1. Regulatory Cooperation in ASEAN Good Agricultural Practices
Catherine Frances Corpuz
Senior Program Officer, AADCP II
31 October 2019
Yangon, Myanmar

2. Agriculture in ASEAN
• The value of ASEAN agri-based exports, both within and outside the region,
grew significantly, but the share of intra-ASEAN exports of agri-based products
over total ASEAN exports has stagnated.
• As trade tariffs have fallen in the region for most sectors but NTBs and TBTs,
notably product standards and certification are considered to be the most
significant obstacles to expanding intra-ASEAN trade.
o High incidence of NTMs in the food sector (Chaponniere and Lautier,
2016; Sally, 2014; RSIS, 2013);
o They attract a higher level of regulations for food safety or food security
reasons (Duval and Feyler, 2016; Chaponniere and Lautier, 2016); and
o Diverse national standards and regulations (RSIS, 2013; Pettman, 2013;
USAID, 2013; Norani, 2014).

3. Common International Standards
• The SPS Agreement requires that SPS measures adopted by WTO members must
be based on a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances, using
techniques developed by one of the three formally recognised international
standard setting bodies, namely:
o Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) – food safety and quality standards
o World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) – standards relating to animal
health and zoonoses
o International Plant Health Convention (IPHC) – standards pertaining to
plant health
• The TBT Agreement covers regulations, standards and testing and certification
procedures in general that are not covered by the SPS (e.g. packaging and
labelling aspects not related to food safety).

4. ASEAN Agri-Food Standards and Guidelines
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) refer to approaches, which address
the sustainability of on-farm processes, to ensure safety and quality of
food and non-food agricultural products (FAO, 2003)

5. • ASEAN Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) for fruits and vegetables:
o food safety
o environmental management
o worker health/safety/welfare
o produce quality
• ASEAN Good Aquaculture Practice (GAqP) for food fish
o food safety
o animal health and welfare
o environmental integrity
o socioeconomic aspects
• ASEAN Good Animal Husbandry Practice (GAHP) for broilers and layers
o food Safety
Coverage of the Standards and Guidelines

6. • Regulatory heterogeneity among AMS is a challenge for harmonising standards as
well the certification and accreditation processes;
• Standards must also be properly and consistently implemented and enforced;
• Lack of awareness among farmers and producers;
• Costs and risks associated with the adoption of the standards and guidelines;
• Small farmers require stronger linkage to supply chains;
• Aligning ASEAN agri-food standards with extra-ASEAN standards;
• Quality assurance inconsistencies across borders also create uncertainty for
buyers, limiting their demand for agri-food products from within the region.
Implementation Bottlenecks

7. • A Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) is an arrangement or agreement between
countries to establish a framework for acceptance of differences in trade partners’ standards
and/or conformity assessment bodies based on a reasonable determination that an
appropriate level of protection (to consumers, plants/animals, environment, and/or workers)
can be provided.
• An alternative to an MRA to achieve at least a similar level of standards integration is
‘harmonization’ of standards. Harmonization involves the relevant standards in one country
being written and enforced exactly the same as in a trade partner country.
 Given the variation of current standards across ASEAN, full harmonization of production
standards across all ten AMS may not be an achievable objective in the foreseeable future.
However, the proposed MRA does introduce an element of the principal of harmonization
related to recognition of conformity assessment bodies, as all AMS shall meet the relevant
international standards (ISO).
ASEAN Agri-food MRA

8. Inclusive Way Forward
Diagram taken from: GOMA Project, 2012

9. Three regional consultations with AMS delegates to present and deliberate MRA model options

10. Assessment of the Proposed MRA
Criteria Assessment
Governance
Risks
Few governance risks foreseen relative to other available models, as all AMS shall be engaged in the MRA implementation mechanisms regardless of
readiness status. AMS representatives shall control voting rights on the JSC. A procedure for selecting private sector representatives will have to be agreed
and maintained to avoid perceived favoritism/bias.
Compatibility with existing
ASEAN Institutions
All 10 AMS will be invited and encouraged to sign and participate in the implementation mechanisms, consistent with the ASEAN Framework Agreement
on MRAs. Additionally, recognition of CABs will be conducted in a manner consistent with the ASEAN Guidelines for Accreditation and Conformity
Assessment
Compatibility with existing AMS
institutions
The Unconditional Plurilateral option is compatible with all 10 AMS institutional capacity, as they may participate on, and help shape the MRA from day 1
regardless of capacity.
Capacity Requirements
Two Milestones must be met by AMS for full participation (e.g. import and export benefits):
1) At least one National Standard is upgraded to align with ASEAN Standards, 2) CAB upgrading to meet relevant international standards.
Trade Enhancement Effects
Aggregate trade enhancement impacts are expected to grow as the full engagement of all member states in the arrangement increases. Integrating views
and concerns of the private sector may bolster the positive impact on trade.
Successful implementation in
other jurisdictions
Plurilateral agreements are successfully operating among subsets of WTO Members, such as WTO “Revised Agreement on Government Procurement.”
Other existing ASEAN Sectoral MRAs have successfully engaged the private sector, including the MRA on Electrical and Electronic Equipment, the MRA on
Cosmetics, and the MRA on Tourism Professionals.
Implementation Costs
There should be little supra-national implementation costs at the operational level. The most significant implementation costs will include capacity
building in less-developed AMS to support their efforts to meet Milestone 1 and 2. Additional implementation costs should be assumed for
outreach/awareness building among producers and buyers across the 10 AMS.
Implementation Risks The Unconditional Plurilateral approach reduces risks of implementation delays, and enables ready AMS to engage immediately.
Farm-level Impacts
Smallholder capacity building is necessary across AMS to support ASEAN Standards compliance. Engaging buy-side actors may result in their promotion of
the ASEAN Standards to their suppliers, creating a market-based incentive for farm-level uptake.
Inclusiveness
The Unconditional Plurilateral option provides all AMS voting representation on the JSC and TCs from Day 1, regardless of capacity. Nonetheless, further-
developed AMS are likely to be more active in the early stages of implementation while less-developed AMS seek to comply with Milestone 1 and
Milestone 2. Resource distribution, national exchanges, and capacity building will be necessary to ensure less-developed AMS are not neglected and are
supported to meet Milestone 1 and Milestone 2 in a timely fashion.

11. The Multilateral Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of Agri-food Standards and
Conformity Assessment (MAMRASCA)
• Provides a framework for accepting differences in national standards and
conformity assessment bodies across ASEAN, provided certain conditions
(milestones) are met by Member States.
• All 10 AMS will participate in the implementation and oversight of MAMRASCA
upon signing.
• AMS may increase their participation on a phased basis, once they meet the
required milestones.
Proposed MRA Model: MAMRASCA

12. • Milestone 1: AMS will undergo an agreed standards assessment process to ensure
national standards are aligned with the ASEAN standards, or they may choose to
adopt the ASEAN Standards. The agreed principles and procedures for standards
alignment are:
o Principles for Alignment: Consistency, Objectivity, Transparency, and Expert Consultation.
o Instruments for Alignment: Alignment Assessment Matrix, and Guide for Standards
Alignment (developed by EWG-OA and EWG-GAP)
o Procedures for Alignment: 1) AMS Self-Assessment, 2) Peer Review with Technical
Committee, 3) Resolution of Issues and Group Validation with JSC
• Milestone 2: AMS will verify that national Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs)
including accreditation bodies, certification bodies, labs, and testing facilities
adhere to relevant international standards (consistent with the ASEAN Guidelines
for Accreditation and Conformity Assessment)
Readiness Milestones

13. • Joint Sectoral Committee (JSC): the primary regional
institution comprised of one representative from each AMS.
The JSC will promote and raise awareness of MAMRASCA,
facilitate standards alignment assessments, and list/de-list
conformity assessment bodies.
• Technical Committees (TCs): sector-specific regional
institutions comprised of one expert representative from
each AMS. The TCs will regularly review/revise the ASEAN
Standards, conduct peer reviews for standards alignment
assessments, and carry out sector-specific workplans.
• Designating Bodies (DBs): national level institution
appointed in each AMS tasked with identifying, nominating,
and monitoring conformity assessments operating within
their jurisdiction for listing on MAMRASCA.
Institutional Arrangements

14. • Among the most significant challenges facing the proliferation of the ASEAN
Standards across AMS is limited awareness, and therefore limited demand from
private sector buyers.
 If buyers don’t require compliance with a particular standard from their suppliers
then there is no incentive for the farmer/producer to adopt the standard.
• Engaging private sector stakeholders in food production, sourcing, trading, and
marketing functions across the ASEAN region will promote buyer awareness,
expand buy-in, and increase producer uptake
 A select group of regional buy-side and supply-side companies, and member-based
organizations representing agribusiness interests across AMS will be invited to
participate in an observer/advisory role on the sector specific Technical
Committees.
Private Sector Engagement

15. • For developing AMS, the implementation of MAMRASCA will not immediately
open up agri-food markets that were previously difficult to access.
• MAMRASCA should also not be expected to be a panacea for buyers. It is expected
that many private sector food buyers will continue to rely on private voluntary
standards, their own proprietary commercial standards, internationally recognized
ethical standards, and product quality standards.
• Developed AMS need not fear that implementation of MAMRASCA will lead to the
reduction of their own national standards or an inability to enforce other
regulations currently on the books related to imported foods.
Managing Expectations

16. • Establish an MRA Task Force
o Oversee drafting of MRA Text
• Conduct a Needs Assessment
o To identify specific institutional upgrading, capacity building requirements for
AMS to meet the two readiness milestones.
o To better inform AMS of their institutional commitments, and will support the
ability to identify and secure funding for developing AMS to upgrade.
Pre-Signature Steps to Establishing MAMRASCA

17. • Domestic Ratification
o Includes any legislative changes necessary to implement MAMRASCA would be
implemented (but none are expected for AMS to implement MAMRASCA).
o Other domestic ratification steps necessary that will be specific to each AMS
based on their sovereign governmental processes (TBD by each AMS).
• Establish MAMRASCA Institutions
o Dissolve MRA Task Force and establish the JSC and TCs
o Each AMS will appoint an agency as a Designating Body for the purpose of
nominating and monitoring conformity assessment bodies in their jurisdiction.
• Technical assistance for relevant stakeholders and MRA promotional campaign
Post-Signature Steps to Establishing MAMRASCA

18. To fully benefit, AMS must :
• Enhance cooperation and transparency within and across national government
departments, between ASEAN committees and bodies, and between AMS;
• Endorse science-based international standards as the basis for regional measures
and minimise specific national provisions in otherwise ‘common’ ASEAN or global
standards;
• Enhance technical expertise and the related infrastructure for conformity
assessment; and,
• Demonstrate political commitment at the highest levels to regulatory reform and
harmonisation.
Challenges in Regulatory Cooperation

19. For more information, contact the ASEAN Secretariat’s Food Agriculture and
Forestry Division at NRU@asean.org or the ASEAN-Australia Development
Cooperation Program at contact@aadcp2.org