Can APEC’s New Trade Policy Tool Help Design Better Measures?
By Sylwyn C. Calizo Jr. and Chang Yan Rong
Singapore, 3 August 2026
Non-tariff measures (NTMs) affect around 80 percent of trade in the APEC region, making how they are designed critical to how trade flows.
These measures, which include regulations or requirements other than tariffs, are often introduced to protect consumers, ensure safety or support broader public policy objectives.
As economies seek to address public priorities, NTMs have become increasingly important policy tools. Their use has expanded alongside more complex supply chains and higher regulatory expectations. Based on the Global Trade Alert database, the number of measures in force across APEC has practically tripled to around 23,587 measures over the last decade.
Presence alone does not necessarily mean that there are problems. Yet, measures that are poorly designed or coordinated could turn into trade barriers by disrupting supply chains, delaying deliveries and increasing costs for businesses and consumers.
The challenge is even greater when multiple economies apply different rules, technical regulations and standards. Differences in regulatory approaches across economies can create friction, adding to the cost and uncertainty of trade.
Complex challenges require collaborative solutions
Addressing this complexity requires coordination. When economies face competing priorities, shared principles can provide a common basis for action.
In 2018, APEC Economic Leaders did this by endorsing the cross-cutting principles on NTMs covering areas such as transparency, trade restrictiveness, commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO), international standards, treatment of imported products, and innovation. These principles, the first of its kind in APEC, have guided economies in developing and implementing NTMs.
As trade and regulatory environments grow more complex, additional guidance becomes needed. Ensuring that these principles are applied consistently and effectively reduces the extent to which NTMs act as unintended barriers to trade.
As additional guidance, APEC has endorsed a new trade policy tool: the Best Practice Guidelines to Apply the APEC Cross-cutting Principles on NTMs. Rather than restating these principles, the guidelines translate them into a structured set of questions to help policymakers assess how measures are designed and implemented in practice.
These questions prompt officials to consider when to notify trading partners, how to consult stakeholders and assess whether less trade-restrictive alternatives are available. They also reinforce transparency obligations, including timely notifications to relevant WTO committees and opportunities for trading partners to review and comment.
The guidelines further encourage policymakers to assess measures before and after implementation, helping ensure they remain aligned with policy objectives and international commitments.
By improving transparency and predictability, the tool helps reduce uncertainty for businesses and consumers. It also supports more effective engagement with stakeholders, including industry groups and consumer protection groups.
How can this tool improve policy design in practice?
Consider an outbreak of avian influenza. Import bans may be imposed on poultry products exposed to infection to protect human health and food safety.
In highly integrated supply chains, this disruption can extend beyond the immediate sector, affecting downstream industries and cross-border production networks. This highlights the importance of designing measures that achieve policy objectives while minimizing unintended trade effects.
Rather than prescribing a single solution, the guidelines encourage policymakers to work through a series of practical questions before introducing a measure.
The first step is to define the policy objective. In this case, the objective is to ensure that imported poultry products are free from avian influenza. Questions under the principle of non-arbitrary and justifiable treatment encourage authorities to ensure that any differential treatments of imported products are based on legitimate and evidence-based reasons, such as sanitary and phytosanitary risks.
The guidelines then encourage policymakers to consider whether the proposed measure is no more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve that objective.
For example, authorities could rely on internationally recognized testing or certification standards as to demonstrate compliance, or to limit import restrictions to affected regions rather than applying a blanket ban.
By considering alternative approaches, policymakers may be able to reduce procedural burden and compliance costs while still protecting public health.
Finally, the guidelines emphasize transparency and stakeholder engagement throughout the process. Policymakers are encouraged to provide clear and timely information, consult affected stakeholders where appropriate and fulfil relevant WTO notifications obligations. This builds trust and gives businesses and consumers better understanding on how long the measures are expected to remain in place.
Sylwyn C. Calizo Jr. and Chang Yan Rong are researchers at the APEC Policy Support Unit.
