Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements

The report examines the trend of incorporating GRP and IRC provisions into regional trade agreements (RTAs), with a detailed analysis of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). It highlights how the USMCA differs from other agreements like the CPTPP and CETA by making GRP provisions binding, prescriptive, and wide-ranging. The document specifically explores the USMCA's approach to stakeholder engagement and transparency, while warning developing countries about potential 'regulatory chill,' administrative strain, and the disproportionate influence of private sector lobbying.

• The USMCA is currently the only regional trade agreement that makes many of its good regulatory practice (GRP) provisions binding, allowing parties to bring claims through a dispute settlement mechanism for recurring non-implementation.
• The scope of GRP obligations in the USMCA is exceptionally broad, applying to all central-level government agencies responsible for mandatory regulations, regardless of whether the regulations are primarily trade-focused.
• The USMCA's GRP chapter is more prescriptive than the CPTPP, providing specific requirements and process steps for compliance rather than using broad language that leaves implementation to the parties.
• The USMCA extensively incorporates internationally recognized GRPs, addressing nine of the 12 key principles defined in the 2012 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance.
• The USMCA enhances stakeholder engagement by requiring the publication of draft technical regulations and conformity-assessment procedures while they are still under development, a requirement not found in the WTO TBT agreement.
• The USMCA facilitates ex-post regulatory review by allowing interested persons to directly petition regulatory authorities to modify or repeal regulations if they have become ineffective or overly burdensome.
• Developing countries may face 'regulatory chill' under the USMCA framework, where the risk of binding disputes and industry lobbying may discourage governments from implementing legitimate public policy objectives.
• There is a risk that stakeholder engagement provisions in trade agreements may lead to regulatory capture, as private sector actors often have more resources to influence the process than civil society or under-represented groups.
• Unlike the USMCA's focus on GRPs, the EU-Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) emphasizes regulatory cooperation through joint activities and the establishment of a specialized Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF).

APA

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

Chicago

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

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Jose |first1=Rashmi |title=Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=January 2023 |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{jose2023good, author = {Jose, Rashmi}, title = {{Good Regulatory Practice Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2023}, month = jan, 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} }