Media
2/2
2013/03/30 17:50