Project Completion Report
Please submit through your APEC Secretariat Program Director within 2 months of project
completion.
SECTION A: Project profile
Project number & title:
Time period covered
in report:
Committee / WG / Fora:
Project Overseer Name /
Organization / Economy:
CTI 11 12A APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation
Skills on SPS
Date submitted: January
March 2012 – March 2013
27th,
2013
Committee on Trade and Investment
Mrs Pham Quynh Mai
Multilateral Trade Policy Department, Ministry of Industry and Trade
Viet Nam
SECTION B: Project report and reflection
Briefly answer each of the questions below. Section B should be a maximum of 2-3 pages, inclusive of
the questions and tables provided.
1. Project description: In 3-4 sentences, describe the project and its main objectives.
This project is one of the activities under the Action Plan Framework for Regional Economic Integration (REI)
Capacity Building Needs Initiative (CBNI) initiated and proposed by Korea since 2010.
This project aims at:

Increased knowledge and capacity of negotiators and policymakers, with practical relevance, to
participate in SPS negotiations; Increased knowledge of reference sources in SPS (academic references;
feasibility studies and texts of FTAs that have been implemented);

Share best practices and experiences in preparing for RTAs/FTAs negotiations and for a vision of an
FTAAP;

Identify domestic issues to be addressed (regulations/ policies), including unnecessary SPS related
barriers to trade, to prepare for participation in FTAs/FTAAP;
2. Meeting your objectives: Were the proposed objectives of the project met? If so, please describe how. If
not, please include any major changes to the proposed scope of the project. Please outline any problems
you may have encountered that resulted in delays to the delivery of the activity.
Through the presentations of speakers and active engagement of participants, the proposed objectives of the
Training Course were duly met.
3. Evaluation: Describe how you evaluated the project upon completion? Detail the results of the
evaluations conducted, if any (e.g. participant evaluation, peer review of publication, measurement of
indicators, statistics demonstrating use of outputs etc.).
At the end of the Training Course, an evaluation form was circulated to all participants to comment on the
outcomes of the Training Course. The organizing committee compiled all comments and reflected them into the
final report, which was submitted to the APEC Secretariat for CTI’s circulation and information on January 14th,
2013.
The Project Organizers would also evaluate the project effectiveness by sending out the follow-up survey to
participants in March 2013 after conducting the Training Course. Participants will be asked to fill in the survey on
information such as their improvements in terms of skills and knowledge after the Training Course, improvements
in their work performance (if any) with the increased knowledge and skills, etc. If possible, participants may
provide in the survey the application of the skills and knowledge that they gain from the Training Course in their
current SPS negotiations. Participants will be requested to to return the filled-in evaluation form to the Project
Organizers in the last week of March 2013.
1
4. Key findings: Describe the main outputs delivered and any broader outcomes achieved as a result of this
project. For example have there been any capacity building outcomes, policy or operational changes, or
changes to standards or systems as a result of this activity? Describe how project outputs relate to
fora/sub fora/working group strategic and medium-term priorities and strategic priorities. Please provide
examples of important findings or lessons learned arising from the project.
Main outputs of the project are a set of Training Course materials that might be used as a reference tools for
current and potential negotiators that will or have participated in SPS negotiations. Another output of the project is
a summary report which is attached as appendix D of this completion report.
The Project is under the Action Plan Framework for Regional Economic Integration (REI) Capacity Building Needs
Initiative (CBNI) to strengthen and deepen regional economic integration, and facilitating the realization of FTAAP.
This project was designed to put into action APEC Ministers’ instructions to build capacity to strengthen and deepen
REI, and to facilitate the realization of FTAAP (APEC 2011 Ministerial Meeting statement).
5. Next steps: Describe any follow-up steps or projects that are planned following the completion of the
activity such as post-activity evaluations or tracer studies planned to assess the impact of this activity?
Have the results of the activity been disseminated to participants and other stakeholders and how? What
are (if any) any flow-on effects from this activity? How will this activity inform any future APEC activities?
As mentioned in the Summary Report, it is highly recommended to further this kind of Training Course within
APEC in forms of the training course on negotiation skills/techniques.
With regard to this project, the 2nd evaluation form was formulated and will be circulated to all participants during
the week of March 04th, 2013 for filling and comments to assess the impact of the Training Course. Based on the
summary report and this responsed evaluation, the project overseers will consider and proposed future activities
under the REI CBNI.
6. Feedback for the Secretariat: Do you have any suggestions for more effective management of projects in
the future? Any assessment of consultants, experts or participants that you would like to share? (The
Secretariat collates and examines feedback to identify trends for ongoing evaluation of our project management
and/or communications systems.)
The PO would like to thanh the APEC Secretariat, especially Ms Catherine Wong (Program Director) and Ms
Mary Tan (Program Executive), for their cooperation and effective management of this project.
2
7. Participant information: Please provide details, where applicable. Insert rows as needed.
# female
Details (further details please see the
Economy
# male
Australia
1
Speaker
Chile
1
Participants
Indonesia
1
Participant List)
1
2 participants
Korea
1
Participant
Malaysia
1
Participant
Mexico
1
Participant
New Zealand
1
Participant
The Philippines
1
Russia
1
1
1 speaker, 1 participant
Participant
Singapore
2
Participants
Chinese Taipei
2
Participants
Thailand
2
Participants
USA
1
Viet Nam
17
Speaker
9
Other:
OECD
Viet Nam Chamber of
2 speakers and 24 participants
1
Speaker
2
1 speaker, 1 participant
Commerce and Industry
Food and Agriculture
1
Participant
Organization of the United
Nations
Total
25
25
8. Outputs: Please provide details, where applicable. Change headings or insert rows as needed.
# planned
# actual
# of workshops / events
01
01
# of publications distributed
N/A
# of CDs distributed
N/A
# of websites created
N/A
Details
SECTION C: Budget
Attach a detailed breakdown of the APEC- provided project budget, including:
 Planned costs (using most recently approved budget figures): 118,548 USD
 Actual expenditures: Please work with the APEC Secretariat as PO is not sure of the payment paid to
APEC-funded speakers and participants
All Figures in USD
# of Units
Unit Rate
APEC Funding
(planned)
APEC Funding
(actual)
3
All Figures in USD
# of Units
Unit Rate
APEC Funding
(planned)
APEC Funding
(actual)
Speaker’s honorarium
(government officials
ineligible)
6
1,000/ person
6,000
1,000
Short-term clerical fees
50 hours (3
persons)
20 USD
3,000
3,000
Contractor (including
Researcher) fees
100 hours (2
persons)
80 USD
12,000
12,000
Contractor’s secretary fees
80 hours (2
persons)
20 USD
3,200
3,200
Per Diem of speakers (incl.
accommodation and “75%
additional payment”)
6 persons for
4.75 days
164 USD/day
4,674
Information on
actual
expenditure will
be provided by
the APEC
Secretariat
Airfare of speakers
6 persons
3,500
(average)
21,000
Information on
actual
expenditure will
be provided by
the APEC
Secretariat
Per diem (incl.
accommodations and “75%
additional payment”)
20 persons for
4.75 days
164 USD/day
15,580
Information on
actual
expenditure will
be provided by
the APEC
Secretariat
Airfare (restricted economy
class)
20 persons
43,094
Information on
actual
expenditure will
be provided by
the APEC
Secretariat
Photocopying
25,000 copies
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
9,000
6,000
0,1
USD/page
Communications (telephone,
fax, mail, courrier)
Hosting (provide breakdown,
e.g., room rental, stationery)
(units as
appropriate)
3,500 x 3
days
4
COMPLETION REPORT

Variance notes: An explanation of any budget line under- or over-spent by 20% or more.
SECTION D: Appendices or additions
Please attach any of the following. This information will help us better understand your project, support
overseers of similar projects and plan for future projects.

List of experts or consultants utilized, with job titles and contact details, gender disaggregated
where possible.





List of participants, with job titles and contact details
Event agendas
Links to any relevant websites or online material (e.g. reports, resources created)
Results of participant feedback or other project evaluation (raw and/or analyzed)
Any other relevant information or resources that would help us learn more about your project
FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLY APEC comments: Were APEC project guidelines followed? Could
the project have been managed more effectively or easily by the PO?
5
COMPLETION REPORT
APPENDIX A
List of speakers or consultants utilized
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
USA
Mr
Richard D.
White
Consultant, RDW Global
Consulting
Australia
Mr
Dominic Pyne
Counsellor (Agriculture),
Australia Embassy in
Bangkok
OECD
Ms
Linda Fulponi
Senior Economist
The
Philippines
Ms
Carolyn Castro
Planning Officer IV, Policy
Research Service,
Department of Agriculture
Viet Nam
Dr
Nguyen Thi Thu
Trang
Deputy Director, Vietnam
Chamber of Commerce
and Industry
Viet Nam
Dr
Le Thanh Hoa
Deputy Director, SPS
Office
leehoa@gmail.com
Viet Nam
Mr
Tran Viet
Cuong
Program Officer, SPS
Office
Cuongtv.htqt@mard.gov.vn
Nguyen Hong
Ngoc
Consultant
Viet Nam
Ms
Richard.d.white@gmail.com
Dom.pyne@dfat.gov.au
Linda.fulponi@oecd.org
Allenccastro16@yahoo.com
Note: Carolyn is funded as
travel-eligible participant
trangntt.hanvcci@gmail.com
ngocnguyen3310@gmail.com
6
COMPLETION REPORT
APPENDIX B
List of participants
1
Chile
2
Malaysia
3
Phillipines
4
Mr
Fernando Acuna
Advisor SPS Issues
General Directorate of
International Economic Affairs,
Regulatory Department
facuna@direcon.gob.cl
Rozilawati binti
Mohd Azman
Assistant Director
Department of Agriculture,
Malaysia
rozilawati.azman@gmail.com
Mr
Gerald Glenn
Panganiban
Plant Quarantine
Officer
Bureau of Plant Industry
gerald_glenn97@hotmail.com
Phillipines
Ms
Carolyn C.
Castro
Planning Officer IV
Policy Research Service,
Department of Agriculture
allenccastro16@yahoo.com
5
Russia
Mr
ALEXEY
SLEPCHENKO
Deputy head of the
Department
Federal Service for Consumers’
Rights Protection and Human
Well-Being of the Russian
Federation (Rospotrebnadzor)/
State Sanitary Surveillance
organization
slepchenko_av@gsen.ru;
alltheus@mail.ru
6
Thailand
Nalintib
Homvisetvongsa
Trade officer,
Professional Level
Ministry of Commerce/
Department of Trade Negotiations
Nalintibh@dtn.go.th;
Nukeng@yahoo.com
7
Thailand
Ms
Walaikorn
Rattanadechakul
Agricultural
Research Officer,
Senior Professional
Level
Plant Protection Research and
Development Office/ Department
of Agriculture/ Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives
walaikornr@yahoo.com
8
Indonesia
Ms
Sophia
Setyawati
Deputy Director for
Quarantine
Cooperation
Indonesia Agricultural Quarantine
Agency
sophia_setyawati@yahoo.com
7
COMPLETION REPORT
9
Indonesia
Mr
Mohamad Iqbal
Djamil
Assistant Deputy
Director for Trade in
APEC
Directorate of APEC and Other
International Organizations
Cooperation, Ministry of Trade
iqbal.djamil@gmail.com
10
Mexico
Mr
Rubisel
Velazquez Lugo
Department Chief for
Negotiations of
Sanitary and
Phytosanitary
Measures
Direction General of International
Trade Rules, Undersecretary of
Foreign Trade, Secretary of
Economy
rubisel.velazquez@economia.gob.
mx
OTHER PARTICIPANTS
1
Singapore
Ms
Sarah Soon
Assistant Director
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Sarah_soon@mti.gov.vn
2
Singapore
Ms
Jiaying Su
Assistant Director
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Su_jiaying@mti.gov.vn
3
Chinese
Taipei
Ms
Yi-ting Kao
Section Chief
Taiwan Food and Drug
Administration
Emily.kao@fda.gov.tw
4
Chinese
Taipei
Ms
Wha-shin Hsu
Section Chief
5
Viet Nam
Mr
Hoang Van Phuong
Director
6
Viet Nam
Ms
Phung Thi Lan Phuong
Officer
7
Viet Nam
Ms
Pham Thi Phuong
Bureau of Animal and Plant Health
Inspection and Quarantine, Council
of Agriculture, Executive Yuan
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Vietnam Chamber of Commerce
and Industry
Ministry of Industry and Trade
8
Viet Nam
Ms
Tran Thuy Dung
Viet Nam SPS Office
Dungtt.htqt@mard.gov.vn
9
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Van Canh
Official
Ministry of Industry and Trade
canhnc@moit.gov.vn
10
Viet Nam
Mr
Tran Huu Cuong
Deputy Dean
Ha Noi University for Agriculture
trancuong@hua.edu.vn
11
Viet Nam
Ms
Do Tuyet Mai
Lecturer
Ha Noi University for Agriculture
Dotuyetmai88@gmail.com
12
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Duc Bach
Lecturer
Ha Noi University for Agriculture
ndbach@hua.edu.vn
13
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Xuan Canh
Lecturer
xuancanh@gmail.com
14
Viet Nam
Mr
Tran Viet Phuong
Official
Ha Noi University for Agriculture
Ministry of Industry and Trade/
Europe Department
wshsu@mail.baphiq.gov.tw
phuonghv@moit.gov.vn
phuongptl@vcci.com.vn
phuongpth@moit.gov.vn
phuongtvi@moit.gov.vn
8
COMPLETION REPORT
15
Viet Nam
Mr
Le Phuong
Official
Ministry of Industry and
Trade/Department on Africa, West
Asia and South Asia
phuongl@moit.gov.vn
16
Viet Nam
Ms
Nguyen Tu Anh
Official
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Anhnguyen_gmul@yahoo.com
17
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Duc Minh
Official
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Nguyenminh2011@gmail.com
18
Viet Nam
Ms
Nguyen Man Ha Anh
Official
19
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Phu Thai
Deputy Director
20
Viet Nam
Mr
Tran Phuong
Deputy Director
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
phuongkh@dah.gov.vn
21
Viet Nam
Mr
Bui Hong Duong
Director
Ministry of Industry and Trade
duongbh@moit.gov.vn
22
Viet Nam
Mr
Do Ngoc Hung
Director
Ministry of Industry and Trade
hungdn@moit.gov.vn
23
Viet Nam
Ms
Ho Thi Kim Chi
Deputy Director
Ministry of Industry and Trade
chihk@moit.gov.vn
24
Viet Nam
Mr
Do Duy Khanh
Official
Ministry of Industry and Trade
khanhdd@moit.gov.vn
25
Viet Nam
Mr
Le Tuan Anh
Official
Anh.le@neu.edu.vn
26
Viet Nam
Mr
Nguyen Thanh Long
Official
27
Viet Nam
New
Zealand
Ms
Vuong Khanh Ly
Mr
Alistair Crozier
Official
Deputy Head of
Mission
National Economic University
National Committee for
International Economic Integration
Embassy of Korea to Viet Nam
Embassy of New Zealand to Viet
Nam
28
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
manhaanh@gmail.com
Ngphth2000@yahoo.com.au
longnt@moit.gov.vn
CROZIER, Alistair (HAN)
[Alistair.Crozier@mfat.govt.nz]
9
COMPLETION REPORT
APPENDIX C
Agenda of the Training Course
APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation Skills on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS)
Date: December 17th – 18th, 2012
Venue: Pullman Hotel, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
Monday, December 17th, 2012
Time
9:00 – 9:30
9:30 – 9:45
Schedule
Registration
Opening Remarks
by H.E. Mr. Tran Quoc Khanh, Vice Minister of Industry and Trade, Viet Nam
Day 1: - Understanding SPS Chapter/ Provisions
-
Prepare for Negotiating SPS Provisions/ Chapter in an FTA
Moderator:
Ms Pham Quynh Mai, Deputy Director General, Multilateral Trade Policy Department, Ministry of Industry and
Trade, Viet Nam
The necessity of having SPS Provisions/Chapter in FTAs
The presentation(s) will review the use of SPS as disguised trade measures and its impact
on fair trade
9:45 – 10:30
Case studies on the applications of SPS measures on imported goods in developed and
developing economies
-
Mr Dominic Pyne, Counsellor (Agriculture), The Australia Embassy in Bangkok
Dr Le Thanh Hoa, Deputy Director, SPS Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Viet Nam
10:30 – 11:00
Discussions
11:00 – 11:15
Coffee Break
SPS Provisions/Chapter in FTAs
11:15 – 11:45
Speakers will present several side agreements on SPS and/or texts of the FTAs relating to
SPS
10
COMPLETION REPORT
-
Ms Linda Fulponi, Senior Economist, Trade and Agriculture Directorate,
Agricultural Markets and Trade, OECD
11:45 – 12:15
Discussions
12:15 – 14:00
Lunch
Moderator:
Ms Linda Fulponi, Senior Economist, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Agricultural Markets and Trade, OECD
Experiences in Coordination and Stakeholder Consultation
15:10 – 15:40
Mr Richard D. White, RDW Global Consulting, the United States
Ms Carolyn C. Castro, Planning Officer IV, Policy Research Service, Department of
Agriculture, Philippines
- Dr Nguyen Thi Thu Trang, Legal Department, Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
Discussions
15:40 – 16:00
Coffee Break
14:00 – 15:10
16:00 – 16:30
-
Best Practices in negotiating SPS Provisions/ Chapter in an FTA
-
Mr Richard D. White, RDW Global Consulting, the United States
16:30 – 17:00
Discussions
17:00 – 17:30
Introduction of the simiulation exercise of Day 2
11
COMPLETION REPORT
Tuesday, December 18th, 2012
Time
Schedule
Day 2:
-
Mock negotiation
Post-negotiation implementation
Moderator: Mr Richard D. White, RDW Global Consulting, the United States
9:30 – 11:30
Mock negotiation
(Coffee and snack is served outside of the Conference room at 10.30 AM)
11:30 – 12:00
Lessons from mock negotiation
12:00 – 14:00
Lunch
Best Practices in Post-negotiation Implementation
(Action plan, legislative action plan, cost/opportunities/benefit analysis, dissemination,
review)
14:00 – 15:30
-
Mr Dominic Pyne, Counsellor (Agriculture), The Australia Embassy in Bangkok
-
Mr Tran Viet Cuong, Program Officer, SPS Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Viet Nam
-
Ms Linda Fulponi, Senior Economist, Trade and Agriculture Directorate,
Agricultural Markets and Trade, OECD
15:30 – 16:00
Discussions
16:00 – 16:15
Coffee Break
16:15 – 17:00
Training Course’s Wrap-up and Recommendations for Next Steps
12
COMPLETION REPORT
APPENDIX D
PROJECT’S SUMMARY REPORT
13
COMPLETION REPORT
__ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _
APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation Skills on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS)
Ha Noi, Viet Nam
17th – 18th December 2012
Summary Report
Purpose: Information
Submitted by: Viet Nam
14
COMPLETION REPORT
APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation Skills on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS)
Ha Noi, Viet Nam
17th – 18th December 2012
SUMMARY REPORT
Introduction
On December 17th - 18th, 2012, the APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation Skills
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS), initiated by Viet Nam and co-sponsored by New Zealand, Peru, and the
Philippines, was held in Ha Noi, Viet Nam. Representatives from 14 APEC member economies (Australia,
Chile, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei,
Thailand, USA, Viet Nam) and international organizations (OECD – the Organization for Economic and
Cooperation Development, FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), together with 7
speakers, totalling approximately 50 government, industry, academic and international organization
participants, attended the Training Course. Among 50 participants, 25 were women, accounting for 50 per
cent of participants.
The Training Course was targeted to increase knowledge and capacity of negotiators and policymakers, with
practical relevance, to participate in SPS negotiations. It also aimed at increasing knowledge of reference
sources in SPS (academic references; feasibility studies and texts of FTAs that have been implemented). In
addition, the Training Course was intended to share best practices and experiences in preparing for
RTAs/FTAs negotiations and for a vision of an FTAAP in the APEC region. Last but not least, the Training
Course was an opportunity to identify domestic issues to be addressed (regulations/policies), including
unnecessary SPS related barriers to trade, to prepare for the participation in FTAs/FTAAP.
Background
This is the first time for APEC to conduct such a training course specifically aimed at building and enhancing
capacity and understanding of SPS considerations and negotiations skills for related stakeholders despite the
increasing importance of this issue in FTAs negotiations. This project is, therefore, expected to address the
capacity building needs of APEC economies by providing a short training course to equip negotiators, policy
makers and academics with relevant information, references, and equivalent skills to participate in SPS
negotiations.
This project forms from a part of activities under the Action Plan Framework for Regional Economic
Integration (REI) Capacity Building Needs Initiative (CBNI) initiated by Korea since 2010. In 2011, APEC
Ministers “welcomed the decision to approach capacity building activities with strategic foresight by
15
COMPLETION REPORT
undertaking multi-year projects, such as supporting APEC’s work to strengthen and deepen regional
economic integration, and facilitating the realization of FTAAP.” The APEC Capacity Building Needs Survey in
2010 and the REI CBNI Policy Training Course in 2011 resulted in an Action Plan Framework which is
consisted of 7 fields, namely: services and investment; e-commerce; labour; environment; intellectual
property; SPS and rules of origin.
Themes covered during the two-day event included: (i) the necessity of having SPS provisions/ chapter in an
FTA; (ii) SPS provisions/ Chapter in FTA; (iii) experiences in coordination and stakeholder consultation; (iv)
best practices in negotiating SPS provisions/ Chapter in an FTA; (v) simulation exercise; and (vi) best
practices in post-negotiation implementation.
Discussion
Outcomes
The APEC Training Course on Building and Enhancing FTA Negotiation Skills on SPS included one and a
half days for presentations and discussions on FTA-related SPS chapters and provisions, preparation for
negotiating SPS provisions/chapters in an FTA and post-negotiation implementation issues.
The Training Course was also consisted of a mock negotiation of 3 Parties, where participants had good
opportunities to discuss in groups for one hour and undertake the mock negotiation for another hour. The
mock negotiation was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and active discussions of all speakers and participants
who played the role of developed, emerged and least developed countries in the negotiation of the issue of
private standards. For some participants, it was a rare chance for them to be in a position of negotiators from
the other side and understand the background, positions and domestic challenges of other countries.
The Training Course also brought about the knowledge of designing negotiation strategies and interdepartment policies and networking. The Training Course’s speakers, with experiences in previous and
current FTA-related SPS negotiations, helped participants in building basic views and developing steps and
plans for group negotiations. Overall, the Training Course had achieved its main objectives as described in
the project proposal in building and enhancing capacity and understanding of participants on FTA-related
SPS considerations.
Key Issues Discussed
The Training Course specifically focused on capacity building and enhancing for negotiators who have
participated or potentially will participate in SPS negotiations under an FTA. The Training Course’s speakers
and experts from OECD, Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) and APEC economies
provided participants with a broad view of the background information on FTA-related SPS
chapters/provisions and experiences of economies throughout the Asia - Pacific region. Active participants
from the private, public and academic sectors and the sharing of their perspectives also added to the overall
success of the Training Course.
Opening remarks
16
COMPLETION REPORT
In her opening remarks, Mrs. Pham Quynh Mai, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Industry and Trade of
Viet Nam stressed the importance of the Training Course in the light that SPS is a complicated issue whereas
developing economies has modest knowledge and experiences. She reiterated that building and enhancing
FTA negotiation skills on SPS is essential and pragmatic for the benefits of all APEC economies, especially
the developing ones. She hoped that with intensive presentations of speakers and active discussions of all
participants, the Training Course would offer a worthwhile opportunity for negotiators, policy-makers, and
scholars of Viet Nam and other APEC members to exchange and learn precious experience, as well as
enhance their knowledge on negotiating SPS issues in FTAs. This would contribute to boosting the efficiency
of both SPS negotiations and the implementation of SPS regulations, once the FTAs enter into force.
Training Course’s sessions
Negotiators and experts provided presentations on the following topics:
1/ To better understand the necessity of having SPS provisions/ Chapter in FTAs, 2 speakers from Australia
and Viet Nam reviewed the use of SPS and the impacts on fair trade. They also analysed the application of
SPS measures on imported goods in developed and developing countries.

Presentation on ‘The Necessity of Having SPS Provisions/ Chapter in an FTA’ by Mr Dominic Pyne
(Agriculture Counsellor, the Australia Embassy in Bangkok). This comprehensive presentation
included following points: the definition of SPS measures; SPS measures as non-tariff barriers; the
role of an SPS chapter; the exclusion of preferential SPS measures in an FTA; types of FTAs;
approach to negotiations; convergences and divergences in APEC RTAs/FTAs; SPS
Chapters/provisions of APEC economies; Australia’s existing FTAs; Australian FTAs under
negotiation; sharing information; and cooperative activities.

Presentation on ‘The Necessity of Having SPS Chapter Under Free Trade Agreements’ by Dr Le
Thanh Hoa, Deputy Director of SPS Office (Viet Nam) included broad objectives for including SPS in
FTAs; types of SPS measures; key provisions of SPS Agreement; the positive implications of an SPS
Chapter for developing countries; the costs of SPS compliance; and the key contexts of an SPS
Chapter under an FTA.
2/ Ms Linda Fulponi, Senior Economist, from the OECD provided an in-depth presentation on “SPS and Free
Trade Agreements: What’s Included?’ She underlined the core SPS principles in terms of transparency,
harmonization, equivalence, regionalization and risk assessment. She also examined the coverage of SPS
provision/ Chapter in Free Trade and Regional Trade Agreements in ASIAN, Latin American and African
agreements.
3/ Speakers from the United States, the Philippines and Viet Nam provided 3 presentations on the topic of
experiences in coordination and stakeholder consultation:

Mr Richard White from RDW Global Consulting (USA) shared his experiences in coordination. He
stated that SPS agencies in the United States are divided into 2 groups of regulatory and economic
agencies. He also highlighted the US trade policy regarding coordination process. Mr White
introduced an interesting case study on the SPS negotiation between the US and country “Q” and
withdrew some lessons learned from the case study, including the importance of consultation with US
agricultural interests and US Congress during the FTA negotiations, long-term technical assistance
programs, the importance of decision-making upon SPS market access at working level, and the role
of science on SPS market access.
17
COMPLETION REPORT

Ms Carolyn Castro from the Philippine Department of Agriculture was tasked to share experiences
with coordination and stakeholder consultations in FTA negotiations. She explained the reasons for
the participation of the Philippines in FTA negotiations and provided a brief on the country’s FTA
engagement in ASEAN and ASEAN Dialogue Partners to date. Ms Castro discussed some issues in
coordination within and among different government units as well as with private sector stakeholder
consultations. She highlighted concerns over the various levels of development among Parties to
FTAs, possible conflicts of interests among stakeholders, different interpretation and understanding
about certain SPS concepts and principles, inadequate awareness of the Agreement, among others.
She shared that although generally most SPS provisions in FTAs are affirmation of the WTO SPS
Agreement and do not go further than the WTO SPS commitments, it is still important that
stakeholders are aware and are reminded of the general principles and commitments and their
implications. Ms Castro emphasized the critical role of consultations with stakeholders and stated that
Government institutions should serve to balance the diverse interests of society.

Dr Nguyen Thi Thu Trang, Director of Legal Department, VCCI (Viet Nam) approached the issues
with 3 main points: She stressed the needs of consultation from the positions of both negotiators and
businesses. Dr Nguyen analysed the situation of consultation in developing countries, with
specifications of trade consultation in Viet Nam. She gave an overview of the proceedings of
consultation in Viet Nam and the role of VCCI in that process. Dr Nguyen concluded her presentation
by explaining the differences of SPS consultation among others.
4/ In the presentation on ‘Best Practices in Negotiating SPS Provisions/ Chapter in an FTA’, Mr Richard White
outlined 4 points: the importance of preparation before the negotiation; understanding your own negotiation
team; get to know and learn about other teams; the necessity of negotiating texts that can be implemented in
reality.
5/ Speakers from Australia, Viet Nam and the OECD provided 3 presentations on the topic of best practices in
post-negotiation implementation.

Mr Dominic Pyne (Australia) presented on implementation process, participation of relevant agencies,
monitoring and review and the evolution of FTAs world-wide. He also highlighted 2 typical examples
of Thailand – Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) and Australia – United States Free Trade
Agreement (AUSFTA).

Mr Tran Viet Cuong, Program Officer, SPS Office (Viet Nam) gave an overview on Vietnam’s FTA
engagement, forms of commitments and levels of commitments. He explained in details SPS
cooperation and developments under the Free Trade Agreements of ASEAN, ASEAN-Australia-New
Zealand, ASEAN-Korea, and ASEAN-China. Moreover, Mr Tran introduced the SPS Office of Viet
Nam and relevant experiences in inter-agency coordination. He emphasized the importance of
coordination, finance, monitoring and review, and technical assistance in the post-negotiation
implementation.

Ms Linda Fulponi (OECD) presented on the issues that need to be addressed in post-negotiation
implementation. Among factors that are required in implementing SPS commitments, she briefly
introduced to the Training Course’s participants the SPS management systems and their according
needs of assessments. Ms Fulponi also noted the role of technical committees in the implementation
process. Furthermore, she listed other crucial factors such as transparency, equivalence,
harmonization and improvements of compliance.
Mock negotiation
During the mock negotiation, participants were divided into 3 groups of countries (developed, emerged, least
developed ones) to prepare and negotiate the issue of private standards under an SPS Chapter in a FTA.
18
COMPLETION REPORT
Participants had one hour to discuss at group level, with assistance and advice of speakers, to prepare for the
group’s views and strategies to negotiate.
The one-hour mock negotiation took place enthusiastically with 3 leaders of 3 groups to represent their
groups to negotiate. The negotiators were reserved, polite but also firm on their countries’ positions. As
private standards are complicated and controversial, groups were given break time to “go back” to their home
countries for domestic consultation before undertaking the 2 nd round of negotiation, which took place in the
same morning at the Training Course.
The exercise on mock negotiation was evaluated to be useful and helped to increase the skills of
negotiations.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In the Training Course’s closing remarks, Mrs. Pham Quynh Mai, Deputy Director General, Ministry of
Industry and Trade of Viet Nam, commended the speakers and participants on a very successful and
productive Training Course. She thanked the organizers, co-sponsors and distinguished speakers and
participants from government, academic and international organizations, for sharing their valuable
experiences and invaluable insights.
The Training Course concluded with a discussion of possible future activities and continuing work to improve
the capacities to participate in FTA-related SPS negotiations and sharing best practices.
Follow-up training course should consider the following topics:
1. In terms of theory:
The following topics can be considered to be addressed at the course:

Skills to negotiate internally with domestic stakeholders;

Risk and impact assessment;

Dispute settlement;

How to balance interests of Parties;

Combine APEC Training Courses with trainings of WTO/ ADB/ APEC SCSC (Food Safety forum)
2. Mock negotiation:
 Participants highly recommended to include mock negotiation in future training course and more time
should be allocated for this exercise, probably on daily basis after each theory session, so that
participants will have chance to practice negotiation skills. Additionally, different groups may take
bilateral consultation with each other.
 To prepare for the mock negotiation, there should be specific guidances/ information that can be
handed out or emailed to participants prior to the training course. The organizers might also think of
multiple ways of conducting the mock negotiations, including bilateral and multilateral negotiations as
well as changing of partners. There should also be one session for stakeholder consultation.
19
COMPLETION REPORT
 A special training on negotiation skills and techniques (eye contacts, behaviours, attack and defence)
is also very important and highly recommended. It could be combined in a Training Course with a
specific topic.
3. Participation of stakeholders:
 More involvement of various stakeholders, such as academia, NGOs, business (or private sectors).
20