Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements

This IISD report analyzes the inclusion of Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) and International Regulatory Cooperation (IRC) provisions in regional trade agreements (RTAs), with a primary focus on the USMCA and a comparison with CETA. It examines how these provisions aim to reduce non-tariff trade costs and improve regulatory transparency and stakeholder engagement, while highlighting the administrative and political challenges these obligations may pose for developing countries.

• Non-tariff measures (NTMs), specifically technical barriers to trade (TBT) and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, have become a more significant source of trade costs as tariffs have decreased.
• The report distinguishes between Good Regulatory Practices (GRP), which focus on the internal processes of developing regulation, and International Regulatory Cooperation (IRC), which focuses on collaboration between countries to align or exchange information on regulations.
• The USMCA is characterized as having more ambitious, prescriptive, and wide-ranging GRP provisions compared to other agreements, and notably, these provisions are subject to dispute settlement.
• The USMCA expands stakeholder engagement by requiring the publication of draft regulations, regulatory impact assessments (RIAs), and the data relied upon, and by allowing interested persons from other parties to submit comments on equal terms with domestic parties.
• Unlike some other agreements, the USMCA establishes formal mechanisms for ex-post regulatory review, allowing interested persons to petition for the modification or repeal of regulations that have become ineffective or overly burdensome.
• CETA's approach to regulatory cooperation is more voluntary and focuses on the exchange of experiences and the establishment of a specialized Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF).
• Developing countries may face significant administrative strain when implementing high-ambition GRP provisions due to a lack of capacity and resources.
• There is a risk of 'regulatory chill,' where the threat of disputes or the pressure from foreign industry lobbyists using transparency provisions may discourage developing countries from implementing legitimate public policy or environmental regulations.
• The report warns that stakeholder engagement processes can be disproportionately influenced by private sector actors who possess more resources than civil society groups.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (n.d.). Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-01/regional-trade-agreements-developing-countries.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements. n.d. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-01/regional-trade-agreements-developing-countries.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-01/regional-trade-agreements-developing-countries.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopmentndgood, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-01/regional-trade-agreements-developing-countries.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }